(10-30-2023 10:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 01:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lets stick with lie, or falsehood? Simply to make everything less contorted and we dont get balled up in a definitional dispute.

In short, all that is needed is persistent lies.

You *can* get popped for persistent material misresrepresentations, but the underlying issue in the present instance has been falsehoods.

I have a comment/question on this later... but for now.. as I said... I don't think immaterial lies/misrepresentations are reasonable grounds for losing a business license...

I dont think that the breadth and depth and constancy of the lies in this issue meet the term "immaterial lies/ misrepresentations".

Quote:I understand that word is not in the statute. I think it is in the 'purpose' of laws. Laws should not have anything to do with preventing or discouraging immaterial acts.... for the very fact that they are immaterial.

See above.

Quote:

Quote:Maybe point out who and where, instead of being oblique. Ill be happy to respond to their comments that you seemingly use as a shield here.

I used no shield... I'm just tired of arguing this point with you.

You haven't made your case with me... and I don't think Numbers agrees with you either.... having repeatedly said that he sees no fraud nor intent etc.... Numbers is the only person on here that we both know that I THINK you respect.

I respect numbers. I dont think numbers is accurate in this issue. That should be clear.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:If that is truly what is required of the statute then I submit as I have before that it is a stupid law that serves no real purpose. Immaterial misrepresentations are just that... immaterial.... unimportant... irrelevant. You may as well sue him for saying that he's a good husband or great lover. Seriously, I can't believe that we're talking about even FINING someone for an immaterial misrepresentation.... or that ANY Republican would support such a law.

I have zero problem with giving a state the ability to combat persistent, deep, fraud, affecting large amounts of commercial activity effected from a single actor. That is -- the point of the law, as embodied in the text, and in the legislative record. And has been fleshed out many, many times. That background is in the links I had PMed to you a while back.

The italicized denotes the problem with the 'pizza' issue as well.

Immaterial misrepresentations by the definition of the word don't effect anything... much less 'large amounts of commercial activity'. If they did, they would be material... they would have an effect. You can't have it both ways... and this 'lie or make material misrepresentations' to me isn't an 'either/or' but a clarification. Again, even lies should have to be material/pertinent to be actionable... as I alluded to with my 'fidelity' example.

And the ' best Pizza in town' (a euphemism, but one that is used) claim is specifically designed to get at least some customers, particularly from out of town to act....

I suggest looking up the word 'puffery' --- and the distinction that it is given.

'Best pizza in town' is neither a lie or a truism. And it really isnt a good example to try to shoehorn it into this issue. Nor is it a great example to shoehorn 'immaterial' into the issue as you try to do. Again -- look at the italicized wording above.

Quote:either to accept the claim or to challenge it. It is absolutely designed to impact commercial activity in amounts large enough to matter to that business.... and there are hundreds if not thousands of businesses that do things like that. LOTS of activity. 500,000 slices per day in the city...

Now you and mix and match amounts. The key isnt 'there are a half million slices sold in aggregate as you try to expand into. The issue that you seem to try and expand from is 'how many does that person making the statement do'. Not how many in aggregate by everybody.

Quote:and that is just to THAT claim. Best Coffee in town,... best prices in town... going out of business, lol...

Only when you expand that to everyone -- the issue isnt how many *everyone sells* -- the issue is how deep, persistent, and broad *your* statement affects the market. And when pervasive enough, the state can clamp down.

Not necessarily on puffery, but on actual lies.

And by the way -- you do understand that in every state the 'going out of business' sale, when not truthful, is an explicit violation of *most* consumer protection acts, and/or deceptive trade practices acts, right?

And, AGs *have* gone after those actors in enforcement actions. So thank you for that very apt example.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Seriously... we're literally arguing here that immaterial misrepresentations for a NY businessman about the SF'age of a building, relied upon by nobody for any reason is a criminal offense,

This isnt a criminal trial. It is a civil suit.

Civil, Criminal... I get the difference but to me this is violating a person's right to engage in business...

Again with the flowery language. A state has every right and ability to curtail someone's ability to transact business in the state. And a state has every ability to grant that same ability.

You had mentioned elsewhere how many times you had done this yourself. Via business licenses, via corporate formation, via all sort of methods.

Now it is some sort of inviolable right that is 'violated'? Really?

Quote:which is what we more often do to criminals....

Not so. We engage them typically in another spectrum -- the right of liberty. Not in a 'rights to do business.'

