I must say, if Trump wins and clears himself of all wrongdoing I will enjoy the fireworks. For so long it has been Democrats complaining of excessive fines and sentences, and Republicans saying "rule of law." It will be hilarious to watch the roles reverse.

Whiskey Pete said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

...Of course, Gov. Hochul is suggesting that you have nothing to fear from such confiscatory actions unless you are Trump in New York. However, if the only protection in New York is the discretion of figures like James, few businesses would relish the future.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 19, 2024

---

Or, if your valuations were within a reasonable range and defensible. Apparently, the values used were not defensible.

---

did the court review every major nyc real estate financing deal by every developer since statute enactment to make sure everyone is following the rules? honest question. just want to make sure democrats are catching all the bad guys while we're in follow the rules mode.

---

I assume not, or Trump would have had the appraiser on the stand showing the "comps" and the methodology used.

If they self-valuated, then whoever did it would have to not only show credentials but the methodology used. Since he lost and was cited for fraud, I am assuming his evidence was not compelling.

Do not know. I do know that it seems many are discounting that he over inflated values, basically saying everyone does it. Does that make him innocent?

---

i don't know if everyone does it. my guess is these cases typically arise because there's an aggrieved party to a deal who raises hell in litigation or a whistleblower speaks up to authorities. it looks like ny singled out trump here (he's special and it's an election year, right?) and went hunting for any potentially actionable conduct. is there a state agency that watchdogs every transaction to go after fraud? or what would they find if they deal audit five random developers each year?

you guys keep arguing from the granular perspective of did trump deserve to lose this case or that case. I'm pointing out that independent voters (both parties need them to win) may ask questions about the big lawfare turd democrats have rolled up and thrown at trump. is it going to be effective in November or overkill, and what happens when Desantis, JD Vance or another "special" conservative gets too close to the white house in four years?

i'll hang up and listen.

---

We know what they'll Do. Mit Romney was a closet womanizer / sexual assault
Predator waiting to happen. Thankfully the media discovered that just before the election to save us from that so we could keep loser Obama to "have a little more leeway" form4 years handing over territory to Russia and wrecking the economy with deic Obamacare efc etc

---

Ah, "The Binders Full of Women" narrative during 2012. Almost forgot about that.

---

Don't forget he tried to murder the family dog but allowing it to ride on the outside of the car as a animal assaulter

Porteroso said:

---

I must say, if Trump wins and clears himself of all wrongdoing I will enjoy the fireworks. For so long it has been Democrats complaining of excessive fines and sentences, and Republicans saying "rule of law." It will be hilarious to watch the roles reverse.

---

That's what we keep telling the democrats; "you do realize this can be used against you in the future, right?" Remember the 2013 Nuclear option rule change in the senate? Pepperage Farms remembers.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Whiskey Pete said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

...Of course, Gov. Hochul is suggesting that you have nothing to fear from such confiscatory actions unless you are Trump in New York. However, if the only protection in New York is the discretion of figures like James, few businesses would relish the future.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 19, 2024

---

Or, if your valuations were within a reasonable range and defensible. Apparently, the values used were not defensible.

---

did the court review every major nyc real estate financing deal by every developer since statute enactment to make sure everyone is following the rules? honest question. just want to make sure democrats are catching all the bad guys while we're in follow the rules mode.

---

I assume not, or Trump would have had the appraiser on the stand showing the "comps" and the methodology used.

If they self-valuated, then whoever did it would have to not only show credentials but the methodology used. Since he lost and was cited for fraud, I am assuming his evidence was not compelling.

Do not know. I do know that it seems many are discounting that he over inflated values, basically saying everyone does it. Does that make him innocent?

---

i don't know if everyone does it. my guess is these cases typically arise because there's an aggrieved party to a deal who raises hell in litigation or a whistleblower speaks up to authorities. it looks like ny singled out trump here (he's special and it's an election year, right?) and went hunting for any potentially actionable conduct. is there a state agency that watchdogs every transaction to go after fraud? or what would they find if they deal audit five random developers each year?

you guys keep arguing from the granular perspective of did trump deserve to lose this case or that case. I'm pointing out that independent voters (both parties need them to win) may ask questions about the big lawfare turd democrats have rolled up and thrown at trump. is it going to be effective in November or overkill, and what happens when Desantis, JD Vance or another "special" conservative gets too close to the white house in four years?

i'll hang up and listen.

---

We know what they'll Do. Mit Romney was a closet womanizer / sexual assault
Predator waiting to happen. Thankfully the media discovered that just before the election to save us from that so we could keep loser Obama to "have a little more leeway" form4 years handing over territory to Russia and wrecking the economy with deic Obamacare efc etc

---

Ah, "The Binders Full of Women" narrative during 2012. Almost forgot about that.

---

Don't forget he tried to murder the family dog but allowing it to ride on the outside of the car as a animal assaulter

---

Yes! I did forget about that, but didn't forget that he was going to kill grandparents!

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let me first state that of course it is ethically wrong to lie about the value of property for financial gain or advantage. And if is against NY law to do this, then it would be legally wrong too.

But here's my problem with this: if the banks feel they were defrauded by Trump, then THEY should be the one to bring the complaint. The "victim" of the parties involved should always be the one to do this, not an uninvolved third party. Of course, NY can claim they are a victim in the sense that such fraud 1) puts NY at risk financially in the case the loan is defaulted, and the value of the collateral isn't enough to cover the losses, 2) encourages further fraud from the business or other businesses, 3) causes NY to lose revenue from what could have been generated from taxes on bank profits, since there would have been a higher percentage rate on the loan, or 4) make less money available from banks to loan out to other NY businesses or ventures.

Each of these would be a valid argument for NY - but it would depend on NY being able to prove that the banks would not have given out the same loan to Trump at the same terms anyway, even if he had NOT grossly overvalued his property. I don't know if they can even prove this, unless the bank says so. But whatever Trump valued his property at, the banks ultimately signed off on it, meaning the two parties effectively agreed to the valuation, as well as to the amount and terms of the loan. If the bank made a mistake and feel they were defrauded, then they can bring the charge, and then the state of NY has a case against Trump. If not, then I don't see the merit in this NY law or this court case. Am I missing something? I am fully open to being wrong.

---

What about competitors that wanted to compete for that money or locations? They were not able to because of false statements?

The conditions of the loans required truth in lending, some required maintaining wealth level of 2.5 b, he was no where close at the time of the loans nevermind maintaining that level.

I am sorry the more I read into this, the more I agree with NY. He doubled his worth and used those values to secure financing. Seen too many real estate deals fall through because of financing to gave sympathy. He got caught. Simple as that

---

If other competitors could not compete for the banks' money because of Trump's loan, then THEY need to bring the complaint, not the state of NY. Even so, they would be in the same predicament as the state of NY in that they would have to prove the banks would not have given Trump the same loan anyway, regardless of the overvaluation. If they can show the bank would not have, then they would have a case. But did they do that here?

Even if the loans required truth in lending or a wealth minimum, still, ultimately the banks did sign off on the loan, which Trump could argue means the banks agreed to the value of the property. If the banks say they did not agree, and therefore would NOT have given the same loan to Trump, then there's a case. But again, did they do that here? If not, then I don't believe the court case has any standing.

Who's ever been trying to sell property where the person buying that is taking out a loan from a bank has to accept what you say your property is worth?

Ton of people posting here that don't know shot from shin Ola but as with Jesus, he could perform miracles or even save himself from the cross and still many here wouldn't believe anyway so

As just one example a property 40% the size of mar a Lago just sold for hundreds of
Millions in Florida's yet m a L is worth $18 million.

Okey doke

FLBear5630 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

"I suspect this will be overturned on Appeal"

Based on what, exactly? The standard of review for appealing a subjective award is abuse of discretion, and good luck proving that when the award came under the state's ask. Especially when the defendant is so openly unrepentant in any way.

The finding of fraud is not going away, period. A reduction of the award is theoretically possible, but pretty unlikely given the record the appeals court will have to adhere to.

---

Sorry, but the review is not abuse of discretion. Rather it is sufficiency of the evidence - something that is sorely lacking in this case as there is no evidence of a victim.

---

Haven't followed it closely, but I'm pretty sure no victim is required. I agree with Frank Galvin that the judgment looks excessive, at least at first glance.

---

So say I value a $350,000 home @ $700,000 to acquire a $600,000 loan which I pay back in full on time, But, I am then fined $7,000,000 for doing this bank fraud. This seems incredibly excessive.

Seems like the Court is a bigger crook than Trump and even more corrupt.

