re: So in this civil Trump trial

quote:

---

“It’s inappropriate and inaccurate,” Larson testified. “I should have been told, and an appraisal should have been ordered.”

---

Two things:

I'm sure he is not the least bit concerned as to what happens to him should he give testimony that supports Trump in any way

and

I imagine, that Trump's properties were appraised frequently, since he was always working on projects that may or may not have materialized. If you have a recent appraisal, why pay for another for a deal that may or may not happen?

I just sold a commercial office that I had planned on keeping for rental income. An appraisal (not cheap) was done 6 months previous, as it was pledged as collateral for a construction loan for another property.

Ultimately, the person who bought the business entity that was going to rent the property, decided to buy the office as well. Even though the same bank was used by both parties, another appraisal was ordered.

The first appraiser, who took 3 months to find, was sent to do the second appraisal 6 months later. Guess who came up with the same number and made some easy money?!

Side rant. Why is it so difficult to get the banks to release the liens on your property after the loans were cancelled/paid off?

quote:

---

The allegation is that Orange Man Bad, period...

---

Fixed if for you, DiPrima.....

quote:

---

One could certainly argue that there SHOULD be no law against fraudulent misrepresentations, so long as no one relies upon those representations. But that is a matter for the New York legislature to determine, not the judge or the AG.

---

A much stronger argument is that the AG SHOULD enforce that law equally and without prejudice or not at all. Political AGs suck arse and are a MUCH bigger threat to this nation than Trump or any other candidate.

quote:

---

but his observation IS fairly-representative of people who realize the nature of this proceeding is entirely Political.

---

I'm going to have to start charging you for fixing your lies, DiPrima....

quote:

---

Some cannot seem to grasp that a judge in a bench trial is constrained by the evidence presented at trial by the parties.

---

This Judge has shown no evidence of being "constrained" by anything other than Political bias.

FFS, DiPrima, don't make us drag up old threads to show what a disingenuous hack you really are.

This trial is entirely Political and unprecedented, no amount of your bullshite Lawyer-esque word salad will change that.

quote:

---

How is it different?? Somewhere on a financial statement, a billionaire has an asset valued at 29MM except no one else on planet earth thinks its worth that much. So I ask again... How is it different?

---

Intent.

Lots of people think that their stuff is worth more than the market says it is worth. That sort of belief is NOT "fraud" and does NOT violate this statute.

The allegation is that the Trump Organization KNEW that the values were not accurate and had engaged in pattern of representing values that they KNEW to be fraudulently-inflated.

Again, this is not a difficult concept.

Maybe the AG can make her case regarding "intent," and maybe she cannot. But CONTINUING to feign ignorance of the actual nature of the proceeding (which has been explained countless times) is just as partisan as you believe the proceeding to be.

quote:

---

The allegation is that the Trump Organization KNEW that the values were not accurate and had engaged in pattern of representing values that they KNEW to be fraudulently-inflated.

---

In other words, you say Trump is guilty of acting like every other businessman or Politician who ever lived....

OK, DiPrima....

quote:

---

So again, you are saying the judge has a better judge of real estate than the actual person making the loan or the person doing the appraisal. Either of those both have to be true for this trial to even be held.

---

Yes, the tax assessor's valuation is low. I don't think that anyone really challenges that, but Trump is in a quandary.

Tactically, he CANNOT present evidence of a "fair" valuation of the properties in court. (For MaL, pick a number ... $100mm, rather than $27mm?). Why? Because that would essentially be an admission that the inflated value represented in banking documents was in fact fraudulent ... just less so than it could have been.

quote:

---

Obtuse1

---

Thank you for trying to explain the applicable law here. I'm afraid you are casting pearls before swine, but I appreciate the insight.

I think it is clear the AG is out to get Trump, but that doesn't render this suit invalid or inappropriate.

Executive Law 26(12) provides the NY AG with the power:

quote:

---

Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal
acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the
carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general
may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the
supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an
order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any
fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an
appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue
of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law
or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court
may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem
proper.

---

It is really broad, and basically says the State of NY does not like dishonest businesses, and the AG can move to shut them down.

Seems like it could be unconstitutional on several grounds, but so far it has withstood challenges.

Everyone raising analogies with buying a house or whatever, is off base. The Law is directed toward business conducted in NY, and repeated fraudulent activity.

The AG claims Trump repeatedly misrepresented his own net worth and the value of his properties to obtain more favorable terms on loans. Under the NY law, it doesn't seem to matter if the banks were harmed.

The Judge has granted summary judgment that Trump's businesses committed fraud. Summary judgment is not unusual in civil cases.

Trump has been targeted and probably due to political bias, though the AG could claim she went after him because he is a famous and prosperous NY real estate investor. Unfortunately for Trump, though, this case is not as outrageous as it sounds.

quote:

---

I think it is clear the AG is out to get Trump, but that doesn't render this suit invalid or inappropriate.

---

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