Donald the Orange and Family Sued in NY

[Jimmy Higgins]

Probably get that vibe due to the impeach inquiry over a set of documents didn't seem to exist and on the word of a criminal.

 

[Ford]

I've got a sneaking suspicion that if Brandon committed fraud in the manner Trump did, Deplorableinfidel would be marching in the street with his pitchfork tiki torch in less time than it would take to describe it. I just have that feeling for some reason...

FTFY

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Another pointless comment.

Maybe we're just trying to make you feel at home.

Take a stab responding to post #338.

Or maybe you’re simply offering static to compensate for your inability to intelligently or meaningfully reply to the things I’ve pointed out.

Are you doing some projecting? You are clearly a Trump apologist. You are unwilling to admit that any of the information provided by Orange about his business worth was ever inflated when it clearly and factually was. To you, 30.000 = 10,000. Your credibility in the eyes of a jury and a judge would be zero. But carry on by all means.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Do any of the old timers here remember this commercial? (Sorry for the crappy sound.)

I Want My Maypo

Why do the MAGA people remind me of the kid in this commercial?

 

[Elixir]

Another pointless comment.

Maybe we're just trying to make you feel at home.

Take a stab responding to post #338.

Or maybe you’re simply offering static to compensate for your inability to intelligently or meaningfully reply to the things I’ve pointed out.

Are you doing some projecting? You are clearly a Trump apologist. You are unwilling to admit that any of the information provided by Orange about his business worth was ever inflated when it clearly and factually was. To you, 30.000 = 10,000. Your credibility in the eyes of a jury and a judge would be zero. But carry on by all means.

Facts don’t matter. They are ALL against Trump.

Votes might matter, if Cheato is unable to steal the election, but facts? That horse has not only left the barn, it is in a trailer headed for a dog food factory in Mexico.

For a dedicated Trump shill the only recourse is to MSU and hope they can sell some of it to unsuspecting fence sitters.

Encouraging him to carry on with the freak show is probably of neutral value. Deplo and his ilk carrying on will likely drive turnout for Dems who are just disgusted enough by it to get off the couch and go vote. And that might be offset by a few who are actually baffled into staying home by the bullshit, or voting against their own interests due to carefully cultivated confusion.

But hey … if it makes him feel good that he’s doing his part to Make America Great Again, then bless his heart and I hope he’s not so upset when it all goes to hell, that he does something (even more) foolish.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I could never be on a Trump jury because I took full measure of him in 2012 by watching 30 seconds of his Birther lies. And I would be only too happy to send him to the joint. I realize this would set a terrible precedent -- after all, some poor corrections officer would have to do the cavity search -- but sometimes we make sacrifices to maintain a free and decent society.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

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

So the size of the property is correct?

An unimportant question.

No, it's important. If it is incorrect, then your claim of no false entries is incorrect. Moreover, it's a falsified business record according to the very statute you posted.

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.

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.

And that one factual “misstatement” (if it was one)

It is.

Maybe.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

All of which still amounts to nothing unless your claim is that the duty of the plaintiff (actually, in this case, the supposedly injured party) to conduct due diligence can be dispensed with. So, let me say it again:

Detrimental reliance. And yet, not one lender even complained. And not one lender lost a single red cent of principle or interest.

That's another unimportant point.

Repeating yourself. And you’re wrong each time. It is a crucial point.

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

So the size of the property is correct?

An unimportant question.

No, it's important. If it is incorrect, then your claim of no false entries is incorrect. Moreover, it's a falsified business record according to the very statute you posted.

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.

Or... the defendant doesn't contest the charges. The other issue... the is a CIVIL fraud trial.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

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

So the size of the property is correct?

An unimportant question.

No, it's important. If it is incorrect, then your claim of no false entries is incorrect. Moreover, it's a falsified business record according to the very statute you posted.

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.

Or... the defendant doesn't contest the charges. The other issue... the is a CIVIL fraud trial.

