As usual, RVonse is leaving out some important context. John Stossel is a right wing whore with a long history of misreporting the news and is an utterly unreliable source on pretty much everything.
There is no one issue or set of issues that serve as a line of demarcation, imho. I deem myself a conservative. But that doesn’t necessarily mean to me what it does to many others. For example, I am not concerned with a person’s sexuality. I consider that none of m business (generally speaking) and therefore none of the government’s business.I’m happy to discuss the issues.
Which issues serve to show you an individual's place on the liberal<->conservative spectrum?
It seems to me that unsupported categorical statements like “the judge erroneously decided” are nothing other than partisan invective, so it is unsurprising that you receive hostility in response. If a person is paying attention, they know that the objections you raise were addressed by the Court. So it appears that you are only here to push Trumpism propaganda, starting with your Anti-Hillary user_name and continuing through your specious parroting of Trump lies.There is no one issue or set of issues that serve as a line of demarcation, imho. I deem myself a conservative. But that doesn’t necessarily mean to me what it does to many others. For example, I am not concerned with a person’s sexuality. I consider that none of m business (generally speaking) and therefore none of the government’s business.I’m happy to discuss the issues.
Which issues serve to show you an individual's place on the liberal<->conservative spectrum?
So, I go by other things. For example, I believe our government was set up as a Constitutional republic for very good reason. I also believe that enumerated powers mean exactly that and therefore to the extent our government goes beyond those bounds, it is in the wrong. And that brings bad consequences.
I have been a participant in another board for a long time. The discussions there often get badly derailed by hostile personal invective and off topic “party line” commentary. Not looking for more of the same here. But I do get grumpy sometimes.
Incorrect.It seems to me that unsupported categorical statements like “the judge erroneously decided” are nothing other than partisan invective, so it is unsurprising that you receive hostility in response. If a person is paying attention, they know that the objections you raise were addressed by the Court. So it appears that you are only here to push Trumpism propaganda, starting with your Anti-Hillary user_name and continuing through your specious parroting of Trump lies.There is no one issue or set of issues that serve as a line of demarcation, imho. I deem myself a conservative. But that doesn’t necessarily mean to me what it does to many others. For example, I am not concerned with a person’s sexuality. I consider that none of m business (generally speaking) and therefore none of the government’s business.I’m happy to discuss the issues.
Which issues serve to show you an individual's place on the liberal<->conservative spectrum?
So, I go by other things. For example, I believe our government was set up as a Constitutional republic for very good reason. I also believe that enumerated powers mean exactly that and therefore to the extent our government goes beyond those bounds, it is in the wrong. And that brings bad consequences.
I have been a participant in another board for a long time. The discussions there often get badly derailed by hostile personal invective and off topic “party line” commentary. Not looking for more of the same here. But I do get grumpy sometimes.
Prove me wrong.
Not.Incorrect.
So do it.I already indicated that I would return to support my contention.
Why did you say that when no such "crime has been alleged?There is no crime of fraud
BZZZZT! We are not lacking a victim, and NO VICTIM IS REQUIRED. Intent to deceive for profit would be sufficient - and was sufficient for the initial ruling that Trump was a fraud. This last ruling was only about what kind of penalty should be imposed to(and no civil fraud) either absent a “victim.”
Not.Incorrect.
So do it.I already indicated that I would return to support my contention.
I didn’t say there is no such thing as a crime called “fraud.” Your reading comprehension is a bit suspect.Why did you say that when no such "crime has been alleged?There is no crime of fraud
We are lacking any “victim.” The AG’s pleadings don’t even reference any alleged “victim.” There are no “victims.” And you’re wrong. A victim is most certainly required.BZZZZT! We are not lacking a victim, and NO VICTIM IS REQUIRED. Intent to deceive for profit would be sufficient - and was sufficient for the initial ruling that Trump was a fraud. This last ruling was only about what kind of penalty should be imposed to(and no civil fraud) either absent a “victim.”
a) recoup the State's losses and
b) dissuade Trump and his Companies from continuing to engage in the establish pattern of fraudulent practices
I won’t bother with you silly laundry list.I know you have other things to do, Deplo. But I have to wonder... do you also think he got a raw deal on his fake charity, his fake "university" and all the other frauds he has committed and settled out of court? You should face the fact that Donald John Trump is a fraud. A habitual, lifelong fraud. I have known that since the early 80s when he stiffed a friend's family member who did work on his Atlantic City casino - and got stiffed.
I confess that I almost exclusively read news rather than watch it and unless it is about a local issue or weather, it’s almost always PBS. Sometimes, something breaking I will watch on network news. I know people love some of the talking heads but whether it is right wing or left wing I want the news and not someone else’s opinion.Based on ratings liberals don't watch cable news nearly as much, so no.I’m curious. Why would the attack be against “right wing” news (like Fox News) when we should all be able to see that the left wing news (meaning almost all mainstream “news” sources) is generally just the apparatchik for the more “liberal”/Democrat components of our society?
