364 million verdict against the trumpster

[mattndallas]

Whether or not you get a speeding ticket should really be up to you and whoever else was driving that stretch of road at the time. I think as long as it’s ok with the parties involved, no big deal.

Let the drivers decide.

Even then, in his hypothetical...

for a speeding ticket, you likely have a registered speed gun, recording the speed. Your speed is then pretty much a hard to dispute "fact".

Value (or speed) in the Trump case isn't easily factually discernable until the property is sold. It's an ever-changing opinion, until a sale makes it somewhat factual. Even then, if distressed, the sale value could be understated as to true market value.

Actually, the one comparable in the Trump case would be if the officer asked Trump how fast he thought he was going.

Trump: "Ahhh...66?"

Officer: "Actually 75. And now that you've opined you were going 66, and I've determined based on my math you were going 75, you'll receive a speeding ticket, and a summons for public trial later for fraud by misrepresenting your opinion of speed."

 

[IU_Hickory]

Even then, in his hypothetical...

for a speeding ticket, you likely have a registered speed gun, recording the speed. Your speed is then pretty much a hard to dispute "fact".

Value (or speed) in the Trump case isn't easily factually discernable until the property is sold. It's an ever-changing opinion, until a sale makes it somewhat factual. Even then, if distressed, the sale value could be understated as to true market value.

Actually, the one comparable in the Trump case would be if the officer asked Trump how fast he thought he was going.

Trump: "Ahhh...66?"

Officer: "Actually 75. And now that you've opined you were going 66, and I've determined based on my math you were going 75, you'll receive a speeding ticket, and a summons for public trial later for fraud by misrepresenting your opinion of speed."

In my opinion, my house is 600,000 square feet and worth $2 million

Oh tax man, my house is only 200,000 square feet and worth maybe $800,000

My opinions change man. it's a very fluid feeling I have.

 

[ButHerEmails]

they could auto-call all nearby drivers for a yea or nay vote.

The last ticket I got was in a county that made the speed limit 10 mph less than the surrounding counties. And of course the police took full advantage of patrolling that area. Just happened to be the last car in a line of cars all going over. Should have told them it made no sense pulling over the person that was losing the "race" lol.

Just say the only reason you got pulled over was because you’re a winner and because you were so far ahead of everyone else.

 

[mattndallas]

In my opinion, my house is 600,000 square feet and worth $2 million

Oh tax man, my house is only 200,000 square feet and worth maybe $800,000

My opinions change man. it's a very fluid feeling I have.

Tax man?

Jesus Christ you're a moron.

You think the "tax man" is basing his assessment and tax bills on what Trump tells him he owns, and not what they county shows?

 

[ButHerEmails]

Even then, in his hypothetical...

for a speeding ticket, you likely have a registered speed gun, recording the speed. Your speed is then pretty much a hard to dispute "fact".

Value (or speed) in the Trump case isn't easily factually discernable until the property is sold. It's an ever-changing opinion, until a sale makes it somewhat factual. Even then, if distressed, the sale value could be understated as to true market value.

Actually, the one comparable in the Trump case would be if the officer asked Trump how fast he thought he was going.

Trump: "Ahhh...66?"

Officer: "Actually 75. And now that you've opined you were going 66, and I've determined based on my math you were going 75, you'll receive a speeding ticket, and a summons for public trial later for fraud by misrepresenting your opinion of speed."

Wow! Thanks for clearing that up! Because I wasn’t at all making fun of all the “let the voters decide” horseshit. Nope, not at all.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yeah, that's bullshit. What he was doing isn't fraud. It's difference of opinion of value.

Other than a few CNN or MSNBC "RE scholars" (pussies that never made it in private sector), no one in the business considers this fraud...they had to find some pencil-necked night court judge to rule on it.

Let's be clear: it was fraud as New York has decided to define fraud. Which New York has the power to do. Whether it should be fraud is another question, but it's pretty clear that it qualifies per the relevant definition.

 

[Stuffshot]

Yeah, that's bullshit. What he was doing isn't fraud. It's difference of opinion of value.

Other than a few CNN or MSNBC "RE scholars" (pussies that never made it in private sector), no one in the business considers this fraud...they had to find some pencil-necked night court judge to rule on it.

I don't know what to tell you.

The NY statute created its own definition of fraud. It's on p. 3 of the ruling.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432591/ruling-in-donald-trumps-civil-fraud-trial.pdf

 

[Stuffshot]

Just say the only reason you got pulled over was because you’re a winner and because you were so far ahead of everyone else.

