(10-09-2023 07:49 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Yep, definitely mad

(an overstatement of my concern with your normal mode of shallow shittalk). Toodles, WB.

Let's see if this accurately contrasts our positions.

You are convinced that Donald Trump repeatedly broke the law, but undecided about inappropriate partisanship on the part of law enforcement, and will therefore wait for proof before deciding that.

I am convinced that law enforcement is behaving in an inappropriately partisan manner, and will therefore wait on proof in a court of law before deciding Donald Trump's guilt or innocence.

I am not claiming that Donald Trump is innocent. I am saying that I find the bias on the part of law enforcement to be so extreme that I am skeptical about his guilt. I think a part of the communication problem is that it is impossible to comment about the extent to which I think law enforcement has run amok on this without what could be interpreted as at least some implication tat Donald Trump is innocent. But I am intending the comments only to imply a rogue law enforcement tat is seeking to implement its own views above those of the American people. And that is what I find to be the greatest threat to our democratic republic.

And when what I consider to be possibly far greater guilt on the part of others (Hillary, the Bidens) is going unpunished and/or not even investigated rigorously as a result of what appears to be te same bias, I have a hard time believing what I've been told.

(10-06-2023 02:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But yet each of the above is a clear concept in every single state in the nation. A truism. But dismissed by you as a fundamental falsehood. Interesting.

You have repeatedly lied and misrepresented what I've said... Something noted by others on this thread... including someone I think you respect, unlike anyone else on here.

If people keep saying that about you... Maybe it IS you??

I'd also add that 'whatabout' is a deflection to the actions of another to justify one's actions. I have not remotely done that.

Nobody ever said you can lie in loan documents... ever.... You simply have bounced back and forth about whether this has anything to do with a loan. The REASON you keep trying to thread this needle is that you NEED for this to somehow be part of a misrepresentation about a loan in order to justify the legal action... but then when I point out that if it is part of a loan, every loan has two parties... and YOUR argument can't have that... because if there are two parties who have agreed on terms, then the entire argument about 'misrepresented assets' falls apart.

Otherwise you just have the state requiring some BS piece of disclosure, like the 'fidelity clause' I mentioned...
A concept that you wholly accepted in another thread and now you've forgotten... that good legislation should have a legitimate purpose, and not merely be regulation for the purpose of regulation, or regulation designed to CREATE crimes. When it comes to gun laws and others, you agree with this. Now that it involves Trump, you seem to forget it.

Quote:The only responsibility the lender has is to themselves. So quit with the 'fiduciary duty' mumbo jumbo.

A fiduciary has an overriding legal responsibility to another. But please keep misusing that term.

and here is where your clear obsession with Trump is demonstrated

So now in 'Tanq'-world... BORROWERS have a responsibility to make disclosures about their borrowings, but lenders do not. Hint... most lenders have investors... they have a fiduciary responsibility to them.... if they also make loans to 'the little guy' as required by the use of the Judge's ruling, then they ALSO have a fiduciary responsibility to them, governed by REAMS of regulation.

You are quite literally arguing that the borrower, but not the lender has a duty to be truthful when making a loan. That is demonstrably false. I have instead argued that they both do... by AGREEING TO TERMS.

The judge has literally determined that Trump lied about the value of his property on his loan documents, but ignored that the lender agreed with him about that value being sufficient to repay/protect the loan...So of course you now have to thumb your nose at the idea of the lender having any legal or fiduciary responsibilities... It is only (in your mind) Trump.

Laughable.

FTR... I didn't pull the 'lenders had a hand in it' out of thin air as you apparently must claim to dismiss my comments... because the truth simply wouldn't.

Either they are inept and negligent or complicit. Those are really the only obvious possibilities I see. ALL of those represent a risk to the very same people that the state here claims they must protect. Easily arguably, an inept, negligent or complicit lender is a vastly GREATER risk to the system than ANY single borrower. I'm sorry that such obvious truths get in the way of your obsession.

Quote:Second, the issue that the state is policing is the persistent actions of bad actors. Before you fly into a tizzy about my use of that term, take the term as 'someone the state persistently violates an obligation', that is before your kneejerk comment on 'you just hate Trump' (which you made a bit back on this term about me, and I chose to overlook).

Jesus... this is directly out of DSM.
First you preemptively accuse me of 'flying in a tizzy' when no such prediliction exists.
Second, you all but admit your obsession with Trump (or at least your obsession with labeling anyone who disagrees with you as 'favoring' Trump) by another preemption... and
Third, you then try and make yourself feel better by having previously ignored it, even though you clearly aren't now.

Quote:So have fun telling us all about the bankers, the counterparties, and all the rest. It. Doesn't. Matter. The obligation to not misrepresent your financial position to a lender is an independent, stand alone obligation of the borrower.

Once again with the shape-shifting definitions.

I'll try for the last time to make this clear to you.

