Overvalued Real Estate - Is Latisha James Playing With Fire in Trump matter?

[CrusaderFrank]

Absolutely. That prosecutor was so corrupt that the EU, IMF, and US Congress all wanted to cut funding to Ukraine at the time because his office was stealing that money hand over fist.

You mean Burisma, the Bidens and Zelen$ky, not the prosecutor

 

[GMCGeneral]

Anything that is bad for Trump is good for America.

I doubt most property owners did what the Trump Organization did, which was deliberately lie about the value of their properties.

He didn't lie, dumbass. And all the loans were paid in full. You're just upset Trump beat you fucking Communists at your own game. You are also a disgrace to the uniform.

 

[Kilroy2]

Clearly, every multinational headquartered in NY has also committed this level of fraud. It’s up to the judges to start collecting

The issue that concerns me the most is who bails them out when the banks fail, the government bails them out on the taxpayers dime.

 

[BackAgain]

The rest of the story

He used the valuation to get a loan. It falls under real estate laws


it is aa felony or a misdemeanor

Loan fraud or lending fraud encompasses any kind of deceitful action designed to gain a financial advantage during the loan process. There are many types of loan fraud, such as mortgage fraud,

False. No victim. No fraud.

Also, no proof of any deliberately false valuations, anyway.

Letitia is a partisan political moron.

 

[Kilroy2]

False. No victim. No fraud.

Also, no proof of any deliberately false valuations, anyway.

Letitia is a partisan political moron.

Its called the law. Break it and see what happens.

cheating on your taxes is victimless but they will come after you

There are a few crimes that are victimless.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Let's say there was a $10 Million dollar house for sale. Lets say Paul McCartney owned that house. I think the market value would be higher if a famous person owned the property. You have Mara Lago. President Trump is the owner. It is going to go for a higher amount due to the famous owner.

 

[BackAgain]

Its called the law.

No. It’s not. It’s called a mere accusation of having allegedly broken the law. You dope.

Break it and see what happens.

Nobody broke the laws — as falsely suggested in these bullshit indictments.

cheating on your taxes is victimless but they will come after you

True. it is of no application or interest here. But true.

There are a few crimes that are victimless.

There are many behaviors that aren’t criminal. And, of course, it’s the latter which is the point.

 

[Kilroy2]

No. It’s not. It’s called a mere accusation of having allegedly broken the law. You dope.

Nobody broke the laws — as falsely suggested in these bullshit indictments.

True. it is of no application or interest here. But true.

There are many behaviors that aren’t criminal. And, of course, it’s the latter which is the point.

Of course if you phrase it as such but the dope is the one does not realize that Trump and his organization has already been found liable. Now they just need to determine the damages portion of it.

Be informed is always a good thing

 

[BackAgain]

Of course if you phrase it as such but the dope is the one does not realize that Trump and his organization has already been found liable.

Nah. A judge made a pre-trial determination granting partial summary judgment. Judges get shit wrong. This particular hack judge doesn’t even understand that NY law on fraud (both civil and criminal) absolutely do require that there have been a “victim.”

Judicial errors get reviewed on appeal and are often why cases get reversed on appeal.

Now they just need to determine the damages portion of it.

Neat trick. Deciding “damages” where there is no ”victim.” That, too, will yielded a reversal on appeal.

Be informed is always a good thing

Your functional illiteracy aside, you would be best served by adhering to your own “advice.”

 

[leftwinger]

In CA residential buyers are protected. The seller can’t charge too much as the bank wont give the loan on that value (Only approximately the appraised value allowed). I don’t quite know if an all cash buyer can pay over and win the house. I don’t know about commercial properties.

 

[Kilroy2]

Nah. A judge made a pre-trial determination granting partial summary judgment. Judges get shit wrong. This particular hack judge doesn’t even understand that NY law on fraud (both civil and criminal) absolutely do require that there have been a “victim.”

Judicial errors get reviewed on appeal and are often why cases get reversed on appeal.

Neat trick. Deciding “damages” where there is no ”victim.” That, too, will yielded a reversal on appeal.

Your functional illiteracy aside, you would be best served by adhering to your own “advice.”