He was just giving all those drivers a head start.

 

[mattndallas]

I don't know what to tell you.

The NY statute created its own definition of fraud. It's on p. 3 of the ruling.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432591/ruling-in-donald-trumps-civil-fraud-trial.pdf

OK...per their definition:

The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.

He didn't do any of that. His opinions of value were/could be a result of a 1% difference in cap rates on similar NOI's. That's not fraud. His PFS and REO's submitted show his OPINION of value. Your opinion can't be fraudulent. It can be wrong, or disagreed upon on, but unless lenders are asking him for currently assessed and agreed upon values, for every property he owns, on every loan package he submits...it's not fraud.

Appraisals from two years ago? Tax assessments? Largely immaterial when considering his opinion of market value.

He didn't falsify operating history. He didn't hide his ownership percentages. He didn't hide debt encumbrances. He didn't falsify rent rolls or environmental hazards. THAT'S FRAUD.

Like I said, I've seen big boy RE fraud. This ain't it. It's a joke.

 

[Sope Creek]

So immaterial it's laughable.

What I don't understand, if it's so immaterial, why did he bother to do it? It would have been much easier and less risky to use the actual.

 

[Sope Creek]

She followed through on her campaign promise, the one New Yorkers voted for. political threat.

FIFY . . . .

 

[dbmhoosier]

F*** around find out.

 

[SqueakyClean]

Actually, the one comparable in the Trump case would be if the officer asked Trump how fast he thought he was going.

Trump: "Ahhh...66?"

Officer: "Actually 75. And now that you've opined you were going 66, and I've determined based on my math you were going 75, you'll receive a speeding ticket, and a summons for public trial later for fraud by misrepresenting your opinion of speed."

You keep making these analogies, but then keep minimizing the scale. Most people bend the speed limit a little. Going 9mph over the speed limit usually won't get you in trouble and every person who drives and is reading this has probably been guilty of doing that.

In Trump's case, it's more akin to:

"How fast do you think you were going?"

"Ahhhh....66?"

"Actually, 230."


Most people speed a little. As you say, most real estate guys may overvalue their properties 20 to 60%. Most don't overvalue by 400%.

Many cops won't even pull you over for going 5mph over. They don't ignore you when you're going 90 in a school zone.

 

[Sope Creek]

F*** around find out.

View embedded media

View embedded media

So Trump's legacy of ruining all he touches continues . . . .

 

[mcmurtry66]

FIFY . . . .

No you didn’t. that has nothing to do with a prosecutor and bias.

 

[Sope Creek]

Um that has nothing to do with a prosecutor and bias.

So what? Why didn't Trump raise that as a defense?

She ran on "going after Trump" and did so, according to you. I would think that this is one where you'd be tickled that a politician kept a promise.

 

[mcmurtry66]

So what? Why didn't Trump raise that as a defense?

She ran on "going after Trump" and did so, according to you. I would think that this is one where you'd be tickled that a politician kept a promise.

From Npr

Indeed, Trump's accusation that James is part of a political "witch hunt" is fueled in part by her own campaign rhetoric.

"I'm running for attorney general because I will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate president," James said in another campaign video.

After winning office, James gave an interview to NBC News in December 2018 where she promised to "use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well."

She did as promised.

Standard 3-1.6 Improper Bias Prohibited ​

(a) The prosecutor should not manifest or exercise, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socioeconomic status. A prosecutor should not use other improper considerations, such as partisan or political or personal considerations, in exercising prosecutorial discretion. A prosecutor should strive to eliminate implicit biases, and act to mitigate any improper bias or prejudice when credibly informed that it exists within the scope of the prosecutor’s authority.

Imagine if everyone running for prosecutor made targeted promises to go after the other side

I fixed it for you

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

From Npr

Indeed, Trump's accusation that James is part of a political "witch hunt" is fueled in part by her own campaign rhetoric.

"I'm running for attorney general because I will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate president," James said in another campaign video.

After winning office, James gave an interview to NBC News in December 2018 where she promised to "use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well."

She did as promised.

Standard 3-1.6 Improper Bias Prohibited ​

(a) The prosecutor should not manifest or exercise, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socioeconomic status. A prosecutor should not use other improper considerations, such as partisan or political or personal considerations, in exercising prosecutorial discretion. A prosecutor should strive to eliminate implicit biases, and act to mitigate any improper bias or prejudice when credibly informed that it exists within the scope of the prosecutor’s authority.

