The Judgement and the Defendant in a Court of Law - Judge Engoron v Mr. Trump. The Ruling.

[iku]

Nope, it is a fine and very excessive. And who was defrauded?

Exactly. No one defrauded. Victimless. All developers do it.

 

[Care4all]

That’s not it. He was doing an income generating evaluation. It’s not primarily a commercial use so the income would be quite low and thus the corollary to the evaluation .
Provide a full residential appraisal for the entire piece. There isn’t one. The “use as a club” approach is laughable but clown judges gotta laugh

Trump can NOT use the property as anything else, but for a club....it can never be a single family mansion property. Mara Lago's DEED IS RESTRICTED to only be a resort complex, at the size it is, with the rooms already established. Trump agreed to this deed restriction by Palm Beach, when he negotiated with them to turn it from a private mansion to a resort golf club decades ago.

Mara Lago is a business.....Trump isn't even legally able to have a permanent home there, according to his agreement with Palm Beach.

This makes this DEED RESTRICTED PROPERTY worth less and valued for less than if he could sell it, as a private mansion.

 

[WEATHER53]

Trump can NOT use the property as anything else, but for a club....it can never be a single family mansion property. Mara Lago's DEED IS RESTRICTED to only be a resort complex, at the size it is, with the rooms already established. Trump agreed to this deed restriction by Palm Beach, when he negotiated with them to turn it from a private mansion to a resort golf club decades ago.

Mara Lago is a business.....Trump isn't even legally able to have a permanent home there, according to his agreement with Palm Beach.

This makes this DEED RESTRICTED PROPERTY worth less and valued for less than if he could sell it, as a private mansion.

Deery. . I performed over 200 appraisals in a 40 year career and many other less formal written evacuations including court appearances as an expert witness about 20 times.
You are as lib loons do, speaking about what you have No Direct Knowledge of Nor Experience in and trying to “challenge” someone when in Way Over Your Head.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope, it is a fine and very excessive. And who was defrauded?

The banks and insurance companies.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Exactly. No one defrauded. Victimless. All developers do it.

Exactly. No one defrauded. Victimless. All developers do it.

Wrong liar!

Read the statute: 63(12)


The statute does not require intent to commit fraud or anyone to be harmed by the fraud, and it does not give Trump the inherent right to a jury trial, with legal experts noting to CNN that while civil lawsuits that request monetary damages are entitled to a jury trial, cases seeking other “equitable relief”—meaning penalties that force the defendant to take or refrain from taking some kind of action, rather than just paying money—can be decided by a judge alone, which is more common with 63(12) violations and is the case in this trial.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nope, it is a fine and very excessive. And who was defrauded?

statute 63(12):
The statute does not require intent to commit fraud or anyone to be harmed by the fraud...

please try and keep up

 

[Care4all]

Deery. . I performed over 200 appraisals in a 40 year career and many other less formal written evacuations including court appearances as an expert witness about 20 times.
You are as lib loons do, speaking about what you have No Direct Knowledge of Nor Experience in and trying to “challenge” someone when in Way Over Your Head.

Okie Dokie! Whatever!

 

[Care4all]

Deery. . I performed over 200 appraisals in a 40 year career and many other less formal written evacuations including court appearances as an expert witness about 20 times.
You are as lib loons do, speaking about what you have No Direct Knowledge of Nor Experience in and trying to “challenge” someone when in Way Over Your Head.

This isn't normal real estate or a kind of deal your expertise would cover....

Trump fraud trial judge says there's 'no mistake' the former president's Mar-a-Lago price-tag was 'fraudulent'

Trump's fraud-trial judge Arthur Engoron took a shot at Trump's wildly-inflated claims of Mar-a-Lago's worth in a $364 million verdict.

www.businessinsider.com

• In his single largest net-worth whopper, Trump told a bank in 2018 that Mar-a-Lago was worth $739M.
• He told the tax man it was worth a fraction of that and now claims it's worth north of $1 billion.
• Trump's civil-fraud-trial judge called Trump's Mar-a-Lago valuation "fraudulent" in Friday's verdict.

Judge Arthur Engoron wanted to set the record straight, once and for all: Donald Trump has been blowing smoke about how much his beloved Mar-a-Lago is worth.

In a blistering verdict in the former president's massive civil fraud trial Friday, the Manhattan-based New York Supreme Court judge took a shot at Trump's previous claims that his Palm Beach, Florida, estate and private club was worth more than $1 billion.

Engoron's 92-page verdict notes that in 1995 Trump signed a "Deed of Conservation and Preservation" in which he gave up the right to use Mar-a-Lago for any purpose other than as a social club.

A 2002 deed that Trump signed, Engoron wrote in the verdict, gave away, "in perpetuity," the right to use Mar-a-Lago as a single-family residence. In exchange for executing the deed,

Trump "paid significantly lower property taxes on Mar-a-Lago," Engoron said.

"There is no legal gray area surrounding the permanent nature of the deed restrictions," Engoron wrote. "Accordingly, there can be no mistake that Donald Trump's valuation of Mar-a-Lago from 2011- 2021 was fraudulent."

Trump, the judge wrote, "insisted that he believed Mar-a-Lago is worth 'between a billion and a billion five' today, which would require not only valuing it as a private residence, which the deed prohibits, but as more than the most expensive private residence listed in the country by approximately 400%."

 

[excalibur]

statute 63(12):
The statute does not require intent to commit fraud or anyone to be harmed by the fraud...

please try and keep up

Thus, the statute is unconstitutional.

That's on top of the excessive fine violating the Eighth Amendment.

 

[excalibur]

statute 63(12):
The statute does not require intent to commit fraud or anyone to be harmed by the fraud...

please try and keep up

During a segment of "MSNBC Reports" on Friday, Tur mentioned that in the 70-year existence of the legal rule Judge Arthur Engoron used on Trump, it was never used against someone who has yet to be proven of doing harm to any individual or entity with their practices. ​

MSNBC host Katy Tur demands: ‘Is this fair’ after judge fines Trump, bans him from business in New York

MSNBC host Katy Tur went through New York Judge Arthur Engoron's ruling against former President Trump and asked her panelists if it was a "fair" decision.

www.foxnews.com

 

[WEATHER53]

A judgement of feeling looking for support facts

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Thus, the statute is unconstitutional.

That's on top of the excessive fine violating the Eighth Amendment.

You fool. It's been used before and has been on the books for quite some time.

How could you possibly believe it's unconstitutional?

Oh wait! Never mind.
you're defending the Leader of the Cult

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Thus, the statute is unconstitutional.

That's on top of the excessive fine violating the Eighth Amendment.

Excessive? read all about it

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

During a segment of "MSNBC Reports" on Friday, Tur mentioned that in the 70-year existence of the legal rule Judge Arthur Engoron used on Trump, it was never used against someone who has yet to be proven of doing harm to any individual or entity with their practices. ​

MSNBC host Katy Tur demands: ‘Is this fair’ after judge fines Trump, bans him from business in New York

MSNBC host Katy Tur went through New York Judge Arthur Engoron's ruling against former President Trump and asked her panelists if it was a "fair" decision.

www.foxnews.com

Oh well. Now that Tur has said something.