Still it is a fact. Sure there will be an appeal but it hasn't happen yet.

This is a civil trial not a criminal

How many times do I need to say this. A victim as you suggest is not needed for this type of case.

Under this New York statute the attorney general does not have to show that there were victims, only that Mr Trump committed ongoing fraud.

That it

Thus there is an ongoing trial based on fraud and did he commit fraud according to the law. It is real and there is no victim required

People think that they found this loophole and that the NY legal establishment is unaware of this loophole.

 

[westwall]

They don't. They send out their own appraiser to evaluate the property. James is about to get a lesson in the real estate business. She might even learn what 'boot' is.

She is a player in the real estate market too.

She know exactly what a load of bullshit her case is.

Her networth has skyrocketed thanks to her deals.

I would love to see an investigation into her.

200,000 to 15 million in less than 15 years.

 

[BackAgain]

Still it is a fact.

There are lots of facts. Which one do you refer to?

Sure there will be an appeal but it hasn't happen yet.

Of course not. Don’t be a dope. Appeals come after trials.

This is a civil trial not a criminal

We all realize that the case brought by the creepy NY AG civil. I mean, so what? The point remains unchanged. In NY State, “fraud” requires proof of a victim. That’s true in both civil and criminal law, there.

How many times do I need to say this. A victim as you suggest is not needed for this type of case.

You’re totally and completely wrong. So it doesn’t matter how often you say it. You’re still wrong. A victim is absolutely required.

Under this New York statute the attorney general does not have to show that there were victims, only that Mr Trump committed ongoing fraud.

Incorrect. Under NY law (both criminal and civil) a victim is an essential element of any “fraud.”

That it

Nope. Youre flatly wrong.

Thus there is an ongoing trial based on fraud and did he commit fraud according to the law. It is real and there is no victim reburied

Wrong. It is an ongoing trial. But there is zero proof that he committed “fraud” and that’s largely because there is no victim.

People think that they found this loophole and that the NY legal establishment is unaware of this loophole.

No. The law is the law. Your abysmal ignorance of the law doesn’t change reality.

 

[Kilroy2]

There are lots of facts. Which one do you refer to?

Of course not. Don’t be a dope. Appeals come after trials.

We all realize that the case brought by the creepy NY AG civil. I mean, so what? The point remains unchanged. In NY State, “fraud” requires proof of a victim. That’s true in both civil and criminal law, there.


You’re totally and completely wrong. So it doesn’t matter how often you say it. You’re still wrong. A victim is absolutely required.

Incorrect. Under NY law (both criminal and civil) a victim is an essential element of any “fraud.”

Nope. Youre flatly wrong.


Wrong. It is an ongoing trial. But there is zero proof that he committed “fraud” and that’s largely because there is no victim.

No. The law is the law. Your abysmal ignorance of the law doesn’t change reality.

your rant above identifies who really is ignorant of the law

You claim they can't do it but they are doing it.

You tried to sounds smart on appeals as if your the only who knows that appeals by it name alone says that its after a verdict.

A victim is not required. You can deny it but guess what there is a trial going on. I explain that the law does not require a victim but you refuse to accept that simple truth

So you can only except what you want to believe.

Sweet dreams prince

 

[BackAgain]

your rant above identifies who really is ignorant of the law

You claim they can't do it but they are doing it.

You’re obtuse. What people do isn’t always done properly or legally. You schmuck.

You tried to sounds smart on appeals as if your the only who knows that appeals by it name alone says that its after a verdict.

Nah. Am smart. Well, smarter than you but that doesn’t take much.

And your attempted little rejoinder is entirely non responsive. Because the fact is that bullshit cases usually get exposed for what they are after the trial and by the time they get heard on appeals.

You may not understand it (I wouldn’t expect a dopey little twat like you to understand much of any such thing), but your lack of comprehension is a you problem.

A victim is not required.

Wrong. Repeating your error does nothing
A victim is absolutely required.

You can deny it but guess what there is a trial going on.

I explain that the law does not require a victim but you refuse to accept that simple truth

No. That’s you. And your error isn’t truth. It’s just error.

So you can only except what you want to believe.