Imagine if everyone running for prosecutor made targeted promises to go after the other side

I fixed it for you

Shaniqua in New York and That georgia gal has helped take the tarnish off of the thought of prison. We pay a price for everything we want, right? They are lowering the cost and causing inflation on wants. I love free market ideals!

 

[ButHerEmails]

So what? Why didn't Trump raise that as a defense?

She ran on "going after Trump" and did so, according to you. I would think that this is one where you'd be tickled that a politician kept a promise.

That’s what she ran on and the people of New York must’ve liked the idea.

 

[Stuffshot]

Yeah, that's bullshit. What he was doing isn't fraud. It's difference of opinion of value.

Other than a few CNN or MSNBC "RE scholars" (pussies that never made it in private sector), no one in the business considers this fraud...they had to find some pencil-necked night court judge to rule on it.

Wow.

Everybody in real estate ignores efforts to defraud, you said. That's good to know. Thanks.

By the way, Engeron is not a night judge. He
packs some punch, as Trump found out.

I really don't know what else to tell you.

 

[cosmickid]

I could be wrong, but for him to appeal the decision, doesn't he have to put him the entire dollar amount plus 10%?

If that's the case, your statement that he's not going to pay anything would be false.

He won’t need the donations and he won’t wind up paying it anyway. It’s more likely then not to get thrown out. Further, It won’t be long and he can take his Truth social medial platform public which is valued at $4b. Trump does not appear to be overly concerned with the latest lefty initiative to get after him. He’s grown quite resilient and the more the crazy lefties come after him, the more the support he gets. It’s quite remarkable really.

I don't know where you get the idea it's going to be thrown out, when prevailing case law in NY tells a far different story.

What exactly is his appeal going to be based on?

Here is a very good dissection of any possible appeals issues by a lawyer who has prcticed in NY for 30 yrs. It's pretty long and extremely detailed, but maybe you can expound on a topic he doesn't cover and explain why the Appellate Court (Top Court in NY) will overrrule Engoron's findings?



In total, Trump owed another $98.6 million in interest the day Engoron issued his ruling, bringing the grand total to $453.5 million.

But that number will only continue to grow until Trump pays the penalty. Every day, interest increases the total amount Trump owes by more than $87,000.

Since Friday, when the ruling was handed down, an additional $262,506, as of Monday, has been tacked on to the initial amount.



Keep in mind, that the $120 % of the fees he has to put up to mount an appeal is just the start of the appeals process. And the interest accrues daily...

On Fri at the time of Engoron's ruling Trump owed (excluding the EJC case), a grandtotal of $453.5 million. That includes $98.6 million in interest. The daily amount in interest that will acrue until Trump pays the penalty is $87,000. So as of Monday (2 days ago) the interest due had risen to $ 262,506...

Most projections are that once Trump posts his initial bond, the initial appeal won't be heard till possibly fall of 2024.

In Trump's case, it's more akin to:

"How fast do you think you were going?"

"Ahhhh....66?"

"Actually, 230."


Most people speed a little. As you say, most real estate guys may overvalue their properties 20 to 60%. Most don't overvalue by 400%.

Many cops won't even pull you over for going 5mph over. They don't ignore you when you're going 90 in a school zone.

Tristan Snell (who handled Trump U case) has characterized one of the specific overvaluations as having a $300,000 house and telling the bank it was worth $20 million...

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

I've veered away from this all weekend while at a soccer tournament.

As mentioned before, we lend to guys like Trump.

Unless he was lying about his ownership percentages in partnerships, or his personal recourse on his other properties, or estimated debt on those...no one would really care. That's why none of his lenders have sued him for "fraud"...they don't care. As long as he owns those properties, and the debt/ownership on each is as he says...we don't really care about his personal "opinion of value". No one does.

Other than the size of some personal residence (which is immaterial in the grand scope of things), I see no "fraud".

He doesn't hire appraisers. We do.

He doesn't determine the value we use on either the subject property (of the loan), or any of his other holdings he may use as collateral or as a statement of net worth. We do.

We have clients estimate value on their portfolio's 20-40% higher than what we would consider "conservative" on virtually every single loan. We don't care. It's immaterial. Happens on literally every loan in the commercial real estate world. His value estimates are immaterial.