In previous conversations I know you freely mix criminal issues of liberty with tort issues of damages, But they are not the same. In a similar manner the right to liberty *is* the basis for criminal law, and *is* enshrined very specifically in the Constitution.

A right to incorporate and do business in a state is far from that.

Quote:in the opinion of a judge, he has repeatedly lied about his holdings to a body with no regulatory purpose, other than to admit or deny licenses.

And this is an issue I have with your take -- the statement above and your conclusion isnt moored in the facts at all.

Quote:Honest question... has he been previously cited for these misrepresentations?

Honest answer, not from the state, as far as I know.

Honest question in return -- how is this germane?

Prior to being sued (and ultimately a whole lot worse for the latter 2) -- Alameda Capital had never been cited, nor wood nymph Carolyn Ellison, nor SBF. I dont understand how the above is even germane.

Quote:I don't see a victim here... or in anything tied to these filings.

Again... 'Best Pizza in NY' hasn't cost anyone a license.

Again -- persistent, deep, broad.

Again -- puffery.

Again -- Id suggest taking a look at the NY AG enforcement action histories.

Quote:

Quote:First -- I dont think the issue with Hillary was 'material misrepresentations' Ham. Can you clarify?

'I never used it for official business/no classified material was ever on the server.' That was a material misrepresentation... don't you think?

To whom specifically was that made, and under what circumstances?

I will tell you right now that none of the legal issues that she faced dealt with a material misrepresentation. I really dont understand why you picked this as a tangent.

Quote:I don't know what you mean by 'the issue' with Hillary. If you're saying that the case against Hillary didn't have the same sort of 'it doesn't have to be material' clause, that just shows the foolhardiness of that line to me. Whether they actually charged her with that or not (I think they thought about 'obstruction' as a result of those comments) but the same law doesn't seem to exist... which only supports my belief that it is likely a bad law.

Im not the one invoking Hillary as an excuse. Instead of making a broad based allusion to some misrepresentation as an equi8valent, you should provide the details.

Quote:As I said, why do we care about immaterial misrepresentations in ANY context for ANY reason?

Im not the one invoking Hillary and misrepresentation as the counterpoint, Ham, You are.

Quote:As for Hillary, I had, and still have, zero problem with charging her. I still believe that the decision *not* to charge her for the improper storage is absolutely the wrong one. I say that is right in line with JETFL.

Quote:hundreds of millions a year for Pizza isn't enough to even make them take the signs down.

I see you are still dancing the Pizza dance.

Quote:

(10-27-2023 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 10:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

My point is that in the context of negotiating a real estate loan or series of such loans, there were no falsehoods and misrepresentations, much less continuing use of them. The judge was not interested in providing a disinterested tribunal, his mission was to “get” Donald Trump.

Be careful here numbers... lol. Funny though that Tanq didn't know whom I meant.

Just forcing *you* to be less oblique Ham. And had you noticed, I can point out where I think Numbers has misstated in his comments.

Quote:

(10-30-2023 07:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Not to rehash all this again, but I believe this is vastly overselling the situation. IIRC, they only found like 4 things that were on her server that were deemed to have been classified. And further, I believe those items were not even considered classified at the time they were introduced on her server, but instead were later considered classified.

But it's been awhile, I could not be remembering it correctly.

I won't rehash it but you miss the point.

The whole premise of the Trump case here has nothing to do with whether or not there was a bad outcome from his actions... because there wasn't.... simply that his actions put that possibility in play. Hillary similarly put those possibilities in play(in violation of policy) quite frankly in an arena that is much more dangerous to the nation than a bank loan. The fact that she actually DID put those possibilities in play, and that her practices (again, in violation of policy) tended to cover up or make very difficult any means of determining if there WAS an actual breach is IMO vastly more important, more dangerous, more risky to the nation than a bank loan.... Yet despite this; despite actual proof of ANY classified information on an unsecure server in violation of policy, not to mention common sense and something that anyone in the private sector would at least be 'fired' for.... Nothing happened to her... the US decided not to proceed against her.... she didn't lose her job... she didn't lose her security clearance etc etc etc....

Nice equivalence of apples and bowling balls.

Saying best pizza in town probably isn't prosecutable because it's likely subjective to ones taste. We're dealing with valuations of assets in the trump case, which can be subjective, but with the facts here they weren't just off once or twice by trivial amounts. It was a consistent and persistent gross overstatement.

