Trump was intentionally charged under a statute that only allows a bench (not jury) trial.

And it's a civil, not criminal, statute. Frankly, given that, this should be under an administrative law judge that deals primarily in real estate concerns, not "Dr. Emmitt Brown".

(10-04-2023 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Does a borrower have an obligation to not be dishonest, make not make false statements, and/or not make misleading statements when putting forth their finances with regards to a loan? Yes or no.

I had responses to much that preceded this, but am going to skip it to be clear... and summarize it all in response to this.

Yes... but what does this filing have to do with the loan? That's why I've repeatedly asked about the loan and you've tried to shout me down about it.

The answer to that is NOTHING. You erroneously call it 'whatabout'... when what I am demonstrating is that the entire reason for this action is false on its face, which is what I've been saying all along.

In practice, one of two things happens here.
1) Trump claims it is worth $400mm and gets a loan for near that amount... and the bank said 'yes' so when he is asked what it is worth, he says $400mm. If THAT is what happened, there is no fraud.... again, unless the bank was complicit... a co-conspirator. This does not appear to be what happened.

2) Trump takes out a loan for $50mm on Mar-a-lago based on a valuation with improvements paid for as part of that loan of say $60mm... and now, after that loan was taken out... HE values it at 400mm and the state is crying 'foul'... but although he may not be following the rules of the filing, where is the risk to the system? His valuing the property at $400mm or $200byn makes no difference to the fact that the obligation to the bank and thus the 'risk to the lending system' is only $50mm on a property that the bank affirmed at the time was worth $60mm. Even if he immediately misrepresents the value to the state, what difference does that make to the 'risk to the lending system'?

So I get that he failed to follow the rules... period...

but I don't get that there is a 'victim' here.... and thus a duty for the state to protect as you and the judge have argued does not exist... because his statement doesn't increase in any way the risk to the system above what the bank loaned and affirmed.... and Trump's representation to the state doesn't in any way create an opportunity for corrective action.

What I mean is, let's say Trump was truthful and that Mar-A-Lago had declined in value to be only worth $10mm, with that $50mm loan against it. What would the state do in that instance to protect the lending system? Force the bank to call the loan? How does that protect the system?

IOW, the requirement doesn't do what it claims it does. It doesn't in any way protect the lending system from loss as a result of fraud.... for the very reason you articulate.... that the loan has nothing to do with this requirement.

I keep focusing on the loan because that is precisely the risk that the judge says justifies this prosecution. It therefore seems to me that this requirement is at best, a useless requirement by an overly-intrusive nanny state and at worst, a means of charging people with victimless crimes.

What I find personally amusing is that most of the thoughts that I have on these issues, I see days or even weeks and months later being espoused by 'talking heads'... and sometimes by lawyers in court... so clearly I am not as far off base as you like to argue... since I come up with them almost always off the top of my head with reading of the issues, but little reading of 'case law' or anything else... just a general understanding and belief that laws that don't in any way do what they claim they do are not good laws.... and that judges that make decisions based on bad laws using even worse justification are not good judges.

At BEST the guy should have said (paraphrasing you)... this is the requirement and he didn't do it. End of discussion. Instead he justified it, mostly because I suspect the defense argued much of what I have argued... and the judge's explanations and justifications only serve to demonstrate that this law, or at least this application is bad.

(10-05-2023 10:49 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Does a borrower have an obligation to not be dishonest, make not make false statements, and/or not make misleading statements when putting forth their finances with regards to a loan? Yes or no.

I had responses to much that preceded this, but am going to skip it to be clear... and summarize it all in response to this.

Yes...

And that is the only thing necessary for this.

Notwithstanding any particular third party or any particular instance ---that obligation above exists.

The only other item as it stands with regard to an AG action is --

A) did he (his entities) violate that obligation.

If yes,

B) Did he (his entities) do so persistently?

The AG is not charging down this path because of particular third parties and/or directly on behalf of third parties due to particular instances.

The *sole* issues are : did Trump (his entities) violate those obligations above; and b) were they violated on a persistent basis. End of story. Period. Finito. Notwithstanding everything else you try and interject into the issue.

The AG isn't policing specific instances of loans, they are policing persistent violations of the obligation by a single actor, an obligation we both agree exists. And both agree exists apart from any duty of the lender.

