Donald the Orange and Family Sued in NY

[Elixir]

There isn’t a single iota of evidence that the factual claim of apartment size was false. Mistaken is not a synonym. But yet again, even if I had been wrong (I wasn’t) you persist in missing the point. Maybe I can shed some light on your lack of comprehension:

Every single element is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks for the expert legal advice.

 

[Shadowy Man]

To secure a valid conviction, every single element would have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

There was no conviction, it's a civil case, genius. You don't know a single fuck of what you're talking about. Where did you go to law school - Dunning and Kruger U?

There appears to be some confusion with Bragg’s criminal trial despite the thread being about Trump being sued; I.e., the Tish James trial that just received its damages verdict.

 

[blastula]

To secure a valid conviction, every single element would have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

There was no conviction, it's a civil case, genius. You don't know a single fuck of what you're talking about. Where did you go to law school - Dunning and Kruger U?

There appears to be some confusion with Bragg’s criminal trial despite the thread being about Trump being sued; I.e., the Tish James trial that just received its damages verdict.

Alright my oops, but the conclusion still stands.

 

[TomC]

There appears to be some confusion with Bragg’s criminal trial despite the thread being about Trump being sued; I.e., the Tish James trial that just received its damages verdict.

I often get confused about which legal proceedings are being discussed in any particular post. There's so many.
Tom

 

[Patooka]

Yeah, nowadays if you just say, "Trump's court case", without any context expect to be misconstrued. But something something Biden is 41 months older than Trump amirite?

 

[Elixir]

How about a contest to see who can enumerate the most number of the 91 counts from memory?

 

[robnisch]

There isn’t a single iota of evidence that the factual claim of apartment size was false. Mistaken is not a synonym. But yet again, even if I had been wrong (I wasn’t) you persist in missing the point. Maybe I can shed some light on your lack of comprehension:

Every single element is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks for the expert legal advice.

I watch a lot of episodes of Suits. Does my opinion count?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I’m saying that there’s not a scintilla of evidence that they made any false entry of any kind at all.

Then why didn't he try to prove that at trial?

(Hint: What happens is the Republicans make all sorts of claims about what they will prove in court--but when it reaches the courtroom those claims are nowhere to be seen because they're under oath.)

I am getting sick and tired of people shilling for Trump on legal arguments he and his lawyers never used. He defaulted to guilty in this case. His lawyers effectively made no effort to disprove the claims against him. The defense (in the penalty phase) became, 'so what?'

So arguments to defend Trump from accusations of wrong doing are peculiar when his lawyers didn't even bother making those arguments... and in their case (unlike in a web board), not making those arguments created a massive liability of huge fines.

You're not rebutting me.

They presented no defense at trial because they didn't have anything they could say under oath. What's different here is that they weren't the ones bringing the case so no evidence resulted in a guilty verdict rather than in it being thrown out of court.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wrong. An error isn’t the same as a falsified business record. To secure a valid conviction, every single element would have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the error was intentional, that still wouldn’t yield a valid conviction. According to the statute I read, the elements the jury will get instructed on and according to logic and fairness.

And how is an intentional error not a falsified business record??

Let’s say that the size of one unit is misstated.

You mean exaggerated by 3x. 11k sq ft is not 30k sq ft. It's misstated by enormous margins.

No. I meant misstated. But again, even if the error had been intentional and it had been combined with a desire to have others rely on it, you’d still fall short.

Ok. And? Is it your contention that the lender relied on this statement without bothering to try to verify it?

Now THAT is an unimportant question. It in no way vindicates a falsified business record.

Nope; it is a legally crucial question. Absent undue reliance, there is no crime as defined under the NY Penal Law.

Even if they were careless in checking that doesn't make it not falsified. Harm need not be proven! Nor does there need to be success at any other crime--the attempt is enough.

turns out to have been the lynchpin in the lender’s decision to offer a loan?

Who knows.

That’s the right question: you surely don’t know. But it would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Doesn't matter. A business record was falsified in an attempt to deceive them. Nothing more is needed.

But that's another unimportant question. HOWEVER, IF you take that falsified business record in concert with the other false (exaggerated) valuations, then a pattern emerges of inflations. By coincidence, all misstatements ought not be inflated numbers. So it's a pattern of exaggeration, i.e. falsification of business records. They're unimportant that they show intent in totality and are a lynchpin in totality because they are beyond coincidence. BUT they are unimportant because the single issue of the one size exaggeration trivially disproves your claim and proves a falsified business record.

Nope. A pattern isn’t required. And even if it were and even if your speculation was sufficient evidence of a pattern, the most you could garner out of that would be “a false and intentionally deceptive assertion of value in this particular case.” That is needed to secure a conviction but it still doesn’t qualify as sufficient.

A pattern is important in determining whether it was deliberate or an error.

Some years back I fat-fingered an extra digit into a basis value creating tens of thousands of dollars in bogus carry forward losses. I caught it the next year when I saw the insane carry forward, amended my return and that was that. No fraud because it was unintentional. (And I didn't catch it at the time because it didn't propagate off schedule D, the rest of the return was fine.) Now, if I had a habit of adding extra digits to basis values then the IRS might care. But as a one-off that I fixed they didn't say a peep.

