The Sham Trial Against Trump

[Foxfyre]

Great post. The epitome of excellence. I have never read any of your posts that were not accurate. TX executed an inmate last evening where the lawyers told the court several things. Such as a witness named Coons testimony was wrong so the inmate should not be executed under TX law. Several high courts rejected this since the crime of murder had clearly been admitted to. But the inmate confessed his crime. So the witness even if wrong, was not saving the now dead inmate.

One of the most interesting trials was that of Byron de la Beckwith charged with the murder of civil rights activist Medgar Evers in 1963. Two earlier trials resulted in hung juries and the D.A. didn't try again. But Medgar's widow never gave up trying to get justice and finally convinced a D.A. and attorney Bobby Delaughter to reopen the case in 1994.

The defense's star witness claimed he saw de la Beckwith in a city 90 miles away from the murder at the time of the murder. Delaughter impeached that testimony that the guy knew his friend de la Beckwith was in prison but gave nobody that information for the weeks that de la Beckwith remained in jail before the trial. Delaughter also found other witnesses who strengthened his case with the information. de la Beckwith was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, lost his appeal, SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

In short the lesson to be learned is that witnesses can and sometimes do lie. And my hubby is a career senior insurance adjuster and I also was a licensed adjuster for awhile before we went into business for ourselves. And we can both testify with MUCH experience that sometimes eye witness testimony can be extremely unreliable. And having been in court for some insurances cases, mostly work comp, I can say that I have NEVER heard a defendant testify in a way that he/she knows would weaken his/her case.

 

[Robert W]

One of the most interesting trials was that of Byron de la Beckwith charged with the murder of civil rights activist Medgar Evers in 1963. Two earlier trials resulted in hung juries and the D.A. didn't try again. But Medgar's widow never gave up trying to get justice and finally convinced a D.A. and attorney Bobby Delaughter to reopen the case in 1994.

The defense's star witness claimed he saw de la Beckwith in a city 90 miles away from the murder at the time of the murder. Delaughter impeached that testimony that the guy knew his friend de la Beckwith was in prison but gave nobody that information for the weeks that de la Beckwith remained in jail before the trial. Delaughter also found other witnesses who strengthened his case with the information. de la Beckwith was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, lost his appeal, SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

In short the lesson to be learned is that witnesses can and sometimes do lie. And my hubby is a career senior insurance adjuster and I also was a licensed adjuster for awhile before we went into business for ourselves. And we can both testify with MUCH experience that sometimes eye witness testimony can be extremely unreliable. And having been in court for some insurances cases, mostly work comp, I can say that I have NEVER heard a defendant testify in a way that he/she knows would weaken his/her case.

And your remarks along with mine, are to show how wrong courts can be. If one uses a wrong witness and takes that testimony just on faith, most of the time it is not true at all. As in the case you mention.

As I keep saying about Trump, his side has to be heard and also his witnesses should be honest and if not, the system can catch them lying, should they actually lie.

 

[Foxfyre]

And your remarks along with mine, are to show how wrong courts can be. If one uses a wrong witness and takes that testimony just on faith, most of the time it is not true at all. As in the case you mention.

As I keep saying about Trump, his side has to be heard and also his witnesses should be honest and if not, the system can catch them lying, should they actually lie.

And I just reread my post and see I said the phrase ". . .Delaughter impeached that testimony that the guy knew his friend de la Beckwith was in prison . . ." Later in the paragraph I used the proper word "jail." The error was inadvertent, but taken out of context, the dishonest or dishonorable could accuse me of making it up because de la Beckwith was in jail and not prison in advance of his first trial.

I've taken hundreds of sworn statements given under oath and it is a rare statement that doesn't have some kind of error like that in them. The honest and honorable see those as unintended misspeaks that just happen in extemporaneous speech and shrug them off as completely unimportant. The dishonest, dishonorable do their damndest to make them proof of somebody's dishonesty if they hate that person. Not to mention the honest consider the full context. The dishonest do not.

I was also alarmed when the judge in the current Trump trial said the defense witnesses would not be allowed to give testimony that was already in evidence. Well what if those witnesses can impeach that earlier evidence?

 

[maybelooking]

That is not true.

There are other business people that have been charged under the same law.

Ummm....

..... ..... ..... One is Donald Trump Jr.

..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Another is Eric Trump.

..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Seems like Ivanka dodged a bullet.

WW

clown.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

In other words, a total sham. The defendants didn't get to call any witnesses or present any evidence nor contest any of the evidence. This is the prog conception of justice.

Because neither side asked for a jury trial. Its a bench trial. So after the first judgement was issued, Trump tried to whine and bitch saying he wasn't allowed to present evidence. A whine after the fact. An appeals court temporarily suspended the judgement that he is no longer allowed to do business in New York. But the judgement that he and his family committed fraud..is gonna stick. They might get the fine paid reduced on appeal, but they won't get the whole judgement overturned.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So it appears the trial is going as bad as it can possibly go, for Trump. He has offered no defense to reduce his liability, in the face of overwhelming evidence and expert testimony, other than to make the completely unbelievable clam that he didn't know what was happening. This claim is bookendefd by claims that his properties are worth even more than claimed. Which basically admits the crimes and personal liability.