Making all the rest of what follows from you surplussage.

In all honesty, what you follow with makes very incisive points -- but in private third party actions, and when policing specific instances. But that isn't what the AG is doing here.

And apologies for noting the extra stuff as 'whadabout'. It may not be as harsh as that. But it simply does not matter.

Again:
1. Does Trump have an obligation not to misrepresent his finances on a loan?
If yes ---
2) did he misrepresent?
If yes
3) did he do #2 persistently?

That is it for purposes of the AG action. The above does NOT follow for a *real* counterparty and a named specific instance.

Quote:but what does this filing have to do with the loan? That's why I've repeatedly asked about the loan and you've tried to shout me down about it.

The answer to that is NOTHING. You erroneously call it 'whatabout'... when what I am demonstrating is that the entire reason for this action is false on its face, which is what I've been saying all along.

In practice, one of two things happens here.
1) Trump claims it is worth $400mm and gets a loan for near that amount... and the bank said 'yes' so when he is asked what it is worth, he says $400mm. If THAT is what happened, there is no fraud.... again, unless the bank was complicit... a co-conspirator. This does not appear to be what happened.

2) Trump takes out a loan for $50mm on Mar-a-lago based on a valuation with improvements paid for as part of that loan of say $60mm... and now, after that loan was taken out... HE values it at 400mm and the state is crying 'foul'... but although he may not be following the rules of the filing, where is the risk to the system? His valuing the property at $400mm or $200byn makes no difference to the fact that the obligation to the bank and thus the 'risk to the lending system' is only $50mm on a property that the bank affirmed at the time was worth $60mm. Even if he immediately misrepresents the value to the state, what difference does that make to the 'risk to the lending system'?

So I get that he failed to follow the rules... period...

but I don't get that there is a 'victim' here.... and thus a duty for the state to protect as you and the judge have argued does not exist... because his statement doesn't increase in any way the risk to the system above what the bank loaned and affirmed.... and Trump's representation to the state doesn't in any way create an opportunity for corrective action.

What I mean is, let's say Trump was truthful and that Mar-A-Lago had declined in value to be only worth $10mm, with that $50mm loan against it. What would the state do in that instance to protect the lending system? Force the bank to call the loan? How does that protect the system?

IOW, the requirement doesn't do what it claims it does. It doesn't in any way protect the lending system from loss as a result of fraud.... for the very reason you articulate.... that the loan has nothing to do with this requirement.

I keep focusing on the loan because that is precisely the risk that the judge says justifies this prosecution. It therefore seems to me that this requirement is at best, a useless requirement by an overly-intrusive nanny state and at worst, a means of charging people with victimless crimes.

What I find personally amusing is that most of the thoughts that I have on these issues, I see days or even weeks and months later being espoused by 'talking heads'... and sometimes by lawyers in court... so clearly I am not as far off base as you like to argue... since I come up with them almost always off the top of my head with reading of the issues, but little reading of 'case law' or anything else... just a general understanding and belief that laws that don't in any way do what they claim they do are not good laws.... and that judges that make decisions based on bad laws using even worse justification are not good judges.

At BEST the guy should have said (paraphrasing you)... this is the requirement and he didn't do it. End of discussion. Instead he justified it, mostly because I suspect the defense argued much of what I have argued... and the judge's explanations and justifications only serve to demonstrate that this law, or at least this application is bad.

Well... I am super happy you are the self-professed you know things well before they happen in every subject evah....

In this particular issue, I think you have missed the point entirely.

Washington Post Columnist Acknowledges Trump Could Be a Victim in Fraud Case

Quote:Liberal Washington Post columnist and associate editor Ruth Marcus expressed concerns in a recent op-ed concerning the treatment of former President Donald Trump in the New York fraud case.

“The rule of law means not allowing Trump to evade responsibility, criminal or civil, for his behavior. But it also entails not treating Trump more harshly than anyone else in similar circumstances, and I worry that is what is happening here,” Marcus wrote.

Marcus conveyed her belief that Trump is a “fraudster,” but she found the punishment he received “unprecedented.”

