(10-25-2023 08:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

I call it something that did not happen here.

I would say you dont seem to have a handle on the facts that have been presented in the case.

(10-25-2023 08:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 07:58 PM)stinkfist 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:  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.

man buys vacant lot for 10k
man builds house on a different lot owned by builder for 170k ... appraisal value comes in at 210k
man sells vacant lot 8 mos. later to builder for 40k to dodge PMI ... enters into 170k contract with zero $$$ out of pocket upon closure

is man/builder guilty of fraud knowing vacant lot wasn't worth 40k?

how does man state if one answers yes??? ... how does, "you beetches can liqua muh fk'n deek!" sound?!!! ...

this case is beyond fk'n tard ... zero malice with zero intent to defraud ... there's also no way his holdings would artificially impact any other buyer or seller in scope ... ol' boy has bank ... he ain' got anything close to that kinda bank...

yo tanq, "cya in court, honey!"

My 'cya in court' already has a summary judgement on one count there, good sir.

And I would say that your 'zero intent to defraud' is being put to the test with this weeks testimony.....

you conveniently left out the 'why' and by 'whom'....

okay ... "cya at appeal, honey" ... I've already conceded he'll be found guilty on at least a few of the 91 ... that's a gimme putt based on the bias I've witnessed to date...

you play in the land of subjective thieves, tanq ... for someone that sides with the virtue of law, I find that to be an oxymoron at best...

Dolf de Roos, to illustrate the point I have been trying to make.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/957835825389299

Is this property worth NZ$$17MM or NZ$44MM? It depends. Is it a lie to say either one? Nope.

(10-25-2023 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 08:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

I call it something that did not happen here.

I would say you dont seem to have a handle on the facts that have been presented in the case.

I would say that the "facts" don't support the conclusion that you have drawn.

There is not one single objective value for a commercial property, It can have a wide range of values depending on various factors.

(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.

(10-25-2023 07:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  The judge said today that he didn't find Trump credible

So let's just get this part over with and get to the appeals

You seem to be missing a LOT of context here. Did you just miss hearing or seeing that context, or are you purposely leaving it out in your post?

(10-25-2023 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:

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

I call it something that did not happen here.

I would say you dont seem to have a handle on the facts that have been presented in the case.

I have said that he's just no longer a credible poster, and he should be treated as such. This is just more fuel in that fire.

(10-26-2023 06:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:

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

I call it something that did not happen here.

I would say you dont seem to have a handle on the facts that have been presented in the case.

I have said that he's just no longer a credible poster, and he should be treated as such. This is just more fuel in that fire.

ewe calling out Owl #s not being "credible" ... that's 'beyond the pale' of any shark ewe've ever attempted to shove up ewer own arse...

I don't see anything here that doesn't happen on a daily basis in multiple real estate transactions. The Trump organization (not Donald Trump personally) came up with valuations, based upon which they obtained loans, which they have repaid or are repying on a timely basis. That's not a fact situation that constitutes fraud.

Property valuation, particularly commercial real estate valuation, is a very subjective art, not an objective science. The value of a property depends on the cash flow.The Dolf de Roos (a major real estate player in the southern hemisphere) video that I posted in #1003 (wow that we have that many) references an office building that he changed the value from NZ$17MM to NZ$44MM simply by getting a different tenant. No changes to the building, no improvements, no nothing. 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.

(10-25-2023 08:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 08:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

I call it something that did not happen here.

I would say you dont seem to have a handle on the facts that have been presented in the case.

I would say that the "facts" don't support the conclusion that you have drawn.

There is not one single objective value for a commercial property, It can have a wide range of values depending on various factors.

I understand there is a range, and not a single objective value. I have understood that for literally scores of years, and completely understand the 'range of values depending on various factors'.

And, when reading the SJ decision, the court also notes the above. It also notes that some items simply cannot be 'wished away'. Things like an extra 20k sq ft of imaginary floor space when the matter is a 10k sq ft single floor in a NY tower, specific comments in the defendants testimony literally saying the value "could be" if one simply imagines away items like deeded easements of various sorts, and specific other imaginary items like 14 mansions that dont exist on lots.

I am making a note that you are pulling in ideas and concepts that arent even part of the record. Some asserted as fact when they are not necessarily so.

Please cite case law precedent Mr lawyer legal beagle man

(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.

Most people just don't have a clue about business or real estate.
I think the judge clearly falls into that category, not that he cares.

(10-26-2023 09:56 AM)bullet 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.

Most people just don't have a clue about business or real estate.
I think the judge clearly falls into that category, not that he cares.

But you think a 12-person jury would?

(10-26-2023 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see anything here that doesn't happen on a daily basis in multiple real estate transactions. The Trump organization (not Donald Trump personally) came up with valuations, based upon which they obtained loans, which they have repaid or are repying on a timely basis. That's not a fact situation that constitutes fraud.

Property valuation, particularly commercial real estate valuation, is a very subjective art, not an objective science. The value of a property depends on the cash flow.The Dolf de Roos (a major real estate player in the southern hemisphere) video that I posted in #1003 (wow that we have that many) references an office building that he changed the value from NZ$17MM to NZ$44MM simply by getting a different tenant. No changes to the building, no improvements, no nothing. 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.

Case law citation please

(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?

which 3-letter agency do you actually* work for?

(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?

(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.

(10-26-2023 09:56 AM)bullet 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.

Most people just don't have a clue about business or real estate.
I think the judge clearly falls into that category, not that he cares.

IMO, the actual value of the RE, for the judge, is irrelevant as his conclusion was reached before the "trial" even began.