It is obvious how misrepresenting your financial position to a lender is a bad act. That has never been disputed. What is not clear is how the lender is apparently not capable of 'defending himself' which is a requirement that YOU PREVIOUSLY ACKNOWLEDGED for the purposes of this state requirement that Trump violated. The lender has multiple ways of defending himself... chief among them, he can deny the loan. He can change the terms of the loan... all sorts of things. Once issued, he can also often 'call' the loan should events change or in the event of a late discovery of the misrepresentation, cancel the loan and sue the borrower for fraud.

All of that, even according to the judge happens BEFORE you ever get to 'the little guy' whom the state needs to justify going after this borrower.

This would be like requiring men to submit to the state their resume before having sex with a woman... because IF she accepts the terms he has misrepresented, she might get pregnant... and because of that misrepresentation, she might need an abortion or public assistance. I mean, nobody would argue that men shouldn't be truthful in such situations, right? But if the woman accepts the terms EVEN AFTER DISCOVERING THEY ARE LIES (she has not 'filed' any grievance, even after the state has charged him with fraud under the statute) then where is the state's interest?


That said, You might want to refresh yourself on the banking and lending regulations environment... not to mention English. The necessity of lenders to do their due diligence and accurately report such information to a wide variety of state, local and federal regulators is vast... contrary to your statement here. It's addressed under a different statute, for sure... because as I said... this statute serves no legitimate purpose without the others. It is not until the lender is injured that the state has anyone's interest to protect.

So now the question becomes... what powers does the state have to rectify the situation? I fail to see how convicting Trump of anything at this point helps to protect the lender from loss. It doesn't seem that they have any power to 'undo' the loan, nor to change the terms of it. So again, what is the purpose of this disclosure.

If the state would like to set up a loan review department where they go over the terms of loans between borrowers and lenders looking for fraud, they can certainly do that... and in fact such departments already exist... in banking/lending etc regulations.

So again, what is the purpose of this filing requirement?? Because it sure isn't what the judge claims it is.... and just to be clear... I'm not even sure they win the valuation appeal. This is more of a question of jurisdiction.


And we ALL understand why the previous case involving this law is titled 'Trump'. The AG made it quite clear when she ran for office that this was her goal.

Seriously, with probably millions of loans being made to dozens of unscrupulous developers... you don't find it odd that the precedent THAT YOU YOURSELF BROUGHT UP for a case against Trump was ANOTHER case against Trump?? That wasn't me who did that. Was he NOT 'a persistent bad actor' before, but now he is?

(10-09-2023 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I am convinced that law enforcement is behaving in an inappropriately partisan manner, and will therefore wait on proof in a court of law before deciding Donald Trump's guilt or innocence.

This. Trump himself and whatever he did or did not do haven't really come into my equation yet.

Quote:I am not claiming that Donald Trump is innocent. I am saying that I find the bias on the part of law enforcement to be so extreme that I am skeptical about his guilt. I think a part of the communication problem is that it is impossible to comment about the extent to which I think law enforcement has run amok on this without what could be interpreted as at least some implication tat Donald Trump is innocent. But I am intending the comments only to imply a rogue law enforcement tat is seeking to implement its own views above those of the American people. And that is what I find to be the greatest threat to our democratic republic.

ALSO this... said some 400 posts ago

Quote:And when what I consider to be possibly far greater guilt on the part of others (Hillary, the Bidens) is going unpunished and/or not even investigated rigorously as a result of what appears to be te same bias, I have a hard time believing what I've been told.

This to me is simply more evidence of the 'threat to our democratic republic'. It demonstrates the capriciousness of the enforcement of regulations.... same with the impeachment inquiries. If you have a dem house and a rep pres or vice versa, expect to see an impeachment... and then you only look to the senate to see if the foregone conclusion will have any teeth. I don't really have a hard time believing what I'm told... I just have a hard time believing EITHER side

I listen to what I'm told with skepticism... but then I decide if it matters to me or not. Trump and Stormy... couldn't care less... Biden and Ukraine... pretty obvious reasons to care. Even 'classified docs' I don't care that much about... at least not whether or not they kept some... but I DO care when one action is ignored and the other is prosecuted.... because it speaks to the equity in the system. But yes, even if I care... it has to pass the smell test... and a LOT of this doesn't.

(10-09-2023 11:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Nobody ever said you can lie in loan documents... ever.... You simply have bounced back and forth about whether this has anything to do with a loan.


The REASON you keep trying to thread this needle is that you NEED for this to somehow be part of a misrepresentation about a loan in order to justify the legal action... but then when I point out that if it is part of a loan, every loan has two parties... and YOUR argument can't have that... because if there are two parties who have agreed on terms, then the entire argument about 'misrepresented assets' falls apart.

This is where you are off base Ham. Wholly.

A state typically has the power and ability to pursue any act of fraud. Even in a standalone basis, and in the absence of whatever happens in the course of counterparty or even in the course of a specific transaction. Like here.