The judge will be hard pressed not to grant every penny of damages and disgorgement requested by the prosecutor.

 

[Leo123]

Trump and all businesses were required to hire an accounting firm to give an audited financial condition analysis and valuation that could affect their loan to debt ratio. These sworn to be factual forms are what the bank uses. And no, the banks do not do their own analysis of this form because they can not get in to the knitty gritty of every very large company borrowing and the financial condition form is a sworn to be true document, under the law.

Trump org gave the accounting firm false information.... The accounting firm has severed their business relationship with Trump org, after it came out in the previous criminal fraud trial of the Trump dishonesty....and sent letters telling all involved NOT TO USE this financial condition valuation for anything, they basically take back everything in the report they created.

You are nothing but a pawn for a crook, if you continue to push your falsities without ever reading the court's judicial summary....

56% of all court cases like this one end up having a summary judgement or partial summary judgement. This is common practice when there is no disputing of the evidence and facts put forward from both sides during Discovery....

Read the Judge’s Ruling in the Trump Fraud Case

The decision by Justice Arthur F. Engoron is a major victory for Attorney General Letitia James in her lawsuit against Mr. Trump, effectively deciding that no trial was needed to determine that he had fraudulently secured favorable terms on loans and insurance deals.

www.nytimes.com

The loan

 

[Robert W]

And I just reread my post and see I said the phrase ". . .Delaughter impeached that testimony that the guy knew his friend de la Beckwith was in prison . . ." Later in the paragraph I used the proper word "jail." The error was inadvertent, but taken out of context, the dishonest or dishonorable could accuse me of making it up because de la Beckwith was in jail and not prison in advance of his first trial.

I've taken hundreds of sworn statements given under oath and it is a rare statement that doesn't have some kind of error like that in them. The honest and honorable see those as unintended misspeaks that just happen in extemporaneous speech and shrug them off as completely unimportant. The dishonest, dishonorable do their damndest to make them proof of somebody's dishonesty if they hate that person. Not to mention the honest consider the full context. The dishonest do not.

I was also alarmed when the judge in the current Trump trial said the defense witnesses would not be allowed to give testimony that was already in evidence. Well what if those witnesses can impeach that earlier evidence?

I also learned of that today. It really should have amazed me what the Judge pulled. But after a time, we see just what judge is on that bench with Trumps life at stake is like.

Does this remind you of the west's days where they had hanging judges?

 

[sealybobo]

The federal government defines things to suit itself. They invariably get it wrong. Only a Stalinist wouldn't object to such a policy.

Your theory that the police can violate your 4th amendment rights in Seattle and Detroit is too absurd for words.

As an American I know, it's shocking. But your rights 99 miles from the border are not the same as if you are 101.

You may not like the fact. I know it's causing your brain to hurt. You can't believe it. But you also can't debunk it. Shocking huh? Where do you live?

 

[bripat9643]

Because neither side asked for a jury trial. Its a bench trial. So after the first judgement was issued, Trump tried to whine and bitch saying he wasn't allowed to present evidence. A whine after the fact. An appeals court temporarily suspended the judgement that he is no longer allowed to do business in New York. But the judgement that he and his family committed fraud..is gonna stick. They might get the fine paid reduced on appeal, but they won't get the whole judgement overturned.

Trump wasn't given the option of having a jury trial, shit for brains.

Was Trump allowed to present evidence?

The whole thing will be thrown out of court by the Supreme Court. It's as farce. A kangaroo court. Only progs could possibly believe it is any way legitimate.

 

[bripat9643]

As an American I know, it's shocking. But your rights 99 miles from the border are not the same as if you are 101.

You may not like the fact. I know it's causing your brain to hurt. You can't believe it. But you also can't debunk it. Shocking huh? Where do you live?

Show me where the Constitution allows that?

 

[sealybobo]

Precisely. This is why your focus should be on Joseph Biden.

OMG. Like, him, Carter and Obama are/were the least corrupt presidents of all time.

Trump, the most criminal. How many charges?

And don't forget GW Bush. Just ask crooked Don

“When she first got in and was named speaker, I met her. And I’m very impressed by her. I think she’s a very impressive person. I like her a lot. But I was surprised that she didn’t do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost – it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which personally I think would’ve been a wonderful thing,” Trump told Blitzer in the interview.

“Impeaching him?” Blitzer asked.

“Absolutely. For the war. For the war,” said Trump, referring to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. “Well, he lied. He got us into the war with lies, and I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant and they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And yet Bush got us into this horrible war with lies. By lying. By saying they had weapons of mass destruction. By saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true.”