---

The injured party is his competitors that didn't get the favorable financing and followed the rules. Let's say you want to develop a piece of property, spend the money on plans, proposals, changing zonings and then compete against someone else that can offer more because they are paying 2 points lower interest. Financing based on made up values for collateral. Does it matter if they can pay it back?

Hell no, it is an unfair business practice and advantage. It sends a message the rules are for chumps. So more people inflate.

When 2008 happened everyone wanted stronger rules to prevent creative financing. But, it's Donald, rules don't count for him because you like his rhetoric. It's what we've become.

---

I don't like his rhetoric, I loath Trump. Yet see all these inner circle politicians who clearly have no law, when it comes to their actions Clintons, Bidens, Obama's, Bushes etc. and nothing ever happens. I would like to see judicial balance, not one sided cronyism.

A lot of people would like to see a well-intentioned amateur thrown into the fray against this cabal. Trump remains the only person capable of handling this dirty job for us. The nice guys can enter the arena in 4 years, after the mess has been cleaned up and the perpetrators run out of town.

Porteroso said:

---

I must say, if Trump wins and clears himself of all wrongdoing I will enjoy the fireworks. For so long it has been Democrats complaining of excessive fines and sentences, and Republicans saying "rule of law." It will be hilarious to watch the roles reverse.

---

thats what i find amusing now.. the Dems scream excessive fines and sentences yet find Trump's justified because he is an a..hole

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let me first state that of course it is ethically wrong to lie about the value of property for financial gain or advantage. And if is against NY law to do this, then it would be legally wrong too.

But here's my problem with this: if the banks feel they were defrauded by Trump, then THEY should be the one to bring the complaint. The "victim" of the parties involved should always be the one to do this, not an uninvolved third party. Of course, NY can claim they are a victim in the sense that such fraud 1) puts NY at risk financially in the case the loan is defaulted, and the value of the collateral isn't enough to cover the losses, 2) encourages further fraud from the business or other businesses, 3) causes NY to lose revenue from what could have been generated from taxes on bank profits, since there would have been a higher percentage rate on the loan, or 4) make less money available from banks to loan out to other NY businesses or ventures.

Each of these would be a valid argument for NY - but it would depend on NY being able to prove that the banks would not have given out the same loan to Trump at the same terms anyway, even if he had NOT grossly overvalued his property. I don't know if they can even prove this, unless the bank says so. But whatever Trump valued his property at, the banks ultimately signed off on it, meaning the two parties effectively agreed to the valuation, as well as to the amount and terms of the loan. If the bank made a mistake and feel they were defrauded, then they can bring the charge, and then the state of NY has a case against Trump. If not, then I don't see the merit in this NY law or this court case. Am I missing something? I am fully open to being wrong.

---

What about competitors that wanted to compete for that money or locations? They were not able to because of false statements?

The conditions of the loans required truth in lending, some required maintaining wealth level of 2.5 b, he was no where close at the time of the loans nevermind maintaining that level.

I am sorry the more I read into this, the more I agree with NY. He doubled his worth and used those values to secure financing. Seen too many real estate deals fall through because of financing to gave sympathy. He got caught. Simple as that

---

If other competitors could not compete for the banks' money because of Trump's loan, then THEY need to bring the complaint, not the state of NY. Even so, they would be in the same predicament as the state of NY in that they would have to prove the banks would not have given Trump the same loan anyway, regardless of the overvaluation. If they can show the bank would not have, then they would have a case. But did they do that here?

Even if the loans required truth in lending or a wealth minimum, still, ultimately the banks did sign off on the loan, which Trump could argue means the banks agreed to the value of the property. If the banks say they did not agree, and therefore would NOT have given the same loan to Trump, then there's a case. But again, did they do that here? If not, then I don't believe the court case has any standing.

---

Really? I thought that's what oversight was about, especially in a State like NY that has such a large business presence. This is not the first time by a long shot that regulatory/legal oversight has been used in NY (see Wall Street). This is not the first time this law has been used. I attached a link to 33 Court Case analysis from Exxon, Juul, Pepsi, Pharm, etc... This is not even the first time it was used against Trump, he knew all about it and settled both Trump University and the Trump Foundation by paying the fine.

So, to say this is a witch hunt and some new Law just to get Trump from running does not hold water when you look at the facts. But, that has never stopped this Board before. Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten. Look at the conditions on the loans, he had to maintain levels of wealth (based on false valuations) that he never attained.

We are not talking the difference between the Property Appraiser values versus sales values. For example, his Penthouse he stated was 3 times the size it was and valued at 300 million dollars, the highest selling property ever in his building has be 16.9 million. His accountant admitted he overvalued it by 200 million and used it as collateral. That is not fudging the books!

Sorry, read up on the case. James may be unlikeable, but it is tough to take Trump's side reading about the case. But, I am sure most on here will. He can do no wrong, Make America Great Again, right...


Analyses of Section 63 - General duties, N.Y. Exec. Law 63 | Casetext

Forest Bueller said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

"I suspect this will be overturned on Appeal"

Based on what, exactly? The standard of review for appealing a subjective award is abuse of discretion, and good luck proving that when the award came under the state's ask. Especially when the defendant is so openly unrepentant in any way.

The finding of fraud is not going away, period. A reduction of the award is theoretically possible, but pretty unlikely given the record the appeals court will have to adhere to.

---

Sorry, but the review is not abuse of discretion. Rather it is sufficiency of the evidence - something that is sorely lacking in this case as there is no evidence of a victim.

---

Haven't followed it closely, but I'm pretty sure no victim is required. I agree with Frank Galvin that the judgment looks excessive, at least at first glance.

---

So say I value a $350,000 home @ $700,000 to acquire a $600,000 loan which I pay back in full on time, But, I am then fined $7,000,000 for doing this bank fraud. This seems incredibly excessive.

Seems like the Court is a bigger crook than Trump and even more corrupt.

---

The injured party is his competitors that didn't get the favorable financing and followed the rules. Let's say you want to develop a piece of property, spend the money on plans, proposals, changing zonings and then compete against someone else that can offer more because they are paying 2 points lower interest. Financing based on made up values for collateral. Does it matter if they can pay it back?

Hell no, it is an unfair business practice and advantage. It sends a message the rules are for chumps. So more people inflate.

When 2008 happened everyone wanted stronger rules to prevent creative financing. But, it's Donald, rules don't count for him because you like his rhetoric. It's what we've become.

---

I don't like his rhetoric, I loath Trump. Yet see all these inner circle politicians who clearly have no law, when it comes to their actions Clintons, Bidens, Obama's, Bushes etc. and nothing ever happens. I would like to see judicial balance, not one sided cronyism.

---

What laws did the Bushes or Obamas ever break?

Cobretti said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

"these cases typically arise because there's an aggrieved party to a deal who raises hell in litigation or a whistleblower speaks up to authorities"

The aggrieved whistleblower in this case is Michael Cohen, he laid it all out in sworn congressional testimony. They didn't have to look hard because he told them exactly where to look.

---

so in this case we learned about it when the government squeezed trump's "aggrieved" lawyer. why doesn't the government squeeze more developer insiders to catch more bad guys? why is trump so special? i'm just asking questions.

---

Because he was President. Should we expect the President, of all people, to be law abiding?

Frank Galvin said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

"these cases typically arise because there's an aggrieved party to a deal who raises hell in litigation or a whistleblower speaks up to authorities"

The aggrieved whistleblower in this case is Michael Cohen, he laid it all out in sworn congressional testimony. They didn't have to look hard because he told them exactly where to look.

---

so in this case we learned about it when the government squeezed trump's "aggrieved" lawyer. why doesn't the government squeeze more developer insiders to catch more bad guys? why is trump so special? i'm just asking questions.

---

Because he was President. Should we expect the President, of all people, to be law abiding?

---

do we expect the same from joe?

Superb legal and financial analysis of the NY vs Trump civil case from esteemed attorney Richard Porter.

None of the “victims” allege any fraud, private asset values are always subject to debate, and you can’t “save Democracy” by destroying it.https://t.co/HGzfAN5wAb

— Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) February 19, 2024

Cobretti said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

"these cases typically arise because there's an aggrieved party to a deal who raises hell in litigation or a whistleblower speaks up to authorities"

The aggrieved whistleblower in this case is Michael Cohen, he laid it all out in sworn congressional testimony. They didn't have to look hard because he told them exactly where to look.

---

so in this case we learned about it when the government squeezed trump's "aggrieved" lawyer. why doesn't the government squeeze more developer insiders to catch more bad guys? why is trump so special? i'm just asking questions.

---

Because he was President. Should we expect the President, of all people, to be law abiding?

---

do we expect the same from joe?