And in case you didn't know, Papa Johns WAS sued for claiming the they used the better ingredients resulting in better pizza. And how'd that work out?

Quote:The suit, first initiated in 1998, centered around Papa John's advertising slogan: "Better Ingredients, Better Pizza." A jury initially found in favor of Pizza Hut, awarding almost $468,000 damages, and Papa John's was barred from using the slogan, but the ruling was overturned by an appellate court. In the appeal, the court found that the slogan by itself was misleading, but didn't have a major impact in the purchasing decisions of consumers.

"No advertiser has ever been able to defend a campaign that is deceptive on the basis that the public doesn't care," Pizza Hut said in a statement. "We are disappointed the court did not seize this opportunity to clarify this matter for the benefit of consumers and responsible advertisers, alike."

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Pizza Hut Appeal Vs. Papa John's Slogan

(10-30-2023 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Saying best pizza in town probably isn't prosecutable because it's likely subjective to ones taste. We're dealing with valuations of assets in the trump case, which can be subjective, but with the facts here they weren't just off once or twice by trivial amounts. It was a consistent and persistent gross overstatement.

We know puddin, and tell us more about how Maralargo is only valued at $25million.

(10-30-2023 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Saying best pizza in town probably isn't prosecutable because it's likely subjective to ones taste. We're dealing with valuations of assets in the trump case, which can be subjective, but with the facts here they weren't just off once or twice by trivial amounts. It was a consistent and persistent gross overstatement.

Except that there is one objective and easily quantifiable standard. Did the properties cash flow sufficiently to service the debt? They did, which means that nothing was overvalued.

(10-30-2023 09:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 09:24 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 09:19 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  There is no opposition to the above from me.

Not to rehash all this again, but I believe this is vastly overselling the situation. IIRC, they only found like 4 things that were on her server that were deemed to have been classified. And further, I believe those items were not even considered classified at the time they were introduced on her server, but instead were later considered classified.

But it's been awhile, I could not be remembering it correctly.

"In testimony before the House panel on July 7, Comey described several statements made by Clinton on the campaign trail about her use of the server as "not true."

Clinton was wrong when she said she never sent or received classified information over the server. "Our investigation found ... 110 [emails with then-classified information] that she either received or sent," he said."

"Asked whether Clinton's use of a personal server while secretary of state made some of America's secrets vulnerable to adversaries, Comey simply replied, "Yes.""(See 1st link below).

As someone who has actually had a Secret government clearance for several decades and has had security training each and every year during that time, I can tell you that it is strictly against the rules of handling classified data to EVER have it on an unsecured, unauthorized computer - which is exactly what Hillary knowingly did. There were additional rules that she also broke in her total mishandling of classified data.

AT A MINIMUM, she should have immediately lost her security clearance and NEVER again been approved to have another one. Without being able to have a security clearance she should have been unable to compete for the presidency since you have to have a top-level clearance to be president and she had shown herself to be unfit to share that kind of information with.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-dire...d=41044927

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghph_361wa0

There's really no need. We saw a while ago that some people have absolutely no clue what classified docs are and the special handling instructions that accompany them. Some of that lack of knowledge is simple ignorance, but most is partisan nonsense.

Well, at least you illustrate the "partisan" portion of my statement very well.

(10-30-2023 01:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Saying best pizza in town probably isn't prosecutable because it's likely subjective to ones taste. We're dealing with valuations of assets in the trump case, which can be subjective, but with the facts here they weren't just off once or twice by trivial amounts. It was a consistent and persistent gross overstatement.

Except that there is one objective and easily quantifiable standard. Did the properties cash flow sufficiently to service the debt? They did, which means that nothing was overvalued.

Can you show us the objective numbers that they did, aside from your assertion?

(10-30-2023 01:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 09:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 09:24 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 09:19 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Not to rehash all this again, but I believe this is vastly overselling the situation. IIRC, they only found like 4 things that were on her server that were deemed to have been classified. And further, I believe those items were not even considered classified at the time they were introduced on her server, but instead were later considered classified.

But it's been awhile, I could not be remembering it correctly.

"In testimony before the House panel on July 7, Comey described several statements made by Clinton on the campaign trail about her use of the server as "not true."

Clinton was wrong when she said she never sent or received classified information over the server. "Our investigation found ... 110 [emails with then-classified information] that she either received or sent," he said."

"Asked whether Clinton's use of a personal server while secretary of state made some of America's secrets vulnerable to adversaries, Comey simply replied, "Yes.""(See 1st link below).

