Donald the Orange and Family Sued in NY

[DeplorableInfidel]

so the state has no interest in the legal execution of business practices under its purview?

It wasn’t a loan between private citizens, but business entities operating with license from the state, right?

I don't think facts matter much more to Deplo than they do to Trump. "Nope" seems to be sufficient for him to dismiss any notion that Trump is anything but a victim, just as Trump says. I hope he (Deplo) sticks around - I can't wait to hear about how all 91 felony counts were faked and the Grand Juries fooled into recommending his indictment, and how the trial juries were all biased and blah blah blah.

Nice ad hominem. But otherwise, a terrible post.

 

[Axulus]

But standing alone, evidence of prior frauds isn’t generally relevant to the question of whether this case involves any fraud at all.

Yes it does based on the law I already quoted you. An essential element to it is that the deception, dishonesty, etc must be repeated, there must be a pattern and long history to it. Why do you keep ignoring it and instead go on about off topic civil fraud tort law?

It has already been explained to you many times now the actual law that was used for this case. So at this point I think you are being intentionally obtuse.

 

[Elixir]

Nice ad hominem. But otherwise, a terrible post.

Uh, it wasn’t about you, Deplo. It was about the vacuity of your “nope” argument.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Trump owes nobody contrition when he did nothing illegal or unethical or wrong.

Of course. That's why he's been found liable. He has been doing unethical, wrong things for decades.

An empty claim. Not litigated.

Nope. The people of NY were not victims of any such thing. Valuations tend to be largely subjective,

"Nope" is not an argument,

True. But your empty claim is also not an argument.

it is exactly what Judge Angoron busted Trump's team for. Denial of facts is not a defense.

Denial of claims made by the plaintiff puts the plaintiff to her proof. She couldn’t achieve that in reality because there was no fraud absent a victim and there were non victims.

Just consider how the judge himself failed to grasp the actual value of Mar A Lago.

He didn't. Nor did he fail to grasp the difference between Trump's 10,000 sq ft apartment and the 30,000 sq ft he repeatedly claimed.
Dude, you are in denial, and sounding just like Alina Habba the inflatable lawyer. Axulus was even kind enogh to quote the law to you for your own education, and you just "nuh-uh", as if you re-wrote the law with your magic utterance.

It is judge Engoran. Not Angolan. For future reference.

And he did misstate by a massive margin the alleged value of Mar A Lago.

I have bothered to quote the actual law.

Your denials don’t make that go away.

The victims in this case was his bank. Banks determine their interest rates and fees based on competition and risk. An inflated PFS, lowers the perceived risk of a loan, allowing a bank to offer a lower interest rate. Loans with very little risk (CD secured loan for example) offer the lowest rates; banks charge rates and fees for higher risk loans.

No bank made any such complaint.

NY law does not require them to do so. Use some common sense. Do you honestly think that a person claiming 2 billion dollars in net worth would get the same deal from a bank as someone claiming 4 billion in net worth? If you do, you're being very naive.

You are making claims without any support.

NY law is as I reported it. There must be a victim. No victim; no fraud. No bank complained (before or during trial). Why not? Because no bank was victimized.

Your comparison of a person claiming $2 billion in wealth vs a person claiming $4 billion in wealth is absolutely of no consequence. After exercising any due diligence, any bank able to offer a loan would be just as happy to do so, either way.

You are the one claiming that NY law requires there to be a victim. What is the law?

 

[Elixir]

A claim is just a claim.

You left out the “has been litigated” part. The part you left out means “has been found valid”.

The question is whether he was properly found liable.

Well now, that’s for the appellate court to decide, isn’t it? Like I said, I wish we could bet!

Except, of course, you’re wrong. It’s not at all my own “blue sky.”

It is bald faced naked assertion, even if not all your own. You are regurgitating “arguments” that were raised, rebutted and overcome in court, all of which amount to screaming “witch hunt!” with no real basis. Apparently you think Habba was negligent. I tend to agree, but for reasons of incompetence (which should be the basis for appeal).

Yawn. You don’t like the verdict or the fine. You should have volunteered your wisdom to the defense team. Too late now, unless you feel like you could influence the appellate court.
Meanwhile …
Trump lost. Get over it.

 

[Elixir]

It depends on the circumstances

True.

But standing alone, evidence of prior frauds isn’t generally relevant

Of course. Standing alone it only means the guy might be a scumbag.
Standing with material and substantial repeated misrepresentations of fact as it does in this case, it certainly is relevant.

 

[Elixir]

NY law is as I reported it.

Forgive me, but I missed where you posted the text of the law stating that requirement. Can you direct me to it please? At least Axulus did that, and it appears that you’re in error.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

But standing alone, evidence of prior frauds isn’t generally relevant to the question of whether this case involves any fraud at all.

Yes it does based on the law I already quoted you. An essential element to it is that the deception, dishonesty, etc must be repeated, there must be a pattern and long history to it. Why do you keep ignoring it and instead go on about off topic civil fraud tort law?

It has already been explained to you many times now the actual law that was used for this case. So at this point I think you are being intentionally obtuse.

Because you’re flatly wrong.

Each case is decided on its own merits.

In a criminal case setting, with some recognized exceptions, it’s usually out of bounds to talk about a defendant’s prior criminal history. Similarly, in a civil case setting, it is irrelevant to a determination of whether a defendant did this alleged fraud to make note of prior fraud cases. (Exceptions of course exist. But you’d need to be pretty precise in the use of any alleged exception to the general rule.)

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

Nice ad hominem. But otherwise, a terrible post.

Uh, it wasn’t about you, Deplo. It was about the vacuity of your “nope” argument.

My comment was no more vacuous than your initial claim. If anything, at least my “nope” was more concise.

