- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Joe Rogan shreds people for saying Donald Trump’s Mar-A-Lago is only worth $18Million
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:00 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:00 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Partly. You do not even understand that this is not a “prosecution,” but rather a civil case.
Oh my. Let me help you with the syntax:
• He made a finding based on prosecution
• Quote his “finding” as to value
Do you see the problem ... yet?
1
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:00 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You have zero clue what the value was 12 years ago. Let alone now.
It's estimated to be worth 300-350m today due to its deed restriction. It was estimated to be worth about 100m back then.
Neither is anywhere near the 460-600m Trump estimated it was worth 12 years ago and his executive testified that it was fraudulent in court. Keep doing the mental gymnastics though.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:01 pm to tango029
quote:In 2022, after Trump left office, Mar-a-Lago was converted into a full-time hotel open to public bookings while also still operating as a private club.
What does this have to do with its value 12 years ago when the loan was made.
Are you referring to his personal property tax? his corporate tax? some combination of the two? do you have the slightest clue? do you even know WTF you're being asked?
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:02 pm to BBONDS25
quote:It is summary judgment, and presumably the Plaintiff presented summary judgment evidence in support of her allegations, though I have not found the motion.
You must never represent a defendant. Holy shite, what a statement.
Per the MSJ Order, Trump presented an affidavit re the valuations, which was ruled inadmissible as conclusory.
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 5:09 pm
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:02 pm to tango029
quote:
It's estimated to be worth 300-350m today due to its deed restriction.
By whom?
quote:
It was estimated to be worth about 100m back the
By whom?
quote:
Neither is anywhere near the 460-600m Trump estimated it was worth 12 years ago and his executive testified that it was fraudulent in court. Keep doing the mental gymnastics though.
Do you think there are respected valuation experts out there that may disagree with your assertions?
BTW: asking you to back up your assertion isn’t “mental gymnastics”. Your failure to be able to provide any specificity appears to be where your confusion lies.
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 5:04 pm
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:07 pm to BBONDS25
quote:He made no explicit finding of value for that property.
Is that enough for you to admit the judge “found” overvaluation by using the assessed value?
The language you cite regarding the assessment was one of dozens of factors in his finding a pattern of fraud, just as to Mar-a-Lago. And Mar-a-Lago was just one small part of the overall pattern.
For some reason, this forum is obsessed with Mar-a-Lago.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:07 pm to Antoninus
quote:
You do not even understand that this is not a “prosecution,”
I misspelled persecution.
But you're correct a would-be prosecutor is the politically partisan plaintiff.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:08 pm to Antoninus
quote:
It is summary judgment, and presumably the Plaintiff presented summary judgment evidence in support of her allegations,
To a completely biased judge. As evidenced by the judge citing the value as 27 million. Yet you want to take the ridiculous judge and the clearly partisan prosecution as fact. Once again, you must never represent a defendant. Your defense of this is disappointing. Not surprising, though.
Still waiting on those “several instances” of you saying this is selective persecution.
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 5:09 pm
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:08 pm to tango029
quote:
It's estimated to be worth 300-350m today due to its deed restriction. It was estimated to be worth about 100m back then.
The lady who built it in 23 spent 7mill equivalent to about 120mil just to build it
Theres no way its worth just 350mil today
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:09 pm to Antoninus
quote:
The language you cite regarding the assessment was one of dozens of factors in his finding a pattern of fraud, just as to Mar-a-Lago. And Mar-a-Lago was just one small part of the overall pattern.
Oh my!
Hank, you're special.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:11 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Multiile threads both here and TexAgs.
waiting on those “several instances” of you saying this is selective persecution.
THIS IS SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT.
There, said it again.
You seem to want me to call it "selective prosecution," which I cannot do because this is not a criminal proceeding.
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:15 pm to Antoninus
quote:
Multiile threads both here
Ok, link us to a couple where
quote:
Antoninus
Says this.
You’re missing my point. You, Hank, have said that. Antoninus not so much.
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 5:17 pm
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:16 pm to BBONDS25
quote:I am simply evaluating an MSJ as an MSJ. No doubt the plaintiff/AG (again with the "prosecution?") tendered MSJ affidavits. Trump attempted to counter them, and his were deemed inadmissible.
you want to take the ridiculous judge and the clearly partisan prosecution as fact
Like any judge in any court in any state, I must accept the MSJ facts as true, unless refuted. That is how MSJ practice works.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:17 pm to Antoninus
quote:
his were deemed inadmissible.
By whom?
quote:
Like any judge in any court in any state, I must accept the MSJ facts as true, unless refuted. That is how MSJ practice works.
Depending on how you answer question 1, I wonder how much weight this holds for you.
Well, not really, I know you don’t care. You support law fare because it is against Trump.
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 5:19 pm
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:19 pm to Antoninus
quote:Then why the frick are you supporting it?
THIS IS SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT.
There, said it again.
Sorry if the question is offensive,
but there are 91 counts of selective enforcement BY THE TAXPAYER SUPPORTED STATE against a single individual.
At what point does that miscarriage of justice piss you off as a lawyer? ... Ever?
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
In 2022, after Trump left office, Mar-a-Lago was converted into a full-time hotel open to public bookings while also still operating as a private club.
The loan was originated in 2011, where be fraudulently placedis values at over half a billion. Are you really so fricking stupid that you think something in 2022 means dick for that loans valuation of the property 12 years prior?
Tell me you're not absolutely retarded.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:23 pm to tango029
quote:
where be fraudulently placedis values at over half a billion
Says who?
You keep making these claims as if you are some authority. Your poor use of logic and poor use of the English language makes it clear you are not an authority. So, where specifically are you getting your information?
quote:
Tell me you're not absolutely retarded.
He is a medical doctor. What are your credentials?
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 5:25 pm
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:24 pm to BBONDS25
quote:OK
link us to a couple where ... Antoninus ... says (selective enforcement)
quote:LINKquote:
So you’re saying, he only ordered the disolution of a DBA? What’s the point of that?
If you are asking about the judge, that is what he ordered because that is the only relief sought in the AG's original complaint (linked above). Even the AG (clearly engaged in selective enforcement) did not request dissolution of any corporate entity. Why?
Executive Law 63(12) does not give the AG any authority to dissolve a corporate entity or (as far as I can tell) even to revoke a Certificate of Authority for a foreign entity (such as Trump's various Delaware corporations).
Yes, it seems petty to simply prevent an entity from using an Assumed Name Certificate.
It does seem that the judge is considering the dissolution of the corporate entities, as reflected in his request for names to consider as a Receiver, but he has not ordered any such dissolution. If the stay is lifted and he eventually does attempt to fully-dissolve any of the business entities, he will be stepping far outside the statutory authority and will likely be overruled as a matter of law. I suspect, however, that the appellate court will explain to him that he lacks that authority.
Apparently the others were at TexAgs. I have discussed this case more over there. We had three active threads over the last two days.
Whether here or there, I have also said that this judge is clearly over his head, as far as understanding comple business litigation. He has done a number of things wrong.
But he has NOT ruled that Mar-a-Lago has a FMV of $27mm.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:26 pm to tango029
quote:Sweetheart, the dates 2012, 2021, and 2022 are cited in James' allegations.
The loan was originated in 2011 .... Are you really so fricking stupid that you think something in 2022 means dick for that loans valuation of the property 12 years prior?
"Are you really so fricking stupid that you think something in 2022 doesn't mean dick" when the "plaintiff" specifically cites 2022?
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:26 pm to Antoninus
So you only said it once. All the others were when you were Hank. Got it.
Page 14 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News