---

We should. Biden screwed up. But he gave the docs back when asked. Trump did not.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

"these cases typically arise because there's an aggrieved party to a deal who raises hell in litigation or a whistleblower speaks up to authorities"

The aggrieved whistleblower in this case is Michael Cohen, he laid it all out in sworn congressional testimony. They didn't have to look hard because he told them exactly where to look.

---

so in this case we learned about it when the government squeezed trump's "aggrieved" lawyer. why doesn't the government squeeze more developer insiders to catch more bad guys? why is trump so special? i'm just asking questions.

---

Because he was President. Should we expect the President, of all people, to be law abiding?

---

do we expect the same from joe?

---

We should. Biden screwed up. But he gave the docs back when asked. Trump did not.

---

why did biden give them back when he did? why did it suddenly become relevant after many years?

Because they did a due-diligence search when the Trump case started (so did Mike Pence, and he also found some docs) and voluntarily disclosured what they found. Contrast that with Trump ignoring subpoenaes, deliberately hiding docs from authorities when they searched, and ordering his subordinates to destroy evidence.

The difference is pretty obvious to see for anyone eithout their head up Trump's ass.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

"these cases typically arise because there's an aggrieved party to a deal who raises hell in litigation or a whistleblower speaks up to authorities"

The aggrieved whistleblower in this case is Michael Cohen, he laid it all out in sworn congressional testimony. They didn't have to look hard because he told them exactly where to look.

---

so in this case we learned about it when the government squeezed trump's "aggrieved" lawyer. why doesn't the government squeeze more developer insiders to catch more bad guys? why is trump so special? i'm just asking questions.

---

Because he was President. Should we expect the President, of all people, to be law abiding?

---

do we expect the same from joe?

---

We should. Biden screwed up. But he gave the docs back when asked. Trump did not.

---

Biden was never allowed to even possess those documents as VP or Senator.

He got off because the state admitted he's mentally incompetent…

It's BS and you know it.

HuMcK said:

---

Because they did a due-diligence search when the Trump case started (so did Mike Pence, and he also found some docs) and voluntarily disclosured what they found. Contrast that with Trump ignoring subpoenaes, deliberately hiding docs from authorities when they searched, and ordering his subordinates to destroy evidence.

The difference is pretty obvious to see for anyone eithout their head up Trump's ass.

---

Trump had power to declassify.

Biden never did.

HuMcK said:

---

Because they did a due-diligence search when the Trump case started (so did Mike Pence, and he also found some docs) and voluntarily disclosured what they found. Contrast that with Trump ignoring subpoenaes, deliberately hiding docs from authorities when they searched, and ordering his subordinates to destroy evidence.

The difference is pretty obvious to see for anyone eithout their head up Trump's ass.

---

ah, a "due diligence" search. now i see the difference. thank god someone did the due diligence at that exact moment in time or joe woulda looked like a hypocritical, potentially treasonous fool for doing exactly what he said his election opponent was doing. and that garage with a classic sports car looks way more secure than a hotel with security guards. i hope undecided voters understand it now. i sure do.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let me first state that of course it is ethically wrong to lie about the value of property for financial gain or advantage. And if is against NY law to do this, then it would be legally wrong too.

But here's my problem with this: if the banks feel they were defrauded by Trump, then THEY should be the one to bring the complaint. The "victim" of the parties involved should always be the one to do this, not an uninvolved third party. Of course, NY can claim they are a victim in the sense that such fraud 1) puts NY at risk financially in the case the loan is defaulted, and the value of the collateral isn't enough to cover the losses, 2) encourages further fraud from the business or other businesses, 3) causes NY to lose revenue from what could have been generated from taxes on bank profits, since there would have been a higher percentage rate on the loan, or 4) make less money available from banks to loan out to other NY businesses or ventures.

Each of these would be a valid argument for NY - but it would depend on NY being able to prove that the banks would not have given out the same loan to Trump at the same terms anyway, even if he had NOT grossly overvalued his property. I don't know if they can even prove this, unless the bank says so. But whatever Trump valued his property at, the banks ultimately signed off on it, meaning the two parties effectively agreed to the valuation, as well as to the amount and terms of the loan. If the bank made a mistake and feel they were defrauded, then they can bring the charge, and then the state of NY has a case against Trump. If not, then I don't see the merit in this NY law or this court case. Am I missing something? I am fully open to being wrong.

---

What about competitors that wanted to compete for that money or locations? They were not able to because of false statements?

The conditions of the loans required truth in lending, some required maintaining wealth level of 2.5 b, he was no where close at the time of the loans nevermind maintaining that level.

I am sorry the more I read into this, the more I agree with NY. He doubled his worth and used those values to secure financing. Seen too many real estate deals fall through because of financing to gave sympathy. He got caught. Simple as that

---

If other competitors could not compete for the banks' money because of Trump's loan, then THEY need to bring the complaint, not the state of NY. Even so, they would be in the same predicament as the state of NY in that they would have to prove the banks would not have given Trump the same loan anyway, regardless of the overvaluation. If they can show the bank would not have, then they would have a case. But did they do that here?

Even if the loans required truth in lending or a wealth minimum, still, ultimately the banks did sign off on the loan, which Trump could argue means the banks agreed to the value of the property. If the banks say they did not agree, and therefore would NOT have given the same loan to Trump, then there's a case. But again, did they do that here? If not, then I don't believe the court case has any standing.

---

Really? I thought that's what oversight was about, especially in a State like NY that has such a large business presence. This is not the first time by a long shot that regulatory/legal oversight has been used in NY (see Wall Street). This is not the first time this law has been used. I attached a link to 33 Court Case analysis from Exxon, Juul, Pepsi, Pharm, etc... This is not even the first time it was used against Trump, he knew all about it and settled both Trump University and the Trump Foundation by paying the fine.

So, to say this is a witch hunt and some new Law just to get Trump from running does not hold water when you look at the facts. But, that has never stopped this Board before. Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten. Look at the conditions on the loans, he had to maintain levels of wealth (based on false valuations) that he never attained.

We are not talking the difference between the Property Appraiser values versus sales values. For example, his Penthouse he stated was 3 times the size it was and valued at 300 million dollars, the highest selling property ever in his building has be 16.9 million. His accountant admitted he overvalued it by 200 million and used it as collateral. That is not fudging the books!

Sorry, read up on the case. James may be unlikeable, but it is tough to take Trump's side reading about the case. But, I am sure most on here will. He can do no wrong, Make America Great Again, right...


Analyses of Section 63 - General duties, N.Y. Exec. Law 63 | Casetext

---

"Oversight" isn't a remedy to the problem I have with this case. Here is the crux of the matter (in my opinion) within your response: "Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten." Did they prove this? Did the banks say so? It's not enough for an uninvolved party to the loan agreement to say that he wouldn't have - you need the banks to say that. Because after all, the banks after due diligence did end up giving him the loans, which could mean they agreed to the valuation of his assets, and therefore agreed that he did in fact meet the conditions of the loan - even if his accountant did admit to "disgustingly" overvaluing his assets. Were the banks OK with that overvaluation? Would they have given him the same loan under the same terms regardless (i.e. would they have just lowered the conditions of the loan)? I just think all this needs to be proven false in order for this case and NY law to have merit. Shouldn't a civil fraud case have, at the very least, a party that was actually defrauded? Again, if NY is going to claim that it was their state that was defrauded, then that would still require proving that the banks would not have given him the loan anyway. At least in my layman's mind, it should all start from there.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let me first state that of course it is ethically wrong to lie about the value of property for financial gain or advantage. And if is against NY law to do this, then it would be legally wrong too.

But here's my problem with this: if the banks feel they were defrauded by Trump, then THEY should be the one to bring the complaint. The "victim" of the parties involved should always be the one to do this, not an uninvolved third party. Of course, NY can claim they are a victim in the sense that such fraud 1) puts NY at risk financially in the case the loan is defaulted, and the value of the collateral isn't enough to cover the losses, 2) encourages further fraud from the business or other businesses, 3) causes NY to lose revenue from what could have been generated from taxes on bank profits, since there would have been a higher percentage rate on the loan, or 4) make less money available from banks to loan out to other NY businesses or ventures.

Each of these would be a valid argument for NY - but it would depend on NY being able to prove that the banks would not have given out the same loan to Trump at the same terms anyway, even if he had NOT grossly overvalued his property. I don't know if they can even prove this, unless the bank says so. But whatever Trump valued his property at, the banks ultimately signed off on it, meaning the two parties effectively agreed to the valuation, as well as to the amount and terms of the loan. If the bank made a mistake and feel they were defrauded, then they can bring the charge, and then the state of NY has a case against Trump. If not, then I don't see the merit in this NY law or this court case. Am I missing something? I am fully open to being wrong.

