(10-26-2023 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 08:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  How do you stack the above against the testimony on the requirement to 'back into a net worth' from Trump?

I'd call that something that happens frequently.

I agree that the testimony relating to making up individual valuations of properties to back into a net worth for Trump *is* something that is seemingly happening frequently.
In a related note, what is your take on the explicit note in the SFCs saying 'there is no Trump brand premium on the valuations herein' in light of the testimony and communications evidence saying to put anywhere between a 20% and 40% premium of various sorts based on the Trump name?

If you restrict the concept of a Trump brand premium to something that mysteriously appears when you affix the Trump name, then there may well be none.

But if you extend the meaning to include the impact of some management expertise in the Trump organization that allows them to manage properties in a way that they punch above their weight (like the de Roos example of turning a building worth NZ$18MM to one worth NZ$44MM by making no change to the property itself but simply getting a new tenant), I think there was probably some of that there.

If de Roos had valued the building in Auckland at NZ$44MM before he changed the tenant, would that have been a misrepresentation or fraud? But after the change, would it have been anything but correct? So what standard do you use to determine whether there has been a misrepresentation or fraud?

Again -- the financials had explicit statements in there with *no* Trump premium.

The testimony elicited statements internal to the Trump valuation of items like: 'Golf Course owned by ex-President -- 20% bump'.

Im limiting myself to testimony and facts brought forth in the case.

lulz

Maralargo - $25million

Lib delusion is just plain funny

(10-26-2023 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If you value a building based on projected future cash flow instead of as it sits, and that cash flow is realized (which seems to be the case here since the debt has been paid off or is being timely repaid) then there is no misrepresentation and no fraud.

Nice word -- "if".

Can you point out anywhere in the record that type of valuation theory was put forward by the trump defense?

That word "if" seems a strong linchpin in a lot of vectors.

"If" one could magically undo deeded use and development easements, one "might" be able to value a property at a full commercial amount. In fact, that word "if" is pointed out a lot in the Trump testimonies on valuation by the court.

Hmmm.... sounds fun. "If" my beat to hell ranch Expedition with 240k miles and a few bullet holes in various quarter panels was the same vehicle as the restored Ford Mustang Fastback that actually was used in "Bullitt", that thing is valued at 2.4 million dollars.

Magical word there -- if.

But you left off where he said that seems to be precisely what happened... and that I don't think I've ever seen a loan request for a rehab that didn't include some 'ifs'.... Those if's become part of the contract and are almost always actionable should they not be done... as in... I plan to turn this apartment into a condo... and if I do that, the value goes from 'x' to 'y'.... and I want a loan based on 'y'. I feel confident that we have all done things like this.

I don't know if Trump's lawyers argued that or not. Maybe they saw the writing on the wall and saved their powder, or maybe they were incompetent.... and while such things can certainly be legally binding... that really doesn't speak to the question of 'right vs wrong'.

The government shouldn't be allowed to disregard such basic principles because the accused has poor legal representation. It's not their job to fix it for them I suppose, but I'd think it would generally be the job of an appellate court... which to me means we waste time and money so that someone can declare 'victory'.

Again, if you've got the goods, you shouldn't need to rely on mistakes by the defense.

(10-26-2023 01:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If you value a building based on projected future cash flow instead of as it sits, and that cash flow is realized (which seems to be the case here since the debt has been paid off or is being timely repaid) then there is no misrepresentation and no fraud.

Nice word -- "if".

Can you point out anywhere in the record that type of valuation theory was put forward by the trump defense?

That word "if" seems a strong linchpin in a lot of vectors.

"If" one could magically undo deeded use and development easements, one "might" be able to value a property at a full commercial amount. In fact, that word "if" is pointed out a lot in the Trump testimonies on valuation by the court.

Hmmm.... sounds fun. "If" my beat to hell ranch Expedition with 240k miles and a few bullet holes in various quarter panels was the same vehicle as the restored Ford Mustang Fastback that actually was used in "Bullitt", that thing is valued at 2.4 million dollars.

