Antoninus said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Repaying a loan does NOT mean that you did not LIE to GET the loan. For good or ill, the State of New York wants to discourage the LYING, regardless of repayment.

---

Bull*****

Real estate has ALWAYS worked like this. The borrower used the best most optimistic valuation. The lender counters with a much more conservative estimate, and they negotiate terms from there....

Literally every commercial transaction works like that. Nobody borrowing goes in undervaluing their collateral, and it wouldn't matter if they did that, either.

---

It is AMAZING to me how many people have such strong opinions about how a specific NEW YORK statute should be applied, based upon a very general understanding of real estate transactions in a more general sense ... and OUTSIDE the State of New York.

---

How many other times has the state pursued similar instances?

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It's ok. You can admit this law has NEVER been used this way before. It hasn't that I have been able to find.

---

In EXACTLY this way, no. I've not seen one either, though I have seen reasonably-analogous applications.

That goes to the "selective enforcement" complaints, and I AGREE with them. I think that the selective enforcement is appalling.

I am simply demonstrating that some of the OTHER complaints about this case are brain-dead-stupid, utterly-uninformed and based entirely upon blind loyalty to one Donald J. Trump.

Antoninus said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Repaying a loan does NOT mean that you did not LIE to GET the loan. For good or ill, the State of New York wants to discourage the LYING, regardless of repayment.

---

Bull*****

Real estate has ALWAYS worked like this. The borrower used the best most optimistic valuation. The lender counters with a much more conservative estimate, and they negotiate terms from there....

Literally every commercial transaction works like that. Nobody borrowing goes in undervaluing their collateral, and it wouldn't matter if they did that, either.

---

It is AMAZING to me how many people have such strong opinions about how a specific NEW YORK statute should be applied, based upon a very general understanding of real estate transactions in a more general sense ... and OUTSIDE the State of New York.

---

The legal experts I have heard say the New York statute should not have been applied at all and never has been applied until now. When you combine that with the nonsensical nature of the charge (Trump overvalued his property), I don't know why its amazing to you. What is amazing is that we are seeing such obvious corruption in New York and no one is doing anything about it so far.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It's ok. You can admit this law has NEVER been used this way before. It hasn't that I have been able to find.

---

It's never been used this way before because it was not intended to be used this way.

Sort of like when the emoluments clause stuff came out. And the 14th Amendment insurrection stuff.

Antoninus said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It's ok. You can admit this law has NEVER been used this way before. It hasn't that I have been able to find.

---

In EXACTLY this way, no. I've not seen one either, though I have seen reasonably-analogous applications.

That goes to the "selective enforcement" complaints, and I AGREE with them. I think that the selective enforcement is appalling.

I am simply demonstrating that some of the OTHER complaints about this case are brain-dead-stupid, utterly-uninformed and based entirely upon blind loyalty to one Donald J. Trump.

---

FWIW, I can't stand Trump and I'm not voting for him.

So, I guess thanks for the insult.

Antoninus said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It's ok. You can admit this law has NEVER been used this way before. It hasn't that I have been able to find.

---

In EXACTLY this way, no. I've not seen one either, though I have seen reasonably-analogous applications.

That goes to the "selective enforcement" complaints, and I AGREE with them. I think that the selective enforcement is appalling.

I am simply demonstrating that some of the OTHER complaints about this case are brain-dead-stupid, utterly-uninformed and based entirely upon blind loyalty to one Donald J. Trump.

---

Can you link the exact statute that they did this civil action under? I don't know where to look.

How many people are being sued for this? 98% of loan applicants should be. Not sure why anyone would do business in New York if they're applying this statute.

Ag with kids said:

---

Can you link the exact statute that they did this civil action under? I don't know where to look.

---

New York Executive Law Section 63(12)

jja79 said:

---

How many people are being sued for this? 98% of loan applicants should be. Not sure why anyone would do business in New York if they're applying this statute.

---

That's what I've been mulling over as well. It seems if you did 5 appraisals you could get 5 different valuations and if the state disagrees, you get prosecuted.

Remember when the FBI/CIA spied on a political campaign and used false evidence to attempt to remove a duly elected sitting President of the United States? And people argued it was correct?

