A scam and a disgrace

[Rigby5]

You mean like Aberdeen Scotland? Mar A Lago?

Actually they are owned by the Trump Organization based in New York. So even though those properties are outside the physical state when they will be handled by the New York 3rd party that will be responsible for liquidation to pay the disengorgement.

Oh - And the Trump Organization has been under court ordered Monitoring for the last year, so he can't dispose of the properties to evade the disengorgement.

WW
.
.
.
.

Judge Appoints Independent Monitor To Oversee Trump Organization Amid Fraud Probe

New York Attorney General Letitia James alleged the company would keep committing fraud if left unrestricted.

www.forbes.com

And you don't find any of this action by the prosecutor and judge to be even slightly illegal?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong.
All banks are under federal SEC laws.

Not wrong, the SEC is a federal entity. This is a state case.

New York state has no jurisdiction over banks.

#1 For banks that operate in New York? Sure they do.

#2 This case isn't against the banks anyway it's against the Trump Organization based out of New York.

The evaluation of a property is entirely subjective,

Not really, there are things called GAAP (Generaly Accepted Accounting Principals) that organization have to adhere to. It's like saying that Doctor's providing health care are entirely subjective ignoring that there are defined standards of care that have to be followed.

and it is illegal to try to prosecute something without intrinsic and constant value.

LOLz

The 1956 law, New York State Executive Law 62(12), was intended entirely for securities exchanges, and absolutely NOT for bank loan applications.

The fraud is the in the bank loan "application" its the legal document known as a Statement of Financial Conditions which must adhere to GAAP.

WW

 

[Rigby5]

oh the irony of a human that is a scam and a disgrace calling something else a scam and a disgrace

An individual can be a scam and disgrace without violating any law.
But clearly the prosecutor and judge in this case is deliberately violating every know legal principle.
It is not just an outright attempt at theft of the property of the Trump family, but an incredibly illegal attempt to prevent an election.
That amounts to treason.

It should be obvious to everyone that the only legal way you can take property from anyone is to compensate others who were illegally harmed.
Since it is the state that is trying to keep the Trump assets, then clearly that is just outright theft.
Worst crime of the century.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And you don't find any of this action by the prosecutor and judge to be even slightly illegal?

"Any" is kind of a broad term. I might disagree with specifics.

But in general? The Attorney General filing a criminal or - when authorized - civil case against those who are conducting persistent fraudulent and illegal business practices? No, not really.

WW

 

[postman]

And bystanders and casual observers buy it of course because they assume people who are accused must be guilty of something to be accused in the first place, their vitriol just further proof of their guilt! This way, the perpetrator, as per Alinsky's Rules #5 and #11 turns it all around making their victim look like the aggressor and perp instead simply flailing against being exposed, and of course, the casual public buys it all.

Trump has realized the "art of the deal" doesn't work in federal court.

 

[Foxfyre]

Those words do fit. It looks like the judge was out to get Trump from the very beginning. Is it too much to ask for a fair trial?

---Trump called the trial a “scam” and a “disgrace”---

Donald Trump hurls insults in NY fraud trial, judge pleads for lawyer to control him: 5 takeaways

Donald Trump came out swinging in testimony at his civil fraud trial, calling it a 'scam' and the attorney general a 'political hack': 5 takeaways

www.usatoday.com

If there was no other facts in evidence that this is a politically motivated trial with no intention of giving Trump his constitutional right to due process, all we have to do is look at a sitting judge who already pronounced the defendant guilty and who yesterday presumed to tell the witness how much time he was allowed for his answers and who denied Trump's defense attorney the right to object.

But if nothing else tells us Trump is being railroaded, the judge said to Trump's defense attorney, on camera in front of God and us all, "I'm not here to hear what he has to say." This was a kangaroo court with no intention of providing a fair and honest trial based on facts from the beginning.