 

[Foxfyre]

I also learned of that today. It really should have amazed me what the Judge pulled. But after a time, we see just what judge is on that bench with Trumps life at stake is like.

Does this remind you of the west's days where they had hanging judges?

Yep. Hang em and then try em.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yep. Hang em and then try em.

So you complain that peole don't want a trial.

Then complain about the trial.

Sounds like you have your entire pile of excuses all lined up.

 

[Foxfyre]

So you complain that peole don't want a trial.

Then complain about the trial.

Sounds like you have your entire pile of excuses all lined up.

When you have something to offer even a teensy bit relevant re anything that I ever posted I will be happy to hear from you. Until then please troll somebody else. I would greatly appreciate that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When you have something to offer even a teensy bit relevant re anything that I ever posted I will be happy to hear from you. Until then please troll somebody else. I would greatly appreciate that.

I have challenged you several times to argue your bullshit claims about the judge, the law, and the prosecution.

What else can I do, besides mock them, since they are so childish and absurd?

 

[Dragonlady]

you have nothing of value as you are incapable of amassing wealth. Without creativity or valued ideas/intelligence you are simply a tool for the rich to direct.

You truly are too stupid to be one person. Most people in the world,, neither want nor are capable of amassing incredible wealth, and all of those who do, started out wealthy by birth.

Trump earned nothing. He's squandereed every dollar he's managed to beg borrow or steal. He's been living on his father's inheritance all of his life. Using his wealth to encourage others to invest with him and "get rich like me", and then defrauding of them of every dollar he could get.

If Trump hadn't been born rich enough to buy his way out of every mess, he'd have been in jail years ago.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Trump wasn't given the option of having a jury trial, shit for brains.

Was Trump allowed to present evidence?

The whole thing will be thrown out of court by the Supreme Court. It's as farce. A kangaroo court. Only progs could possibly believe it is any way legitimate.

His team most certainly was. Neither side thought it necessary.

 

[bripat9643]

His team most certainly was. Neither side thought it necessary.

Big fat lie.

Repeating it over an over again isn't going to persuade anyone that it's not a giant scam

 

[Dragonlady]

Banks use a system for qualified customers to factor in good will and they follow formulas. And take this to the bank. Every move made by the customer is closely analyzed by banks. Perhaps your bank fooled you into thinking they trust you. Banks do not trust customers at all. That is why home loans go to people whose every statement is verified independently. Bank on that.

What is a VOE form for mortgage?


VOE or Verification of Employment is a type of mortgage program where all of the verification is handled directly with the employer. If you're a salaried worker or a wage earner, this program could work for you as an alternate type of financing.

VOE Loans - Mortgage Broker Los Angeles​

I was the BANK MANAGER, asshole. I did financing on subdivisions for developers. Wheen I left banking I went to work as a laws clerk on Bay Street in Toronto. I know EXACTLY what banks analyze before lending because I was the lender, not the customer, asshole.

Because of my banking background, I worked in mortgage financing and development law, working on the financing for the construction of the Town of the Blue Mountains, by Interwest. Condo projects by Tridel, and others, and I handled the governmental and regulatory filings for the largest residential builder in North America.
This guy has more than 200 active corporations running at any time, so keeping up with the comings and goings in management was a full time job,

Show me one financial statement certified by any proveable licensed accountant which values "goodwill" on the assets of the corporation. You can post a link. I'll wait.

Banks NEVER use good will in a valuation of assets. It's because "good will" can come and go with the wind, and you can't capitalize on it or sell it. Banks only consider good will when they look at the amount of depreciation taken in the profit and loss statements for it.

Let us explain:

Here are a few important characteristics of goodwill:

• Goodwill can't be separated or divided from the entity with which it is associated.
• Goodwill can't be sold, transferred, licensed, rented, or exchanged, either individually or together with a related contract, identifiable asset, or liability.
• Goodwill does not carry contractual or other legal rights, regardless of whether those are transferable or separable from the entity, other rights, or obligations.

All of which is why bank will NEVER consider good will as an asset. Banks are only interested in the collateral value of an asset, if the loan goes south. We can sell equipment to anyone, but when you sell your "brand" people are buying the name recognition and willingness to purchase that brand of goods.

For example, clothing designer Peter Nygard, was one of the top designers and retailers of women's clothing in North America. His clothing was both fashionable, and well made, and he had multiples lines at various prices, most of which were not cheap. If you had been looking for a brand to buy - 12,000 employees worldwide, largest clothing manufacturerer in Canada, and $1 billion in annual sales. Women LOVED his clothing. He donated $2 million per year to breast cancer research.

In 2020, Nygard International filed for bankruptcy, after Peter Nygard was arrested on multiple charges of rape and sex trafficking. His trial on these charges started in September. The jury started delilberations yesterday.

I haven't purchased a Nygard garment since the day he was arrested. How much is the company's "good will" worth today?