---

What about competitors that wanted to compete for that money or locations? They were not able to because of false statements?

The conditions of the loans required truth in lending, some required maintaining wealth level of 2.5 b, he was no where close at the time of the loans nevermind maintaining that level.

I am sorry the more I read into this, the more I agree with NY. He doubled his worth and used those values to secure financing. Seen too many real estate deals fall through because of financing to gave sympathy. He got caught. Simple as that

---

If other competitors could not compete for the banks' money because of Trump's loan, then THEY need to bring the complaint, not the state of NY. Even so, they would be in the same predicament as the state of NY in that they would have to prove the banks would not have given Trump the same loan anyway, regardless of the overvaluation. If they can show the bank would not have, then they would have a case. But did they do that here?

Even if the loans required truth in lending or a wealth minimum, still, ultimately the banks did sign off on the loan, which Trump could argue means the banks agreed to the value of the property. If the banks say they did not agree, and therefore would NOT have given the same loan to Trump, then there's a case. But again, did they do that here? If not, then I don't believe the court case has any standing.

---

Really? I thought that's what oversight was about, especially in a State like NY that has such a large business presence. This is not the first time by a long shot that regulatory/legal oversight has been used in NY (see Wall Street). This is not the first time this law has been used. I attached a link to 33 Court Case analysis from Exxon, Juul, Pepsi, Pharm, etc... This is not even the first time it was used against Trump, he knew all about it and settled both Trump University and the Trump Foundation by paying the fine.

So, to say this is a witch hunt and some new Law just to get Trump from running does not hold water when you look at the facts. But, that has never stopped this Board before. Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten. Look at the conditions on the loans, he had to maintain levels of wealth (based on false valuations) that he never attained.

We are not talking the difference between the Property Appraiser values versus sales values. For example, his Penthouse he stated was 3 times the size it was and valued at 300 million dollars, the highest selling property ever in his building has be 16.9 million. His accountant admitted he overvalued it by 200 million and used it as collateral. That is not fudging the books!

Sorry, read up on the case. James may be unlikeable, but it is tough to take Trump's side reading about the case. But, I am sure most on here will. He can do no wrong, Make America Great Again, right...


Analyses of Section 63 - General duties, N.Y. Exec. Law 63 | Casetext

---

Hey guys, when the DA campaigns on promising if they get elected they will use all their energy and resources on a fishing expedition to find something, ANYTHING, with which to charge Trump, don't worry it's not political corruption, it's just due diligence and common oversight tactics!

Curious if tax authorities will get involved since he overstated asset value and income for certain properties for lender financial statements compared to his tax reporting. I think that's where the rubber meets the road if there really is something here. That would constitute a quantifiable fraud (possibly criminal) and damage.

And yes, the fines were super excessive.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let me first state that of course it is ethically wrong to lie about the value of property for financial gain or advantage. And if is against NY law to do this, then it would be legally wrong too.

But here's my problem with this: if the banks feel they were defrauded by Trump, then THEY should be the one to bring the complaint. The "victim" of the parties involved should always be the one to do this, not an uninvolved third party. Of course, NY can claim they are a victim in the sense that such fraud 1) puts NY at risk financially in the case the loan is defaulted, and the value of the collateral isn't enough to cover the losses, 2) encourages further fraud from the business or other businesses, 3) causes NY to lose revenue from what could have been generated from taxes on bank profits, since there would have been a higher percentage rate on the loan, or 4) make less money available from banks to loan out to other NY businesses or ventures.

Each of these would be a valid argument for NY - but it would depend on NY being able to prove that the banks would not have given out the same loan to Trump at the same terms anyway, even if he had NOT grossly overvalued his property. I don't know if they can even prove this, unless the bank says so. But whatever Trump valued his property at, the banks ultimately signed off on it, meaning the two parties effectively agreed to the valuation, as well as to the amount and terms of the loan. If the bank made a mistake and feel they were defrauded, then they can bring the charge, and then the state of NY has a case against Trump. If not, then I don't see the merit in this NY law or this court case. Am I missing something? I am fully open to being wrong.

---

What about competitors that wanted to compete for that money or locations? They were not able to because of false statements?

The conditions of the loans required truth in lending, some required maintaining wealth level of 2.5 b, he was no where close at the time of the loans nevermind maintaining that level.

I am sorry the more I read into this, the more I agree with NY. He doubled his worth and used those values to secure financing. Seen too many real estate deals fall through because of financing to gave sympathy. He got caught. Simple as that

---

If other competitors could not compete for the banks' money because of Trump's loan, then THEY need to bring the complaint, not the state of NY. Even so, they would be in the same predicament as the state of NY in that they would have to prove the banks would not have given Trump the same loan anyway, regardless of the overvaluation. If they can show the bank would not have, then they would have a case. But did they do that here?

Even if the loans required truth in lending or a wealth minimum, still, ultimately the banks did sign off on the loan, which Trump could argue means the banks agreed to the value of the property. If the banks say they did not agree, and therefore would NOT have given the same loan to Trump, then there's a case. But again, did they do that here? If not, then I don't believe the court case has any standing.

---

Really? I thought that's what oversight was about, especially in a State like NY that has such a large business presence. This is not the first time by a long shot that regulatory/legal oversight has been used in NY (see Wall Street). This is not the first time this law has been used. I attached a link to 33 Court Case analysis from Exxon, Juul, Pepsi, Pharm, etc... This is not even the first time it was used against Trump, he knew all about it and settled both Trump University and the Trump Foundation by paying the fine.

So, to say this is a witch hunt and some new Law just to get Trump from running does not hold water when you look at the facts. But, that has never stopped this Board before. Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten. Look at the conditions on the loans, he had to maintain levels of wealth (based on false valuations) that he never attained.

We are not talking the difference between the Property Appraiser values versus sales values. For example, his Penthouse he stated was 3 times the size it was and valued at 300 million dollars, the highest selling property ever in his building has be 16.9 million. His accountant admitted he overvalued it by 200 million and used it as collateral. That is not fudging the books!

Sorry, read up on the case. James may be unlikeable, but it is tough to take Trump's side reading about the case. But, I am sure most on here will. He can do no wrong, Make America Great Again, right...


Analyses of Section 63 - General duties, N.Y. Exec. Law 63 | Casetext

---

"Oversight" isn't a remedy to the problem I have with this case. Here is the crux of the matter (in my opinion) within your response: "Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten." Did they prove this? Did the banks say so? It's not enough for an uninvolved party to the loan agreement to say that he wouldn't have - you need the banks to say that. Because after all, the banks after due diligence did end up giving him the loans, which could mean they agreed to the valuation of his assets, and therefore agreed that he did in fact meet the conditions of the loan - even if his accountant did admit to "disgustingly" overvaluing his assets. Were the banks OK with that overvaluation? Would they have given him the same loan under the same terms regardless (i.e. would they have just lowered the conditions of the loan)? I just think all this needs to be proven false in order for this case and NY law to have merit. Shouldn't a civil fraud case have, at the very least, a party that was actually defrauded? Again, if NY is going to claim that it was their state that was defrauded, then that would still require proving that the banks would not have given him the loan anyway. At least in my layman's mind, it should all start from there.

---

Fraud in business has obviously been an issue in NY for quite some time. This law has been in place since 1956 and been used numerous time, including 2 other times against Trump. Strangely, the last 2 times Trump was sued by NY under this Statute (Trump University and Trump Foundation) he settled, paid the fine and that was that. No cameras, no running to the press, no speeches on how he is being targeted and the end of Democracy.

Seems to me, the fact he simply paid his settled amount the last 2 times and went on his merry way make this look like HE is the one that turned this into a platform for persecution. He is familiar with this law and this case is several years old. He could have settled, probably for less, numerous times. Nah, this played out just like Steve Bannon wanted it to play out.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let me first state that of course it is ethically wrong to lie about the value of property for financial gain or advantage. And if is against NY law to do this, then it would be legally wrong too.

But here's my problem with this: if the banks feel they were defrauded by Trump, then THEY should be the one to bring the complaint. The "victim" of the parties involved should always be the one to do this, not an uninvolved third party. Of course, NY can claim they are a victim in the sense that such fraud 1) puts NY at risk financially in the case the loan is defaulted, and the value of the collateral isn't enough to cover the losses, 2) encourages further fraud from the business or other businesses, 3) causes NY to lose revenue from what could have been generated from taxes on bank profits, since there would have been a higher percentage rate on the loan, or 4) make less money available from banks to loan out to other NY businesses or ventures.

