Quote: (10-30-2023 04:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (10-30-2023 03:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: You have an infuriating habit of ignoring very direct questions, sticking to your own arguments like a good soldier and misrepresenting others comments in a way that somehow apparently makes you feel better.
You are misrepresenting the issue, *and* what the comment responded to.
First -- To the bolded, here is the comment that the above was in response to:
Quote:. I don't think immaterial lies/misrepresentations are reasonable grounds for losing a business license...
There wasnt a question there, let alone a direct question. How do I "ignore" a direct question when there *is NO* question?
We've been having this conversation for more than a year now. For you to act as if I am only speaking of one line, since I edited out dozens of other lines for brevity is exactly part of the accusation I'm making of you.
Maybe you should actually make it in response to the question I supposedly dodge -- instead of making it a general allegation as you do above.
What question did I dodge that forced you to make this comment out of the blue, here and now?
Quote:Quote:Second, it is *you* that has determined out of the blue that the issue in the trial is apparently one of 'immaterial lies/misrepresentations are reasonable grounds for losing a business license'. That isnt the case.
I won't bother to go back and quote you... but YOU specifically said that THIS CASE was about lies and material misrepresentations.
This case is about persistent fraud. Specifically falsehoods.
I dont quite understand your thrashing between material/ immaterial and lies/ misrepresentations. It is making a very clear issue extremely opaque, mind you.
Quote:I challenged you on the word 'material' and you backed off on it insisting that it didn't need to me material... because there was instead a pattern of lies... and I asked you if there was an official documentation of that pattern, and you said 'I don't think so, but the lies impact significant amounts of commerce' so then I asked why an immaterial lie would impact ANYTHING and you have punted.
You challenged me on material misrepresentation at one point, and I pointed out my comment that the issues were lies *or* such misrepresentations. And the SJ clearly noted the issues *here* as 'falsehoods'.
Can you cite specifically where I said the bolded Ham. (NVM you are asking me where Trump was 'ticketed or such' previously.) My comments there were noting a distinction in your 'best pizza in town' issue. Perhaps that should have been more clear.
The 'documentation' that you seemingly demand isnt germane, relevant, and is immaterial.
The decision on summary judgement clearly outlined the persistency and pattern. As did the motion for SJ by the AG. I dont think I would have missed that.
The problem is you seemingly want to opine on huge and vast and material distinctions between material misrepresentations, material lies, immaterial misrepresentations, and immaterial lies for some reason. I dont understand why, though.
Quote:Quote:Im not the person changing the issue in the case at hand from very direct, very persistent, very meaningful lies to 'immaterial lies/ misrepresentations' at the drop of a hat as you do above.
Now this is just a material lie. You QUITE LITERALLY brought up this idea... and in response to asking you how they were material, YOU said they didn't have to be material.
Dude, you've gone *out* of your way to toss up some weird distinctions between material/immaterial lies/misrepresentations in the last number of posts.
Quote:[
Quote:Quote:Immaterial misrepresentations are just that. Immaterial. Although certainly the state can write a crappy law, the solution to that is to fix the law.... not just to say 'well, that's what it says'...
Im talking about *this* case, not some theoretical application of the law, Ham.
And I'm responding directly to what you said. You just don't like it.
So your position is now 'the law is crappy, they shouldnt enforce it at all'?
Can you detail to us where immaterial lies/ misrepresentations have been pursued that make this such an unbearable issue to live with? Please cite specific instances instead of 'just what you think' the issue *might* be.
Quote:Quote:The issue is 'persistent fraud'. Not 'persistently being charged with fraud'. There is a significant difference in the two things. The former is what the present case and the present law deal with. The latter is not germane.
You JUST SAID that no such documentation of that persistent fraud exists... YES there is significant difference. FRAUD is a legal conclusion based on an adjudication, not just an accusation.
Actually there is documentation of a long pattern of persistent fraud, Ham. Detailed in the opinion on summary judgement.
There is not documentation of being persistently charged with fraud.
The issue is: "persistent fraud". That is "persistent *commission* of fraud". I guess in your POV there *must* be "persistent *charging* of fraud". They are absolutely different. And
Quote:Quote:[quote]You seemingly think that the only history is if you have previous legal hits on it.
IN a court of law, that is absolutely the case. You can 'believe' he has committed fraud, but without a legal disposition to that effect, he is presumed innocent.
I can't believe I have to tell you that.
See above. As for the first sentence -- you are fundamentally incorrect. I dont think you really understand the issue of being charged with 'persistent fraud' -- and proving up that persistent fraud in one case detailing many instances -- and your tangent now of 'there must be a record of previous charges in order to proceed'.
That is just baseless.
Quote:Quote: What abut large numbers of individual instances covering huge sums, over 15 - 20 years sound like to you? Small, interspersed, sparing?
Sounds to me like capricious enforcement if they never even accused him of it or sent him a letter about it before
Yes, how dare one prove a pattern all at once. No -- that is not 'capricious enforcement'.
Quote:Quote:Do you really think the *only* way to prove persistent is to bring into the record 4 or 5 previous 'court-found' liabilities? Seriously?
Nope... I clearly suggested that a letter or a ticket or really any kind of 'notice' would suffice.
I suggest you are fundamentally incorrect on that. On a whole multitude of levels.
Quote:Quote:One can show all the persistency at one court showing. No Pandora's box there at all. Simply because 'persistent fraud' <> 'persistent "findings" of liability because of fraud'. I do not know why you think that the case. That is seemingly the only reason to bring up past administrative actions, mind you.
Go try that with your wife.
Last I saw a court of law is not 'anyones wife'.
Quote:Go make a complaint that you've never made before and tell her that you're getting divorced because of this 'persistent act' and see if she doesn't laugh you out of the room.
Im sorry, a courtroom is not a soap opera living room.
Quote:Yes, you can do whatever a judge will let you get away with... but there is nothing remotely 'right' about that.
Actually there is. As an example -- I have zero problem bringing up persistent charged acts in RICO cases that werent previously charged, for example. Youd have to be an idiot to say you can only charge RICO for a series of acts, and that *all* those supporting acts had been previously litigated or noticed.
And, to complete the circle -- the prosecution *must* prove up those previous acts in the *current* case.
If the history of fraud exists, and the history is shown by the NY AG office -- that is absolutely proper.
Again, the issue is persistent 'commission' of fraud -- one way to show that is show, and prove up, the persistence of that in one action. If you dont show the persistence -- the state loses.
The issue is not per se "persistent 'charging' of actions", nor "persistent 'ticketing' of actions".
That is problem of making ship up on your financial statements and using those falsehoods for a long period of time. If that persistency and that pattern can be shown by the state at one time in the future -- sorry charlie. Bummer.
But you are simply making up issues now.
Quote: YOU are the one who brought up 15-20 years.
The facts of *this* case bring up those numbers, mind you.
Quote:Quote:Not at all, you just pointed out this was a private party suing. I thought we were over that canard. The standard between that and the state enforcement action is very different. The matter above is immaterial to the present case.
Yep... recall that I argued that you had no victim and that the lender wasn't suing... which is entirely different from this case... which according to the judge, his authority even to HEAR the case rests in some nebulous representation of an unnamed victim, despite no connection whatsoever between these disclosures and 'the people'.
So an alleged crime with a victim can't win this case, but an alleged crime without one can. THAT makes sense.
You can act like its not pertinent, but that doesn't make it so.
There is zero in common between a state trade act violation brought by a private party and an AG enforcement action for persistent fraud. Even if they have the word 'pizza' shared between them.
Please mix and match some more. I mean, youve already tossed Hillary into the mix and match bag, why not another rando style charge....