As someone who has actually had a Secret government clearance for several decades and has had security training each and every year during that time, I can tell you that it is strictly against the rules of handling classified data to EVER have it on an unsecured, unauthorized computer - which is exactly what Hillary knowingly did. There were additional rules that she also broke in her total mishandling of classified data.

AT A MINIMUM, she should have immediately lost her security clearance and NEVER again been approved to have another one. Without being able to have a security clearance she should have been unable to compete for the presidency since you have to have a top-level clearance to be president and she had shown herself to be unfit to share that kind of information with.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-dire...d=41044927

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghph_361wa0

There's really no need. We saw a while ago that some people have absolutely no clue what classified docs are and the special handling instructions that accompany them. Some of that lack of knowledge is simple ignorance, but most is partisan nonsense.

Well, at least you illustrate the "partisan" portion of my statement very well.

You really don't play dumb very well. You ******* know full well that I more than understand what classified docs and their special handling instructions are, certainly as much as any other lay person on this board. I've never once condoned Hillary's handling of them just as with Biden, trump, and Pence. And I don't know how many times I've had to say that if trump would have just given the stuff back when first asked that I don't think he'd be under indictment, nor would I support any prosecution of him for that...just as I didn't support any prosecution for Pence. And I also won't for Biden unless it's found he knowingly took docs that needed to remain in a SCIF. If he did that, prosecute him, impeach him, and force him to resign if so. I don't give a **** what party he belongs to.

(10-30-2023 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 01:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Saying best pizza in town probably isn't prosecutable because it's likely subjective to ones taste. We're dealing with valuations of assets in the trump case, which can be subjective, but with the facts here they weren't just off once or twice by trivial amounts. It was a consistent and persistent gross overstatement.

Except that there is one objective and easily quantifiable standard. Did the properties cash flow sufficiently to service the debt? They did, which means that nothing was overvalued.

Can you show us the objective numbers that they did, aside from your assertion?

The statement has been made that the loans have been repaid. I have not seen that refuted. Have you?

(10-30-2023 11:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Speaking of facts, she resigned as SOS on February 1, 2013. Kind of hard for her to lose her job years later.

One of a short laundry list of things that would have happened to anyone else. We knew she had a private server long before 2013. They just never did anything about it and that was wrong.

(10-30-2023 12:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think that the breadth and depth and constancy of the lies in this issue meet the term "immaterial lies/ misrepresentations".

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 have no interest in the opinions or thought of others... nor do you seek conversation.

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'...

Quote:

Quote:Honest question... has he been previously cited for these misrepresentations?

Honest answer, not from the state, as far as I know.

Honest question in return -- how is this germane?

Prior to being sued (and ultimately a whole lot worse for the latter 2) -- Alameda Capital had never been cited, nor wood nymph Carolyn Ellison, nor SBF. I dont understand how the above is even germane.

Because the charge is a 'pattern' of lies... a history of it. If he has never been cited for it, where is the pattern or history? That is how it is germane.

I'm laughing my ass off that you bring up SBF in comparison. You skoff at my examples and then you bring up an actual fraud with numerous victims.

I honestly can't believe you don't see the Pandora's box that this opens up if there is no requirement for documentation/challenges to alleged misrepresentations if you're going to use it as your claim. Someone else even caught on to it.

(10-30-2023 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Saying best pizza in town probably isn't prosecutable because it's likely subjective to ones taste. We're dealing with valuations of assets in the trump case, which can be subjective, but with the facts here they weren't just off once or twice by trivial amounts. It was a consistent and persistent gross overstatement.

But again, who relied upon these representations? You guys keep dancing around such a simple question.

Quote:And in case you didn't know, Papa Johns WAS sued for claiming the they used the better ingredients resulting in better pizza. And how'd that work out?

Quote:The suit, first initiated in 1998, centered around Papa John's advertising slogan: "Better Ingredients, Better Pizza." A jury initially found in favor of Pizza Hut, awarding almost $468,000 damages, and Papa John's was barred from using the slogan, but the ruling was overturned by an appellate court. In the appeal, the court found that the slogan by itself was misleading, but didn't have a major impact in the purchasing decisions of consumers.

"No advertiser has ever been able to defend a campaign that is deceptive on the basis that the public doesn't care," Pizza Hut said in a statement. "We are disappointed the court did not seize this opportunity to clarify this matter for the benefit of consumers and responsible advertisers, alike."