Fr that to be true and to make any sense would require you to accept the proposition that the lender had no obligation whatsoever to engage in due diligence. Too bad for you that the law disagrees with your position.

That point is irrelevant.

Wrong. It is in fact completely essential.

I’m sorry you’re not grasping this.

We see you grasping at irrelevant straws. The number was falsified in an attempt to deceive--the end. Whether the deception was successful or not has no bearing on the crime.

While it would be weird for a banker to go to the penthouse with a measuring tape to be due diligence, due diligence itself is a red herring that obfuscates your disproved claim and how it connects to the statutory definitions you previously posted.

Wrong. In fact, at this point, you’re merely babbling. Due diligence is required. Not a red herring. However, although it is legally required, even if we dispensed with that requirement entirely, all that would yield you is a finding that the lender was misled. Ok. Again, a required determination but again not sufficient.

The bank could get in trouble for not doing due diligence but that doesn't absolve Trump.

The documented, exaggerated size of the penthouse along with other exaggerations led to a final exaggerated valuation. Whether the bank was diligent in looking at it or took the papers and wiped their fat rich asses with them is irrelevant to the trivially demonstrated fact of exaggerated data.

You have no actual basis to make your claim. But it still doesn’t matter. See above.

And you continue to think that the act must be successful to be criminal. There's no such requirement in the law.

Trial Document: Trump Acknowledged Penthouse Size at 11,000 Square Feet, not 30,000 He Later Claimed

Donald Trump signed a document 30 years ago that gave the true size of his New York penthouse that was later listed as far larger on his financial statements, according to evidence shown Tuesday at the former president's civil business fraud trial. The evidence appeared in an email attachment...

www.voanews.com

Again. So what?

Already answered: you claimed "there’s not a scintilla of evidence that they made any false entry of any kind at all." You were wrong because the size was exaggerated.

No. I was correct. There isn’t a single iota of evidence that the factual claim of apartment size was false. Mistaken is not a synonym. But yet again, even if I had been wrong (I wasn’t) you persist in missing the point. Maybe I can shed some light on your lack of comprehension:

Every single element is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

1) The entry was deliberately falsified (enough to convict second degree)
2) That it was done in the furtherance of another crime (which brings it to first degree.)

That's it. There's no success requirement. There's no requirement that it not be comically stupid.

In theory, banks could have lost money. They incurred undue risk. There are many scammers who get lucky. But it's not relevant. You already posted the statute.

We aren’t discussing theoretical damages. At any trial, the jury is directed not to speculate. They are instead required to consider the evidence and draw conclusions from the evidence. There is exactly and precisely zero evidence of any injury or damage to any bank.

Fraud is fraud whether it's successful or not.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Fraud is fraud whether it's successful or not.

Requires no loss nor rely on the gullibility of any victim.

 

[ideologyhunter]

How about a contest to see who can enumerate the most number of the 91 counts from memory?

Didn't he strangle a Girl Scout in a Target fitting room in 2010? So...where's the indictment??

 

[TomC]

There appears to be some confusion with Bragg’s criminal trial despite the thread being about Trump being sued; I.e., the Tish James trial that just received its damages verdict.

You know what else?
I wouldn't care much about Trump's ugly behavior if he'd just been a regular billionaire miscreant private citizen. And he'd probably have gotten away with tons of tax chiseling, pussy grabbing, fraud and whatever.

It's the insurrectionist attempt to bring down our government and his stealing a bunch of top secret documents to deliver to our enemies that makes me care about all this. His ability to keep delaying justice on those issues makes me want to see him brought down by whatever means necessary.

And yes, regardless of the slow creaky wheels of justice, I am convinced by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that he is an existential threat to the USA.
Tom

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

The other issue... this is a CIVIL fraud trial.

I don’t think Deplo can even pronounce “preponderance”.

I don’t think you even know what it means.

But your mental vacancy isn’t the point.

Here is the point. In the civil case, Trump’s appeal is likely to work. Why? Because fraud requires a victim. There were no victims.

As to the criminal case, in NY County, the bigger issue is the simplistic recitation by the persecutor of the alleged crimes.

I confess I wandered a bit off base earlier. Suffice it to say, to set the matter on its proper foundation, that the persecution is legally obliged to prove the elements. In particular (although not exclusively) the persecutor must prove: that Trump had an intent “to defraud [including] an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

The DA has been reluctant to spell it out. What other crime or crimes does the persecutor intend to prove?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The other issue... this is a CIVIL fraud trial.

I don’t think Deplo can even pronounce “preponderance”.

I don’t think you even know what it means.

But your mental vacancy isn’t the point.

Here is the point. In the civil case, Trump’s appeal is likely to work. Why? Because fraud requires a victim. There were no victims.

Good luck to him on appeal with that defense.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

And you continue to think that the act must be successful to be criminal. There's no such requirement in the law.

