(10-25-2023 09:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 08:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And who apparently actually engaged in persistent standalone fraud according to the summary judgment.

If you believe that the summary judgement reflects an accurate and unbiased conclusion based on facts. I don't believe that.

Can you provide background evidence of your belief that the SJ is not accurate or biased?

(10-25-2023 09:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 09:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 08:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And who apparently actually engaged in persistent standalone fraud according to the summary judgment.

If you believe that the summary judgement reflects an accurate and unbiased conclusion based on facts. I don't believe that.

Can you provide background evidence of your belief that the SJ is not accurate or biased?

Simply the fact that I have read it and do not reach the same conclusion.

(10-25-2023 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 09:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 09:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 08:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And who apparently actually engaged in persistent standalone fraud according to the summary judgment.

If you believe that the summary judgement reflects an accurate and unbiased conclusion based on facts. I don't believe that.

Can you provide background evidence of your belief that the SJ is not accurate or biased?

Simply the fact that I have read it and do not reach the same conclusion.

XACLY!

tanq, answer this simple question … forget your anal retentive legalese position(s) … do you honestly believe these 91 indictments are NOT due to another politicized weapon being used by the alphabet agencies and blue state legislative arms?

I know you to be a man of your word … a simple yes or no is all I’m asking…

#TIA

(10-25-2023 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 09:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 09:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 08:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And who apparently actually engaged in persistent standalone fraud according to the summary judgment.

If you believe that the summary judgement reflects an accurate and unbiased conclusion based on facts. I don't believe that.

Can you provide background evidence of your belief that the SJ is not accurate or biased?

Simply the fact that I have read it and do not reach the same conclusion.

What bases do you find faulty, as opposed to just the conclusion?

Have you read the defendants' opposition to the SJ judgement, ir the motions (both sides) themselves?

(10-25-2023 10:22 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 09:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 09:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 08:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And who apparently actually engaged in persistent standalone fraud according to the summary judgment.

If you believe that the summary judgement reflects an accurate and unbiased conclusion based on facts. I don't believe that.

Can you provide background evidence of your belief that the SJ is not accurate or biased?

Simply the fact that I have read it and do not reach the same conclusion.

XACLY!

tanq, answer this simple question … forget your anal retentive legalese position(s) … do you honestly believe these 91 indictments are NOT due to another politicized weapon being used by the alphabet agencies and blue state legislative arms?

I know you to be a man of your word … a simple yes or no is all I’m asking…

#TIA

Good luck with a yes or no answer.

DA: Maralargo is only valued at $25million

(10-25-2023 10:22 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 09:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 09:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 08:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And who apparently actually engaged in persistent standalone fraud according to the summary judgment.

If you believe that the summary judgement reflects an accurate and unbiased conclusion based on facts. I don't believe that.

Can you provide background evidence of your belief that the SJ is not accurate or biased?

Simply the fact that I have read it and do not reach the same conclusion.

XACLY!

tanq, answer this simple question … forget your anal retentive legalese position(s) … do you honestly believe these 91 indictments are NOT due to another politicized weapon being used by the alphabet agencies and blue state legislative arms?

I know you to be a man of your word … a simple yes or no is all I’m asking…

#TIA

Cant be answered with a 'yes' or a 'no'. Not all 91 are being brought by the same people and with a same purpose.

I can truthfully say that the Bragg case *is* an overcharge -- a pretty big stretch. In Bragg's issue (the Stormy Daniels stuff, for the record), there is evidence of items being charged (or overcharged) with not a large amount of basis --- in that case I think that on its surface *could* be viewed in the manner you note above.

In order --

Smith/MAL -- Trump pretty much obstructed justice, he pissed on a subpoena for the stuff. He lied about having them. Trump made his own bed in that issue with that move.

Smith/J6 -- I have zero issue with the charges brought against Trump for his actions in the latter stages of the 'election dispute'. Once again, he apparently used lies to try and coerce a VP to simply ditch votes; he misrepresented electors that had no basis in certification by their states as the real deal. Even when there were *no* ongoing disputes in the state leges and any courts.

I have zero issue with Trump having alternate slates in his pocket, ready on the off chance that a lege action would step in or a court would. But every single instance of that had already been shitballed by the leges and by the courts.

His trying to coerce Pence to simply shitcan electoral voters after that is reprehensible. His trying to pass off slates as valid electors is fraud.

My comments above are what the facts tend to show. Of course Ill listen to Trump and any defense he puts into the record. And if Trump's actions come across as valid, I am free to change my mind.

But Trump in the above I think should at least face a court for those issues.

Ga/ Willis case -- see the above.

I cant lump all of the charges into one bucket.

Sorry about *not* answering 'yes/no', but they are all different.

(10-25-2023 10:31 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 10:22 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 09:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 09:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If you believe that the summary judgement reflects an accurate and unbiased conclusion based on facts. I don't believe that.

Can you provide background evidence of your belief that the SJ is not accurate or biased?

Simply the fact that I have read it and do not reach the same conclusion.