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Pizza Hut Appeal Vs. Papa John's Slogan

I think you've lost the script here.

Pizza hut claimed injury.... something we don't have here... They sued, won and then were overturned and they lost. The AG didn't come sue on their behalf. You're making my point. The slogan, despite being arguably a 'lie' or 'misrepresentation' according to the appeals court didn't impact large amounts of commerce....

You just made my argument for me against Tanq. Thank you.

Bless your heart, Hambone. Your patience with these fools is something to behold. I make a motion to rename you Saint Hambone.

(10-30-2023 03:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 12:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think that the breadth and depth and constancy of the lies in this issue meet the term "immaterial lies/ misrepresentations".

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?

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.

Quote:You have no interest in the opinions or thought of others... nor do you seek conversation.

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.

Your repeating the 'immaterial lies/misrepresentations are reasonable grounds for losing a business license' thing doesnt make the case about it.

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.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Honest question... has he been previously cited for these misrepresentations?

Honest answer, not from the state, as far as I know.

Honest question in return -- how is this germane?

Prior to being sued (and ultimately a whole lot worse for the latter 2) -- Alameda Capital had never been cited, nor wood nymph Carolyn Ellison, nor SBF. I dont understand how the above is even germane.

Because the charge is a 'pattern' of lies... a history of it. If he has never been cited for it, where is the pattern or history? That is how it is germane.

And the pattern and persistency doesnt have to exist in other actions, Ham. The laundry list of stuff in the complaint, and in the SJ decision do that all by themselves.

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.

Quote:I'm laughing my ass off that you bring up SBF in comparison. You skoff at my examples and then you bring up an actual fraud with numerous victims.

As an example of why your persistency thing that seemingly requires previous incidents is incorrect mind you.

Quote:I honestly can't believe you don't see the Pandora's box that this opens up if there is no requirement for documentation/challenges to alleged misrepresentations if you're going to use it as your claim. Someone else even caught on to it.

No Pandora's box at all. The issue is proving persistent fraud. You seemingly think that the only history is if you have previous legal hits on it.

That *can* be used. No doubt. It isnt necessary. What is important is persistent fraud. The current case brings in many instances per each yearly statement of financial condition impacting massive amounts, and with multiple years of yearly statements. Sounds persistent to me. What abut large numbers of individual instances covering huge sums, over 15 - 20 years sound like to you? Small, interspersed, sparing?

Do you really think the *only* way to prove persistent is to bring into the record 4 or 5 previous 'court-found' liabilities? Seriously?

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.

Quote:

(10-30-2023 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Saying best pizza in town probably isn't prosecutable because it's likely subjective to ones taste. We're dealing with valuations of assets in the trump case, which can be subjective, but with the facts here they weren't just off once or twice by trivial amounts. It was a consistent and persistent gross overstatement.

But again, who relied upon these representations? You guys keep dancing around such a simple question.

Quote:And in case you didn't know, Papa Johns WAS sued for claiming the they used the better ingredients resulting in better pizza. And how'd that work out?

Quote:The suit, first initiated in 1998, centered around Papa John's advertising slogan: "Better Ingredients, Better Pizza." A jury initially found in favor of Pizza Hut, awarding almost $468,000 damages, and Papa John's was barred from using the slogan, but the ruling was overturned by an appellate court. In the appeal, the court found that the slogan by itself was misleading, but didn't have a major impact in the purchasing decisions of consumers.

"No advertiser has ever been able to defend a campaign that is deceptive on the basis that the public doesn't care," Pizza Hut said in a statement. "We are disappointed the court did not seize this opportunity to clarify this matter for the benefit of consumers and responsible advertisers, alike."

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Pizza Hut Appeal Vs. Papa John's Slogan

I think you've lost the script here.

Pizza hut claimed injury.... something we don't have here... They sued, won and then were overturned and they lost. The AG didn't come sue on their behalf. You're making my point. The slogan, despite being arguably a 'lie' or 'misrepresentation' according to the appeals court didn't impact large amounts of commerce....

You just made my argument for me against Tanq. Thank you.

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.

But please try to spin it as something against the position in the case at hand.

(10-30-2023 02:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 01:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Saying best pizza in town probably isn't prosecutable because it's likely subjective to ones taste. We're dealing with valuations of assets in the trump case, which can be subjective, but with the facts here they weren't just off once or twice by trivial amounts. It was a consistent and persistent gross overstatement.

