Donald the Orange and Family Sued in NY

[Jarhyn]

I'm still curious where it says in US Constitution or in US Federal Law there explicitly must be a victim for a crime to be committed. DepInf still hasn't provided that necessary piece of information to make his argument even remotely credible.

There are victims, though: the people the banks squeeze for money to make up the deficits generated by these cheats.

Primarily, the bank is interested in profits, and they won't get those from Trump so they're gonna get them from someone.

The victims are the people who are held to the rules and squeezed specifically for the sake of such frauds.

Everyone who expects an impartial system is a victim.

I say charge the banks here, too.

I understand that - I just can't fathom the "no victim therefore no crime" attitude. It's not that hard to think of several laws on the books that have no victims but can get you into some serious shit if you perpetrate them. I'm wondering why DepInf isn't aware of that. Or perhaps he is aware and doesn't want to provide his opinion. Nevertheless, inquiring minds would like to know.

I can. I think the law exists to prevent victims or at least minimize them, by governing actions that lead to victims.

I am at a loss, personally, for any such law as you describe. Even with laws against things ostensibly or apparently victimless, if you read the text of the law there is someone or something pointed to as the victim of that behavior, even if that victim is "society in general".

One person's immediate inability to point to the victim doesn't mean there isn't one.

Then, the ability to point to a "victim" doesn't necessarily rise to the standard of criminality. It is, I think, necessary for a criminal act to have a victim for it to be "ethically" criminal. That said I don't think that's necessarily sufficient.

Here, the victimization is against everyone who has ever been turned down for a loan because it is "too risky" while the zero sum balance of acceptable risk has been stolen by (or at least inappropriately awarded to) such cheats whose inevitable bankruptcy will be soaked by the remainder (as I explained before).

Most every "victimless" crime is thus with the exception of drugs, prostitution, and generative AI 'paraphilia' porn (depending on country of origin), and I don't agree with the continued criminalization or even illegality of such things, assuming society orders itself so as to actually prevent victims.

 

[lpetrich]

I'm still curious where it says in US Constitution or in US Federal Law there explicitly must be a victim for a crime to be committed. DepInf still hasn't provided that necessary piece of information to make his argument even remotely credible.

Consider the jumping valuations of his property, a kind of fraud that he was found guilty of. Jumping valuations cheat either investors, from too high valuation, governments, from too low valuation, or both. So jumping valuations have victims.

 

[Elixir]

I'm still curious where it says in US Constitution or in US Federal Law there explicitly must be a victim for a crime to be committed. DepInf still hasn't provided that necessary piece of information to make his argument even remotely credible.

Consider the jumping valuations of his property, a kind of fraud that he was found guilty of. Jumping valuations cheat either investors, from too high valuation, governments, from too low valuation, or both. So jumping valuations have victims.

At this point, the orange is still insisting that his ridiculous valuations are accurate.
Looks like the proof shall be in the pudding; a building is worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
It appears almost inevitable that we're going to find out what that number really is in at least some cases, as he tries to raise the half billion he needs to avoid outright seizures.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Stormy: This? This is what you call Thor's battering ram?
Trump: If you ask my accountant, you'll find that that is quite accurate.

 

[TomC]

At this point, the orange is still insisting that his ridiculous valuations are accurate.

Which ones?

I can only hope that if the government resorts to seizure to pay for judgements, it will be at the value Trump gave the government on property tax forms.
But I dunno.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

At this point, the orange is still insisting that his ridiculous valuations are accurate.

Which ones?

I can only hope that if the government resorts to seizure to pay for judgements, it will be at the value Trump gave the government on property tax forms.
But I dunno.
Tom

Those valuations might still be high, even if they're a fraction of what he told the banks they were worth.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I'm still curious where it says in US Constitution or in US Federal Law there explicitly must be a victim for a crime to be committed. DepInf still hasn't provided that necessary piece of information to make his argument even remotely credible.

Consider the jumping valuations of his property, a kind of fraud that he was found guilty of. Jumping valuations cheat either investors, from too high valuation, governments, from too low valuation, or both. So jumping valuations have victims.

At this point, the orange is still insisting that his ridiculous valuations are accurate.

Why shouldn't the valuations presented to the government for purposes of lowering his tax burden be considered the more accurate valuations than the ones presented to the banks?

Looks like the proof shall be in the pudding; a building is worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

Indeed!

It appears almost inevitable that we're going to find out what that number really is in at least some cases, as he tries to raise the half billion he needs to avoid outright seizures.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I understand that - I just can't fathom the "no victim therefore no crime" attitude. It's not that hard to think of several laws on the books that have no victims but can get you into some serious shit if you perpetrate them. I'm wondering why DepInf isn't aware of that. Or perhaps he is aware and doesn't want to provide his opinion. Nevertheless, inquiring minds would like to know.

Most crimes that have no victims are things that shouldn't be criminal.

However, there are crimes whose basic nature is creating unacceptable risk. DUI is still a crime even if you don't get in an accident. Likewise, the games with his loans.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can. I think the law exists to prevent victims or at least minimize them, by governing actions that lead to victims.