“I would be cheering if Trump is ordered to write a big check,” she added. “But forcing the sale or other disposition of his businesses, as the judge ordered in his opinion last week, seems both unnecessary and unduly punitive, disproportionate to the offenses charged. And I worry that this consequence would not have been meted out to a different defendant who engaged in similar misconduct.”

She referenced several experts in her column. One such expert, previously affiliated with the New York attorney general’s office, commented on the unique nature of the case.

“Legal experts are trying to grapple with this in real time because to the extent that this remedy has been utilized before it hasn’t been utilized for a remedy of this scale and scope,” the expert said.

The trial against Trump in Manhattan recently entered its third day. Judge Arthur Engoron determined that Trump and his company misled banks and insurers by inflating the value of his assets and overstating his net worth in official documents.

Marcus had previously shown similar apprehensions in August, following Trump’s fourth indictment in Georgia, which she believed might have been “one too many.” While she acknowledged no legal issues with state and federal prosecutors investigating Trump’s alleged actions, she expressed doubts about the advisability of such a prosecution.

“Whether that prosecution is advisable, in the wake of federal charges arising out of the same conduct, is a tougher question — one about which I have misgivings,” Marcus said.

She also criticized Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis for a perceived lack of “professionalism.”

“Small point, but Monday’s spectacle of an after-hours indictment didn’t exactly inspire confidence in the Willis office’s professionalism,” she said.

Marcus’ latest column also touched upon the challenges of addressing Trump’s alleged misconduct.

“The temptation to lash out is understandable, especially in the hands of an elected prosecutor deploying a particularly powerful statute,” she said.

Quote:Honest liberals are admitting that New York’s civil case against Trump is a brazen, unprecedented lawfare assault on a political enemy.

A Columbia professor says: “This is a version of business law capital punishment. … I’m not aware of a precedent at this scale.”

A veteran real estate lawyer says: “Legal experts are trying to grapple with this in real time … [this law] hasn’t been utilized for a remedy of this scale and scope.”

The civil case against Trump is exactly like the criminal cases from Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, and Jack Smith: An unprecedented, radical rewriting of the law for the sake of crushing a political enemy.

(10-05-2023 09:43 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:28 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Can't say that I've been impressed by any of Trump's attorneys.
But this is a stacked deck Gestapo/KBG type prosecution. I don't think this judge is much interested in facts.

Got it. Part of the giant cabal. Sounds fun.

Do you really, seriously, honestly think it is anything but that?

I have a feeling that if he answers this question, I'm going to laugh.

Still waiting for Tang's reply to your question...

Hey Tanq...did you miss Owl's question?

And, you have the audacity to call someone else a fraud.

(10-05-2023 12:03 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 09:43 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:28 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Got it. Part of the giant cabal. Sounds fun.

Do you really, seriously, honestly think it is anything but that?

I have a feeling that if he answers this question, I'm going to laugh.

Still waiting for Tang's reply to your question...

Hey Tanq...did you miss Owl's question?

And, you have the audacity to call someone else a fraud.

Nope. I actually pulled my just prior to his responding -- thought it was too snarky a response to a person I know and actually have some respect for.

Leave it to you to be pinhead and try to keep it going. Have fun, my friend.

Still looking for some answers from you though. As opposed to your typical thin gruel 'neener neener' crap that seems to be your stack and trade. Like the above.

(10-05-2023 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 12:03 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 09:43 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:28 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Do you really, seriously, honestly think it is anything but that?

I have a feeling that if he answers this question, I'm going to laugh.

Still waiting for Tang's reply to your question...

Hey Tanq...did you miss Owl's question?

And, you have the audacity to call someone else a fraud.

Nope. I actually pulled my just prior to his responding -- thought it was too snarky a response to a person I know and actually have some respect for.

Leave it to you to be pinhead and try to keep it going. Have fun, my friend.

Still looking for some answers from you though. As opposed to your typical thin gruel 'neener neener' crap that seems to be your stack and trade. Like the above.

Thanks for the (non) answer. It's just about exactly as I had expected.

No "neener-neener" here, unless me pointing out that you are a dishonest fraud falls into the "neener" category. And what's funny is...you KNOW that you are a fraud.

(10-05-2023 01:54 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 12:03 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 09:43 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-04-2023 02:28 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  I have a feeling that if he answers this question, I'm going to laugh.