Yes a loan has two parties. Duh.

The obligation to not lie wholeheartedly does not expire when 'two parties agree'. That is an idiotic assumption.

In that realm, when you lie about a car, and sell it, then there is 'two parties who have agreed in terms' -- thus no fraud and no liability. That is stupid on its face.

Quote:Otherwise you just have the state requiring some BS piece of disclosure, like the 'fidelity clause' I mentioned...

Incorrect. You have each and every AG of every state that reserves the right to pursue fraud on a standalone basis. That is concept that you fail to grasp. Pretty much in total.

Quote:

Quote:The only responsibility the lender has is to themselves. So quit with the 'fiduciary duty' mumbo jumbo.

A fiduciary has an overriding legal responsibility to another. But please keep misusing that term.

and here is where your clear obsession with Trump is demonstrated

Because you dont have a clue what the term 'fiduciary' means and *you* use it willy nilly in a shallow manner is '[my] clear obsession with Trump'? Get real Ham.

Quote:So now in 'Tanq'-world... BORROWERS have a responsibility to make disclosures about their borrowings, but lenders do not.

Not at all, Ham. But please make more made up goo up and throw it against the wall.

If/when a lender abuses the realm of fraud on a persistent basis in making loans, AGs have every right to go after them in the same standalone basis.

Four elements :
1) is there an independent obligation by a party?
if yes
2) fraud or misrepresentation performed re: that obligation in the transaction?;
if yes,
3) that fraud or misrepresentation performed re: that obligation done on a persistent basis?
if yes to 3,
4) is that persistent fraud done in a business setting.

No focus at all on any counterparty. Imagine that. And Im sure you will slough it off, but that is very much the law as it pertains to AG actions. But maybe you will pull a Ham and stick your fingers in yiour ear and say it doesnt exist in that manner.

I mean, that is the list of stuff that AGs use, day in and day out. And they pursue lenders as a pretty common occurrence on that standalone basis.

So the bolded is simply fundamentally and abjectly false. Im sorry that you dont know this, but that is simply the basis of almost all AG actions for fraud. And nowhere do my comments imply or make that conclusion, nor have I ever made that comment explicitly.

Further, it is simply incorrect as a matter of the real world.

Quote:Hint... most lenders have investors... they have a fiduciary responsibility to them.... if they also make loans to 'the little guy' as required by the use of the Judge's ruling, then they ALSO have a fiduciary responsibility to them, governed by REAMS of regulation.

Depends on the investment vehicle Ham. If the investment is on behalf of their own equity holders -- yes --- all employees at a certain level and higher have fiduciary duties to their equity holders.

The 'fiduciary' responsibilities for 'let me put my money with you' class -- those duties are contractual in nature. Not natural fiduciary in nature.

As a general rule, lenders typically do not have or hold fiduciary responsibilities. The line that as a general rule that lenders are fiduciaries is stupid.

There are only a small handful of people that have fiduciary responsibilities either as a whole population or by law, or both. Attorneys to their clients, trustees to the beneficiaries, CEOs and board members to their shareholders. End of story.

Quote:You are quite literally arguing that the borrower, but not the lender has a duty to be
truthful when making a loan. That is demonstrably false.

Absolutely incorrect, Ham. I am not arguing that in the slightest. Lenders have their own form of fraud, and AGs pursue them for the standalone fraud on a normal basis. But leave it to you to not just make an incorrect statement, but then incorrectly stuff my mouth with stuff or conclusions that are are not just 'not what I said', but incorrect at law in the second place.

Quote: I have instead argued that they both do... by AGREEING TO TERMS.

The agreeing to terms has nothing to do with it, Ham.

Borrowers have an obligation to not lie to lenders or potential lenders. Period.
Lenders have an obligation not to lie about certain aspects of the loan, depending upon the scenario. Period.

These are each 'standalone' obligations. Period.

Quote:The judge has literally determined that Trump lied about the value of his property on his loan documents, but ignored that the lender agreed with him about that value being sufficient to repay/protect the loan...

And for the thousandth fing time -- immaterial. Nothing that the lender does absolves a fraud in lying about assets. There is a reason the law, and Judge Engoron, refers to this as 'standalone fraud'.

Quote:So of course you now have to thumb your nose at the idea of the lender having any legal or fiduciary responsibilities... It is only (in your mind) Trump.

Not at all. The problem is that you are highly ignorant of the concept of standalone fraud.

And seek to 'blame it my pursuit of Trump'. Sounds fun.

Quote:
FTR... I didn't pull the 'lenders had a hand in it' out of thin air as you apparently must claim to dismiss my comments... because the truth simply wouldn't.

I suggest you read Engoron's opinion then. You are still trying to jam all sorts of lenders into the issue, and wipe away an independent obligation based on them.