Zzz. I know the law. You don’t. Worse, you refuse to be educated.

Sweet dreams prince

Gfy princess.

Next time you want to pretend to be able to debate, give some thought to knowing what you’re talking about, first.

I have already provided quotes and links to the truth. In NY State, for either civil fraud or for a criminal charge involving fraud, a victim is absolutely and unquestionably required. And furthermore, civilly, damages require that some body (a victim) actually have gotten defrauded — this is the heart of “damages.”

Realize you don’t know any of this. Oh well. Another “you” problem.

 

[BackAgain]

your rant above identifies who really is ignorant of the law

You claim they can't do it but they are doing it.

You’re obtuse. What people do isn’t always done properly or legally. You schmuck.

You tried to sounds smart on appeals as if your the only who knows that appeals by it name alone says that its after a verdict.

Nah. Am smart. Well, smarter than you but that doesn’t take much.

And your attempted little rejoinder is entirely non responsive. Because the fact is that bullshit cases usually get exposed for what they are after the trial and by the time they get heard on appeals.

You may not understand it (I wouldn’t expect a dopey little twat like you to understand much of any such thing), but your lack of comprehension is a you problem.

A victim is not required.

Wrong. Repeating your error does nothing
A victim is absolutely required.

You can deny it but guess what there is a trial going on.

I explain that the law does not require a victim but you refuse to accept that simple truth

No. That’s you. And your error isn’t truth. It’s just error.

So you can only except what you want to believe.

Zzz. I know the law. You don’t. Worse, you refuse to be educated.

Sweet dreams prince

Gfy princess.

Next time you want to pretend to be able to debate, give some thought to knowing what you’re talking about, first.

I have already provided quotes and links to the truth. In NY State, for either civil fraud or for a criminal charge involving fraud, a victim is absolutely and unquestionably required. But even though I already asked you for any support for your ignorant claim, you aren’t able to back up your claim.

 

[Woodznutz]

The issue that concerns me the most is who bails them out when the banks fail, the government bails them out on the taxpayers dime.

The government (FDIC) bails out the depositors. The member banks pay into the FDIC fund using profits collected from their borrowers.

how much have banks paid into fdic fund - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

 

[Rumpole]

Who is the victim? He did not go bankrupt on any of these charges.

That's like the lady was sitting reading in a boat on a lake. The game warden came by and wrote her a ticket for fishing without a license. When she claimed she was simply reading, he said that she had all of the poles, nets, and other equipment in her boat to fish and would receive a ticket. She then stated that she would be charging him with rape. When he inquired, she then explained he had all of the equipment necessary!

See #79

 

[Rumpole]

Trump’s appraisers? Do you understand how stupid this is. There are no banks loaning $125MM without obtaining independent appraisals, audited balance sheets, typically both. JoeB131 you have no idea what you’re talking about…but we all no that’s nothing new for you…

Link??

The argument, that the New York lawsuit against Donald Trump for allegedly overvaluing his properties is baseless because banks use their own appraisers, contains several flaws:

Financial institutions often rely on the financial statements and disclosures provided by their clients. While banks do employ their own appraisers, they also depend on the honesty and accuracy of the information provided by clients. If a client intentionally misrepresents their assets' value, it can affect the bank's risk assessment and lending decisions.

If widespread asset overvaluation like the kind alleged in the New York lawsuit against Donald Trump were to become common, it could distort risk assessments, potentially leading to higher interest rates for all borrowers. This lawsuit, represented as "The People of New York versus Donald Trump," highlights the broader public interest at stake. The point is, someone asked 'who is the victim?", it's the plaintiff, "The People Of New York". Moreover, providing inconsistent valuations for the same property in different contexts, such as to banks and insurance companies, could constitute fraud, underscoring the serious legal implications of such actions.

The core issue in the lawsuit is not merely about the difference in valuation but the intent behind it. If it can be proven that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead or commit fraud, the argument of banks using their own appraisers becomes secondary. Fraudulent intent in financial dealings is a serious legal issue, regardless of the safeguards in place.