Magical word there -- if.

But you left off where he said that seems to be precisely what happened... and that I don't think I've ever seen a loan request for a rehab that didn't include some 'ifs'.... Those if's become part of the contract and are almost always actionable should they not be done... as in... I plan to turn this apartment into a condo... and if I do that, the value goes from 'x' to 'y'.... and I want a loan based on 'y'. I feel confident that we have all done things like this.

My comment was on the use of 'if' to put in a conjecture that has zero basis in the facts of the case, Ham.

I understand that #s has claimed this method of valuation. Trump didnt seem to do that in the exhibits nor in his motions.

Instead Trump put into his valuation exhibits and testimony a world of 'ifs' that hadnt ever happened.

Again, the concept of *current* valuation gets destroyed with a string of 'ifs' placed in front of it.

*If* my expedition was the same car that Steve McQueen drove in Bullitt, the valuation would be 2.4 million dollars. That is *no* valid statement of current value -- in the slightest.

That is an exreme example to show the issue in full.

Quote:I don't know if Trump's lawyers argued that or not. Maybe they saw the writing on the wall and saved their powder, or maybe they were incompetent.... and while such things can certainly be legally binding... that really doesn't speak to the question of 'right vs wrong'.

Valuing a land with heavy deed restrictions as an unencumbered value is absolutely misrepresenting it. It is up to you to decide whether that blatant a falsehood when given to a third party is 'right' or 'wrong'.

Quote:The government shouldn't be allowed to disregard such basic principles because the accused has poor legal representation. It's not their job to fix it for them I suppose, but I'd think it would generally be the job of an appellate court... which to me means we waste time and money so that someone can declare 'victory'.

It isnt the job of any court to proffer correct proof or proffer relevant evidence for a party. That is solely the responsibility of the party in the lawsuit.

Quote:Again, if you've got the goods, you shouldn't need to rely on mistakes by the defense.

There is zero reliance on mistakes by the defense. That point you make above seems to mischaracterize the issue.

The state has the obligation to meet the burden of proof and moving forward on misrepresentative statements. That obligation contains within it the obligation to show the false statement, and the reason why it is false.

That is the 'goods' the state need to show. And they did that.

The job of the defense is to then refute either of the two above -- that the statement wasnt made as the state claimed, or a rationale why it isnt false.

The issue you speak of above seems to not be accurate. It isnt the state's job, once they make *their* case, to do the job of Trump's attorneys for Trump's interests.

a) The state proffered evidence of Trump's valuation(s) of any particular property;
b) The state proffered evidence of issues attaching to any particular property to show a material commission of a false statement, or an omission of a material issue in that;
c) In conjunction with b), they offered alternative valuations to denote the magnitude of the issue.

In the above, there is nothing that the state does in relying or not relying on Trump's counter. If they make the prima facie case, the analysis goes on. If they fail in making their case above -- it disappears *without any* work by Trump. In short, they dont ever rely on opponent mistakes in making the first case, which they are required to make.

If the case above is made, then Trump has an opportunity to directly refute.

Trump's attempts to directly refute contained 'if we sued to get the legal defect corrected that you note above, and if we won that suit, you would be wrong.' Literally that was their argument. I hope that the time-based and situational dependent flaw in the that evidence is apparent.

The state never relied on Trump doing the above for *any* aspect of meeting their requirement. The state never relied on mistakes that Trump made, so I think your statement above is somewhat misrepresentative of the issue.

(10-26-2023 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Can you point out anywhere in the record that type of valuation theory was put forward by the trump defense?

I'm not the Trump defense and I can't speak for them. Nor do I understand their strategy and tactics (for which I generally tend to have a low regard, by the way).

All I can do is discuss how the real world works. And that is how it does work.

(10-26-2023 04:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Can you point out anywhere in the record that type of valuation theory was put forward by the trump defense?

I'm not the Trump defense and I can't speak for them. Nor do I understand their strategy and tactics (for which I generally tend to have a low regard, by the way).