Im sorry you dont understand the hows and whys of state AGs and the issue of standalone fraud, or for that matter the concept of independent obligations.

You have from day one after the opinion tried to read crap into the concept that has no bearing on it. And still do, mind you.

All the while blaming me and my 'Trump thingy'.

For the umpteenth time:

Four elements :
1) is there an independent obligation by a party?
if yes
2) fraud or misrepresentation performed re: that obligation in the transaction?;
if yes,
3) that fraud or misrepresentation performed re: that obligation done on a persistent basis?
if yes to 3,
4) is that persistent fraud done in a business setting.

I dont see any aspect that goes to your persistent comments on 'agreed to terms' (which by the way are kind of negated by point 1), or for that matter -- *anything* relating to the conduct of any counterparty to the above. Standalone fraud means 'standalone', mind you. It should be a clue. That is the focus is *wholly* on one party, and whetehr that party performed such acts that violate an independent obligation. That is the analysis is *solely* on one actor. As they have been for close to a century.

Regardless of how many times you squawk about a lender in this case, or capital scream "ACCORDING TO THE TERMS" (funny, I dont see that concept anywhere in the above steps, do you?).

Hate to tell you Ham, you are clueless in the aspect of what standalone fraud entails, or, for that matter, the how and why a state AG gets involved. Instead you thrash about from immaterial point to immaterial point,

Quote:Either they are inept and negligent or complicit.

That could be or not. But in the context of an AG standalone charge -- immaterial. But please continue on your sermon here.

Quote:Those are really the only obvious possibilities I see. ALL of those represent a risk to the very same people that the state here claims they must protect. Easily arguably, an inept, negligent or complicit lender is a vastly GREATER risk to the system than ANY single borrower. I'm sorry that such obvious truths get in the way of your obsession.

I have *zero* problem with the vast number of standalone fraud actions against lenders that are brought forth every year.

Quote:

Quote:Second, the issue that the state is policing is the persistent actions of bad actors. Before you fly into a tizzy about my use of that term, take the term as 'someone the state persistently violates an obligation', that is before your kneejerk comment on 'you just hate Trump' (which you made a bit back on this term about me, and I chose to overlook).

Jesus... this is directly out of DSM.
First you preemptively accuse me of 'flying in a tizzy' when no such prediliction exists.

Jeezus Krist on Kracker Ham -- your missive above is *laden* this post alone has three of the fktard 'trump obsession' comments alone. Talk about gaslighting.

Quote:Second, you all but admit your obsession with Trump (or at least your obsession with labeling anyone who disagrees with you as 'favoring' Trump) by another preemption... and
Third, you then try and make yourself feel better by having previously ignored it, even though you clearly aren't now.

And yo fly right into a sermon on the garbage now. Ham -- *you* are the person that is taking great pains to studiously be ignorant about standalone fraud.

Yes, I dont like Trump. If there is no standalone fraud here -- he should walk.

Quote:

Quote:So have fun telling us all about the bankers, the counterparties, and all the rest. It. Doesn't. Matter. The obligation to not misrepresent your financial position to a lender is an independent, stand alone obligation of the borrower.

Once again with the shape-shifting definitions.

I'll try for the last time to make this clear to you.

It is obvious how misrepresenting your financial position to a lender is a bad act. That has never been disputed.

What is not clear is how the lender is apparently not capable of 'defending himself' which is a requirement that YOU PREVIOUSLY ACKNOWLEDGED for the purposes of this state requirement that Trump violated. The lender has multiple ways of defending himself... chief among them, he can deny the loan. He can change the terms of the loan... all sorts of things. Once issued, he can also often 'call' the loan should events change or in the event of a late discovery of the misrepresentation, cancel the loan and sue the borrower for fraud.

What is not clear is your studied ignorance on independent obligations, and standalone fraud.

Here is it is *yet* fing again: 3rd time in the post, about 9 overall ---

Four elements :
1) is there an independent obligation by a party?
if yes
2) fraud or misrepresentation performed re: that obligation in the transaction?;
if yes,
3) that fraud or misrepresentation performed re: that obligation done on a persistent basis?
if yes to 3,
4) is that persistent fraud done in a business setting.

Not much hard about that. But you seem to want to magically transform it. JFC.

Do you think you can taop your ruby slippers together and amgically disappear away that truism that exists in those four steps? or maybe if you *magically* invoke the 'lender' again it will magically disappear. Seriously, get a clue.

Quote:That said, You might want to refresh yourself on the banking and lending regulations environment... not to mention English. The necessity of lenders to do their due diligence and accurately report such information to a wide variety of state, local and federal regulators is vast... contrary to your statement here. It's addressed under a different statute, for sure... because as I said... this statute serves no legitimate purpose without the others. It is not until the lender is injured that the state has anyone's interest to protect.

I dont doubt those Ham. Those dont magically wash away the independent obligation of the borrower. *That* is the point.

