- 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 5:55 pm to Antoninus
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:55 pm to Antoninus
quote:
How would the status of the Trump Organization as a closely-held business be of any consequence as to the value of twenty parcels of real estate?
Yikes. Hank. You can’t wrap your mind around this difference?
quote:
Would the dirt not have essentially the same FMV as dirt, whether currently owned by John Smith or by Apple Computers?
Of course. The owner is irrelevant to the valuation. It’s the uniqueness of the property that makes comps difficult. It’s the lack of access to financials and the lack of knowledge of demand for such a unique property that makes it different. I should not have to lead you to this.
Take a look at how accurate Forbes valuations of sports franchises have been. Usually off (low) by 50-100 percent. And there are at least a few comps they can use there.
Relying on Forbes for a valuation of a closely held entity is foolish. Not realizing why MAL is different than 20 plots of land is even more foolish. But I would be happy to base the valuation based upon the average value of land in that neighborhood.
You won’t like what that does to your “argument”.
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 5:58 pm
1
Posted on 10/8/23 at 5:56 pm to tango029
quote:
There's plenty of others who've given similar valuations. Get off your arse and Google them up.
And there are others that disagree. Lending credence to the difficulty of preparing a valuation of such a unique property. The wide range of valuations given proves there is no fraud. Clearly the banks thought it was legit. Do you think they just believed Trulmp?
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 5:58 pm
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:00 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
And there are others that disagree. Lending credence to the difficulty of valuation such a unique property. The wide range of valuations given proves there is no fraud.
And none are valid for a valuation from a decade ago, when trump estimated fraudulently its value to be over half a billion. And by his own admission using a valuation specifically restricted by his deed.
And who his own executive stated it was fraudulent in court, under oath. But yeah man, you know better.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:02 pm to Antoninus
quote:
But a poster screaming "This whole thing is fabricated because Trump is as pure as the driven snow!" is just wrong to the point of being delusional.
Says the idiot with terminal TDS.
You have zero capability of approaching anything concerning Trump in a rational, unbiased manner.
You have proven that over and over and over.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:03 pm to tango029
quote:
And none are valid for a valuation from a decade ago, when trump estimated fraudulently
Says who?
quote:
And who his own executive stated it was fraudulent in court,
Link his executive saying it was “fraudulent”. My recollection was that he said he used a method that would be used for a residence and not an income producing property. That may mean he used the wrong valuation method, but it in no way means the numbers on the loan application were incorrect and certainly doesn’t mean they were fraudulent.
I’ve got plans I’m heading to, but I look forward to you linking the executive saying the words “fraudulent”.
If he did, I’ll eat my crow as to his testimony.
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:04 pm to BBONDS25
quote:The real property called "Mar-a-Lago" is not a closely held entity, though it is owned by a closely held entity. The ownership of the real property does not effect the value of the real property.
Relying on Forbes for a valuation of aquote:is foolish. Not realizing why maralagonis different than 20 plots of land is even more foolish. But I would be happy to base the valuation based upon the average value of land in that neighborhood.
closet held entity
You won’t like what that does to your “argument”.
Now, if you are trying to discuss a value of the "going concern" of the private club, and if that is what Forbes was trying to value (which I do not believe to be the case), I do agree with you.
quote:And, again, the nature of the ownership of the real property is irrelevant to that question.
It’s the uniqueness of the property that makes comps difficult.
I absolutely agree that a property such as Mar-a-Lago (again, only one of about 20 properties as to which Trump is alleged to have inflated his valuations) is unique and thus difficult to find good "comps."
quote:I don't even understand what point you are trying to raise here. Mar-a-Lago is just one of approximately twenty properties that the AG has alleged were intentionally and knowingly over-valued by Trump. Another is his Trump Tower penthouse. I think that Bedminster was another. Understand now?
Not realizing why maralagonis different than 20 plots of land is even more foolish.
You seem to be thinking that Mar-a-Lago is coomprised of twenty parcels or maybe that there were 20 (bad) local "comps."
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:07 pm to Antoninus
quote:
You seem to be thinking that Mar-a-Lago is coomprised of twenty parcels
Gee. I wonder why I would use the 20 number.
quote:
How would the status of the Trump Organization as a closely-held business be of any consequence as to the value of twenty parcels of real estate?
You’re slipping Hank.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:07 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Was the court presented with MSJ evidence of these other valuations by all these financial institutions?
Clearly the banks thought it was legit. Do you think they just believed Trump?
Again, this was an MSJ. Very different rules than a trial on the merits.