I am at a loss, personally, for any such law as you describe. Even with laws against things ostensibly or apparently victimless, if you read the text of the law there is someone or something pointed to as the victim of that behavior, even if that victim is "society in general".

What are you thinking of?

The truly victimless crimes are things like prostitution.

Then, the ability to point to a "victim" doesn't necessarily rise to the standard of criminality. It is, I think, necessary for a criminal act to have a victim for it to be "ethically" criminal. That said I don't think that's necessarily sufficient.

Here, the victimization is against everyone who has ever been turned down for a loan because it is "too risky" while the zero sum balance of acceptable risk has been stolen by (or at least inappropriately awarded to) such cheats whose inevitable bankruptcy will be soaked by the remainder (as I explained before).

Such crimes are fundamentally the crime of creating undue risk.

Most every "victimless" crime is thus with the exception of drugs, prostitution, and generative AI 'paraphilia' porn (depending on country of origin), and I don't agree with the continued criminalization or even illegality of such things, assuming society orders itself so as to actually prevent victims.

But "victimless" crime usually refers to this group. (And add to that group photoshop-created pedophilic images.)

 

[Patooka]

I'm still curious where it says in US Constitution or in US Federal Law there explicitly must be a victim for a crime to be committed. DepInf still hasn't provided that necessary piece of information to make his argument even remotely credible.

There are victims, though: the people the banks squeeze for money to make up the deficits generated by these cheats.

Primarily, the bank is interested in profits, and they won't get those from Trump so they're gonna get them from someone.

The victims are the people who are held to the rules and squeezed specifically for the sake of such frauds.

Everyone who expects an impartial system is a victim.

I say charge the banks here, too.

I understand that - I just can't fathom the "no victim therefore no crime" attitude. It's not that hard to think of several laws on the books that have no victims but can get you into some serious shit if you perpetrate them. I'm wondering why DepInf isn't aware of that. Or perhaps he is aware and doesn't want to provide his opinion. Nevertheless, inquiring minds would like to know.

I can. I think the law exists to prevent victims or at least minimize them, by governing actions that lead to victims.

I am at a loss, personally, for any such law as you describe. Even with laws against things ostensibly or apparently victimless, if you read the text of the law there is someone or something pointed to as the victim of that behavior, even if that victim is "society in general".

One person's immediate inability to point to the victim doesn't mean there isn't one.

Then, the ability to point to a "victim" doesn't necessarily rise to the standard of criminality. It is, I think, necessary for a criminal act to have a victim for it to be "ethically" criminal. That said I don't think that's necessarily sufficient.

Here, the victimization is against everyone who has ever been turned down for a loan because it is "too risky" while the zero sum balance of acceptable risk has been stolen by (or at least inappropriately awarded to) such cheats whose inevitable bankruptcy will be soaked by the remainder (as I explained before).

Most every "victimless" crime is thus with the exception of drugs, prostitution, and generative AI 'paraphilia' porn (depending on country of origin), and I don't agree with the continued criminalization or even illegality of such things, assuming society orders itself so as to actually prevent victims.

I agree with everything you said. I'm just curious as to why DeplorableInfidel thinks it is such a gotcha argument. I'll stop being passive aggressive and just say I think DepInk's attitude towards the NY ruling is based solely on Trump being part of his tribe and has nothing to do with any legal standing whatsoever. Maybe he has some brilliant counter argument but I reckon the safe bet is to remain skeptical.

​

 

[lpetrich]

Donald Trump Faces Critical Deadline in E. Jean Carroll $83.3M Payment - Mar 04, 2024 at 10:23 AM EST

Former President Donald Trump has until next weekend to post bond in the E. Jean Carroll's defamation case. Should he fail to do so, the former columnist will be allowed to start collecting on the $83.3 million that a Manhattan jury awarded her earlier this year.

...
As an alternative to this request, Trump's lawyers have asked for a substantial reduction of the bond, for the total sum of $24.4 million. They said this amount "would be more than sufficient to secure any minimal risk to Plaintiff."

In the state of New York, as previously reported by Newsweek, an individual must pay a court a cash bond that amounts to 110 percent of the judgment to appeal the ruling of a civil case. That means that Trump has until March 9 to pay more than $91 million if he wants to challenge the defamation penalty.

That deadline is this upcoming Friday. Will Trump come up with the money at the last minute? If he doesn't, then it will be a long-awaited day, a day when Trump faces legal consequences for his actions.

Trump again seeks to delay $83M judgment in E. Jean Carroll case - ABC News

Trump's lawyers responded by arguing that Carroll's concern about Trump's limited finances is contradictory, highlighting that at trial her lawyers emphasized Trump's wealth to convince the jury to reach a higher damages award.

"Plaintiff's current position -- that President Trump's ability to satisfy a judgment of $83.3 million is in doubt -- is 'clearly inconsistent' with her position barely one month ago that President Trump has $14 billion in assets and can thus easily satisfy an enormous punitive award," defense lawyers wrote.