Still waiting for Tang's reply to your question...

Hey Tanq...did you miss Owl's question?

And, you have the audacity to call someone else a fraud.

Nope. I actually pulled my just prior to his responding -- thought it was too snarky a response to a person I know and actually have some respect for.

Leave it to you to be pinhead and try to keep it going. Have fun, my friend.

Still looking for some answers from you though. As opposed to your typical thin gruel 'neener neener' crap that seems to be your stack and trade. Like the above.

Thanks for the (non) answer. It's just about exactly as I had expected.

No "neener-neener" here, unless me pointing out that you are a dishonest fraud falls into the "neener" category. And what's funny is...you KNOW that you are a fraud.

Sounds like you missed your chocolate milk and looking at pictures of ponies break. Get back with us when you take your Ritalin.

(10-05-2023 01:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 01:54 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 12:03 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 09:43 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  Still waiting for Tang's reply to your question...

Hey Tanq...did you miss Owl's question?

And, you have the audacity to call someone else a fraud.

Nope. I actually pulled my just prior to his responding -- thought it was too snarky a response to a person I know and actually have some respect for.

Leave it to you to be pinhead and try to keep it going. Have fun, my friend.

Still looking for some answers from you though. As opposed to your typical thin gruel 'neener neener' crap that seems to be your stack and trade. Like the above.

Thanks for the (non) answer. It's just about exactly as I had expected.

No "neener-neener" here, unless me pointing out that you are a dishonest fraud falls into the "neener" category. And what's funny is...you KNOW that you are a fraud.

Sounds like you missed your chocolate milk and looking at pictures of ponies break. Get back with us when you take your Ritalin.

I know it bothers you that I don't engage in your dishonest drivel. But, I've known plenty of people like you and realize it's a pointless endeavor. You have no interest in an open-minded, honest discussion, especially when it comes to anything "Trump".

The best way to handle a dishonest, self-absorbed person is to simply point it out and laugh. So...

(10-05-2023 02:13 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 01:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 01:54 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 12:03 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  Hey Tanq...did you miss Owl's question?

And, you have the audacity to call someone else a fraud.

Nope. I actually pulled my just prior to his responding -- thought it was too snarky a response to a person I know and actually have some respect for.

Leave it to you to be pinhead and try to keep it going. Have fun, my friend.

Still looking for some answers from you though. As opposed to your typical thin gruel 'neener neener' crap that seems to be your stack and trade. Like the above.

Thanks for the (non) answer. It's just about exactly as I had expected.

No "neener-neener" here, unless me pointing out that you are a dishonest fraud falls into the "neener" category. And what's funny is...you KNOW that you are a fraud.

Sounds like you missed your chocolate milk and looking at pictures of ponies break. Get back with us when you take your Ritalin.

I know it bothers you that I don't engage in your dishonest drivel. But, I've known plenty of people like you and realize it's a pointless endeavor. You have no interest in an open-minded, honest discussion, especially when it comes to anything "Trump".

The best way to handle a dishonest, self-absorbed person is to simply point it out and laugh. So...

And.... all you do is yell it out in generalities. When pressed on specifics --- you wet your lilttle boy britches and run away.

Please keep up with your generalized whining.

The best you can ever manage is walk around others and blather stupid shallow generalizations and generalities trying to act like a good stupid sidekick. Bravo

When you bother with specifics, I might respond. If all you are going to do is squawk like above, have fun squawking at the clouds. Again -- Ritalin might be a one helluva smashing good choice for you.

Toodles, son.

(10-05-2023 02:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 02:13 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 01:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 01:54 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Nope. I actually pulled my just prior to his responding -- thought it was too snarky a response to a person I know and actually have some respect for.

Leave it to you to be pinhead and try to keep it going. Have fun, my friend.

Still looking for some answers from you though. As opposed to your typical thin gruel 'neener neener' crap that seems to be your stack and trade. Like the above.

Thanks for the (non) answer. It's just about exactly as I had expected.

No "neener-neener" here, unless me pointing out that you are a dishonest fraud falls into the "neener" category. And what's funny is...you KNOW that you are a fraud.