XACLY!

tanq, answer this simple question … forget your anal retentive legalese position(s) … do you honestly believe these 91 indictments are NOT due to another politicized weapon being used by the alphabet agencies and blue state legislative arms?

I know you to be a man of your word … a simple yes or no is all I’m asking…

#TIA

Good luck with a yes or no answer.

Not all of the 91 are the same, are they?

(10-25-2023 10:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  DA: Maralargo is only valued at $25million

Maybe one day you might realize the difference between an AG and a DA.

The SJ may make sense to someone unfamiliar with commercial real estate transactions. Tanq, I know that's not you, and I would expect that as a libertarian you would have a healthy distrust of bureaucratic lackeys, so I am still puzzled by your position.

Commercial property valuation is more art than science. With residential you know it is in this neighbourhood, has this many square feet, this many bedrooms. this many bathrooms, size of garage and attached/detached, amenities like pool, lakefront, golf course, etc., and from there it is pretty much formulaic.

Commercial properties are valued based on cash flow. The valuations were presumably based upon the cash flows that the Trump organization expected that it could manage to achieve. The bank obviously agreed that those cash flow projections were realistic, or else would not have made the loans. And the fact that the loans were repaid or are being repaid in a timely manner suggests very strongly (basically there is no other possibility) that those cash flows were achieved. Therefore I see no basis for a conclusion that the properties were materially overvalued.

Also, the primary party that was the victim of any such fraud would be the bank, and none of the banks involved saw fit to initiate any kind of civil action.

In that context, I simply cannot accept the judge's conclusions as being reasonably or objectively reached.

(10-25-2023 11:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 10:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  DA: Maralargo is only valued at $25million

Maybe one day you might realize the difference between an AG and a DA.

Also word search and spell check...but "might" is doing an awful lot of work here.

Who is suing Trump in this one? The state?

(10-25-2023 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The SJ may make sense to someone unfamiliar with commercial real estate transactions. Tanq, I know that's not you, and I would expect that as a libertarian you would have a healthy distrust of bureaucratic lackeys, so I am still puzzled by your position.

Commercial property valuation is more art than science. With residential you know it is in this neighbourhood, has this many square feet, this many bedrooms. this many bathrooms, size of garage and attached/detached, amenities like pool, lakefront, golf course, etc., and from there it is pretty much formulaic.

Commercial properties are valued based on cash flow. The valuations were presumably based upon the cash flows that the Trump organization expected that it could manage to achieve. The bank obviously agreed that those cash flow projections were realistic, or else would not have made the loans. And the fact that the loans were repaid or are being repaid in a timely manner suggests very strongly (basically there is no other possibility) that those cash flows were achieved. Therefore I see no basis for a conclusion that the properties were materially overvalued.

Also, the primary party that was the victim of any such fraud would be the bank, and none of the banks involved saw fit to initiate any kind of civil action.

In that context, I simply cannot accept the judge's conclusions as being reasonably or objectively reached.

Have you read any of the underlying Exhibits on valuation for the SJ, or read the NY issues in their motion for SJ? Or the Trump responses to SJ?

(10-25-2023 11:21 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Who is suing Trump in this one? The state?

The state of NY is suing Trump and seeking to end his business licenses in the state, and a penalty for engaging in persistent fraud in the course of their business.

(10-25-2023 11:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 11:21 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Who is suing Trump in this one? The state?

The state of NY is suing Trump and seeking to end his business licenses in the state, and a penalty for engaging in persistent fraud in the course of their business.

So the state is basically saying his businesses are in violation of their state license because they inflate values on bank/loan documents? Didn't know that was a thing. I inflate a bit from time to time and thought it was the bank's job to verify.

(10-25-2023 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 10:22 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 09:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 09:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If you believe that the summary judgement reflects an accurate and unbiased conclusion based on facts. I don't believe that.

Can you provide background evidence of your belief that the SJ is not accurate or biased?

Simply the fact that I have read it and do not reach the same conclusion.

XACLY!

tanq, answer this simple question … forget your anal retentive legalese position(s) … do you honestly believe these 91 indictments are NOT due to another politicized weapon being used by the alphabet agencies and blue state legislative arms?

I know you to be a man of your word … a simple yes or no is all I’m asking…

#TIA

Cant be answered with a 'yes' or a 'no'. Not all 91 are being brought by the same people and with a same purpose.

I can truthfully say that the Bragg case *is* an overcharge -- a pretty big stretch. In Bragg's issue (the Stormy Daniels stuff, for the record), there is evidence of items being charged (or overcharged) with not a large amount of basis --- in that case I think that on its surface *could* be viewed in the manner you note above.

In order --

Smith/MAL -- Trump pretty much obstructed justice, he pissed on a subpoena for the stuff. He lied about having them. Trump made his own bed in that issue with that move.

Smith/J6 -- I have zero issue with the charges brought against Trump for his actions in the latter stages of the 'election dispute'. Once again, he apparently used lies to try and coerce a VP to simply ditch votes; he misrepresented electors that had no basis in certification by their states as the real deal. Even when there were *no* ongoing disputes in the state leges and any courts.