All I can do is discuss how the real world works. And that is how it does work.

which is XACLY! the reason I asked a simple yes or no question yesterday...

(10-26-2023 04:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 04:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Can you point out anywhere in the record that type of valuation theory was put forward by the trump defense?

I'm not the Trump defense and I can't speak for them. Nor do I understand their strategy and tactics (for which I generally tend to have a low regard, by the way).

All I can do is discuss how the real world works. And that is how it does work.

which is XACLY! the reason I asked a simple yes or no question yesterday...

And did you note, after I reworded it and after telling you why I reworded your question -- you got your 'yes' or 'no' answer. It was a little bit of an unfair question to lump *all* 91 issues into one question.

And maybe even gave an answer that might have surprised you....

Be good, stink

(10-26-2023 05:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 04:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 04:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Can you point out anywhere in the record that type of valuation theory was put forward by the trump defense?

I'm not the Trump defense and I can't speak for them. Nor do I understand their strategy and tactics (for which I generally tend to have a low regard, by the way).

All I can do is discuss how the real world works. And that is how it does work.

which is XACLY! the reason I asked a simple yes or no question yesterday...

And did you note, after I reworded it and after telling you why I reworded your question -- you got your 'yes' or 'no' answer. It was a little bit of an unfair question to lump *all* 91 issues into one question.

And maybe even gave an answer that might have surprised you....

Be good, stink

nope ... I assumed you would figure out 4 y/n would've sufficed...

(10-26-2023 05:08 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 05:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 04:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 04:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Can you point out anywhere in the record that type of valuation theory was put forward by the trump defense?

I'm not the Trump defense and I can't speak for them. Nor do I understand their strategy and tactics (for which I generally tend to have a low regard, by the way).

All I can do is discuss how the real world works. And that is how it does work.

which is XACLY! the reason I asked a simple yes or no question yesterday...

And did you note, after I reworded it and after telling you why I reworded your question -- you got your 'yes' or 'no' answer. It was a little bit of an unfair question to lump *all* 91 issues into one question.

And maybe even gave an answer that might have surprised you....

Be good, stink

nope ... I assumed you would figure out 4 y/n would've sufficed...

Lol.. and I did not....

In that case, in time order, to your exact question ---

Y (perhaps)
N (afaifc)
N (afaifc)
N (afaifc)

And in the case of the civil case --
N (afaifc)

(afaifc) = as far a I figure currently, and if other information that surfaces that tends to change my mind, I will assess that then.

Have a good bourbon good sir.

(10-26-2023 05:08 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 05:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 04:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 04:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Can you point out anywhere in the record that type of valuation theory was put forward by the trump defense?

I'm not the Trump defense and I can't speak for them. Nor do I understand their strategy and tactics (for which I generally tend to have a low regard, by the way).

All I can do is discuss how the real world works. And that is how it does work.

which is XACLY! the reason I asked a simple yes or no question yesterday...

And did you note, after I reworded it and after telling you why I reworded your question -- you got your 'yes' or 'no' answer. It was a little bit of an unfair question to lump *all* 91 issues into one question.

And maybe even gave an answer that might have surprised you....

Be good, stink

nope ... I assumed you would figure out 4 y/n would've sufficed...

Dude knows how to dance around a simple yes or no question. He should go into politics.

(10-26-2023 01:05 PM)VA49er Wrote:  IMO, the actual value of the RE, for the judge, is irrelevant as his conclusion was reached before the "trial" even began.

Actually, I think all the judge knew or cared about was that it was his job to "get" Trump--and he did as best he could.

Poor donny...nary does a thing wrong...and every one is just out to get him. Meanies!

Maybe one day he'll catch a break.

(10-26-2023 08:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 01:05 PM)VA49er Wrote:  IMO, the actual value of the RE, for the judge, is irrelevant as his conclusion was reached before the "trial" even began.

Actually, I think all the judge knew or cared about was that it was his job to "get" Trump--and he did as best he could.

Well he has publicly said he should be jailed for the Capitol riots. And somehow hasn't recused himself. Judicial misconduct on his part.

