re: So to all the posters who were on the "Trump committed fraud to get his loans" crowd

It’s just one of those things where they throw shite up against the wall and praying that it sticks.. when it doesn’t stick, they just move on to the next exaggerates false flag hoax.

quote:

---

I’m waiting for your assessment which shows the valuation being closer to $739million and not what Forbes suggested.

---

Good Lord. You do know Trump submitted valuations to the court, right? Of course you didn’t. Read the record you dumb frick.

Now for the fourth time, why did you argue that the assessed value for property taxes was relevant in any manner whatsoever?

I’ll tell you why. Because you rely on CNN and the AP and you’re an 18 year old ignorant idiot. I can’t believe I’ve spent this much time educating you.

You’ll get it in 10-20 years or so.

It’s not fraud as defined by the law. Tax assessment isn’t a valuation. Although, I’ve agreed to buy land before for less than the tax assessment and I had to cover the difference to complete the sale….

quote:

---

he has to have given those values intending to defraud the bank.

---

Notice you failed to address this.

quote:

---

So you thought the best way to close out your argument is to make a baseless claim that you have no way of knowing is true which I am the only one who knows whether or not you are right? That pretty much tells me everything i need to know sweetheart.

---

Your username is TigerIn23.

I also answered your question and informed you Trump presented valuations to the court. You have a tendency to dismiss the relevant portions of a post and concentrate on meaningless points. I couldn’t care less if you’re 18. I hope you are, because if you are this financially illiterate as an adult that is just sad.


Also, for the sixth time. Can you articulate to us why you think a tax assessed value is relevant in any way whatsoever to the fair market value?

quote:

---

Notice you failed to address this.

---

I will as soon as you point out where in Section 63(12) it requires the government to prove that financial losses were incurred or that the defendant acted with intention to defraud.

I’ll wait…

Section 63(12) requires fraudlent activity. The posters here are trying to describe fraud to you.

I think you are referring to this part of the New York law:

12. 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. The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception,
misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term "persistent fraud" or "illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term "repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.

You are arguing that you can have fraud without a victim. How then do you define fraudlent activity that the statute is aimed at?

So you decided to copy and paste the portion of the law which explicitly states what fraud is defined as and it doesn’t include if financial losses were incurred or that the defendant acted with intention?

quote:

---

You dumb idiot

---

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

quote:

---

it doesn’t include if financial losses were incurred or that the defendant acted with intention?

---

quote:

---

artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.

---

You don’t think that definition requires intention? Holy shite. You are as dumb as a rock.



LOLOLOLOL