re: Kevin O’Leary Explains to CNN Audience, NYC Case Against President Trump is Nonsense

quote:

---

The no victims thing is a weak argument If I speed and don't cause an accident I'm still breaking traffic laws

---

This is a weak argument. To commit fraud someone has to be defrauded ie the victim.

quote:

---

The no victims thing is a weak argument If I speed and don't cause an accident I'm still breaking traffic laws Either his business committed fraud or it didn't. Whether or not someone was the victim of that is immaterial.

---

It’s a fraud charge. Who did he fraud?

quote:

---

Either his business committed fraud or it didn't.

---

Was the judge’s asinine use of tax assessed values for Trumps real estate any less “fraudulent”?

Because that’s what this is about. Subjective real estate evaluations. You know this case is arse and you don’t need to guess why it was filed. Leticia told you what she was going to do in her campaign.

quote:

---

The no victims thing is a weak argument

---

It is weaker than you realize. The NY Executive Law 63(12) which is the law the suit was brought under specifically does not require identifiable victims. It was drafted to be used in situations where there are not identifiable victims. It would be nice if even one of the talking heads had read the statutes they are commenting on.

These cases are not designed to do anything other than pull Trump off the campaign. It is a time and resource drain. They know this will be overturned on appeal ,but now Trump has to go through the appeals process. His rallies are very effective and they know it. That is what this is all about.

quote:

---

The no victims thing is a weak argument

---

NO!
This isn't a "no victims thing."

These were negotiated deals in which all parties were made whole. No one got ripped off, no one lost money.

---

E.g., Several years back we refinanced a property. The loan company appraisal came in $250K under value (zillow est & tax value). Didn't make a difference in the amount we intended to borrow so we let it ride. But it kind of pissed me off.

Fast forward 4 months: Our new tax real estate appraisal came in at a $400K increase. IOW $400K over value.

That's a $650K difference between two appraisals on the identical property 4 months apart.

Fortunately, the earlier lowball appraisal allowed us to reset the tax value to the old rate (still $250K higher than the earlier appraisal).

So on the one hand, a loan company was reticent to lend a bunch of money at a 2.4% rate without rock solid collateral. On the other hand, the government wanted to maximize tax revenue with property overvaluation. Those reasons underpinned and highly influenced our disparate appraisals.

Should those parties be held liable for their false valuation?

Should I face civil punishment for disagreeing with the loan company lowball appraisal?

That's what is happening to Trump.

Like I said earlier.

This law criminalizes opinions and opinions are not lies.
This law should be challenged under the first Amendment.

quote:

---

This law criminalizes opinions and opinions are not lies.

---

IDK whether it criminalizes it, but it certainly attaches liability...certainly extending to valuation opinions inclusive of implicit bias. Acknowledgement of bias necessitates due diligence in valuation.

quote:

---

It’s the act itself that meets the elements of the crime.

---

This is a civil case not a criminal case. You should be ashamed of yourself.

quote:

---

It is weaker than you realize. The NY Executive Law 63(12) which is the law the suit was brought under specifically does not require identifiable victims. It was drafted to be used in situations where there are not identifiable victims. It would be nice if even one of the talking heads had read the statutes they are commenting on.

---

It was also intended to hold lenders accountable. Not consumers. It also requires fraud be proven. Tough to do on a subjective valuation. The case is crap. You know it.