The Right Wing noise machine

[Patooka]

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.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

I’m happy to discuss the issues.

Which issues serve to show you an individual's place on the liberal<->conservative spectrum?

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.

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, watching what you don't consider MSM news probably helps cause the grumpiness as that is all that shit is designed to do.

 

[Elixir]

I’m happy to discuss the issues.

Which issues serve to show you an individual's place on the liberal<->conservative spectrum?

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.

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.

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.
Prove me wrong.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

I’m happy to discuss the issues.

Which issues serve to show you an individual's place on the liberal<->conservative spectrum?

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.

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.

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.
Prove me wrong.

Incorrect.

Again, I already indicated that I would return to support my contention. And I am indifferent to the invective of others.

I have other things to attend to. So it may take a little time before. Return to support my claim. But until then I will reiterate ift for clarity:

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.)

 

[Elixir]

Incorrect.

Not.

I already indicated that I would return to support my contention.

So do it.

There is no crime of fraud

Why did you say that when no such "crime has been alleged?

(and no civil fraud) either absent a “victim.”

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
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 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.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

Incorrect.

Not.

Denying your error doesn’t erase it.

I already indicated that I would return to support my contention.

So do it.

All in good time. I’m not on any clock. Much less yours.

There is no crime of fraud

Why did you say that when no such "crime has been alleged?

I didn’t say there is no such thing as a crime called “fraud.” Your reading comprehension is a bit suspect.

(and no civil fraud) either absent a “victim.”

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
a) recoup the State's losses and
b) dissuade Trump and his Companies from continuing to engage in the establish pattern of fraudulent practices

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.

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 won’t bother with you silly laundry list.

Let’s stick to this case and the legal elements of the alleged torts.

 

[Toni]

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?

Based on ratings liberals don't watch cable news nearly as much, so no.

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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.)

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.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

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.

There is undoubtedly more than one way to skin a cat (not that anybody wants to skin any felines), but this isn’t bad as these recapitulations go:

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).

https://www.robertdmitchell.com/common-law-fraud (my emphases added).

If there is no requirement of an alleged “victim” then who or what is meant by the “injured party?”

Would anyone accept the empty claim that a civil complaint can be properly entertained in any court of law absent a recitation of who that allegedly “injured party” is claimed to have been?

Which allegedly “injured party” supposedly “relied” on the estimated valuations offered by Trump and company? What evidence at the trial was there of ANY “reliance?”

What alleged “injury” did this fictional “injured party” consequently and proximately suffer?

Now the above are common law elements.

Let’s make a more particular reference to NY law on the elements which boil down to at least these three:

New York Civil Common Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation

1. the defendant made an intentional material false representation;
2. the plaintiff reasonably relied upon the defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentation; and
3. the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of their reliance on the fraudulent misrepresentation.

Proving Civil Fraud In NY | Locally Connected - Globally Experienced Int'l Law Firm

The burden of proving the elements of fraudulent misrepresentations is by "clear and convincing evidence" which is a substantially greater burden of proof than the normal "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

www.thenewyorklawblog.com

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)?

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

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.)

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.

You can deny my correct contention all you want. No canard. But there were zero “victims.” No lender made any such complaint.

 

[TomC]

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.)

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.

I'm not a lawyer.
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.

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

 

[laughing dog]

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.)

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.

You can deny my correct contention all you want. No canard. But there were zero “victims.” No lender made any such complaint.

Are you under the illusion that a victim must make a complaint in order to be considered a victim?

The lenders lost potential income because of fraud. That makes them victims.

In order for contention to be taken seriously instead of MAGA induced hysteria, you need to make an actual argument. “Because I say so” is not an argument.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

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.)

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.

I'm not a lawyer.
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.

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.

Asset valuation for tax purposes is not the same as valuation for other purposes.

Also, maybe I missed it. Can you identify in any of the AG pleadings where she claimed that the taxpayers were alleged victims of any fraud by Trump and company?

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

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.