Crossed signals. Falsifying business records is charged by Bragg. It is a felony. And his case is a criminal case.

The civil case just “tried” by NY AG James (with the judge as a co-prosecutor) isn’t the matter I have been discussing.

In the criminal case, if the defendant doesn’t contest an element, the prosecution still must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt — together with every other element of that alleged crime.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's nice, but completely irrelevant. Be like saying but if this was college basketball, that shot would have been a three and the other team would have won.

 

[Ford]

That's nice, but completely irrelevant. Be like saying but if this was college basketball, that shot would have been a three and the other team would have won.

At this point, Depfidel isn't arguing on a three vs a two. He's arguing that even though the scoreboard shows NY 100 and Trump 0, Trump still won the game. He's so far in the tank for Trump that he's cleaning it with his tongue.

 

[Elixir]

And even if it were

It is.

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.”

Right. Lather, rinse, repeat, and when you get to a few dozen such cases (as outlined in posts above) with zero cases showing “honest mistakes” in the other direction, you have a slam dunk case. And if it has gone on for decades on a large enough scale (it has) you could end up owing hundreds of millions of those dollars issued by the governments you’ve been bilking all these years, and in Trump’s case, are now trying to destroy before they can settle the score.
Why do you hate America, Deplorable?

Bottom line:
YOU LOST. GET OVER IT.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Also, for the hard of thinking, in a civil trial, the standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's much lower than that.

So add that to the list of things they're wrong about.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Why you demean yourself by attempting to denigrate Trump is a bigger mystery.

By logical extension, then, you find Trump's incessant, sandbox-style name-calling of anyone who opposes him to be a sign of a juvenile and degenerate mind.

 

[Elixir]

There isn’t a single iota of evidence that the factual claim of apartment size was false.

Uh yeah, ‘cept for the inconvenient FACT tha he had previously submitted the true size, indicating his usual intent to deceive.
Guy is a scumbag, Deplo. Why can’t you see that? Everyone who examines the evidence does.

 

[Elixir]

Why you demean yourself by attempting to denigrate Trump is a bigger mystery.

By logical extension, then, you find Trump's incessant, sandbox-style name-calling of anyone who opposes him to be a sign of a juvenile and degenerate mind.

Oh it is, it is.
TRUMP’s own juvenile and degenerate mind.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's like paying and getting services from a different hooker every day for 27 days straight. We can talk about the first day, "oh it was a mistake. I thought we had consensual sex and then she asked for some money." After 27 days straight with a different hooker each day, the pattern of intent is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e. there's no reasonable idea of an error or mistake. So both intent and burden are met.

 

[Ford]

There isn’t a single iota of evidence that the factual claim of apartment size was false.

Uh yeah, ‘cept for the inconvenient FACT tha he had previously submitted the true size, indicating his usual intent to deceive.
Guy is a scumbag, Deplo. Why can’t you see that? Everyone who examines the evidence does.

Oh, he sees it. He knows it. At this point, the most ardent supporters of Fragilego Mussolini are like "yeah, he's a scumbag, but he's OUR scumbag."

Take the marital fidelity angle. Trump cheated on his first wife with his second. His second wife with his third. His third wife with a porn star. And his supporters know that these are just his public infidelities, but they don't care. On some level, they admire him for being able to get away with such scumbaggery. The very same people who fell on the fainting couch over Bill Clinton cheating on Hillary think it's awesome that Trump was able to bang Stormy while Melania was at home with baby Barron.

Our resident red hat isn't arguing that fraud in real estate dealings is bad. He's arguing that if you can get away with it, then piling up ill-gotten gains and banging hookers is the way to go.

Unless of course your name is Hunter Biden. Then it's bad.

 

[bilby]

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.

 

[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?

Edited to add, I see now that everyone else beat me to this. But the pile-on is well-deserved, so I'm going to leave it.