I never said or implied that the act must be successful.

Trial Document: Trump Acknowledged Penthouse Size at 11,000 Square Feet, not 30,000 He Later Claimed

Donald Trump signed a document 30 years ago that gave the true size of his New York penthouse that was later listed as far larger on his financial statements, according to evidence shown Tuesday at the former president's civil business fraud trial. The evidence appeared in an email attachment...

www.voanews.com

Again. So what?

Already answered: you claimed "there’s not a scintilla of evidence that they made any false entry of any kind at all." You were wrong because the size was exaggerated.

No. I was correct. There isn’t a single iota of evidence that the factual claim of apartment size was false. Mistaken is not a synonym. But yet again, even if I had been wrong (I wasn’t) you persist in missing the point. Maybe I can shed some light on your lack of comprehension:

Every single element is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

1) The entry was deliberately falsified (enough to convict second degree)

Unproved. And likely unprovable.

2) That it was done in the furtherance of another crime (which brings it to first degree.)

So you claim. What other crime? It only raises second degree to first degree if the intent to deceive also included a separate intent to commit some other crime (or to further it or conceal it).

You seem to believe that you have an insight into that alleged victim other crime? Funny. The DA hasn’t bothered to label a such crime.

That's it. There's no success requirement. There's no requirement that it not be comically stupid.

Again. I’m not even slightly interested in your strawman. I’ve never claimed any element of successfulness. Your mistake.

In theory, banks could have lost money. They incurred undue risk. There are many scammers who get lucky. But it's not relevant. You already posted the statute.

We aren’t discussing theoretical damages. At any trial, the jury is directed not to speculate. They are instead required to consider the evidence and draw conclusions from the evidence. There is exactly and precisely zero evidence of any injury or damage to any bank.

Fraud is fraud whether it's successful or not.

Ah. I’m see the problem. As I previously noted, there was a problem with some cross wiring. Fraud is the keystone of the civil matter. But intent (two separate intents, to be precise) is the keystone of the criminal case in NY County.

To prove the felony, the persecutor needs to prove — beyond a reasonable doubt — that any erroneous entry was made with an intent to deceive AND, additionally, it has to prove a second intent to commit some other crime.

So the point can’t be evaded: for each of the counts in the NY criminal case, Bragg is obligated to prove what that “other crime” was intended by Trump. No speculation permitted.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

The other issue... this is a CIVIL fraud trial.

I don’t think Deplo can even pronounce “preponderance”.

I don’t think you even know what it means.

But your mental vacancy isn’t the point.

Here is the point. In the civil case, Trump’s appeal is likely to work. Why? Because fraud requires a victim. There were no victims.

Good luck to him on appeal with that defense.

If judges bother to adhere to the law, luck won’t be required.

 

[Elixir]

The other issue... this is a CIVIL fraud trial.

I don’t think Deplo can even pronounce “preponderance”.

I don’t think you even know what it means.

Let me clue you in on what it DOESN’T mean;
“BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT”

I know third graders that can argue on better legal footing than your misguided, ignorant rants.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

I’m saying that there’s not a scintilla of evidence that they made any false entry of any kind at all.

Then why didn't he try to prove that at trial?

(Hint: What happens is the Republicans make all sorts of claims about what they will prove in court--but when it reaches the courtroom those claims are nowhere to be seen because they're under oath.)

I am getting sick and tired of people shilling for Trump on legal arguments he and his lawyers never used. He defaulted to guilty in this case. His lawyers effectively made no effort to disprove the claims against him. The defense (in the penalty phase) became, 'so what?'

So arguments to defend Trump from accusations of wrong doing are peculiar when his lawyers didn't even bother making those arguments... and in their case (unlike in a web board), not making those arguments created a massive liability of huge fines.

You're not rebutting me.

They presented no defense at trial because they didn't have anything they could say under oath. What's different here is that they weren't the ones bringing the case so no evidence resulted in a guilty verdict rather than in it being thrown out of court.

I may have a mistaken memory. But I am not finding anything where team Trump “defaulted” in the civil case. Link?

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

The other issue... this is a CIVIL fraud trial.

I don’t think Deplo can even pronounce “preponderance”.

I don’t think you even know what it means.

Let me clue you in on what it DOESN’T mean;
“BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT”

I know third graders that can argue on better legal footing than your misguided, ignorant rants.

Good. I know that too. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the criminal standard. Glad you’re caught up.

Preponderance is a civil standard and it means more than half of the weight of the evidence.

If you need any more assistance, just ask politely. I know that last part is difficult for you. But give it a whirl.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

There isn’t a single iota of evidence that the factual claim of apartment size was false. Mistaken is not a synonym. But yet again, even if I had been wrong (I wasn’t) you persist in missing the point. Maybe I can shed some light on your lack of comprehension:

Every single element is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks for the expert legal advice.

I watch a lot of episodes of Suits. Does my opinion count?

I couldn’t care less. Speak factually and with proper support, and maybe you can then muddle through.