Each of these would be a valid argument for NY - but it would depend on NY being able to prove that the banks would not have given out the same loan to Trump at the same terms anyway, even if he had NOT grossly overvalued his property. I don't know if they can even prove this, unless the bank says so. But whatever Trump valued his property at, the banks ultimately signed off on it, meaning the two parties effectively agreed to the valuation, as well as to the amount and terms of the loan. If the bank made a mistake and feel they were defrauded, then they can bring the charge, and then the state of NY has a case against Trump. If not, then I don't see the merit in this NY law or this court case. Am I missing something? I am fully open to being wrong.

---

What about competitors that wanted to compete for that money or locations? They were not able to because of false statements?

The conditions of the loans required truth in lending, some required maintaining wealth level of 2.5 b, he was no where close at the time of the loans nevermind maintaining that level.

I am sorry the more I read into this, the more I agree with NY. He doubled his worth and used those values to secure financing. Seen too many real estate deals fall through because of financing to gave sympathy. He got caught. Simple as that

---

If other competitors could not compete for the banks' money because of Trump's loan, then THEY need to bring the complaint, not the state of NY. Even so, they would be in the same predicament as the state of NY in that they would have to prove the banks would not have given Trump the same loan anyway, regardless of the overvaluation. If they can show the bank would not have, then they would have a case. But did they do that here?

Even if the loans required truth in lending or a wealth minimum, still, ultimately the banks did sign off on the loan, which Trump could argue means the banks agreed to the value of the property. If the banks say they did not agree, and therefore would NOT have given the same loan to Trump, then there's a case. But again, did they do that here? If not, then I don't believe the court case has any standing.

---

Really? I thought that's what oversight was about, especially in a State like NY that has such a large business presence. This is not the first time by a long shot that regulatory/legal oversight has been used in NY (see Wall Street). This is not the first time this law has been used. I attached a link to 33 Court Case analysis from Exxon, Juul, Pepsi, Pharm, etc... This is not even the first time it was used against Trump, he knew all about it and settled both Trump University and the Trump Foundation by paying the fine.

So, to say this is a witch hunt and some new Law just to get Trump from running does not hold water when you look at the facts. But, that has never stopped this Board before. Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten. Look at the conditions on the loans, he had to maintain levels of wealth (based on false valuations) that he never attained.

We are not talking the difference between the Property Appraiser values versus sales values. For example, his Penthouse he stated was 3 times the size it was and valued at 300 million dollars, the highest selling property ever in his building has be 16.9 million. His accountant admitted he overvalued it by 200 million and used it as collateral. That is not fudging the books!

Sorry, read up on the case. James may be unlikeable, but it is tough to take Trump's side reading about the case. But, I am sure most on here will. He can do no wrong, Make America Great Again, right...


Analyses of Section 63 - General duties, N.Y. Exec. Law 63 | Casetext

---

"Oversight" isn't a remedy to the problem I have with this case. Here is the crux of the matter (in my opinion) within your response: "Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten." Did they prove this? Did the banks say so? It's not enough for an uninvolved party to the loan agreement to say that he wouldn't have - you need the banks to say that. Because after all, the banks after due diligence did end up giving him the loans, which could mean they agreed to the valuation of his assets, and therefore agreed that he did in fact meet the conditions of the loan - even if his accountant did admit to "disgustingly" overvaluing his assets. Were the banks OK with that overvaluation? Would they have given him the same loan under the same terms regardless (i.e. would they have just lowered the conditions of the loan)? I just think all this needs to be proven false in order for this case and NY law to have merit. Shouldn't a civil fraud case have, at the very least, a party that was actually defrauded? Again, if NY is going to claim that it was their state that was defrauded, then that would still require proving that the banks would not have given him the loan anyway. At least in my layman's mind, it should all start from there.

---

Fraud in business has obviously been an issue in NY for quite some time. This law has been in place since 1956 and been used numerous time, including 2 other times against Trump. Strangely, the last 2 times Trump was sued by NY under this Statute (Trump University and Trump Foundation) he settled, paid the fine and that was that. No cameras, no running to the press, no speeches on how he is being targeted and the end of Democracy.

Seems to me, the fact he simply paid his settled amount the last 2 times and went on his merry way make this look like HE is the one that turned this into a platform for persecution. He is familiar with this law and this case is several years old. He could have settled, probably for less, numerous times. Nah, this played out just like Steve Bannon wanted it to play out.

---

what was the state's settlement demand? 370M? a much smaller amount and trump refused? was settlement ever discussed at all? did the state demand that he cease nyc business for three years, cease being an officer, and his sons pay too?

were the other times while he was president, a candidate or even considering a run? why didn't democrats bring the hammer and stop this madman back then?

Cobretti said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let me first state that of course it is ethically wrong to lie about the value of property for financial gain or advantage. And if is against NY law to do this, then it would be legally wrong too.

But here's my problem with this: if the banks feel they were defrauded by Trump, then THEY should be the one to bring the complaint. The "victim" of the parties involved should always be the one to do this, not an uninvolved third party. Of course, NY can claim they are a victim in the sense that such fraud 1) puts NY at risk financially in the case the loan is defaulted, and the value of the collateral isn't enough to cover the losses, 2) encourages further fraud from the business or other businesses, 3) causes NY to lose revenue from what could have been generated from taxes on bank profits, since there would have been a higher percentage rate on the loan, or 4) make less money available from banks to loan out to other NY businesses or ventures.

Each of these would be a valid argument for NY - but it would depend on NY being able to prove that the banks would not have given out the same loan to Trump at the same terms anyway, even if he had NOT grossly overvalued his property. I don't know if they can even prove this, unless the bank says so. But whatever Trump valued his property at, the banks ultimately signed off on it, meaning the two parties effectively agreed to the valuation, as well as to the amount and terms of the loan. If the bank made a mistake and feel they were defrauded, then they can bring the charge, and then the state of NY has a case against Trump. If not, then I don't see the merit in this NY law or this court case. Am I missing something? I am fully open to being wrong.

---

What about competitors that wanted to compete for that money or locations? They were not able to because of false statements?

The conditions of the loans required truth in lending, some required maintaining wealth level of 2.5 b, he was no where close at the time of the loans nevermind maintaining that level.

I am sorry the more I read into this, the more I agree with NY. He doubled his worth and used those values to secure financing. Seen too many real estate deals fall through because of financing to gave sympathy. He got caught. Simple as that

---

If other competitors could not compete for the banks' money because of Trump's loan, then THEY need to bring the complaint, not the state of NY. Even so, they would be in the same predicament as the state of NY in that they would have to prove the banks would not have given Trump the same loan anyway, regardless of the overvaluation. If they can show the bank would not have, then they would have a case. But did they do that here?

Even if the loans required truth in lending or a wealth minimum, still, ultimately the banks did sign off on the loan, which Trump could argue means the banks agreed to the value of the property. If the banks say they did not agree, and therefore would NOT have given the same loan to Trump, then there's a case. But again, did they do that here? If not, then I don't believe the court case has any standing.

---

Really? I thought that's what oversight was about, especially in a State like NY that has such a large business presence. This is not the first time by a long shot that regulatory/legal oversight has been used in NY (see Wall Street). This is not the first time this law has been used. I attached a link to 33 Court Case analysis from Exxon, Juul, Pepsi, Pharm, etc... This is not even the first time it was used against Trump, he knew all about it and settled both Trump University and the Trump Foundation by paying the fine.

So, to say this is a witch hunt and some new Law just to get Trump from running does not hold water when you look at the facts. But, that has never stopped this Board before. Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten. Look at the conditions on the loans, he had to maintain levels of wealth (based on false valuations) that he never attained.

We are not talking the difference between the Property Appraiser values versus sales values. For example, his Penthouse he stated was 3 times the size it was and valued at 300 million dollars, the highest selling property ever in his building has be 16.9 million. His accountant admitted he overvalued it by 200 million and used it as collateral. That is not fudging the books!

Sorry, read up on the case. James may be unlikeable, but it is tough to take Trump's side reading about the case. But, I am sure most on here will. He can do no wrong, Make America Great Again, right...