Sounds like you missed your chocolate milk and looking at pictures of ponies break. Get back with us when you take your Ritalin.

I know it bothers you that I don't engage in your dishonest drivel. But, I've known plenty of people like you and realize it's a pointless endeavor. You have no interest in an open-minded, honest discussion, especially when it comes to anything "Trump".

The best way to handle a dishonest, self-absorbed person is to simply point it out and laugh. So...

And.... all you do is yell it out in generalities. When pressed on specifics --- you wet your lilttle boy britches and run away.

Please keep up with your generalized whining.

The best you can ever manage is walk around others and blather stupid shallow generalizations and generalities trying to act like a good stupid sidekick. Bravo

When you bother with specifics, I might respond. If all you are going to do is squawk like above, have fun squawking at the clouds. Again -- Ritalin might be a one helluva smashing good choice for you.

Toodles, son.

You "might respond"??? LMAO! You respond to every post I make, mensa.

I'll stick with generalizations and you can stick with dishonest mumbo-jumbo, then deflecting when other posters make you look...not so smart.

(10-05-2023 02:47 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  I'll stick with generalizations

Yes, you have quite the talent of idiot level generalizations. Please continue. Lolz.

FFS, get a room.

(10-05-2023 03:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 02:47 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  I'll stick with generalizations

Yes, you have quite the talent of idiot level generalizations. Please continue. Lolz.

Funny that my "generalizations" seem to illicit so many visceral replies from you. One might think my observations on your lack of honesty are hitting close to home.

Truth hurts?

(10-05-2023 11:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Again.

1. Does Trump have an obligation not to misrepresents his finances on a loan?

If yes ---

So I guess you missed or ignored the part that YOU and the JUDGE said where 'the loan' doesn't have any place in this equation.

To question #1, as I answered... Yes, he has an obligation not to misrepresent things on the loan, but this has nothing to do with the loan.

You (and the judge and the AG) can't have it both ways. You can't say that this has nothing to do with the lender/loan as you did repeatedly... and then use the risk of misrepresentation ON THE LOAN as a justification for this filing requirement.

Said more simply... The state has apparently made it the law that people like Trump have to file this report... and the judge has found that he did not comply with that requirement. While you have not specifically said this, I have never disputed the state has no right to enforce its laws. Of course it does. I only dispute that the law in any way does what it claims to do... and when I tried to demonstrate that, you argued that there is no 'third party' to this requirement.

Just as you say in the other thread on single family investments though (paraphrasing), you can't/shouldn't simply write a capricious law... the law must/should actually serve a purpose.... and a financial disclosure unrelated to a loan does not in any way protect the market for loans... and that is the STATED (by the judge and others) purpose.

While I have argued that the representation by the AG and the Judge's ruling regarding the value of the property is not without significant area for disagreement, the more base element is the position that this requirement in any way protects the system from default on the loan.... and subsequent loss by the bank... which is (according to the judge) the reason for the requirement.

(10-05-2023 03:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 11:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Again.

1. Does Trump have an obligation not to misrepresents his finances on a loan?

If yes ---

So I guess you missed or ignored the part that YOU and the JUDGE said where 'the loan' doesn't have any place in this equation.

Let me change that to "1. Does Trump have an obligation not to misrepresents his finances on a (meaning 'any' loan)?" Does that help?

The entire basis is this precept Ham. It doesnt have *anything to do with a particular loan".

It has everything to do with Trump persistently violating that obligation. Irrespective of any particular loan.

Quote:To question #1, as I answered... Yes, he has an obligation not to misrepresent things on the loan, but this has nothing to do with the loan.

Bingo. You got it. The issue is his persistent violation of the obligation there.

Quote:You (and the judge and the AG) can't have it both ways. You can't say that this has nothing to do with the lender/loan as you did repeatedly... and then use the risk of misrepresentation ON THE LOAN as a justification for this filing requirement.

This has nothing to do with any particular loan.

The state has a vested interest in private parties persistently violating the above obligations. That is, the state can absolutely intervene with people who violate that obligation in a serial and persistent manner.

Its easy peasy. You continously spout stuff that you have a legal obligation not to spout, the state can and will intervene. The state absolutely has a rationale for making sure that people *dont* continuously spout misrepresentations in that context.