(10-25-2023 07:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 07:33 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 07:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 06:54 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What do *you* call simply lying about values of items on a financial statement?

Literally hundreds of items, with a huge impact on the net result?

What do *you* call it when presenting those false valuations to a lender?

If I tell you 'the car I am selling you is worth 30,000', when the engine is a junker and I know that, that is an active lie -- one that is absolutely a fraudulent act. Notwithstanding you doing diligence or not. Kind of hard to escape that as such.

And yes, I consider several hundred items over scores of years 'widespread and persistent'. Do you call it 'sparing'?

Im perfectly comfortable noting what I see in the record as fraudulent acts. And as widespread and persistent. Kind of a basic tautology.

Your analogies are always garbage. EVERY business owner trying to get a business loan embellishes their values. And their Bankers push those values in loan committee, and always will. That us why there are appraisers.

So in your opinion above, it is perfectly okay to lie on financial statements presented to third parties? I think a simple yes or no will suffice....

Yes. As long as no one is affected. Which in this case no one was, because it is not lying. It is puffing. Happens everyday in real estate. Lying is I own this property when I don't or making up bogus tax returns like Avenatti did. Trump saying properties are worth A is not lying. The only way he can proven wrong is by exposing it to the market and procuring an arm's length transaction. EVERY property I've ever listed the owner told me it was worth more than it sold for or didn't sell at all. None of them got indicted.

Thats not what this law says, eagle.

This law, like every other state AG enforcement action statute that exists in every other state, simply says the following:

If you lie or make material misrepresentations, and you do it in business, and you do it persistently --- the state can sue to shut you down. Period.

And each state uses this provision of their law probably scores, if not hundreds, of times a year.

I guess you have a bee in your bonnet about state AG fraud enforcement actions as a whole?

But the troubling thing is that you think it acceptable and proper to lie on a financial statement.

Okay for a lender to lie about the interest rate they are going to charge you?

Edited to add: when Trump values a property as unencumbered, when it actually has massive deed and use restrictions, I will differ with you and say that lie is wholly unacceptable.

When his defense to the particular issue is "I can sue to undo the transfer of easement, and that end result is the vlaue" (which is what he did in his filings with the court mind you) -- that kind of utterly defeats the notion of a valuation.

The valuation is of the object, here and now, as it stands. Not a 'might be' if I sue to unwind a deeded easement, not a 'might be' if a local government unwinds use restrictions. It isnt that hard. And it isnt that hard to see the absolute blatant lying -- even to the court.

Using that logic, my beat to hell 14 year old Expedition with 200k miles -- 50k hard ranch miles --- I guess it is okay to value it as brand new with the 'Trump valuation scheme' that he actually admits to in his arguments to the court. Cant wait to use that cherry, brand new valuation in a trade in.

As for your last line -- read the beginning 5 or 6 paragraphs for a summary of the law in question. Pretty stark difference in what that is and your hypothetical at the end.

I guess you have to prove it was “a lie”.
But the judge has already said he thinks Trump lies.
And this is not a jury trial.
So I guess the fix is in.
And I guess some think that is somehow a good thing.

(10-27-2023 08:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Poor donny...nary does a thing wrong...and every one is just out to get him. Meanies!

Maybe one day he'll catch a break.

Is this the best they can do to ‘get him’?

(10-26-2023 06:47 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 05:08 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 05:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 04:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 04:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm not the Trump defense and I can't speak for them. Nor do I understand their strategy and tactics (for which I generally tend to have a low regard, by the way).

All I can do is discuss how the real world works. And that is how it does work.

which is XACLY! the reason I asked a simple yes or no question yesterday...

And did you note, after I reworded it and after telling you why I reworded your question -- you got your 'yes' or 'no' answer. It was a little bit of an unfair question to lump *all* 91 issues into one question.

And maybe even gave an answer that might have surprised you....

Be good, stink

nope ... I assumed you would figure out 4 y/n would've sufficed...

Dude knows how to dance around a simple yes or no question. He should go into politics.