Overvaluation of assets can also impact tax assessments and other regulatory compliances. If properties are overvalued, it might lead to reduced tax liabilities or other undue advantages, affecting state revenue and compliance with laws.

Bank appraisals are a part of the due diligence process but do not absolve the borrower from the responsibility of accurate representation. Banks' appraisals are often based on the information provided by the borrower, so if this information is flawed, the appraisal can also be compromised.

Misrepresentation in financial statements can violate various legal and ethical standards in business practices. The argument that banks should catch every discrepancy overlooks the responsibility of individuals and businesses to engage in honest and transparent dealings.

Addressing alleged overvaluation is also a matter of setting a legal precedent and deterring similar behavior by others. Dismissing such cases on the grounds that banks have their own appraisers could encourage others to attempt similar misrepresentations.

In summary, the argument underestimates the importance of honesty and accuracy in financial disclosures and overestimates the ability of bank appraisals to catch every instance of misrepresentation or fraud. The legal implications of fraudulent misrepresentation are significant, irrespective of the checks and balances employed by financial institutions.

 

[Rumpole]

Latisha James, NY Attorney General is engaged in a highly publicized fraud trial against Donald Trump. My own views on Trump are strictly neutral. I feel that Mar a Lago (sp) is not the only overvalued real estate in the country. My guess is that almost all high-end property is way overvalued.

The only way these properties change hands is in highly complex, highly leveraged transaction. Only a lunatic or eccentric would pay real money for most commercial or high-end resort properties such as Mar a Lago.

If Latisha James wins, it would expose the fact that most real estate is highly leveraged and their titular "owners" have little or no equity. If the values dropped to fair salable values, the properties would instantly have huge negative equity and face foreclosure. There would be no cash market for most of these properties. If Latisha James wins, could she trigger a depression by winning?

The argument, that the New York lawsuit against Donald Trump for allegedly overvaluing his properties is baseless because banks use their own appraisers, contains several flaws:

Financial institutions often rely on the financial statements and disclosures provided by their clients. While banks do employ their own appraisers, they also depend on the honesty and accuracy of the information provided by clients. If a client intentionally misrepresents their assets' value, it can affect the bank's risk assessment and lending decisions.

If widespread asset overvaluation like the kind alleged in the New York lawsuit against Donald Trump were to become common, it could distort risk assessments, potentially leading to higher interest rates for all borrowers. This lawsuit, represented as "The People of New York versus Donald Trump," highlights the broader public interest at stake. The point is, someone asked 'who is the victim?", it's the plaintiff, "The People Of New York". Moreover, providing inconsistent valuations for the same property in different contexts, such as to banks and insurance companies, could constitute fraud, underscoring the serious legal implications of such actions.

The core issue in the lawsuit is not merely about the difference in valuation but the intent behind it. If it can be proven that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead or commit fraud, the argument of banks using their own appraisers becomes secondary. Fraudulent intent in financial dealings is a serious legal issue, regardless of the safeguards in place.

Overvaluation of assets can also impact tax assessments and other regulatory compliances. If properties are overvalued, it might lead to reduced tax liabilities or other undue advantages, affecting state revenue and compliance with laws.

Bank appraisals are a part of the due diligence process but do not absolve the borrower from the responsibility of accurate representation. Banks' appraisals are often based on the information provided by the borrower, so if this information is flawed, the appraisal can also be compromised.

Misrepresentation in financial statements can violate various legal and ethical standards in business practices. The argument that banks should catch every discrepancy overlooks the responsibility of individuals and businesses to engage in honest and transparent dealings.

Addressing alleged overvaluation is also a matter of setting a legal precedent and deterring similar behavior by others. Dismissing such cases on the grounds that banks have their own appraisers could encourage others to attempt similar misrepresentations.

So, in my view the argument underestimates the importance of honesty and accuracy in financial disclosures and overestimates the ability of bank appraisals to catch every instance of misrepresentation or fraud. The legal implications of fraudulent misrepresentation are significant, irrespective of the checks and balances employed by financial institutions.

In short, honesty is the best policy. What is happening to Trump is due to the simple fact he is not an honest man. But, unlike most dishonest persons, his level of dishonesty has crossed that threshold from being annoying to being a criminal.