Analyses of Section 63 - General duties, N.Y. Exec. Law 63 | Casetext

---

"Oversight" isn't a remedy to the problem I have with this case. Here is the crux of the matter (in my opinion) within your response: "Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten." Did they prove this? Did the banks say so? It's not enough for an uninvolved party to the loan agreement to say that he wouldn't have - you need the banks to say that. Because after all, the banks after due diligence did end up giving him the loans, which could mean they agreed to the valuation of his assets, and therefore agreed that he did in fact meet the conditions of the loan - even if his accountant did admit to "disgustingly" overvaluing his assets. Were the banks OK with that overvaluation? Would they have given him the same loan under the same terms regardless (i.e. would they have just lowered the conditions of the loan)? I just think all this needs to be proven false in order for this case and NY law to have merit. Shouldn't a civil fraud case have, at the very least, a party that was actually defrauded? Again, if NY is going to claim that it was their state that was defrauded, then that would still require proving that the banks would not have given him the loan anyway. At least in my layman's mind, it should all start from there.

---

Fraud in business has obviously been an issue in NY for quite some time. This law has been in place since 1956 and been used numerous time, including 2 other times against Trump. Strangely, the last 2 times Trump was sued by NY under this Statute (Trump University and Trump Foundation) he settled, paid the fine and that was that. No cameras, no running to the press, no speeches on how he is being targeted and the end of Democracy.

Seems to me, the fact he simply paid his settled amount the last 2 times and went on his merry way make this look like HE is the one that turned this into a platform for persecution. He is familiar with this law and this case is several years old. He could have settled, probably for less, numerous times. Nah, this played out just like Steve Bannon wanted it to play out.

---

what was the state's settlement demand? 370M? a much smaller amount and trump refused? was settlement ever discussed at all? did the state demand that he cease nyc business for three years, cease being an officer, and his sons pay too?

---

I don't know look it up. Other Companies settled, including Trump. This makes it appear it was an option. His other cases settled.

The Political Fallout if Donald Trump Settles NY Fraud Trial (msn.com)

FLBear5630 said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let me first state that of course it is ethically wrong to lie about the value of property for financial gain or advantage. And if is against NY law to do this, then it would be legally wrong too.

But here's my problem with this: if the banks feel they were defrauded by Trump, then THEY should be the one to bring the complaint. The "victim" of the parties involved should always be the one to do this, not an uninvolved third party. Of course, NY can claim they are a victim in the sense that such fraud 1) puts NY at risk financially in the case the loan is defaulted, and the value of the collateral isn't enough to cover the losses, 2) encourages further fraud from the business or other businesses, 3) causes NY to lose revenue from what could have been generated from taxes on bank profits, since there would have been a higher percentage rate on the loan, or 4) make less money available from banks to loan out to other NY businesses or ventures.

Each of these would be a valid argument for NY - but it would depend on NY being able to prove that the banks would not have given out the same loan to Trump at the same terms anyway, even if he had NOT grossly overvalued his property. I don't know if they can even prove this, unless the bank says so. But whatever Trump valued his property at, the banks ultimately signed off on it, meaning the two parties effectively agreed to the valuation, as well as to the amount and terms of the loan. If the bank made a mistake and feel they were defrauded, then they can bring the charge, and then the state of NY has a case against Trump. If not, then I don't see the merit in this NY law or this court case. Am I missing something? I am fully open to being wrong.

---

What about competitors that wanted to compete for that money or locations? They were not able to because of false statements?

The conditions of the loans required truth in lending, some required maintaining wealth level of 2.5 b, he was no where close at the time of the loans nevermind maintaining that level.

I am sorry the more I read into this, the more I agree with NY. He doubled his worth and used those values to secure financing. Seen too many real estate deals fall through because of financing to gave sympathy. He got caught. Simple as that

---

If other competitors could not compete for the banks' money because of Trump's loan, then THEY need to bring the complaint, not the state of NY. Even so, they would be in the same predicament as the state of NY in that they would have to prove the banks would not have given Trump the same loan anyway, regardless of the overvaluation. If they can show the bank would not have, then they would have a case. But did they do that here?

Even if the loans required truth in lending or a wealth minimum, still, ultimately the banks did sign off on the loan, which Trump could argue means the banks agreed to the value of the property. If the banks say they did not agree, and therefore would NOT have given the same loan to Trump, then there's a case. But again, did they do that here? If not, then I don't believe the court case has any standing.

---

Really? I thought that's what oversight was about, especially in a State like NY that has such a large business presence. This is not the first time by a long shot that regulatory/legal oversight has been used in NY (see Wall Street). This is not the first time this law has been used. I attached a link to 33 Court Case analysis from Exxon, Juul, Pepsi, Pharm, etc... This is not even the first time it was used against Trump, he knew all about it and settled both Trump University and the Trump Foundation by paying the fine.

So, to say this is a witch hunt and some new Law just to get Trump from running does not hold water when you look at the facts. But, that has never stopped this Board before. Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten. Look at the conditions on the loans, he had to maintain levels of wealth (based on false valuations) that he never attained.

We are not talking the difference between the Property Appraiser values versus sales values. For example, his Penthouse he stated was 3 times the size it was and valued at 300 million dollars, the highest selling property ever in his building has be 16.9 million. His accountant admitted he overvalued it by 200 million and used it as collateral. That is not fudging the books!

Sorry, read up on the case. James may be unlikeable, but it is tough to take Trump's side reading about the case. But, I am sure most on here will. He can do no wrong, Make America Great Again, right...


Analyses of Section 63 - General duties, N.Y. Exec. Law 63 | Casetext

---

"Oversight" isn't a remedy to the problem I have with this case. Here is the crux of the matter (in my opinion) within your response: "Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten." Did they prove this? Did the banks say so? It's not enough for an uninvolved party to the loan agreement to say that he wouldn't have - you need the banks to say that. Because after all, the banks after due diligence did end up giving him the loans, which could mean they agreed to the valuation of his assets, and therefore agreed that he did in fact meet the conditions of the loan - even if his accountant did admit to "disgustingly" overvaluing his assets. Were the banks OK with that overvaluation? Would they have given him the same loan under the same terms regardless (i.e. would they have just lowered the conditions of the loan)? I just think all this needs to be proven false in order for this case and NY law to have merit. Shouldn't a civil fraud case have, at the very least, a party that was actually defrauded? Again, if NY is going to claim that it was their state that was defrauded, then that would still require proving that the banks would not have given him the loan anyway. At least in my layman's mind, it should all start from there.

---

Fraud in business has obviously been an issue in NY for quite some time. This law has been in place since 1956 and been used numerous time, including 2 other times against Trump. Strangely, the last 2 times Trump was sued by NY under this Statute (Trump University and Trump Foundation) he settled, paid the fine and that was that. No cameras, no running to the press, no speeches on how he is being targeted and the end of Democracy.

Seems to me, the fact he simply paid his settled amount the last 2 times and went on his merry way make this look like HE is the one that turned this into a platform for persecution. He is familiar with this law and this case is several years old. He could have settled, probably for less, numerous times. Nah, this played out just like Steve Bannon wanted it to play out.

---

what was the state's settlement demand? 370M? a much smaller amount and trump refused? was settlement ever discussed at all? did the state demand that he cease nyc business for three years, cease being an officer, and his sons pay too?

---

I don't know look it up. Other Companies settled, including Trump. This makes it appear it was an option. His other cases settled.

The Political Fallout if Donald Trump Settles NY Fraud Trial (msn.com)

---

my bad, i just thought since we're throwing around theories and assumptions, i'd ask some questions.

Cobretti said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let me first state that of course it is ethically wrong to lie about the value of property for financial gain or advantage. And if is against NY law to do this, then it would be legally wrong too.

But here's my problem with this: if the banks feel they were defrauded by Trump, then THEY should be the one to bring the complaint. The "victim" of the parties involved should always be the one to do this, not an uninvolved third party. Of course, NY can claim they are a victim in the sense that such fraud 1) puts NY at risk financially in the case the loan is defaulted, and the value of the collateral isn't enough to cover the losses, 2) encourages further fraud from the business or other businesses, 3) causes NY to lose revenue from what could have been generated from taxes on bank profits, since there would have been a higher percentage rate on the loan, or 4) make less money available from banks to loan out to other NY businesses or ventures.

Each of these would be a valid argument for NY - but it would depend on NY being able to prove that the banks would not have given out the same loan to Trump at the same terms anyway, even if he had NOT grossly overvalued his property. I don't know if they can even prove this, unless the bank says so. But whatever Trump valued his property at, the banks ultimately signed off on it, meaning the two parties effectively agreed to the valuation, as well as to the amount and terms of the loan. If the bank made a mistake and feel they were defrauded, then they can bring the charge, and then the state of NY has a case against Trump. If not, then I don't see the merit in this NY law or this court case. Am I missing something? I am fully open to being wrong.

---

What about competitors that wanted to compete for that money or locations? They were not able to because of false statements?

The conditions of the loans required truth in lending, some required maintaining wealth level of 2.5 b, he was no where close at the time of the loans nevermind maintaining that level.

