re: So in this civil Trump trial

quote:

---

quote:

---

Tactically, he CANNOT present evidence of a "fair" valuation of the properties in court. (For MaL, pick a number

---

bullshite. The valuation could very well come back at the numbers in the financial statements. The statements that specifically said the numbers were estimates.

---

As part of the preparation of his defense in this case, do you actually believe that he did not hire a "consulting expert" to prepare a clean valuation? Do you actually believe that such consulting expert would not have immediately become a "testifying expert" if the clean valuation supported the representations at issue?

You are not that naive.

quote:

---

do you actually believe that he did not hire a "consulting expert" to prepare a clean valuation?

---

Do you have proof that happened or are you just pulling it out of your arse?

quote:

---

Do you have any idea how fricked up that sentence is? And I don't even like Trump.

---

I do. That's why I said it. This NY law is quite unusual.

quote:

---

You are not that naive.

---

So you believe the judge would believe any expert trump provided? He ruled for summary judgement, right?

quote:

---

Has the court or judge even said what the correct valuation should be? Or is it more along the lines of Trump and the lenders agreeing to a valuation and the judge saying "Nuh-uh"?

---

The finding of fraud was made on summary judgment, filed by the AG. The following is a VERY simplified primer on MSJ procedure.

The AG filed its motion, supported by its evidence. That evidence was (essentially) (i) all of Trump's representations of value, (ii) all of the ways in which Trump has acknowledged that those represented values were calculated and why those methodologies should be treated as "fraudulent," and (iii) the tax-assessed values.

To defeat summary judgment, the burden then lay with Trump to present evidence as to why the represented values were not fraudulent, and the best way to have done that would have been to present "clean" valuations consistent with the represented values. Trump failed to present admissible evidence to that effect.

On summary judgment, the ONLY admissible evidence thus before the court was the evidence presented by the AG. Grant of summary judgment was thus essentially mandatory. Assuming no dispute as to applicable law, failure to grant summary judgment on uncontradicted evidence would have been reversible error.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are not that naive.

---

So you believe the judge would believe any expert trump provided? He ruled for summary judgement, right?

---

On summary judgment, it would not have mattered whether the judge "believed" the evidence, if it was presented in admissible form. As you know, that mere presentation of that evidence would preclude entry of summary judgment. Had that evidence been presented in admissible form and ignored (which did not happen), I would have been as critical of the judge as the hoard of this board.

Now, would the same judge have LATER "believed" that evidence when acting as the finder of fact at the eventual bench trial?

That is a reasonable question, and I admit that I am skeptical that he would have done so.

quote:

---

And that's Trump's fault exactly why? If you want to charge the man with fraud then do it. But don't make up some bullshite claim that the banks didnt know how much stuff was worth and just took his word for it.

And if not claiming responsibility is a crime, why arent they on trial as well?

---

I am beginning to think that any attempt to explain this case to you is the functional equivalent of trying to explain an internal combustion engine to a caveman who has not yet even mastered the art of starting a fire with a piece of chipped flint.

quote:

---

so the party line is that a large bank made a massive loan on real estate without securing its own evaluation or, at minimum, dropping a line to verify the alleged Trump appraisal? Is that what we are being told to believe?

---

No.

That is NOT the claim asserted by the AG.

quote:

---

I am beginning to think that any attempt to explain this case to you is the functional equivalent of trying to explain an internal combustion engine to a caveman who has not yet even mastered the art of starting a fire with a piece of chipped flint.

---

Ah, there's the angry, drunk, Narcissistic AntonHankus we all know and er....know....

Do you believe even half the shite you post?

You really still believe this whole thing isn't about GETTING Trump?

Then again, given your History, you may damn well finally have slipped your nut and gone completely off the rails.