Here is another simple four sentence summation. Maybe this will clear up your confusion.

Misrepresenting your finances to a lender is an act of fraud, because there is an obligation by the borrower to be truthful.

That obligation is independent of who the lender is, and what actions the lender may or may not take.

The state AG institutes civil actions against people who persistently commit acts of fraud, simply because there is a state interest in minimizing fraud, whatever the arena.

Notwithstanding the actions of any particular counterparty of such acts, and notwithstanding who might be any individual or particular counterparties.

Clear enough?

Quote: 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?

No, filing it or not does not change the underlying obligation to not lie or misrepresent on your financials to the lenders. I dont see how that changes the issue in the slightest. Maybe in tinytown, there is a big thing difference between information that is filed, versus the same information that serves as a SFC that is relayed to financial institutions in order to obtain financial services.

Im not defending the premise of 'filing'. Im defending the premise regarding the obligation above. I guess that wasnt clear to you when you typed out the above.

(10-05-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is another simple three sentence summation. Maybe this will clear up your confusion.

Misrepresenting your finances to a lender is an act of fraud.

The state AG institutes actions against people who persistently commit acts of fraud.

Notwithstanding the actions of any counterparty of such acts, and notwithstanding who might be any individual counterparties.

Clear enough? Or do we endure another 5000 word essay on value, third parties that absolutely matter, insinuations of some garbage because I presented what I found was incorrect (notwithstanding it didnt change the obligation), and a host of other superfluous things.

Quote: 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?

No, filing it or not does not change the underlying obiglation to not lie on your financials to the lenders. I dont see how that changes the issue in the slightest. But I guess that didnt register there.

Dude, you thought Trump didnt get a jury trial because he didnt check a friggin box.

(10-05-2023 08:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is another simple three sentence summation. Maybe this will clear up your confusion.

Misrepresenting your finances to a lender is an act of fraud.

The state AG institutes actions against people who persistently commit acts of fraud.

Notwithstanding the actions of any counterparty of such acts, and notwithstanding who might be any individual counterparties.

Clear enough? Or do we endure another 5000 word essay on value, third parties that absolutely matter, insinuations of some garbage because I presented what I found was incorrect (notwithstanding it didnt change the obligation), and a host of other superfluous things.

Quote: 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?

No, filing it or not does not change the underlying obiglation to not lie on your financials to the lenders. I dont see how that changes the issue in the slightest. But I guess that didnt register there.

Dude, you thought Trump didnt get a jury trial because he didnt check a friggin box.

For some portions of the issue, there could not be a jury. For other portions of the issue -- a jury was absolutely possible, and Babba did not check the box to request it.

Again, the judge commented on this in particular on day 1. I guess you missed that comment. Imagine that.

(10-05-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Misrepresenting your finances to a lender is an act of fraud, because there is an obligation by the borrower to be truthful.

But I'm still not convinced they were misrepresented. If the properties cash flowed enough to repay the loans that were made based on those appraisals, then those appraisals were probably accurate.

(10-05-2023 08:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Misrepresenting your finances to a lender is an act of fraud, because there is an obligation by the borrower to be truthful.

But I'm still not convinced they were misrepresented. If the properties cash flowed enough to repay the loans that were made based on those appraisals, then those appraisals were probably accurate.

Care to point that out in the record? And yes, there is a record, a substantial one.

I agree with one of your previous points -- lets see what the record brings forth and says on the issue. Can you point out where in the record the assumption you made above is, and what precisely backs it? Or is this pure conjecture on your part above?

I seem to remember much angst on your part about conjectures in other matters by me.

Did the properties or did they not cash flow sufficiently to service the debt?

The judge doesn't care about facts. He's just on a mission to get Donald Trump.

(10-05-2023 08:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Did the properties or did they not cash flow sufficiently to service the debt?

I suggest you tell us.

Quote:The judge doesn't care about factys. He's just on a mission to get Donald Trump.

What is your conjecture above amount to, then?

(10-05-2023 09:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 08:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Did the properties or did they not cash flow sufficiently to service the debt?

I suggest you tell us.

My understanding has been that they did. If that is incorrect, please so indicate.

All I have ever said is that if the properties cash flowed sufficiently to service the debt, then there was almost certainly no misstatement of value.

I have seen statements that the debts were paid. I have no way to verify that independently. But if that is correct, then it is hard to see where there is any misststement.

(10-05-2023 09:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 09:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 08:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Did the properties or did they not cash flow sufficiently to service the debt?

I suggest you tell us.

My understanding has been that they did. If that is incorrect, please so indicate.

Please denote it in the record, please. I dont know. Im not the one stating it as fact. Nor bringing it up as a conjecture.

I guess everyone on the case forgot about 'cash flow value'. Imagine that. That is 5 different sets of defense attorneys, the AG, every single appraisal in the record......