And to cut your next wild goose chase short -- the actions of the borrower dont cut the lender obligations short either.

Quote:So now the question becomes... what powers does the state have to rectify the situation? I fail to see how convicting Trump of anything at this point helps to protect the lender from loss. It doesn't seem that they have any power to 'undo' the loan, nor to change the terms of it. So again, what is the purpose of this disclosure.

Read my response to banker yesterday. Already addressed. I'd tell you to read it, but you dont do such a good job with the idea of 'standalone fraud actions', or of 'independent obligations', or even the elements of an AG standalone fraud action noted above.

Cant wait for your next missive that invokes all the wonderful immaterial aspects that serve as your bread and butter.

(10-09-2023 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This is where you are off base Ham. Wholly.

You have a poor habit of responding line by line... which prevents you from putting each line in context to previous conversations, previous words or the words that follow. It's not just not helpful, but intellectually flawed. It's great for people who want to argue about what we're arguing about, but it's not great for anyone else.

The bottom line is that you have not even attempted to respond to any of the questions I've asked or points I've raised, other than to misrepresent what they were and arrogantly argue that they are immaterial. You're ONLY correct that they are immaterial based on the absurd way you present them.... but I didn't present them that way. You just keep bobbing and weaving and parrying and deflecting.... but never for a moment responding to such simple comments and requests.

You have ignored what the judge has said in favor of your own arguments. You keep telling me to 'read the opinion', but when I speak about what he said in the opinion, you make up your own arguments... often using words that conflict with what the judge actually wrote....

Bob, weave, parry, deflect.

Your ridiculous trope about 'washing away responsibility of the borrower' is not only not remotely what I said, but it goes right back at you towards the lender... in fact that is my entire point of that exchange. This fraud you claim exists was apparently not caught by any other regulatory body... nor even the lender itself... despite that being their purpose in existing.... and instead it just so happens that a politician who RAN on the platform of 'getting Trump' just magically happens to stumble across it?

The odds against that are incalculable...

(10-09-2023 03:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-09-2023 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This is where you are off base Ham. Wholly.

Bob, weave, parry, deflect.

Where I come from, that's just a fancy way of lying.

(10-09-2023 03:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-09-2023 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This is where you are off base Ham. Wholly.

You have a poor habit of responding line by line... which prevents you from putting each line in context to previous conversations, previous words or the words that follow. It's not just not helpful, but intellectually flawed. It's great for people who want to argue about what we're arguing about, but it's not great for anyone else.

Bummer. Boo hoo, ham.

Quote:The bottom line is that you have not even attempted to respond to any of the questions I've asked or points I've raised, other than to misrepresent what they were and arrogantly argue that they are immaterial.

Because legally they actually *are* immaterial in the context of an AG action, Ham. Lolz. Not arrogant -- just factual.

As to the issues, I sent you a detailed PM on *why* and *how* an AG action deviates from your continued clamoring. You responded like an asshat to that PM which contained *zero* rancor in it Ham.

Quote:You're ONLY correct that they are immaterial based on the absurd way you present them....

And *only* in how an AG approaches a standalone fraud case, mind you. Im not calling you immaterial -- the issues are *very* material in a private party action.

The isssues are wholly immaterial in an AG standalone fraud action.

But please get pissy on that. Good fing grief.

Quote:but I didn't present them that way. You just keep bobbing and weaving and parrying and deflecting.... but never for a moment responding to such simple comments and requests.

I have told you exactly what is happening. I responded pretty much in full. Third party considerations are for the most part immaterial in the context of an AG standalone fraud action. *That* is the answer. That is the response. The *only* thing that really matters is :

1) did the Defendant breach an obligation and misrepresent or commit fraud in the context of the ongoing obligation?
2) did the defendant do 1) numerous times (i.e. in a persistent manner); and
3) did 1 and 2 happen in business in the state?

or, as I posted more than once today ----

1) is there an independent obligation by a party?
if yes
2) fraud or misrepresentation performed re: that obligation in the transaction?;
if yes,
3) that fraud or misrepresentation performed re: that obligation done on a persistent basis?
if yes to 3,
4) is that persistent fraud done in a business setting.

No bobbing, no weaving, no parrying, no deflecting. Thats it. If you look at the above, there is no issue that pertains to *any* counterparty in the AG action.

The issue is that you keep trying to speak over the actual law, and the actual issues in the present action to something that *you* seemingly think is important.

And they are important -- in a private action. They are wholly immaterial in an AG action. Good fing god. Only the 13th or 14th time Ive posted that walkthrough....

Quote:You have ignored what the judge has said in favor of your own arguments. You keep telling me to 'read the opinion', but when I speak about what he said in the opinion, you make up your own arguments... often using words that conflict with what the judge actually wrote....

What words of mine conflict conflict with the opinion, Ham? Be precise.

Quote:Bob, weave, parry, deflect.