If he's lying about operational NOI, creating false rent rolls, lying about his ownership percentages, or liens/debt situations, that's one thing. And lenders would raise issue, and ultimately he could/would get blackballed internally, or programmatically. I've been in numerous depo's over the years where the fraud I mention above actually occurs.

That's what I expected when this case was raised, but I haven't seen that.

These charges are the biggest nothingburgers in the history of RE "fraud"...and because of that, as someone in the know of how immaterial this is...

I come to the conclusion that this is nothing but attempted political robbery (quite honestly), brought by a partisan DA, presided over by an unqualified (from a RE standpoint) partisan judge.

It's bullshit, and anyone that somehow rationalizes how this case is "just" is at best a blind partisan, or

F*** around find out.

View embedded media

View embedded media

I honestly don’t think these companies have anything to worry about. This was about getting Trump by any means necessary and that’s it.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

I honestly don’t think these companies have anything to worry about. This was about getting Trump by any means necessary and that’s it.

Matt's been bringing fire all day. Some knife'um, Matt uses a sledge hammer. with extreme prejudice and then blends into the grass, sight unseen. He's legit.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Matt's been bringing fire all day. Some knife'um, Matt uses a sledge hammer. with extreme prejudice and then blends into the grass, sight unseen. He's legit.

He's doing well, but he's clearly too smart to be a dream teamer.

 

[ribbont]

So if Trump hadn't swindled his Trump U students out of $ Millions, used his phoney "foundation" to steal money from a children's cancer charity, or paid hush money to Stormy Daniels to keep the public from knowing he was fooling around with a pro while his wife was pregnant, would the SDNY and New York ever had any reason to lauch an investigation into his finances? All of those occurred before he became POTUS, and you would think he'd learn from the first two. Esp when he had to settle Trump U out of court, and basically shut the foundation down...

Now these mythical other developers that NY ignored and failed to pursue, you got any evideence of them being involved in scams like Trump U or phoney charities? Trump's own conduct is what led to him being investigated, just like in the MAL case and the Jan 6 case. Even the GA case...

Here's a fascinating look at how Trump's own greed and incompetence eventually led to him having to fork out $ 25 Million in the Trump U case. He tried to screw a poor contractor out of a measly $14,000, decided to just ignore the DA's offer to settle for $2 Million and it ended up costing him $25 Million.And the vehicle for his downfall was 63(12), so you'd think he'd have learned his lesson...

View embedded media

"No one seriously disputes that this was a politically motivated hit job by an AG who has a long and distinguished history of going after Trump."
You're really playing fast and loose with some terminology here.How can James have a "long history of going after Trump" when she wasn't elected AG until 2018? The lawsuit was filed in 2021 after a 3 yr investigation, so when else did she go after Trump?
You know who she went after before she went after Trump? Cuomo...

Would you maintain that she went after Cuomo as a political "hit job", and that she had a "long and distinguished history of going after Cuomo"?
This may be a revelation to you, but it's dangerous to reply on Trump for facts. Because 95% of what comes out of his mouth is lies...

Didn't want to ignore you but the two main differences in Trump U and Fdn is Trump was the seller, not the buyer/customer and there were victims. In this case, Trump was the customer and was dealing with an incredibly sophisticated seller(s) of loans.

Oh, and other developers are real, not mythical. And it would be fairly simple to ask DB, Goldman, and other lenders if, in their experience, did the Trump inflate properties more, less, or in-line with other high wealth developers?

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

He's doing well, but he's clearly too smart to be a dream teamer.

Eyyyyy... I see what you did there. Coach never stop developing talent.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Eyyyyy... I see what you did there. Coach never stop developing talent.

@TheOriginalHappyGoat negative. mattndallas is 100 percent a dream teamer. he's very volatile

 

[ribbont]

So are you arguing that no one should be charged for being corrupt or just trump should be immune because going after him on anything is just political weaponization?

Trump isn't the first one to be charged for this...just the first time anyone has complained.

Link to who else has been charged in a civil case under this statute?

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

@TheOriginalHappyGoat negative. mattndallas is 100 percent a dream teamer. he's very volatile

The enemy's daughters have Matt posters on their walls and on their bedroom ceilings. And it just kills them.

 

[ribbont]

The level of dishonesty went well beyond optimistic opinion. I'm not saying the penalty isn't overdone, but please don't paint this as a slight exaggerating of value.

You have proof of that? You have copies of other RE developers loan applications to see how they value their properties? Please post them. Can't wait to see the apps or LeFrak, Ross, and Solow.

