re: So in this civil Trump trial

quote:

---

The judge ruled that those affidavits were OMB and thus inadmissible...

---

This is tiring....

Yes, I agree that many governing organizations have sought to define “fraud” to satisfy an executive desire. The USPTO did this a long time, namely defining fraud to be an inaccurate statement made intentionally or with gross negligence on its truth. However, In Re Bose declared what most people believe, there needs to be intent to deceive (scienter)

That’s the heart of these complaints— not a procedural understanding ( which Hank is using as his new basis to insult), or a logical failing. Complaints largely express two concerns— one the partisanship of the proceeding and two, the disconnect between the proceeding and our traditional notice of fairness on the acts

It doesn’t matter if they color up a taking of 250 MM as a civil action pursuant to executive law, procedurally disallow evidence, make findings in motion sessions rather than judgments, etc. Many, many people consider these remedies and these takings to be against our notions of justice. Not only is there no scienter, the banks themselves requested this process. Deutsche wasn’t lending in its commercial division, but its high net worth division. They wanted to do recourse lending and provided the roadmaps that went to the disclaimed statements of financial condition

This judge has done nothing improper or that is reversible error,
based on the information avIlable to us. Anything else is speculation or
Projection.

quote:

---

Anything else is speculation or
Projection.

---

Thank you for coming along and proving beyond all doubt this is all a Political Jihad.

The dude literally said that banks were cheated out of higher interest earnings because Trump's valuations gave him more favorable rates.

quote:

---

s I said, he would need to have presented that evidence in admissible form. Basically, he did NOT submit a "clean" appraisal

---

After reading oogas post, I understand the basis of your assertion. Nevertheless, thus isn’t a Texas divorce proceeding. There isn’t a term of art of a “clean appraisal” that is at issue in this matter. Indeed an appraisal of present value would not read on an alleged fraudulent value in the 2012-2019 Statements of Financial Condition that were prepared primarily for the reporting requirements of credit events pursuant to the types of loans procured by Trump at issue in these proceedings

I have no idea what Trump will do in his portion of the trial, but based on the out of court statements I presume the experts will likely deal with the additor to value tgat could be obtained by transferring the goodwill associated with the management of the businesses at these enterprises

Nevertheless, I’m guessing albeit with some support

quote:

---

There isn’t a term of art of a “clean appraisal” that is at issue in this matter.

---

I do not contend otherwise. The phrasing is mine, intended to reference an appraisal that either explains or discards the questionable assumptions and methodologies outlined in depth by the AG.

quote:

---

an appraisal of present value would not read on an alleged fraudulent value in the 2012-2019 Statements of Financial Condition

---

Agreed. I have said the same thing, multiple times. The "clean" appraisal would have to relate back to the time periods at issue. An appraisal (even a "clean" one) as to value in 2023 would have zero probative value as to the value a decade earlier.

quote:

---

you dont even understand that banks don’t lend 9 figures based on the borrower's "word".

---

You’re correct, they require a few signatures and documents, not just someone’s “word.”

quote:

---

But according to this dipshit prosecutor and judge…. We are breaking the law since we claim the value of our homes is more than the county assessment.

---

Unless your home is in NY and is owned by an ongoing business concern subject the the NY Executive Law they are not suggesting you are breaking the law.

This law reminds me a little of the federal law that makes it illegal (criminally) to give your child any money as a loan and then let the child claim those assets as his or her own income or saving to an FSLIC or FDIC backed institution in support of a loan application. It is also illegal for the child or other family member to take the loan and call it income/savings on the loan app. Good for 5-30 years. It happens ALL the time but rarely ever prosecuted, it doesn't require default or even a single late payment to trigger.

It does however get used when you piss someone off. A federal prosecutor used it against a Baltimore city police commissioner (Ed Norris) when the prosecutor couldn't nail him on misuse of city money. Ed had taken $9k from his dad for a down payment on a house and while his dad signed the usual gift letter Ed returned the money at a later date. This put Ed in the crosshairs and completely up shite creek even though tons of kids and parents have done this, I might even know one or two. Another law that could be used all the time but isn't until someone wants to use it. It also requires no typical damages or victim but the penalty is brutal.