Yeah, he belongs there.

(10-27-2023 08:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 08:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 01:05 PM)VA49er Wrote:  IMO, the actual value of the RE, for the judge, is irrelevant as his conclusion was reached before the "trial" even began.

Actually, I think all the judge knew or cared about was that it was his job to "get" Trump--and he did as best he could.

Well he has publicly said he should be jailed for the Capitol riots. And somehow hasn't recused himself. Judicial misconduct on his part.

Source please.

(10-27-2023 08:47 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 07:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This law, like every other state AG enforcement action statute that exists in every other state, simply says the following:

If you lie or make material misrepresentations, and you do it in business, and you do it persistently --- the state can sue to shut you down. Period.

I guess you have to prove it was “a lie”.
But the judge has already said he thinks Trump lies.
And this is not a jury trial.
So I guess the fix is in.
And I guess some think that is somehow a good thing.

More, you have to prove it was 'material'.

It's one thing to say that he misrepresented the square footage of a building... It is something else entirely to say that he misrepresented the value of that building. Yes, AF often plays into the value of something, but it may not do so in a material way... or that difference could be accounted for elsewhere....

As has been stated repeatedly, apparently the entity produced enough cashflow to pay the debt, so it seems that the alleged egregious SF misrepresentation really had no material impact on the loan.

As I said before... SF calculations, especially to an entity that inspected, approved and still has all the permits and plans are mostly redundant... The valuation... the debt coverage ratio etc... those are the only truly 'material' representations.... and the bank signed off on the loan and the debt was paid... and now the state seems to want to play armchair QB on the 2014 Super Bowl.

(10-27-2023 08:49 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 08:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Poor donny...nary does a thing wrong...and every one is just out to get him. Meanies!

Maybe one day he'll catch a break.

Is this the best they can do to ‘get him’?

This.

As bad as you guys talk about him... and the right spoke about Hillary mostly the same way and now Biden... it shouldn't take all of these tricks and nuances and time to convict him personally of wrongdoing. One of two things is therefore true.
1) he is innocent. I know lots of people believe this... I am not one of them. I fully submit that he is dirty and if this weren't in the political arena, anyone else would be convicted... IF they for some reason chose to investigate someone like this.
2) the system is completely compromised. This is my belief. I think it grossly favors politicians so much that even with unprecedented collective attempts to 'get' this dirty guy, it is still a MIGHTY struggle. I'd also submit that 'citizen' Trump did all these same things... In fact, even these mostly took place while he was a citizen... and he didn't start doing it in 2016.... So citizen Trump... a likely donor to both parties, especially democrats in NYC and whomever was in power in Florida and Jersey and Las Vegas etc... would never have been investigated much less charged for all of this... with the best evidence being that he generally wasn't.... despite decades of precisely the same behaviors... but once he enters the political realm, the game changes.

The game changes not because Trump is suddenly doing anything different.... but because now investigating him can be used to influence voters.... and spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to influence voters is a HUGE advantage to those in power. VASTLY more than to actually convict him... you know... JETFL. At some point somebody will... and then maybe after a few years of appeal and his value as a martyr or 'bad example' has worn off, he will actually pay the price.

(10-27-2023 09:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 08:47 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 07:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This law, like every other state AG enforcement action statute that exists in every other state, simply says the following:

If you lie or make material misrepresentations, and you do it in business, and you do it persistently --- the state can sue to shut you down. Period.

I guess you have to prove it was “a lie”.
But the judge has already said he thinks Trump lies.
And this is not a jury trial.
So I guess the fix is in.
And I guess some think that is somehow a good thing.

More, you have to prove it was 'material'.

It's one thing to say that he misrepresented the square footage of a building... It is something else entirely to say that he misrepresented the value of that building. Yes, AF often plays into the value of something, but it may not do so in a material way... or that difference could be accounted for elsewhere....

As has been stated repeatedly, apparently the entity produced enough cashflow to pay the debt, so it seems that the alleged egregious SF misrepresentation really had no material impact on the loan.