If you bothered to actually understand the walkthrough I provided you, you might realize there is none there.

Or, dont address that accurate reflection of the legal steps in an AG standalone fraud case. Maybe go 'Ham' on them tell the person that you dont care to even address the actual issues (which you have done previously to that list of elements), make up your own **** to pug into the issue (which you do when you clamor about lenders, loans, and all the other detritus that doesnt appear in those elements above), and then accuse the other person of "Bob, weave, parry, deflect." (which you have done now in this post ---- twice in fact)

Bravo there Ham.

Quote:Your ridiculous trope about 'washing away responsibility of the borrower' is not only not remotely what I said, but it goes right back at you towards the lender... in fact that is my entire point of that exchange. This fraud you claim exists was apparently not caught by any other regulatory body... nor even the lender itself... despite that being their purpose in existing....

The reason I am bringing up the 'washing away the obligations of the borrower' is that you are utilizing the actions of the counter party lender as some sort of justification or counterweight to the borrower obligations. For the fifth fing time -- that would be a correct response in a private party action, and for the fiftieth time that is immaterial in the context of an AG action.

You keep clamoring 'lender this' and 'lender that', and 'lender to the starboard' as some counterweight to the analysis in a standalone fraud case in an AG action. In that sense yes, you are trying incorrectly to do just that in the AG case.

Quick English project for you Ham -- where in that list of 4 elements is a lender or counterparty even implicated in a case involving borrower misrepresentations. What in the following list does that?

1) is there an independent obligation by a party? (Answer: NOTHING RE: THE LENDER IS IMPLICATED IN THIS STEP)
if yes
2) fraud or misrepresentation performed re: that obligation in the transaction?; (Answer: NOTHING RE: THE LENDER IS IMPLICATED IN THIS STEP)
if yes,
3) that fraud or misrepresentation performed re: that obligation done on a persistent basis? (Answer: NOTHING RE: THE LENDER IS IMPLICATED IN THIS STEP)
if yes to 3,
4) is that persistent fraud done in a business setting. (Answer: NOTHING RE: THE LENDER IS IMPLICATED IN THIS STEP)

Capiche?

And before you wet your knickers completely, the above is applicable to *both* sides of a transaction, where applicable. In fact, state AGs go after lenders on this exact same premise, and simply look at the lender's obligations in isolation in that case. Just so you dont traipse down the ace-stupid 'it never deals with the issues of lenders' non-issue that was one of your previous 'pull it out of the fing air' conclusions.

For someone with a modicum of education, that following listing of every element does not implicate any action or reaction by a lender (or by a regulatory body, or any third person for that matter). No implication of a third party *might* lead to the conclusion that the actions and economics and responsibilities of the lender are not at issue for an AG action. because, well.... the lender is a third party in this action. That is (drum roll.....)--- the issues of the third parties are utterly immaterial to the action that the AG is taking here.

Again, to soothe your ego -- they*are* important in a lender action, or a third party action. But, last time I saw the pleadings the action is the state AG. But please continue to tell us that this isnt so. Or act that it isnt so in the continued reliance on lenders, and lender responsibilities, and regulatory bodies, and all the wonderful third parties that you think you can tap your ruby shoes together and magically insert such issues into the AG action.

Quote:and instead it just so happens that a politician who RAN on the platform of 'getting Trump' just magically happens to stumble across it?

The odds against that are incalculable...

Well, I suggest ou read the AG elements and tell us why this convoluted **** about lenders and regulatory agencies has any bearing whatsoever, why dont you.

Here is the short answer: There is *no* interplay considered by a regulatory body, or a lender. For about the fifty *first* time. Ill try and avoid 'immaterial' as you seemingly get triggered by that word when you misunderstand the issue.

There is no 'regulatory body' issue, or 'lender diligence' issue in the fing slightest for *anyone* to stumble across. You actually *dont* need to calculate the odds that you scream so shrilly at above, mind you. But hey, awesome (yet completely empty) rhetorical phrase. Bravo again.....

All that the issue is, for the the *sixth* time *today*:

1) is there an independent obligation by a party?
if yes
2) fraud or misrepresentation performed re: that obligation in the transaction?;
if yes,
3) that fraud or misrepresentation performed re: that obligation done on a persistent basis?
if yes to 3,
4) is that persistent fraud done in a business setting.

My comments on the stance of the case and opinion have been consistent, and in line with how every AG approaches a standalone fraud case.

And in context of Trump specifically, if he persistently engaged in fraudulent acts to gain business advantages, I have *zero* issue with his business licenses being stripped by a state where he persistently engaged in those acts, nor do I have *any* issue with disgorgement of profits attributable to such persistent fraud (if such disgorgement amounts are determined).

And prior to flipping out, note the presence of the word 'if'. Twice, in fact.