Just like the state has a rationale to intervene when a lender misrepresents their stuff in serial in persistent fashion.

Its called ridding the market of persistent bad actions, and persistent bad actors.

Quote:I only dispute that the law in any way does what it claims to do... and when I tried to demonstrate that, you argued that there is no 'third party' to this requirement.

Actually you bounce around from lender action to lender action. Which plays no part in the item.

Quote:Just as you say in the other thread on single family investments though (paraphrasing), you can't/shouldn't simply write a capricious law... the law must/should actually serve a purpose.... and a financial disclosure unrelated to a loan does not in any way protect the market for loans... and that is the STATED (by the judge and others) purpose.

In honestly, I researched the stuff about the Financial Disclosure. It is not required to filed with the state. I was erroneous in that leg of it. Mea culpa.

The entire suit is 'Trump had SFC; they were grossly inflated; the SFCs were used to obtain loans, and many other financially related services.'

Quote:While I have argued that the representation by the AG and the Judge's ruling regarding the value of the property is not without significant area for disagreement, the more base element is the position that this requirement in any way protects the system from default on the loan.... and subsequent loss by the bank... which is (according to the judge) the reason for the requirement.

The entire basis of *any* AG fraud action is JETFL. When you JETFL, it makes the dudes who do bad actions stop doing it. It reinforces the fact that many times one has legal obligations that are independent of whatever reactions any non-specific third party may make.

NY has a very strong interest in having an honest, up front basis for lending in its borders. In fact, in NY a lender can sue the borrower for a fraudulent act for supplying a financial statement that is false. Thay obligation on the borrower is independent from any other obligation in that transaction.

NY is making a very clear case, that if you want to conduct business in NY, you shouldnt make misrepresentations in the course of obtaining financing, or other financial - related services.

It really cant get more basic than that. If you want to think is so out of whack for whatever reason -- you are more than free to do so. But it is really aggravating to hear you continuously try to pull in various third parties, and various third party actions when they HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

The three steps above lay it out. It is simple to understand.

If you disagree -- I gave you Judge Engoron's court clerk phone number. Call that up and hash out your new fantabulous legal discovery that cuts against everything known about and in the realm of 63(12) for 70 years with them.

Or, criminy, petition the 1st Appellate Division in NY and tll them they need to step in pronto and change 70 years of case law and change the actual wording of 63(12) because Ham says so, and Ham says you have to look at all sorts of various third parties. Knock yourself out for all I care.

Tanq, do you believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for other real estate developers with an identical fact pattern?

(10-05-2023 04:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Let me change that to "1. Does Trump have an obligation not to misrepresents his finances on a (meaning 'any' loan)?" Does that help?

Respectfully... No, it doesn't. The state isn't making him a loan nor guaranteeing one. This reporting isn't part of the covenants of the loan (other than potentially some omnibus 'you must comply with state requirements'). The state has no position in this or any other loan. They have inserted themselves into the 'reporting' system based on the idea that they have a duty to prevent lenders from losing money, and that their duty, much less their ability to do so is somehow superior to that which the lenders themselves have.

Quote:The entire basis is this precept Ham. It doesnt have *anything to do with a particular loan".

It has everything to do with Trump persistently violating that obligation. Irrespective of any particular loan.

You can't say this, and then argue that you are protecting the lender from default... because that will negatively impact everyone else.

That makes zero sense.

Quote:

Quote:To question #1, as I answered... Yes, he has an obligation not to misrepresent things on the loan, but this has nothing to do with the loan.

Bingo. You got it. The issue is his persistent violation of the obligation there.

That's your issue. It's not mine. You can't answer my issue by continually restating yours.

Quote:

Quote:You (and the judge and the AG) can't have it both ways. You can't say that this has nothing to do with the lender/loan as you did repeatedly... and then use the risk of misrepresentation ON THE LOAN as a justification for this filing requirement.

This has nothing to do with any particular loan.

YOUR QUESTION asked about representations ON THE LOAN. Now you say it doesn't have anything to do with any particular loan. So what does 'ON THE LOAN" mean, except a particular loan? That is your question, which I suspect you thought was going to be a 'slam dunk' in your favor and now you're regretting it.