As I said before... SF calculations, especially to an entity that inspected, approved and still has all the permits and plans are mostly redundant... The valuation... the debt coverage ratio etc... those are the only truly 'material' representations.... and the bank signed off on the loan and the debt was paid... and now the state seems to want to play armchair QB on the 2014 Super Bowl.

(10-27-2023 08:49 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 08:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Poor donny...nary does a thing wrong...and every one is just out to get him. Meanies!

Maybe one day he'll catch a break.

Is this the best they can do to ‘get him’?

This.

As bad as you guys talk about him... and the right spoke about Hillary mostly the same way and now Biden... it shouldn't take all of these tricks and nuances and time to convict him personally of wrongdoing. One of two things is therefore true.
1) he is innocent. I know lots of people believe this... I am not one of them. I fully submit that he is dirty and if this weren't in the political arena, anyone else would be convicted... IF they for some reason chose to investigate someone like this.
2) the system is completely compromised. This is my belief. I think it grossly favors politicians so much that even with unprecedented collective attempts to 'get' this dirty guy, it is still a MIGHTY struggle. I'd also submit that 'citizen' Trump did all these same things... In fact, even these mostly took place while he was a citizen... and he didn't start doing it in 2016.... So citizen Trump... a likely donor to both parties, especially democrats in NYC and whomever was in power in Florida and Jersey and Las Vegas etc... would never have been investigated much less charged for all of this... with the best evidence being that he generally wasn't.... despite decades of precisely the same behaviors... but once he enters the political realm, the game changes.

The game changes not because Trump is suddenly doing anything different.... but because now investigating him can be used to influence voters.... and spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to influence voters is a HUGE advantage to those in power. VASTLY more than to actually convict him... you know... JETFL. At some point somebody will... and then maybe after a few years of appeal and his value as a martyr or 'bad example' has worn off, he will actually pay the price.

So, charging him with breaking laws on the books is a trick and a nuance. Got it.

"Poor donny" seems pretty apropos for the nonsense you continually bring to defend him with.

(10-27-2023 09:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 08:47 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 07:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This law, like every other state AG enforcement action statute that exists in every other state, simply says the following:

If you lie or make material misrepresentations, and you do it in business, and you do it persistently --- the state can sue to shut you down. Period.

I guess you have to prove it was “a lie”.
But the judge has already said he thinks Trump lies.
And this is not a jury trial.
So I guess the fix is in.
And I guess some think that is somehow a good thing.

More, you have to prove it was 'material'.

In this case wholly incorrect. In normal, plain jane fraud -- yes. But you are inaccurate as what is being charged.

What is charged in NY Exec law 63(12). Not the normal fraud law for a private party. The fraud law that allows state enforcement action is used here.

NY Exec Law 63(12) requires "repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business". That is --- a persistent, ongoing falsehoods or misrepresentations.

No materiality per the statute, per the NY Supreme Court, and as stated in the decision on summary judgement in this case.

Quote:It's one thing to say that he misrepresented the square footage of a building... It is something else entirely to say that he misrepresented the value of that building. Yes, AF often plays into the value of something, but it may not do so in a material way... or that difference could be accounted for elsewhere....

Quote:As has been stated repeatedly, apparently the entity produced enough cashflow to pay the debt, so it seems that the alleged egregious SF misrepresentation really had no material impact on the loan.

Quote:As I said before... SF calculations, especially to an entity that inspected, approved and still has all the permits and plans are mostly redundant... The valuation... the debt coverage ratio etc... those are the only truly 'material' representations.... and the bank signed off on the loan and the debt was paid... and now the state seems to want to play armchair QB on the 2014 Super Bowl.

Again you repeat the mischaracterization of the requirements of the law in question.

No materiality per the statute, per the NY Supreme Court, and as stated in the decision on summary judgement in this case. Only need a persistent, ongoing usage of falsehoods and misrepresentations in business.

Funnily, the last time the NY Supreme Court reiterated that very solid standard was in another Trump case -- the Trump Business School stuff.