 

[mcmurtry66]

The enemy's daughters have Matt posters on their walls and on their bedroom ceilings. And it just kills them.

yeah matt's a real bad hothead lol. impossible not to be toting kids to all the ecnl. super fun but the switch can flip quickly to horribly aggravating

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

yeah matt's a real bad hothead lol. impossible not to be toting kids to all the ecnl. super fun but the switch can flip quickly to horribly aggravating

The 13.5 yr old has a poster, doesn't she? Don't lie, I've got 4 of them that I lived through that age with. 3 of them I'm happy to have survived. God is still punishing me with the 4th. Hell is actually on earth.

 

[DANC]

F*** around find out.

View embedded media

View embedded media

It's like US companies pulling out of Cuba right before the Castro brothers took over.

 

[DANC]

I honestly don’t think these companies have anything to worry about. This was about getting Trump by any means necessary and that’s it.

Until they use the wrong pronouns......

 

[mcmurtry66]

The 13.5 yr old has a poster, doesn't she? Don't lie, I've got 4 of them that I lived through that age with. 3 of them I'm happy to have survived. God is still punishing me with the 4th. Hell is actually on earth.

i dumped both of them today. so i have tonight and tomorrow to enjoy myself in peace and i'm sicker than shit. fing typical

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

i dumped both of them today. so i have tonight and tomorrow to enjoy myself in peace and i'm sicker than shit. fing typical

sorry coach. Matt's ready to stand in. We got this.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Let's be clear: it was fraud as New York has decided to define fraud. Which New York has the power to do. Whether it should be fraud is another question, but it's pretty clear that it qualifies per the relevant definition.

I don't know what to tell you.

The NY statute created its own definition of fraud. It's on p. 3 of the ruling.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432591/ruling-in-donald-trumps-civil-fraud-trial.pdf

Not only is the this statutory definition of fraud very badly drafted, the obvious political targeting of this case raises significant confiscatory taking issues.

the The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.​

First fraud is defined as “any device, scheme or artifice to defraud . . . .” Huh? Fraud is defined as fraud. That clause means nothing.

Second the statute provides “and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.”. Full stop. What does this even mean? If Trump tells his banker he shot par yesterday, but he really was 15 over, is that fraud? Does the misstatement have to be relevant? (that’s not in the statute) If yes, does relevant mean detrimental reliance as common law requires?

When, as here, the statute is used in a one-time unique fashion, and not for the consumer protection purpose the legislature contemplated, and the state admits political targeting, fly-specking the statutory definition is demanded. . The important facts are Trump lied about value, the bank loaned money, and the loan was repaid plus interest. When the statute defines fraud by using the word fraud, and the statute is misused, and there is political targeting, and significant property is confiscated, I think the state has a problem.

 

[BradStevens]

Not only is the this statutory definition of fraud very badly drafted, the obvious political targeting of this case raises significant confiscatory taking issues.

the The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.​

First fraud is defined as “any device, scheme or artifice to defraud . . . .” Huh? Fraud is defined as fraud. That clause means nothing.

Second the statute provides “and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.”. Full stop. What does this even mean? If Trump tells his banker he shot par yesterday, but he really was 15 over, is that fraud? Does the misstatement have to be relevant? (that’s not in the statute) If yes, does relevant mean detrimental reliance as common law requires?

When, as here, the statute is used in a one-time unique fashion, and not for the consumer protection purpose the legislature contemplated, and the state admits political targeting, fly-specking the statutory definition is demanded. . The important facts are Trump lied about value, the bank loaned money, and the loan was repaid plus interest. When the statute defines fraud by using the word fraud, and the statute is misused, and there is political targeting, and significant property is confiscated, I think the state has a problem.

You have the bones of a good due process argument. Not a takings clause violation, though. Civil fines aren't covered by the takings clause. Neither are taxes. Targeting, political or otherwise, isn't even relevant to the takings clause.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You have the bones of a good due process argument. Not a takings clause violation, though. Civil fines aren't covered by the takings clause. Neither are taxes. Targeting, political or otherwise, isn't even relevant to the takings clause.

I think you are right. I’m talking about property depravation w/o due process which is different from taking.

I’m trying to think of a way for Trump to collaterally attack this judgment in federal court, but I think the 11th amendment is in the way. State courts of New York are stacked against him.

 

[bailey777]

some of you are going to have to step up the donations

it will never be paid kurt and tied up on appeal. Plus he is about to make 4 billion on his truth deal.