Trump's counsel have repeatedly over the past three years proven themselves to be essentially incompetent. Is there any reason to believe that THIS set of Trump lawyers suddenly became competent in responding to THIS motion?
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:09 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Not sure who this "Hank" might be, but I did just assume that anyone discussing this issue would have read both the entire thread and the controlling Complaint. The AG alleges that Trump intentionally and knowingly over-valued about twenty DIFFERENT parcels of real property, of which the Mar-a-Lao property is only one.quote:You’re slipping Hank.
How would the status of the Trump Organization as a closely-held business be of any consequence as to the value of twenty parcels of real estate?
Perhaps that was a foolish assumption.
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 6:21 pm
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:10 pm to Antoninus
quote:NO!
As such, I do not "approve" of their having been filed. Plain and simple.
It isn't "plain and simple" Hank.
Sorry!
You're a lawyer in a thread defending a case which you now claim never should have been filed. Does that register?
If taxpayer compensated attorneys filed any case they could concoct against any defendant they choose to target, with targeting based solely partisan politics, they could financially crush 49 of 50 families they targeted ... even if all 49 were completely innocent.
Does that impropriety register?
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:13 pm to Antoninus
quote:
Not sure who this "Hank" might be,
Wow...now you're just being a lying cnt.....
I think I'm gonna register at Texags tomorrow and let them know their banned friend K****DB is back and using an alter....
Also, we should probably start RA'ing every single post you make at this point for being such a lying POS....
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:15 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I am NOT defending the filing of the case. I disapprove.
You're a lawyer in a thread defending a case which you now claim never should have been filed. Does that register?
I am EVALUATING (correctly) the substantive merits of the claims, separate and apart from the selective enforcement issue.
Why? I am not certain that the constitutional concerns related to selective PROSECUTION apply to civil cases. SCOTUS often draws that distinction in other areas of civil regulation/enforcement vs criminal proceedings.
quote:I think that would be improper. I think that the prosecutor who did that should be replaced at the next election. But (in a civil case) I am not convinced that the Constitution has been violated. Does that DISTINCTION register?
If taxpayer compensated attorneys filed any case they could concoct against any defendant they choose to target, with targeting based solely partisan politics, they could financially crush 49 of 50 families they targeted ... even if all 49 were completely innocent.
Does that impropriety register?
This post was edited on 10/8/23 at 6:31 pm
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:15 pm to oogabooga68
quote:Don't.
we should probably start RA'ing every single post you make at this point for being such a lying POS....
He won't learn anything that way.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:17 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
He won't learn anything that way.
Well, I've proven more than once that he's a Narcissistic Sociopath, so "learning" anything is off the table...
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:18 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
He won't learn anything that way.
Besides after his "who is this Hank fellow you speak of" post, I think he may have finally gone completely off the rails into madness.....or he's drunk posting as usual...
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:20 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I’ve got plans I’m heading to, but I look forward to you linking the executive saying the words “fraudulent”.
If he did, I’ll eat my crow as to his testimony.
Andrew Amer, a lawyer for the New York state Attorney General’s office, asked McConney whether he had been asked more than once to help Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg commit tax fraud. McConney said yes.
McConney also admitted that Weisselberg had told him to process a payroll check for Weisselberg’s wife so she could get Social Security benefits, even though she was not a Trump Organization employee.
McConney has previously acknowledged he knew he was breaking the law. He testified Friday that he continued to commit fraud because Weisselberg was his boss, and McConney knew he would likely lose his job if he stopped obeying.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:25 pm to tango029
quote:What an odd question.
asked McConney whether he had been asked more than once to help Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg commit tax fraud. McConney said yes.
How many times has Allen Weisselberg been convicted for committing """tax fraud"""???
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:32 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
What an odd question.
How many times has Allen Weisselberg been convicted for committing """tax fraud"""???
Is this a stupid joke? Dude plead out months ago.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:36 pm to Antoninus
quote:Oh my!
I think that would be improper.
"improper"???
You think a Piece-of-shite tax-supported lawyer bringing a series of bullshite financially devastating cases against a defendant, solely because of his independent belief-set, is "improper"??
No Hank. Not putting your napkin in your lap at the dinner table is "improper".
Breaking an innocent family financially because they do not espouse critical theory, Marxism, or their 14y/o daughter being anally sodomized on the filthy floor of a high school restroom is a legal atrocity.
Posted on 10/8/23 at 6:38 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:You seem to need emotional outbursts. I hope this one has provided you some catharsis.quote:Oh my!
I think that would be improper.
"improper"???
Page 16 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News