How does the potential for default on a loan because of a misrepresentation of the value of the collateral for that loan, not have anything to do with the particular loan against that collateral??

I'm holding my breath to hear this response.

Quote:The state has a vested interest in private parties persistently violating the above obligations. That is, the state can absolutely intervene with people who violate that obligation in a serial and persistent manner.

Again, we're ignoring your admonition from the rental property conversation that laws should not be capricious. If you're telling me this is how it is, I'm telling you it shouldn't be that way... and in another context not involving Trump, you made that very argument.

Quote: The state absolutely has a rationale for making sure that people *dont* continuously spout misrepresentations in that context.

You keep saying they have a rationale, but you keep not demonstrating how this law meets that rationale... since the rationale involves the default on a loan, but the requirement that stems from that rationale (according to you) has nothing to do with any specific loan... not even the one that puts the system at risk of default based on the flawed valuation.

Quote:Just like the state has a rationale to intervene when a lender misrepresents their stuff in serial in persistent fashion.

But nobody has said a word about the lender.... and when I asked about them, I was told that they were not a party to this.... even though they clearly ARE a party to the asset. They are in fact the lienholder, and according to the judge, the first victim in the event of a default.


4

Quote:Its called ridding the market of persistent bad actions, and persistent bad actors.

And there we have the Trump obsession on display. I say that because there is no evidence at all that Trump acted bad in any way with respect to the lender, which means he does not represent a threat to the lending system.... merely the authority of the state to require meaningless disclosures. Since divorce would also increase the risk of default of many loans and cheating on your spouse is often a cause of divorce and people who persistently do so are considered bad actors, maybe the state should also require a 'fidelity' attestation to protect the system from default? Just showing the folly of this application.

Quote:

Quote:I only dispute that the law in any way does what it claims to do... and when I tried to demonstrate that, you argued that there is no 'third party' to this requirement.

Actually you bounce around from lender action to lender action. Which plays no part in the item.

You are once again misrepresenting me. Pity that. This WAS a constructive (I thought) conversation. I haven't bounced around at all... I've made one representation about one action.... that ANY claim that this representation in any way represents a threat to the system (a paraphrase of what the judge said about protecting other borrowers from a default by the borrower that resulted in a loss to the lender) is false on its face if the lender is not part of this conversation... and they aren't... according to you.

The judge (and you and others) lamented that Trump's expert didn't produce a specific buyer nor a specific value... but the only person who DID 'buy' the asset (made a loan against it) is the lender... who has a duty/obligation to the system to ensure that the collateral remain 'sufficient' to satisfy the debt... and there has been no representation that this was not the case, yet the judge claims there is... otherwise there IS no risk to the system.

Quote:

Quote:Just as you say in the other thread on single family investments though (paraphrasing), you can't/shouldn't simply write a capricious law... the law must/should actually serve a purpose.... and a financial disclosure unrelated to a loan does not in any way protect the market for loans... and that is the STATED (by the judge and others) purpose.

In honestly, I researched the stuff about the Financial Disclosure. It is not required to filed with the state. I was erroneous in that leg of it. Mea culpa.

I appreciate the honesty.... but I'd ask you... if you THOUGHT that was the case and I agree with you... but it is for some reason NOT the case, are you not now simply defending a premise that you obviously don't think is correct?

I agree that states CAN make bad laws... but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be challenged in court and found to be capricious. That is my argument here. The law doesn't and frankly, can't do what it claims to do... at least not if it is enforced the way it is being done here.

Quote:The entire suit is 'Trump had SFC; they were grossly inflated; the SFCs were used to obtain loans, and many other financially related services.'

And we're right back to where you are arguing that these disclosures were fraudulent, but nobody is even talking to the lenders that were either negligent or complicit in the fraud.... and we're ignoring that if I tell you something... ANYTHING is worth $1byn and you agree to that price, that you have absolutely established the value of that item at $1byn. You quite literally and by definition are the 'buyer at the price' that the judge said Trump didn't have.

We are now right back to you effectively arguing that the purpose of the law is to protect massive lenders from their own incompetence.