You can repeat the “ no victim” canard all you want but it won’t make it any truer. The lenders were victims because Trump would have faced higher loan rates with factual information. That means foregone profits for the lenders. Which makes them victims.There is no crime of fraud (and no civil fraud) either absent a “victim.” In this matter, there is no victim even if the elements were otherwise properly satisfied. (By the way, not all of the other elements were satisfied, either.)
https://www.robertdmitchell.com/common-law-fraud (my emphases added).The Nine Elements of Common Law Fraud
In the United States, common law generally identifies nine elements needed to establish fraud: (1) a representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth; (8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and (9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury. See, e.g., Strategic Diversity, Inc. v. Alchemix Corp., 666 F.3d 1197, 1210 n.3, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1175, at *25 n.3 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Staheli v. Kauffman, 122 Ariz. 380, 383, 595 P.2d 172, 175 (1979)); Rice v. McAlister, 268 Ore. 125, 128, 519 P.2d 1263, 1265 (1975); Heitman v. Brown Grp., Inc., 638 S.W.2d 316, 319, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3159, at *4 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982); Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68, ¶ 41, 56 P.3d 524, 536-37 (Utah 2002).
New York Civil Common Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- the defendant made an intentional material false representation;
- the plaintiff reasonably relied upon the defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentation; and
- the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of their reliance on the fraudulent misrepresentation.
You can deny my correct contention all you want. No canard. But there were zero “victims.” No lender made any such complaint.You can repeat the “ no victim” canard all you want but it won’t make it any truer. The lenders were victims because Trump would have faced higher loan rates with factual information. That means foregone profits for the lenders. Which makes them victims.There is no crime of fraud (and no civil fraud) either absent a “victim.” In this matter, there is no victim even if the elements were otherwise properly satisfied. (By the way, not all of the other elements were satisfied, either.)
I'm not a lawyer.You can repeat the “ no victim” canard all you want but it won’t make it any truer. The lenders were victims because Trump would have faced higher loan rates with factual information. That means foregone profits for the lenders. Which makes them victims.There is no crime of fraud (and no civil fraud) either absent a “victim.” In this matter, there is no victim even if the elements were otherwise properly satisfied. (By the way, not all of the other elements were satisfied, either.)
Are you under the illusion that a victim must make a complaint in order to be considered a victim?You can deny my correct contention all you want. No canard. But there were zero “victims.” No lender made any such complaint.You can repeat the “ no victim” canard all you want but it won’t make it any truer. The lenders were victims because Trump would have faced higher loan rates with factual information. That means foregone profits for the lenders. Which makes them victims.There is no crime of fraud (and no civil fraud) either absent a “victim.” In this matter, there is no victim even if the elements were otherwise properly satisfied. (By the way, not all of the other elements were satisfied, either.)
Nope. Valuations are subjective. And when Trump and company offered the valuations to lenders, they included a huge caveat about the fact that the lender needed to rely upon their own due diligence.I'm not a lawyer.You can repeat the “ no victim” canard all you want but it won’t make it any truer. The lenders were victims because Trump would have faced higher loan rates with factual information. That means foregone profits for the lenders. Which makes them victims.There is no crime of fraud (and no civil fraud) either absent a “victim.” In this matter, there is no victim even if the elements were otherwise properly satisfied. (By the way, not all of the other elements were satisfied, either.)
But if Trump made a claim of the value of the property to banks and got loans based on that valuation, then made an extremely different (lower) claim to the tax office, the taxpayers are victims of his fraud.
Incorrect. To a city town or village assessor, a person’s plot of land has one estimated “value.” But for me to sell that land or to negotiate a loan on that plot of land as collateral, I am not a obligated to rely on some arcane “assessment” valuation. I can lay claim to whatever “value” I reasonably ascribe to that plot of land. The would-be lender is not any more bound to my estimated valuation than it would be to the town assessor’s valuation.Either the property was worth the claim he made to the bank or it wasn't. If not, he defrauded the rest of us by lying to the property tax office.
I don't see how his financial shenanigans can be described as anything but fraud intended to benefit himself
Tom
Now: to speed things up just a little bit, rather than doing an analysis of the law like a law student or a litigator might perform, I will use a short cut: m going to quote another lawyer and refer to the citations he shared.
...
Of course, in this case the plaintiff is the AG. So, let’s stipulate that her pleadings have to be read and understood to refer to some other party (like the alleged victim-banks or to the People of the Stare of New York). Ok. That still requires that Letitia had to have demonstrated (somehow) that there was ANY “detrimental reliance” on Trump and company’s valuations resulting in “damages.”
No bank made that complaint at trial. And what individual or group of NY people were supposedly “damaged” by any erroneous valuation claim made by Trump and company (especially in light of the fact that every cent was paid back with interest)?
Square footage is not subjective. (just for example)Valuations are subjective.
If there is no requirement of an alleged “victim” then who or what is meant by the “injured party?”
Example: say that about two years ago, I purchased a new home in a nice location in a warm southern state for say, $600,000.00. Two years later the market value of this place may be $750,000.00. HOWEVER, due to the value of my “brand,” I say that I place its value at $1,000,000.00. Is a bank required to accept my cool million valuation? No. And is it “fraud” for me to place a higher estimated value on my own residence than current market value? No.
SHHH! Best if they find out in October after the Cheato Machine has emptied out their bank accounts.Contributors better remember to uncheck all those boxes for making automatic future donations too.
Now: to speed things up just a little bit, rather than doing an analysis of the law like a law student or a litigator might perform, I will use a short cut: m going to quote another lawyer and refer to the citations he shared.
Bear in mind that there are losing lawyers in every single court case, so citing a lawyer as a legal authority is a dicey business.
Almost all of what masquerades as "news" today seems to be merely invitations to outrage.Well, watching what you don't consider MSM news probably helps cause the grumpiness as that is all that shit is designed to do.