Trump, saying judge restricted his testimony, seeks new trial in E. Jean Carroll case - ABC News

In a court filing Tuesday, defense attorneys argued "the Court's restrictions on President Trump's testimony were erroneous and prejudicial" because Trump was not allowed to explain "his own mental state" when he made the defamatory statements about Carroll.

"This Court's erroneous decision to dramatically limit the scope of President Trump's testimony almost certainly influenced the jury's verdict, and thus a new trial is warranted," defense attorneys Alina Habba and John Sauer said.

Also
Trump lawyers want him back on witness stand in E. Jean Carroll case - ABC News

 

[lpetrich]

Trump Claims He’s Not Worried About $454 Million Bond In Civil Fraud Case: ‘I Have A Lot Of Money'
Fox and Friends cohost Brian Kilmeade:

When Kilmeade asked if he was worried about coming up with the money, Trump replied, "I don't worry about anything. I don't worry about the money. I don't worry about money.”

...
Trump is estimated to have just over $400 million in cash and liquid assets available, but it won't be enough to cover both the fraud bond and the roughly $88 million he owes in sexual abuse and defamation verdicts to writer E. Jean Carroll, possibly leading Trump to borrow money.

That deadline is March 25.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He has lots of money. Yeah, the trouble is $450 million is a bit more than "a lot of money". $10 million is a lot of money. $450 million is a tremendous amount of money.

Trump has issues. You can't just sell real estate. It is harder to sell real estate quickly. It is even harder to sell real estate at premium quickly.

Worse yet, his wealth is in real estate. Check that, Trump's assets are in real estate. His wealth is in unrealistic valuations of said real estate.

Trump's problems stem from his 5x to 20x real estate value power-up. When your $10 billion wealth value requires people to think your property is currently worth 5 to 20 times more than what it actually is, raising $500 million using your real estate becomes a tad bit harder. because that $10 billion value, is actually $400 million to $2 billion.

 

[TomC]

Worse yet, his wealth is in real estate. Check that, Trump's assets are in real estate. His wealth is in unrealistic valuations of said real estate.

This looks like the problem to my uneducated (concerning real estate) mind.
Trump has given values for his property to the government on official papers. He wasn't expecting the government to claim the properties because he thought his lawyers would protect him from responsibility for anything he did.

But that was then and this is now. The government is now holding him responsible for his behavior. It's a new and different experience for a rich Playboy from a super rich family in New York.

Guess what? You might grab them by the pussy, but now they might grab you by the New York condo building.
Tom

 

[ideologyhunter]

Hoda: Welcome back to Today. We're in the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. How are you doing, Mr. President?
Trump: I asked for Savannah. Who the hell are you?
Hoda: Hoda Kotb.
Trump: Howduh -- what?
Hoda: Hoda Kotb.
Trump: How Da Cobby?
Hoda: Hoda Kotb.
Trump: How-the...I'm going to call you Howdy Doody, is that all right?
Hoda: You've never seen the Today Show, Mr. President?
Trump: Once, by mistake, and that's where I saw Savannah. Who are you?
Hoda: We'll let that go, Mr. President. I see you're in this cell alone. Do you have a cellmate?
Trump: No, but thousands and thousands of guys wanted to be my cellie. The warden said there was too much competition, that he wouldn't play favorites, and so I get my own place. I said, you're giving me my own place?
Guard (in an undertone) : They complained about the smell.
Trump: What did you say!?
Hoda: That wasn't me. So, are you lonely here?
Trump: Are you kidding? I get Melania in here every weekend, and I'm telling you, we have hot conjugal visits, like you wouldn't believe.
Guard: She sent him a candygram from Slovenia.
Trump: What did you say? ...As you can see, I have the best cot and the best sink. Solid gold toilet flusher. Two hundred square feet in here, I have plenty of space to do my thinking and plan my appeals and my next rally.
Guard: It's ten foot by seven, so he gonna say it's two hundred. Shit.
Hoda: What are your lawyers telling you?
Trump: You're going to hear very big news, as soon as tomorrow. People won't believe it. I have millions and millions of fans out there, and I won't be here much longer. And I'm going to run in 2028, and we'll beat Obama AGAIN, which nobody thought could be done the first time.
Hoda: Mr. President, you never ran against Barack Obama.
Trump: Only very stupid people say that, Howdy Doody. I called you Howdy Doody.
Hoda: We'll be back with President Trump after this word from Fibercon.

 

[ZiprHead]

^^^

 

[blastula]

Denied again. The $83 million+ bond is due Monday.

 

[lpetrich]

Jeff Tiedrich on X: "a TV show where Letitia James and E. Jean Carroll spin a big wheel to see who gets which Trump properties. I'd watch the shit out of that. so would you" / X

Andrew Mc Cormack on X: "@itsJeffTiedrich You could call it “The Wheel of Trumps Misfortune” " / X

 

[Ford]

Trump lately:

"This is totally unfair...I want a new trial!"

No, seriously

He wants a "do-over" for the E. Jean Carroll case, and if I had a dime I'd bet that he'll be demanding a whole new trial in the NY fraud case.

 

[ZiprHead]