And for the record -- feel free to scratch 'trump' out of the above and replace it with any name whatsoever. Literally --- wash, rinse, and repeat for any person or entity.

wow.... that is *super* duper infinite anti-Trump. Better watch to see how fing high Ham jumps at that.

my head hurts …

(10-09-2023 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's see if this accurately contrasts our positions.

You are convinced that Donald Trump repeatedly broke the law, but undecided about inappropriate partisanship on the part of law enforcement, and will therefore wait for proof before deciding that.

I am convinced that law enforcement is behaving in an inappropriately partisan manner, and will therefore wait on proof in a court of law before deciding Donald Trump's guilt or innocence.

I am not claiming that Donald Trump is innocent. I am saying that I find the bias on the part of law enforcement to be so extreme that I am skeptical about his guilt. I think a part of the communication problem is that it is impossible to comment about the extent to which I think law enforcement has run amok on this without what could be interpreted as at least some implication tat Donald Trump is innocent. But I am intending the comments only to imply a rogue law enforcement tat is seeking to implement its own views above those of the American people. And that is what I find to be the greatest threat to our democratic republic.

And when what I consider to be possibly far greater guilt on the part of others (Hillary, the Bidens) is going unpunished and/or not even investigated rigorously as a result of what appears to be te same bias, I have a hard time believing what I've been told.

As for the above -- agree with the first two paragraphs for the most part. I am confused when I actually say that I am waiting for more factual record to be provided in the fraud case, why the kneejerk response is aimed at that as well as my comments prior to trial on my belief on DJT and the election and MAL issue.

That is what your just recent comment seemed to do from my perspective.

As for the third paragraph, in the terms that my bias seems to be against Trump in terms of J6 and MAL issues, it seems readily apparent that your bias is in the opposite direction across issues relating to DJT.

On the fourth paragraph, you are free to believe in any cabal or conspiracy that you wish. I have stopped commenting on your holding them for the most part ---excepting the times you invoke that belief in that cabal to chastise my 'we will see, and until sufficient hard proof is presented, I will remain skeptical' stance.

I dont think that stance holds water -- I think it is now a rum-ready insta-excuse for anything -- especially in absolving what I see as very real shortcomings in DJT and his propensity to actually (imo) commit fairly flagrant crimes and infractions.

As I said, you are absolutely free to believe it. Free country and all that jazz. And, unless it is used in a manner to chastise my beliefs, I dont think I have raised it with you. If I have as a 'first shot' --- mea culpa. I shall try and remain more diligent in not raising that difference between us on the 'cabal issue'.

(10-07-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 12:28 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 12:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 10:44 PM)banker Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 05:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Sorry I didnt see it.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this.

If Trump engaged in fraudulent activity, I have zero problem with this pursuit.

If anyone engages in the level and depth of activity as has been alleged I wouldnt have a problem.

Notwithstanding if Trump has a political history or not ---

No one forced Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

No one pointed a gun at Trump's head to make Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

And it seems clear from the record that it is a real issue. And trump has every opportunity to present his side in the remaining counts. And he has every right to pursue an appeal of the corporate death penalty represented by the SJ.

If you think others have done this same thing at this apparent level -- then I would have zero issue with a similar AG action.

If in fact there is liability here due to persistent behavior, bummer that Trump did it and was quite prominent. If it is found he persistently breached his obligations -- kind of stupid to operate that way for a score of years and hope to fly under the radar with it with a prominent political career following those actions.

If it is found that he was pure and innocent as the driven snow, Ill take your position. The record doesnt really help him here on that.

Criminy, right now, his attorneys are now arguing that everything was because of his accountants -- Kise mentioned he thinks Mazur should be the one on trial here. That doesnt sound like a defense that is saying 'good appraisals, and good financial condition' -- it sounds as though they are admitting the issues in the SCFs and simply pointing the finger. The testimony of Trump's ex-controller (and fellow defendant in the suit) today certainly didnt help the 'there is nothing wrong in the statements' defense page.

Kind of a far cry from what the gallery here is repeating. I guess that hot take hasnt come through with the new messaging yet.

You know, I’m not an attorney, but feel I have a pretty good grasp having been in many depositions, on both sides of the table over the years. Your reply reminds me of something my counsel told me once. “If they ask you the time, don’t tell them how to build a f’in clock. Just answer the question.”

My question was “do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer with an identical fact pattern?”

Your entire response was layered speculation when all I asked is what you personally believe.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this. I dont know which it is.

Why don't you answer the question ? It's a simple yes or no answer.

I have answered the question.

The question is (was) "“do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer"

"I dont know" is an answer -- and a valid one. Maybe not the one *you* like, but it reflects my mind set.

Kind of like what my answer would be to 'is music a better area of study than art'.