 

[Axulus]

But standing alone, evidence of prior frauds isn’t generally relevant to the question of whether this case involves any fraud at all.

Yes it does based on the law I already quoted you. An essential element to it is that the deception, dishonesty, etc must be repeated, there must be a pattern and long history to it. Why do you keep ignoring it and instead go on about off topic civil fraud tort law?

It has already been explained to you many times now the actual law that was used for this case. So at this point I think you are being intentionally obtuse.

Because you’re flatly wrong.

Each case is decided on its own merits.

In a criminal case setting, with some recognized exceptions, it’s usually out of bounds to talk about a defendant’s prior criminal history. Similarly, in a civil case setting, it is irrelevant to a determination of whether a defendant did this alleged fraud to make note of prior fraud cases. (Exceptions of course exist. But you’d need to be pretty precise in the use of any alleged exception to the general rule.)

This case wasn't about one fraud. It was a section 63(12) NY civil case regarding a pattern of fraud as defined as a history of repeated dishonesty, deception, concealment, misrepresentstion, etc. for personal gain. The law itself defines it this way. Why do you keep going off topic regarding the case at hand?

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

NY law is as I reported it.

Forgive me, but I missed where you posted the text of the law stating that requirement. Can you direct me to it please? At least Axulus did that, and it appears that you’re in error.

No. I cited the elements of fraud. You perhaps know that the elements of a civil complaint are the things a plaintiff has to spell out and then prove.

I’ll bet if you were so inclined, you could even look up the elements of the civil tort of fraud under NY State law all on your own. That way, you wouldn’t be required to take it on my say so with or without the quotes and links I provided.

In fact? You should do so. I’d be interested in any recitation of the elements of fraud under NY State law you might find that don’t include those I have already shared.

 

[Elixir]

Nice ad hominem. But otherwise, a terrible post.

Uh, it wasn’t about you, Deplo. It was about the vacuity of your “nope” argument.

My comment was no more vacuous than your initial claim. If anything, at least my “nope” was more concise.

Are you ever going to address the FACTS that I and others have raised, or answer the questions about them that have been posed?
I’ll leave the comparative vacuity judgment call in your capable hands. But it would help if you could address the facts and the questions about them that you have so far ignored.

 

[ZiprHead]

Put it simply: no victim; no fraud. A mistaken estimate is not the same as a deliberate deception. But even in the darkest light, if there is no victim, there is no fraud.

Trump over valued for banks and under valued for taxing authorities. The people of New York were certainly victims of his fraud.

Nope. The people of NY were not victims of any such thing. Valuations tend to be largely subjective, anyway. Even a formal appraisal is not compelling evidence of “value.” Just consider how the judge himself failed to grasp the actual value of Mar A Lago.

So having two different valuations for the exact same property is A-Okay with you? High valuations to banks, low valuations to taxing authorities. Both money for team Trump.

 

[Elixir]

NY law is as I reported it.

Forgive me, but I missed where you posted the text of the law stating that requirement. Can you direct me to it please? At least Axulus did that, and it appears that you’re in error.

No. I cited the elements of fraud.

So you cited elements. Great. The law doesn’t care about elements, it cares about the constraints it is intended to impose on people’s behavior. That’s why citing elements isn’t a valid defense against the actual stated law.

You perhaps know that the elements of a civil complaint are the things a plaintiff has to spell out and then prove.

Uh, no. The plaintiff need only prove that the defendant broke the law. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to sell the laughable notion that Deplorableinfidel knows more about NY law than the DA, the Judge(s) and everyone else except Alina Habba?
If that was the case, the whole matter would be dismissed tomorrow. I can’t wait to see how you negate the grsnd jury findings that resulted in 91 criminal felony counts…

I’ll bet if you were so inclined, you could even look up the elements

Elements are not the law, they’re your (in this case flawed) interpretation.
SHOW ME THE STATUTE.

In fact? You should do so.

You are now asserting that 10=30?
Sheesh. I submit that “10=30” is a lie. A material misrepresentation. Prove me wrong.

 

[Axulus]

Deplorable, even Trump disagrees with you and agrees with me:

"NY Executive Law 63 (12) does not require a victim, traditional elements of fraud are eliminated"

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111171136822383110

 

[Elixir]

This might be a good time to mention that there is going to be yet another massive tax bill coming due on Trump.
He has been telling bankers one thing and the tax man another. They’re about to send him the tax bill for the difference.
Ruh-Roh!

 

[Rhea]

Wow, I bet Trump and his sons are really kicking themselves right now for not hiring deplorableinfidel.
Kinda surprising he didn’t show up at Habba’s office and volunteer to help litigate!

 

[Elixir]

Wow, I bet Trump and his sons are really kicking themselves right now for not hiring deplorableinfidel.
Kinda surprising he didn’t show up at Habba’s office and volunteer to help litigate!

That might have helped. But I have heard it said that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
You never know though. Habba really fucked up asking for a trial by judge. Juries are much easier to hoodwink. I guess that Trump’s O-fer record with juries might have had something to do with it.

 

[Elixir]

Deplorable, even Trump disagrees with you and agrees with me:

"NY Executive Law 63 (12) does not require a victim, traditional elements of fraud are eliminated"

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111171136822383110

Proving that Deplo is a better lawyer than The Donald. A low bar, but still …

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This case wasn't about one fraud. It was a section 63(12) NY civil case regarding a pattern of fraud as defined as a history of repeated dishonesty, deception, concealment, misrepresentstion, etc. for personal gain. The law itself defines it this way. Why do you keep going off topic regarding the case at hand?

Maybe because this is his only choice unless he wants to stick with the facts and the law being applied? Just guessing.

I think I am going to hear something along the lines of "no victim" again pretty soon.