Quote:It really cant get more basic than that. If you want to think is so out of whack for whatever reason -- you are more than free to do so. But it is really aggravating to hear you continuously try to pull in various third parties, and various third party actions when they HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
[quote]

Your question was... does he have an obligation to not misrepresent his finances on a loan. Now you say the entity he is making that misrepresentation to in order to GET that loan is an uninvolved third party.

They are the maker of the loan. They, by their very nature and actions are LEGALLY ATTESTING to the value of the collateral. They are quite literally 'buying' the asset for the agreed upon price.

How in the world do they (in your mind) have nothing to do with it? They are quite literally the only way that Trump has access to the pool of lending that the state claims a duty to protect.


[quote]
The three steps above lay it out. It is simple to understand.

Most incorrect explanations are simple to understand. doesn't make them correct or applicable.

Quote:If you disagree -- I gave you Judge Engoron's court clerk phone number. Call that up and hash out your new fantabulous legal discovery that cuts against everything known about and in the realm of 63(12) for 70 years with them.

No need to... I expect the system to correct the error.... and if they don't, no skin off my back. This is simply my opinion and belief, supported by simple logic, concept of equity, fairness and financial security.

Quote:Or, criminy, petition the 1st Appellate Division in NY and tll them they need to step in pronto and change 70 years of case law and change the actual wording of 63(12) because Ham says so, and Ham says you have to look at all sorts of various third parties. Knock yourself out for all I care.

Oh quit with this 'Ham says so' drivel. LOTS of people say so... and it remains to be seen if this ruling stands.

Also quit with the 'change 70 years of case law' BS as well. I challenge THIS application of the law to THESE facts. There are plenty of situations where I would agree with the application of the law... and have stated so. Situation 1 would be where the bank that ACTUALLY GAVE TRUMP THE MONEY (the action, without which there IS no 'public risk') is accused AT LEAST of being complicit in fraud.

You can't simply borrow money based on a lie. Somebody has to accept that lie as fact... It is ABSOLUTELY the lender's job to ensure that he has sufficient collateral. I have absolutely NEVER heard of a situation where a lender said 'Give me the deed to this property and I will make you this loan' and the borrower said... 'The property isn't worth that much and I don't want to misrepresent the value to the state... take my car too.'

This seems to be a little bit of an over reach to me.

Judge Engoron Bars Trump, Trump Family Members From Transferring Assets without Notifying Appointed Court Monitor – Former Clinton Judge Barbara Jones.

Far-left Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron barred Trump and Trump’s family members from transferring assets or creating new entities without notifying an appointed court monitor on day 4 of Letitia James’ Stalinist show trial.

The independent court monitor, Barbara Jones, is a former federal judge appointed by Bill Clinton.

In today’s order, Engoron asks the defendants to provide a list of “entities controlled or beneficially owned by Donald J. Trump” — and the other co-defendants — to the Hon. Barbara S. Jones, the independent monitor overseeing Trump’s business activities.

Trump is also required to notify Jones of any new business applications or changes to preexisting entities.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/10...nsferring/

MSNBC Legal Analyst Says Letitia James Made ‘Tactical Error’ by Going After Trump for Court Appearance

Quote:New York State Attorney General Letitia James has campaigned on prosecuting former President Donald Trump.

On Wednesday, day three of a civil trial in Manhattan brought forward by James, the attorney general spoke to reporters saying the “Donald Trump show is over.”

Exposing her bias, James added: “This was nothing more than a political stunt. A fund-raising stop, and now we can continue to go forward with our trial, and we are confident that justice will be served.”

Legal experts now say James’ comments may have been a “tactical error,” according to a report by MSNBC.

Commenting on the situation was MSNBC legal analyst Rebecca Roiphe. In a discussion with MSNBC’s Ana Cabrera, Roiphe was asked, “What do you make of her comments and what do you see as the impact of Trump being in court the last few days?”

Roiphe replied:

I think this was a tactical error on the part of Attorney General James. She is already vulnerable to the repeated attacks that this is politically motivated, even if it is not, she opened herself up to that by campaigning on the repeated statement that she was going to go after Trump.

And therefore, I think this statement was not wise. She should have remained silent and allowed him to open himself up to these sorts of arguments by others rather than stepping in right here.

But that said, you know, it’s very hard when there is a defendant like the former president who plays to the media to remain silent and not try to counter his message that he’s delivering.