I am sorry the more I read into this, the more I agree with NY. He doubled his worth and used those values to secure financing. Seen too many real estate deals fall through because of financing to gave sympathy. He got caught. Simple as that

---

If other competitors could not compete for the banks' money because of Trump's loan, then THEY need to bring the complaint, not the state of NY. Even so, they would be in the same predicament as the state of NY in that they would have to prove the banks would not have given Trump the same loan anyway, regardless of the overvaluation. If they can show the bank would not have, then they would have a case. But did they do that here?

Even if the loans required truth in lending or a wealth minimum, still, ultimately the banks did sign off on the loan, which Trump could argue means the banks agreed to the value of the property. If the banks say they did not agree, and therefore would NOT have given the same loan to Trump, then there's a case. But again, did they do that here? If not, then I don't believe the court case has any standing.

---

Really? I thought that's what oversight was about, especially in a State like NY that has such a large business presence. This is not the first time by a long shot that regulatory/legal oversight has been used in NY (see Wall Street). This is not the first time this law has been used. I attached a link to 33 Court Case analysis from Exxon, Juul, Pepsi, Pharm, etc... This is not even the first time it was used against Trump, he knew all about it and settled both Trump University and the Trump Foundation by paying the fine.

So, to say this is a witch hunt and some new Law just to get Trump from running does not hold water when you look at the facts. But, that has never stopped this Board before. Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten. Look at the conditions on the loans, he had to maintain levels of wealth (based on false valuations) that he never attained.

We are not talking the difference between the Property Appraiser values versus sales values. For example, his Penthouse he stated was 3 times the size it was and valued at 300 million dollars, the highest selling property ever in his building has be 16.9 million. His accountant admitted he overvalued it by 200 million and used it as collateral. That is not fudging the books!

Sorry, read up on the case. James may be unlikeable, but it is tough to take Trump's side reading about the case. But, I am sure most on here will. He can do no wrong, Make America Great Again, right...


Analyses of Section 63 - General duties, N.Y. Exec. Law 63 | Casetext

---

"Oversight" isn't a remedy to the problem I have with this case. Here is the crux of the matter (in my opinion) within your response: "Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten." Did they prove this? Did the banks say so? It's not enough for an uninvolved party to the loan agreement to say that he wouldn't have - you need the banks to say that. Because after all, the banks after due diligence did end up giving him the loans, which could mean they agreed to the valuation of his assets, and therefore agreed that he did in fact meet the conditions of the loan - even if his accountant did admit to "disgustingly" overvaluing his assets. Were the banks OK with that overvaluation? Would they have given him the same loan under the same terms regardless (i.e. would they have just lowered the conditions of the loan)? I just think all this needs to be proven false in order for this case and NY law to have merit. Shouldn't a civil fraud case have, at the very least, a party that was actually defrauded? Again, if NY is going to claim that it was their state that was defrauded, then that would still require proving that the banks would not have given him the loan anyway. At least in my layman's mind, it should all start from there.

---

Fraud in business has obviously been an issue in NY for quite some time. This law has been in place since 1956 and been used numerous time, including 2 other times against Trump. Strangely, the last 2 times Trump was sued by NY under this Statute (Trump University and Trump Foundation) he settled, paid the fine and that was that. No cameras, no running to the press, no speeches on how he is being targeted and the end of Democracy.

Seems to me, the fact he simply paid his settled amount the last 2 times and went on his merry way make this look like HE is the one that turned this into a platform for persecution. He is familiar with this law and this case is several years old. He could have settled, probably for less, numerous times. Nah, this played out just like Steve Bannon wanted it to play out.

---

what was the state's settlement demand? 370M? a much smaller amount and trump refused? was settlement ever discussed at all? did the state demand that he cease nyc business for three years, cease being an officer, and his sons pay too?

---

I don't know look it up. Other Companies settled, including Trump. This makes it appear it was an option. His other cases settled.

The Political Fallout if Donald Trump Settles NY Fraud Trial (msn.com)

---

my bad, i just thought since we're throwing around theories and assumptions, i'd ask some questions.

---

No, I wasn't being snarky. I didn't know. Sorry if it came out that way. I am researching it because this guy is going to be the GOP Nominee. I want to know the particulars.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let me first state that of course it is ethically wrong to lie about the value of property for financial gain or advantage. And if is against NY law to do this, then it would be legally wrong too.

But here's my problem with this: if the banks feel they were defrauded by Trump, then THEY should be the one to bring the complaint. The "victim" of the parties involved should always be the one to do this, not an uninvolved third party. Of course, NY can claim they are a victim in the sense that such fraud 1) puts NY at risk financially in the case the loan is defaulted, and the value of the collateral isn't enough to cover the losses, 2) encourages further fraud from the business or other businesses, 3) causes NY to lose revenue from what could have been generated from taxes on bank profits, since there would have been a higher percentage rate on the loan, or 4) make less money available from banks to loan out to other NY businesses or ventures.

Each of these would be a valid argument for NY - but it would depend on NY being able to prove that the banks would not have given out the same loan to Trump at the same terms anyway, even if he had NOT grossly overvalued his property. I don't know if they can even prove this, unless the bank says so. But whatever Trump valued his property at, the banks ultimately signed off on it, meaning the two parties effectively agreed to the valuation, as well as to the amount and terms of the loan. If the bank made a mistake and feel they were defrauded, then they can bring the charge, and then the state of NY has a case against Trump. If not, then I don't see the merit in this NY law or this court case. Am I missing something? I am fully open to being wrong.

---

What about competitors that wanted to compete for that money or locations? They were not able to because of false statements?

The conditions of the loans required truth in lending, some required maintaining wealth level of 2.5 b, he was no where close at the time of the loans nevermind maintaining that level.

I am sorry the more I read into this, the more I agree with NY. He doubled his worth and used those values to secure financing. Seen too many real estate deals fall through because of financing to gave sympathy. He got caught. Simple as that

---

If other competitors could not compete for the banks' money because of Trump's loan, then THEY need to bring the complaint, not the state of NY. Even so, they would be in the same predicament as the state of NY in that they would have to prove the banks would not have given Trump the same loan anyway, regardless of the overvaluation. If they can show the bank would not have, then they would have a case. But did they do that here?

Even if the loans required truth in lending or a wealth minimum, still, ultimately the banks did sign off on the loan, which Trump could argue means the banks agreed to the value of the property. If the banks say they did not agree, and therefore would NOT have given the same loan to Trump, then there's a case. But again, did they do that here? If not, then I don't believe the court case has any standing.

---

Really? I thought that's what oversight was about, especially in a State like NY that has such a large business presence. This is not the first time by a long shot that regulatory/legal oversight has been used in NY (see Wall Street). This is not the first time this law has been used. I attached a link to 33 Court Case analysis from Exxon, Juul, Pepsi, Pharm, etc... This is not even the first time it was used against Trump, he knew all about it and settled both Trump University and the Trump Foundation by paying the fine.

So, to say this is a witch hunt and some new Law just to get Trump from running does not hold water when you look at the facts. But, that has never stopped this Board before. Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten. Look at the conditions on the loans, he had to maintain levels of wealth (based on false valuations) that he never attained.

We are not talking the difference between the Property Appraiser values versus sales values. For example, his Penthouse he stated was 3 times the size it was and valued at 300 million dollars, the highest selling property ever in his building has be 16.9 million. His accountant admitted he overvalued it by 200 million and used it as collateral. That is not fudging the books!

Sorry, read up on the case. James may be unlikeable, but it is tough to take Trump's side reading about the case. But, I am sure most on here will. He can do no wrong, Make America Great Again, right...


Analyses of Section 63 - General duties, N.Y. Exec. Law 63 | Casetext

---

"Oversight" isn't a remedy to the problem I have with this case. Here is the crux of the matter (in my opinion) within your response: "Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten." Did they prove this? Did the banks say so? It's not enough for an uninvolved party to the loan agreement to say that he wouldn't have - you need the banks to say that. Because after all, the banks after due diligence did end up giving him the loans, which could mean they agreed to the valuation of his assets, and therefore agreed that he did in fact meet the conditions of the loan - even if his accountant did admit to "disgustingly" overvaluing his assets. Were the banks OK with that overvaluation? Would they have given him the same loan under the same terms regardless (i.e. would they have just lowered the conditions of the loan)? I just think all this needs to be proven false in order for this case and NY law to have merit. Shouldn't a civil fraud case have, at the very least, a party that was actually defrauded? Again, if NY is going to claim that it was their state that was defrauded, then that would still require proving that the banks would not have given him the loan anyway. At least in my layman's mind, it should all start from there.