It looks like you might have missed the key word in the question that was asked. The word believe. In this world you don't have to have cold hard facts to not believe in something. Kind of like when you were a kid and you believed in Santa Claus. Your answer of " I don't know" is just sitting on the middle of a fence. I'm surprised you don't answer the question with a yes or no since the answer would be a matter of an opinion.
Do you believe this case has political motivations ? Yes or No You could Plead the 5th

Does anybody care enough about what this guy says to read all that nonsense? Man o man.

Ignore feature.

(10-09-2023 06:06 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 12:28 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 12:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 10:44 PM)banker Wrote:  You know, I’m not an attorney, but feel I have a pretty good grasp having been in many depositions, on both sides of the table over the years. Your reply reminds me of something my counsel told me once. “If they ask you the time, don’t tell them how to build a f’in clock. Just answer the question.”

My question was “do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer with an identical fact pattern?”

Your entire response was layered speculation when all I asked is what you personally believe.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this. I dont know which it is.

Why don't you answer the question ? It's a simple yes or no answer.

I have answered the question.

The question is (was) "“do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer"

"I dont know" is an answer -- and a valid one. Maybe not the one *you* like, but it reflects my mind set.

Kind of like what my answer would be to 'is music a better area of study than art'.

Do you believe this case has political motivations ? Yes or No

I. Dont. Know. That is my 'belief', even in light of all your thrashing on the word 'believe'.

Apparently that three word phrase is a too complex of a concept for you.

It will be more interesting to read his justification for the state’s ultimate loss of this case than his justification of its pursuit. Looking forward to why he “believes” the appeals court was wrong.

(10-09-2023 08:43 PM)banker Wrote:  It will be more interesting to read his justification for the state’s ultimate loss of this case than his justification of its pursuit. Looking forward to why he “believes” the appeals court was wrong.

The state could lose one or more of the remaining counts in this case -- absolutely. Or the state could lose some or all counts at appeal. That is also a possibility, no doubt.

Please state exactly where I have said 'no matter what the state will win'? I dont remember making that comment.

Right now ---

At the trial court, SJ for state on count 1. Order to revoke the business licenses. On appeal, with the revocation timetable on hold.

Count 1 damages are for trial -- not SJ.

Counts 2 - 9 are still in the hopper. Lot tougher to meet -- many of them require much more materiality *and* an intent to do the actions from the defendants.

The testimony of the ex-controller did go so well for the defense side. Considering the ex-controller is also a co-defendant that was an ballsy move by the AG. But they already had his previous testimony in the criminal fraud trial in the hopper.

The testimony from him saying Eric Trump explicitly told him to make up 7 houses on the 7 Springs property wont be much help for the defense. Nor his testimony saying the previous CFO, again another co-defendant, demanded that he commit tax fraud -- which happens to be count 5 in the Counts 2 - 9 above. Those fall into 'ouchie' territory.

https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/2023/...job/95541/

https://fortune.com/2023/10/06/trump-tri...net-worth/

And that he included a series of valuations for MAL on the basis that it could be sold as private residences, even in light of direct knowledge of deed restrictions to the contrary. Not a good help to the defense there.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-AA1hyBsB (see the entry at 12:58 pm)

Not a good witness for the defense.

When the hole is dug deep enough I know who will be at the bottom. And he will still be arguing that he alone is right.

(10-09-2023 09:09 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  When the hole is dug deep enough I know who will be at the bottom. And he will still be arguing that he alone is right.

Again -- Please state exactly where I have said 'no matter what the state will win'? I dont remember making that comment.

Maybe you missed this one --- "The state could lose one or more of the remaining counts in this case -- absolutely. Or the state could lose some or all counts at appeal. That is also a possibility, no doubt."

You truly do have a serious comprehension issue, UStateSchool.

(10-09-2023 09:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-09-2023 09:09 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  When the hole is dug deep enough I know who will be at the bottom. And he will still be arguing that he alone is right.

Again -- Please state exactly where I have said 'no matter what the state will win'? I dont remember making that comment.

Maybe you missed this one --- "The state could lose one or more of the remaining counts in this case -- absolutely. Or the state could lose some or all counts at appeal. That is also a possibility, no doubt."

You truly do have a serious comprehension issue, UStateSchool.

Now you are flailing so badly that you cant even keep straight which sh*tbird is schooling your ass.

$25million for the Maralargo valuation.

Let's remove Trump and his kids from their companies for fraud and deny them a jury trial. Yea, thats constitutional.

AG LaTanq James campaigns on going after Trump, brings up this ridiculous case and gets ridiculed by the left and right, and you dont know if its political or not?

Oh he who puts words in the mouths of other, please show me where I said that you said they would win the case. It’s weird that you just kind of make up the argument you want to fight. All my comment implied was that I believe (yes, bold people aren’t afraid to state their beliefs and opinions) that Trump will prevail, or get a wrist slap, on appeal and that we be interesting to watch you spin.

From reading your novellas, it’s obviously you believe the case has merit, so it would be entertaining to watch you spin how that merit should have been enough because, you know, he is Trump and all that.