I have zero issue with Trump having alternate slates in his pocket, ready on the off chance that a lege action would step in or a court would. But every single instance of that had already been shitballed by the leges and by the courts.

His trying to coerce Pence to simply shitcan electoral voters after that is reprehensible. His trying to pass off slates as valid electors is fraud.

My comments above are what the facts tend to show. Of course Ill listen to Trump and any defense he puts into the record. And if Trump's actions come across as valid, I am free to change my mind.

But Trump in the above I think should at least face a court for those issues.

Ga/ Willis case -- see the above.

I cant lump all of the charges into one bucket.

Sorry about *not* answering 'yes/no', but they are all different.

which is why I phrased the question (addressed both state and fed agencies) as if you were on the witness stand … yes, you could have … you chose to ignore my question…

#sigh

+++ to Redbanksdog!

(10-25-2023 11:44 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 10:22 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 09:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Can you provide background evidence of your belief that the SJ is not accurate or biased?

Simply the fact that I have read it and do not reach the same conclusion.

XACLY!

tanq, answer this simple question … forget your anal retentive legalese position(s) … do you honestly believe these 91 indictments are NOT due to another politicized weapon being used by the alphabet agencies and blue state legislative arms?

I know you to be a man of your word … a simple yes or no is all I’m asking…

#TIA

Cant be answered with a 'yes' or a 'no'. Not all 91 are being brought by the same people and with a same purpose.

I can truthfully say that the Bragg case *is* an overcharge -- a pretty big stretch. In Bragg's issue (the Stormy Daniels stuff, for the record), there is evidence of items being charged (or overcharged) with not a large amount of basis --- in that case I think that on its surface *could* be viewed in the manner you note above.

In order --

Smith/MAL -- Trump pretty much obstructed justice, he pissed on a subpoena for the stuff. He lied about having them. Trump made his own bed in that issue with that move.

Smith/J6 -- I have zero issue with the charges brought against Trump for his actions in the latter stages of the 'election dispute'. Once again, he apparently used lies to try and coerce a VP to simply ditch votes; he misrepresented electors that had no basis in certification by their states as the real deal. Even when there were *no* ongoing disputes in the state leges and any courts.

I have zero issue with Trump having alternate slates in his pocket, ready on the off chance that a lege action would step in or a court would. But every single instance of that had already been shitballed by the leges and by the courts.

His trying to coerce Pence to simply shitcan electoral voters after that is reprehensible. His trying to pass off slates as valid electors is fraud.

My comments above are what the facts tend to show. Of course Ill listen to Trump and any defense he puts into the record. And if Trump's actions come across as valid, I am free to change my mind.

But Trump in the above I think should at least face a court for those issues.

Ga/ Willis case -- see the above.

I cant lump all of the charges into one bucket.

Sorry about *not* answering 'yes/no', but they are all different.

which is why I phrased the question (addressed both state and fed agencies) as if you were on the witness stand … yes, you could have … you chose to ignore my question…

#sigh

+++ to Redbanksdog!

Apologies -- cant lump all 91 into the same basket from my perspective. If you meant to say 'do you believe none of the charges might have a political basis' --- the answer would be 'maybe not'. The Bragg indictments and charges could very well be that, based on what I see as *very* aggressive charging and a very real issue of overcharging mixed in there.

(10-25-2023 11:39 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 11:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 11:21 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Who is suing Trump in this one? The state?

The state of NY is suing Trump and seeking to end his business licenses in the state, and a penalty for engaging in persistent fraud in the course of their business.

So the state is basically saying his businesses are in violation of their state license because they inflate values on bank/loan documents?

Among other violations.

Quote: Didn't know that was a thing.

State enforcement actions are pretty common.

Quote: I inflate a bit from time to time and thought it was the bank's job to verify.

The issue is 'persistent' fraud -- in breadth and depth.

(10-25-2023 11:39 AM)fsquid Wrote:  I inflate a bit from time to time and thought it was the bank's job to verify.

Curious, don't the documents you sign state that the information is true and accurate? So the bank may not always verify everything, but seems like you're taking a legal risk should they decide to.

(10-25-2023 12:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 11:39 AM)fsquid Wrote:  I inflate a bit from time to time and thought it was the bank's job to verify.

Curious, don't the documents you sign state that the information is true and accurate? So the bank may not always verify everything, but seems like you're taking a legal risk should they decide to.

These are contracts.... so the banks are similarly signing off on things. They don't have to verify them, but that is the risk that THEY take.

The question remains... why does the state have a dog in this fight if the lender didn't?

The argument made by the judge was that such misrepresentations place access to those who can't defend themselves (so NOT the lender, who obviously has a lot of money and power)..... but while that explanation certainly explains why they are pressing forward with those charges... the explanation itself literally holds no water.

This doesn't in any way mean that he didn't lie... It simply means the justification for the case is spurious at best.