 

[konradv]

And how do you find it to be legal to take the money someone earned and turn them into a "pauper"?
I do not like Trump, but clearly that is deliberate theft on the part of all the 91 indictment prosecutors AND judges.
They are all criminals.

The point of the prosecution is that he didn’t earn the money/assets.

 

[konradv]

No, they weren't. He's NEVER been in front of a jury for ANYTHING.

Grand jury

 

[konradv]

We are not talking about seniors we are talking about banks that should know better

That doesn’t sound like an exoneration of Trump. It sounds like we’ve got another defendant!

 

[Rawley]

Does that change the law?

What's the law, Clarence? Can you cite a single case where this law has been applied to valuation of commercial real estate? Just one case. Should be easy, it was enacted in 1956.

 

[postman]

He lied on the forms, that is breaking the law...

If you drive home drunk you have broken the law, doesn't matter if you didn't kill anyone.

If Trump told the truth he would have been deemed a higher risk and would possibly have had to pay higher premiums and put up more collateral.
Since Trump has a history of owning companies that go bankrupt , he knew this...

This is very much a crime... It is a white collar crime, a crime for the rich... You make a lot more doing this than robbing the bank by gun point... And the whole time he can rely on idiots to say it is not crime cause no one got shot...

This reminds me of the use of a government credit card. It's issued so that people can charge their travel expenses, from Uber to airfare on the card. The government card also makes the user eligible for the "government rate" and other perks.

The problem is that some people used the credit card, like it was their personal credit card. Charging personal items like a lawn mower on the travel card. Independant of them paying off the charges, they got to take advantage of lower interest rates.

 

[postman]

Not a crime, because there was no victim, and this is a civil case anyway, again with no victim and no harm.

Show trial is gonna show trial though.

The banks were harmed. They could have charged Trump much higher interest than they did, since these loans weren't fully secured.

Unsecured personal loans typically have higher interest rates than secured loans. That's because lenders often view unsecured loans as riskier. Without collateral, the lender may worry you're less likely to repay the loan as agreed. Higher risk for your lender generally means a higher rate for you.

 

[konradv]

What's the law, Clarence? Can you cite a single case where this law has been applied to valuation of commercial real estate? Just one case. Should be easy, it was enacted in 1956.

That defense flies in the face of the reputations of the people bringing the case. Who’s going to do that, especially with precedent going back to 1956? I think you’re the one needing to bring up cases.

 

[martybegan]

Your jaded perspective is absurd.

Your support for lawfare is dictatorial.

Keep at it Robespierre, the national razor will get to you eventually.

 

[postman]

It should be obvious to everyone that the only legal way you can take property from anyone is to compensate others who were illegally harmed.
Since it is the state that is trying to keep the Trump assets, then clearly that is just outright theft.
Worst crime of the century.

It's no different from the opioid case. Where the drug manufacturers paid the states for the illegal marketing of pain killers, that were far more addictive than they claimed the drugs were.

 

[martybegan]

oh. fuck off, jabba.

Sameresponse fag sameresponsing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The point of the prosecution is that he didn’t earn the money/assets.

Grand jury

This is a civil case not a criminal one. There wasn't Grand Jury.

WW

 

[martybegan]

The banks were harmed. They could have charged Trump much higher interest than they did, since these loans weren't fully secured.

Unsecured personal loans typically have higher interest rates than secured loans. That's because lenders often view unsecured loans as riskier. Without collateral, the lender may worry you're less likely to repay the loan as agreed. Higher risk for your lender generally means a higher rate for you.

Then why didn't they sue him?

Why aren't they clamoring for his head during this trial?

 

[konradv]

This is a civil case not a criminal one. There wasn't Grand Jury.

WW

I think things have gotten twisted. Are there really no grand juries in civil cases? I find that hard to believe.

 

[konradv]

Then why didn't they sue him?

Why aren't they clamoring for his head during this trial?

They’re keeping their mouths shut, because they don’t want to be co-defendants or be sued by their own shareholders.