---

Fraud in business has obviously been an issue in NY for quite some time. This law has been in place since 1956 and been used numerous time, including 2 other times against Trump. Strangely, the last 2 times Trump was sued by NY under this Statute (Trump University and Trump Foundation) he settled, paid the fine and that was that. No cameras, no running to the press, no speeches on how he is being targeted and the end of Democracy.

Seems to me, the fact he simply paid his settled amount the last 2 times and went on his merry way make this look like HE is the one that turned this into a platform for persecution. He is familiar with this law and this case is several years old. He could have settled, probably for less, numerous times. Nah, this played out just like Steve Bannon wanted it to play out.

---

what was the state's settlement demand? 370M? a much smaller amount and trump refused? was settlement ever discussed at all? did the state demand that he cease nyc business for three years, cease being an officer, and his sons pay too?

---

I don't know look it up. Other Companies settled, including Trump. This makes it appear it was an option. His other cases settled.

The Political Fallout if Donald Trump Settles NY Fraud Trial (msn.com)

---

my bad, i just thought since we're throwing around theories and assumptions, i'd ask some questions.

---

No, I wasn't being snarky. I didn't know. Sorry if it came out that way. I am researching it because this guy is going to be the GOP Nominee. I want to know the particulars.

---

no worries, we're all good.

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Because they did a due-diligence search when the Trump case started (so did Mike Pence, and he also found some docs) and voluntarily disclosured what they found. Contrast that with Trump ignoring subpoenaes, deliberately hiding docs from authorities when they searched, and ordering his subordinates to destroy evidence.

The difference is pretty obvious to see for anyone eithout their head up Trump's ass.

---

Trump had power to declassify.

Biden never did.

---

Trump never did what you claim so that is irrelevant.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Because they did a due-diligence search when the Trump case started (so did Mike Pence, and he also found some docs) and voluntarily disclosured what they found. Contrast that with Trump ignoring subpoenaes, deliberately hiding docs from authorities when they searched, and ordering his subordinates to destroy evidence.

The difference is pretty obvious to see for anyone eithout their head up Trump's ass.

---

Trump had power to declassify.

Biden never did.

---

Trump never did what you claim so that is irrelevant.

---

That's your assumption.

It's a legal fact at this point. Trump was compelled by the court to say if he planned to use that defense, and they declined to raise it. Same story has played out a few times now, Trump/associates have a defense theory they scream about in public, but they know it wouldn't actually fly in court so they don't even bother to try.

HuMcK said:

---

It's a legal fact at this point. Trump was compelled by the court to say if he planned to use that defense, and they declined to raise it. Same story has played out a few times now, Trump/associates have a defense theory they scream about in public, but they know it wouldn't actually fly in court so they don't even bother to try.

---

we'll never see a documents trial for biden where he's making arguments and motions. he's now conviction proof because he's too frail and feeble to stand trial. juries would feel sorry for him...the current president of the united states. voters know this now, too.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let me first state that of course it is ethically wrong to lie about the value of property for financial gain or advantage. And if is against NY law to do this, then it would be legally wrong too.

But here's my problem with this: if the banks feel they were defrauded by Trump, then THEY should be the one to bring the complaint. The "victim" of the parties involved should always be the one to do this, not an uninvolved third party. Of course, NY can claim they are a victim in the sense that such fraud 1) puts NY at risk financially in the case the loan is defaulted, and the value of the collateral isn't enough to cover the losses, 2) encourages further fraud from the business or other businesses, 3) causes NY to lose revenue from what could have been generated from taxes on bank profits, since there would have been a higher percentage rate on the loan, or 4) make less money available from banks to loan out to other NY businesses or ventures.

Each of these would be a valid argument for NY - but it would depend on NY being able to prove that the banks would not have given out the same loan to Trump at the same terms anyway, even if he had NOT grossly overvalued his property. I don't know if they can even prove this, unless the bank says so. But whatever Trump valued his property at, the banks ultimately signed off on it, meaning the two parties effectively agreed to the valuation, as well as to the amount and terms of the loan. If the bank made a mistake and feel they were defrauded, then they can bring the charge, and then the state of NY has a case against Trump. If not, then I don't see the merit in this NY law or this court case. Am I missing something? I am fully open to being wrong.

---

What about competitors that wanted to compete for that money or locations? They were not able to because of false statements?

The conditions of the loans required truth in lending, some required maintaining wealth level of 2.5 b, he was no where close at the time of the loans nevermind maintaining that level.

I am sorry the more I read into this, the more I agree with NY. He doubled his worth and used those values to secure financing. Seen too many real estate deals fall through because of financing to gave sympathy. He got caught. Simple as that

---

If other competitors could not compete for the banks' money because of Trump's loan, then THEY need to bring the complaint, not the state of NY. Even so, they would be in the same predicament as the state of NY in that they would have to prove the banks would not have given Trump the same loan anyway, regardless of the overvaluation. If they can show the bank would not have, then they would have a case. But did they do that here?

Even if the loans required truth in lending or a wealth minimum, still, ultimately the banks did sign off on the loan, which Trump could argue means the banks agreed to the value of the property. If the banks say they did not agree, and therefore would NOT have given the same loan to Trump, then there's a case. But again, did they do that here? If not, then I don't believe the court case has any standing.

---

Really? I thought that's what oversight was about, especially in a State like NY that has such a large business presence. This is not the first time by a long shot that regulatory/legal oversight has been used in NY (see Wall Street). This is not the first time this law has been used. I attached a link to 33 Court Case analysis from Exxon, Juul, Pepsi, Pharm, etc... This is not even the first time it was used against Trump, he knew all about it and settled both Trump University and the Trump Foundation by paying the fine.

So, to say this is a witch hunt and some new Law just to get Trump from running does not hold water when you look at the facts. But, that has never stopped this Board before. Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten. Look at the conditions on the loans, he had to maintain levels of wealth (based on false valuations) that he never attained.

We are not talking the difference between the Property Appraiser values versus sales values. For example, his Penthouse he stated was 3 times the size it was and valued at 300 million dollars, the highest selling property ever in his building has be 16.9 million. His accountant admitted he overvalued it by 200 million and used it as collateral. That is not fudging the books!

Sorry, read up on the case. James may be unlikeable, but it is tough to take Trump's side reading about the case. But, I am sure most on here will. He can do no wrong, Make America Great Again, right...


Analyses of Section 63 - General duties, N.Y. Exec. Law 63 | Casetext

---

"Oversight" isn't a remedy to the problem I have with this case. Here is the crux of the matter (in my opinion) within your response: "Trump disgustingly over valued his assets and property values to get loans he would not have otherwise gotten." Did they prove this? Did the banks say so? It's not enough for an uninvolved party to the loan agreement to say that he wouldn't have - you need the banks to say that. Because after all, the banks after due diligence did end up giving him the loans, which could mean they agreed to the valuation of his assets, and therefore agreed that he did in fact meet the conditions of the loan - even if his accountant did admit to "disgustingly" overvaluing his assets. Were the banks OK with that overvaluation? Would they have given him the same loan under the same terms regardless (i.e. would they have just lowered the conditions of the loan)? I just think all this needs to be proven false in order for this case and NY law to have merit. Shouldn't a civil fraud case have, at the very least, a party that was actually defrauded? Again, if NY is going to claim that it was their state that was defrauded, then that would still require proving that the banks would not have given him the loan anyway. At least in my layman's mind, it should all start from there.

---

Fraud in business has obviously been an issue in NY for quite some time. This law has been in place since 1956 and been used numerous time, including 2 other times against Trump. Strangely, the last 2 times Trump was sued by NY under this Statute (Trump University and Trump Foundation) he settled, paid the fine and that was that. No cameras, no running to the press, no speeches on how he is being targeted and the end of Democracy.

Seems to me, the fact he simply paid his settled amount the last 2 times and went on his merry way make this look like HE is the one that turned this into a platform for persecution. He is familiar with this law and this case is several years old. He could have settled, probably for less, numerous times. Nah, this played out just like Steve Bannon wanted it to play out.

---

I am not going to argue against Trump's familiarity and previous experience with this law, or whether Trump is trying to use this case politically. As I have been saying, the problem I have with this law and court case, if I'm understanding this case correctly, is that it shows NY can charge fraud on the basis that a business got a loan they "otherwise would not have gotten" - without first having the banks actually confirm that. Did they? If the banks did, then they did have a case against him. If not, then what - the state of NY can just decide for themselves what a bank would have or would not have done, and then charge someone based on that?

I literally explained to you why it was completely different from Trump's case. Should I use smaller words next time to help it sink in, or is it a lost cause?