Except that there is one objective and easily quantifiable standard. Did the properties cash flow sufficiently to service the debt? They did, which means that nothing was overvalued.

Can you show us the objective numbers that they did, aside from your assertion?

The statement has been made that the loans have been repaid. I have not seen that refuted. Have you?

How were they repaid?

y’all still interacting with the ChatGPT bot?

(10-30-2023 04:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 02:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 01:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Saying best pizza in town probably isn't prosecutable because it's likely subjective to ones taste. We're dealing with valuations of assets in the trump case, which can be subjective, but with the facts here they weren't just off once or twice by trivial amounts. It was a consistent and persistent gross overstatement.

Except that there is one objective and easily quantifiable standard. Did the properties cash flow sufficiently to service the debt? They did, which means that nothing was overvalued.

Can you show us the objective numbers that they did, aside from your assertion?

The statement has been made that the loans have been repaid. I have not seen that refuted. Have you?

How were they repaid?

Look, I am not following this affair in the detail that you are and I don't have any subpoena or other discovery powers in the matter. All I can do is rely on what information is published. It has been stated repeatedly that the loans have been repaid, and I have seen no assertion to the contrary. So I am relying on that.

If you have information to the contrary, what is it and where did you get it?

(10-30-2023 05:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 04:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 02:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 01:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Except that there is one objective and easily quantifiable standard. Did the properties cash flow sufficiently to service the debt? They did, which means that nothing was overvalued.

Can you show us the objective numbers that they did, aside from your assertion?

The statement has been made that the loans have been repaid. I have not seen that refuted. Have you?

How were they repaid?

Look, I am not following this affair in the detail that you are and I don't have any subpoena or other discovery powers in the matter. All I can do is rely on what information is published. It has been stated repeatedly that the loans have been repaid, and I have seen no assertion to the contrary. So I am relying on that.

If you have information to the contrary, what is it and where did you get it?

The loans in question may have been repaid. If they were repaid simply by rolling the debt over to a new debt holder, then your thesis doesnt hold.

Not just that, but the 'source' of 'the debts have been repaid' is all from Trump's mouth, literally. I give almost no stock in *anything* that Trump says may be honest or accurate, mind you. The numbers of things that he says or writes in public that are false far outweigh those that can be demonstrated to be true or accurate.

And, honestly, that extends to many of his attorneys in *their* public statements.

If you want to believe those unsubstantiated comments, considering their source, by all means be my guest.

And not just that. You *would* be correct in your comment if there were a 1:1 property to loan relationship. That isnt the case with the Trump methodology.

If I have 10 million in assets, and tell the bank they are worth 20 million, get a 15 million dollar loan to purchase new assets that lets say are highly accretive in nature -- that loan has *zero* bearing on the 'worth' of the original underlying assets. Which is the issue in question.

The *only* thing that can be ascertained by 'the loan' is whether the *entire* kit and kaboodle, *including the new assets* -- can pay off the loan. That doesnt speak to *any* individual value whatsoever in that case.

You would be absolutely correct if I obtained a 20 million dollar loan on the new property, with *no recourse* or no blowback to the original portfolio -- and that asset by itself paid off the loan. But -- that isnt the case we are dealing with.

If the loans were rolled over to a new debt holder, then that new debt holder would presumably have to support his/her/its loan requests with valuations, presumably of the same properties, and presumably at similar valuations.

I still think this whole deal is a biased judge trying to interpret valuation methodologies in a way that doesn't fit reality, in order to justify a hatchet job on Donald Trump. I will be interested in seeing what happens on appeal.

(10-30-2023 11:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Speaking of facts, she resigned as SOS on February 1, 2013. Kind of hard for her to lose her job years later.

And she should have lost her government security clearance forever - but she got the *wink* *wink* pass from her cronies instead.

TDS is a debilitating illness.

(10-30-2023 06:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If the loans were rolled over to a new debt holder, then that new debt holder would presumably have to support his/her/its loan requests with valuations, presumably of the same properties, and presumably at similar valuations.

I still think this whole deal is a biased judge trying to interpret valuation methodologies in a way that doesn't fit reality, in order to justify a hatchet job on Donald Trump. I will be interested in seeing what happens on appeal.

Maybe you should have offered your insights to the Trump legal team. Or to the judge.

(10-30-2023 07:23 PM)450bench Wrote:  TDS is a debilitating illness.

I agree. Trump D--- Sucking is truly a debilitating condition.