Lenders generally engage in significant “due diligence” before making loan decisions.

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.

 

[Copernicus]

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. What they do is argue over the interpretations of words and expressions, so you need to be aware of the nature of what Wikipedia calls  fallacies of definition, probably the most frequent type of fallacy you'll find in an online discussion group. We all get tripped up in them.

...

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.”

But that is exactly why there was a court case and what the court determined that she succeeded in doing. You are arguing over the results of the due process that Trump was entitled to. You may disagree with the verdict, but the fact is that she met the burden of proof for her client in the eyes of the court. Trump even showed up in court to try to disrupt the proceedings and put on a show to help raise money for his legal expenses.

BTW, you make an excellent point that the banks and the people were victims, even if the exact wording of the law doesn't use the word "victim", although you seem to think you are making the opposite case. You cite legal language that uses the word "injured party" repeatedly but somehow want to distinguish that from reference to a victim of the person who caused the injury. It is hard to imagine how there can be fraud but no victims of a deception, but I'm sure you can find a lawyer to argue that there are cases of fraud with no victim. Arguing such matters is how lawyers make their living.

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)?

You know, you make a good case for a criminal defense against a murder charge. There was no victim of murder, because the victim didn't show up and complain. You seem to think that the people of New York have no interest in defending the soundness of the world class banking infrastructure that employs so many of them.

 

[Elixir]

Valuations are subjective.

Square footage is not subjective. (just for example)
Maybe if the Trump Crime Family had not ventured into the realm of outright misstatement of facts and set up camp there, the Courts would be looking differently upon their fraudulent behavior.

If there is no requirement of an alleged “victim” then who or what is meant by the “injured party?”

The fact that the victim is not required doesn't obviate the existence of victims, if there are any. At the least, the existence of victims can be an aggravating factor in determining penalties.

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.

Suppose, though, that you bought a 10,000 sq ft home, for $10m, then represented it to the bank as 30,000 sq ft and borrowed $30m on it at a rate that reflected that it was secured with at least $30m worth of collateral. Then suppose that you had an appraiser tell you it was "only" worth $22m, but you wanted it to be worth $30m so you told the bank it was worth that, despite knowing it wasn't. Is that okay with you? What if that pattern repeats over numerous properties? Still okay?

Trump Park Avenue, New York, NY​

This property is included as an asset on Mr. Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition​

(statement) from 2011 to 2021 with values ranging between $90.9 million and $350​

million. In July 2020, the Trump Organization received an appraisal with a value of​

$84.5 million, but on the 2020 Statement the Trump Organization valued Trump Park​

Avenue at $135.8 million"​

Sorry, dude. It's NOT okay. There are laws against doing that. Trump got busted. He lost. Get over it.
This episode of The Trump Show is OVER.
But stay tuned - there are 91 episodes still to come!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Anyone want to wager that the gofundme money finds its way elsewhere? This always seems to happen with these scam right wing fundraisers. Contributors better remember to uncheck all those boxes for making automatic future donations too.

 

[Elixir]

Contributors better remember to uncheck all those boxes for making automatic future donations too.

SHHH! Best if they find out in October after the Cheato Machine has emptied out their bank accounts.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

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.

Nonsense. The law is the law. Elements are elements. And the recitation of elements (supported by case law citation) has nothing to do with the fact that a lawyer might lose or win some cases.

Off topic: you have a cool username. I’ve also responded to a member with the username Harry Bosch. Also a cool username.

 

[bilby]

Well, watching what you don't consider MSM news probably helps cause the grumpiness as that is all that shit is designed to do.

Almost all of what masquerades as "news" today seems to be merely invitations to outrage.

That's what sells.

I find that financial news is generally the least infected by this scourge; The readers of the FT, WSJ, and AFR are more interested in getting rich than in getting mad.

Of course, such sources have an inherent capitalist bias, and the vast majority of their content is consequently paywalled, but they do at least tend to include the facts as a prominent fraction of their reporting, rather than as footnotes to the emotional manipulation of their audiences.