(10-05-2023 09:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Please denote it in the record, please. I dont know. Im not the one stating it as fact.

I'm not stating it as a fact either. I'm merely stating that IF it is a fact, then it is very unlikely that there was any meterial misstatement. And from the biginning, what I have read about the case has said that the loans have been or are being repaid,

If that were not the case, then the prosecution would be able to procced under the common law definition rather than having to go under 63(12).

(10-05-2023 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 09:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Please denote it in the record, please. I dont know. Im not the one stating it as fact.

I'm not stating it as a fact either. I'm merely stating that IF it is a fact, then it is very unlikely that there was any meterial misstatement. And from the biginning, what I have read about the case has said that the loans have been or are being repaid,

If that were not the case, then the prosecution would be able to procced under the common law definition rather than having to go under 63(12).

I guess everyone on the case forgot about 'cash flow value'. Imagine that. That is 5 different sets of defense attorneys, the AG, every single appraisal in the record......

(10-05-2023 09:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess everyone on the case forgot about 'cash flow value'. Imagine that. That is 5 different sets of defense attorneys, the AG, every single appraisal in the record......

"Cash flow value" is pretty much the only measure of value that matters for commercial properties. Oh, yeah, you calculate cost to rebuild/replace, but cash flow is the primary driver.

(10-05-2023 08:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Did the properties or did they not cash flow sufficiently to service the debt?

The judge doesn't care about facts. He's just on a mission to get Donald Trump.

The judge is the same type character as Clarence. Clarence probably even looks a lot like him. And like the judge, ole Clarence’s emotional feels have gotten the best of him. So much so he agrees with third world political use of the justice system to jail your opponents.

(10-05-2023 09:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 09:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess everyone on the case forgot about 'cash flow value'. Imagine that. That is 5 different sets of defense attorneys, the AG, every single appraisal in the record......

"Cash flow value" is pretty much the only measure of value that matters for commercial properties. Oh, yeah, you calculate cost to rebuild/replace, but cash flow is the primary driver.

All this bullchit when all that really matters here is if the banks appraisal matches Trump’s. Seems the “judge” and Clarence feel their “appraisal” is all that matters. That’s cool. In that world they call someone’s opinion a lie because it doesn’t match their ignorant opinion. What kind of “law” is this?

(10-05-2023 08:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 08:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is another simple three sentence summation. Maybe this will clear up your confusion.

Misrepresenting your finances to a lender is an act of fraud.

The state AG institutes actions against people who persistently commit acts of fraud.

Notwithstanding the actions of any counterparty of such acts, and notwithstanding who might be any individual counterparties.

Clear enough? Or do we endure another 5000 word essay on value, third parties that absolutely matter, insinuations of some garbage because I presented what I found was incorrect (notwithstanding it didnt change the obligation), and a host of other superfluous things.

Quote: 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?

No, filing it or not does not change the underlying obiglation to not lie on your financials to the lenders. I dont see how that changes the issue in the slightest. But I guess that didnt register there.

Dude, you thought Trump didnt get a jury trial because he didnt check a friggin box.

For some portions of the issue, there could not be a jury. For other portions of the issue -- a jury was absolutely possible, and Babba did not check the box to request it.

Again, the judge commented on this in particular on day 1. I guess you missed that comment. Imagine that.

The FRAUD CASE DOES NOT. Which is what we were talking about in this thread.

What happened is that your buddy Tom posted a twitter account of some idiot who said they didnt "check the jury trial box", and you all swallowed the taint because you wanted to believe it. Once you get called out on it, you try to do your little Texas Two Step about how some of the charges allowed a jury trial. We werent talking about "some of the charges", and neither was Trump. We are talking about the fake fraud charge.

The stupid b*tch just posted this yesterday. Tanq's saviors are STUPID.

bwahahahahahahaha, she's getting her ass roasted for her tweet. In the comments people are pointing out that:

1. She incorrectly stated "appraised value" in her tweet, when it was an "assessed valuation" for taxes.

2. Florida has a 3% cap per year on increases in assessed value, which is why the assessed value is much lower than the actual valuation.

3. The empty 2.3 acre lot next to Maralargo is for sale for $200million.

(10-06-2023 07:47 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The stupid b*tch just posted this yesterday. Tanq's saviors are STUPID.

She can't be this effing stupid.

She played the rassis card yesterday like she was the defendant . What a clown show.

(10-06-2023 07:56 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 07:47 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The stupid b*tch just posted this yesterday. Tanq's saviors are STUPID.

She can't be this effing stupid.

She played the rassis card yesterday like she was the defendant . What a clown show.

People posting in the tweet are like "this just HAS to be a parody account. Nobody is this stupid."