I remember and will never forget the Chavistas. Treason….and it is still happening

Either people are willfully ignorant or just outright stupid to trust our legal system when it comes to Trump

jja79 said:

---

How many people are being sued for this? 98% of loan applicants should be. Not sure why anyone would do business in New York if they're applying this statute.

---

He forgot something in his analysis of the statute:

And the statute does not APPLY to "98% of loan applicants," for about two dozen different reasons. It applies to (a) COMMERCIAL transactions, (b) in NEW YORK, in which (c) the applicant makes representations which he OBJECTIVELY KNOWS to be false at the time he made them, OR (d) if your last name is Trump. If we apply only those FOUR limitations, we have eliminated probably 99.99% of all loan applications.

jja79 said:

---

How many people are being sued for this? 98% of loan applicants should be. Not sure why anyone would do business in New York if they're applying this statute.

---

Why? Is it your opinion that 98% of New York loan applicants make representations regarding valuation which they OBJECTIVELY KNOW to be inflated?

Not opinion. Objective knowledge. Because THAT is what the AG alleges that Trump did.

Maybe I am naive, but I doubt that even ONE percent of loan applicants (probably lower) make valuation representations which they KNOW to be OBJECTIVELY false.

Antoninus said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Can you link the exact statute that they did this civil action under? I don't know where to look.

---

New York Executive Law Section 63(12)

---

Quote:

---

12. Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term "persistent fraud" or "illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term "repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.

In connection with any such application, the attorney general is authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and rules. Such authorization shall not abate or terminate by reason of any action or proceeding brought by the attorney general under this section.

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

jja79 said:

---

How many people are being sued for this? 98% of loan applicants should be. Not sure why anyone would do business in New York if they're applying this statute.

---

That's what I've been mulling over as well. It seems if you did 5 appraisals you could get 5 different valuations and if the state disagrees, you get prosecuted.

---

Did the prosecution use the valuations that the banks placed on the properties? If they didn't then didn't the banks commit fraud, too?

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

jja79 said:

---

How many people are being sued for this? 98% of loan applicants should be. Not sure why anyone would do business in New York if they're applying this statute.

---

That's what I've been mulling over as well. It seems if you did 5 appraisals you could get 5 different valuations and if the state disagrees, you get prosecuted.

---

JFC, no.

It is NOT "competing appraisals" that give rise to this enforcement. It is the fact that the AG was able to present evidence that Trump used valuations which he OBJECTIVELY KNEW were inflated.

Now, I suppose that the State COULD prosecute every loan applicant in which there were competing valuations, but I suspect that the State would fail miserably to prove "objective knowledge of falsity" in 99.9% of those hypothetical prosecutions.

Have you folks even READ the evidence? Have you SEEN the laughable formulas that The Trump Organization applied to known valuations in order to create the inflated values?

Again, I have no opinion as to whether the AG met her burden of proving "actual knowledge of falsity' to my satisfaction, because I have not reviewed months of evidence. I am simply explaining that the ACTUAL issues are far different from the facile "competing valuation" arguments that our local expert bankers and real estate moguls are presenting.

Antoninus said:

---

jja79 said:

---

How many people are being sued for this? 98% of loan applicants should be. Not sure why anyone would do business in New York if they're applying this statute.

---

Why? Is it your opinion that 98% of New York loan applicants make representations regarding valuation which they OBJECTIVELY KNOW to be inflated?

Not opinion. Objective knowledge. Because THAT is what the AG alleges that Trump did.

Maybe I am naive, but I doubt that even ONE percent of loan applicants (probably lower) make valuation representations which they KNOW to be OBJECTIVELY false.

---

BTW, I didn't watch the trial and apparently you did, but what did they use to prove Trump KNEW the valuations were incorrect?

Yes I think 98% of loan applicants use unrealistic asset values and that is why banks do not rely on such valuations. The banks loaning money to Trump did not rely on his valuations and in the end collected 100% of the principal plus interest they contracted for. Fraud has a victim and there is no victim.

Ag with kids said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Why? Is it your opinion that 98% of New York loan applicants make representations regarding valuation which they OBJECTIVELY KNOW to be inflated?

Not opinion. Objective knowledge. Because THAT is what the AG alleges that Trump did.

Maybe I am naive, but I doubt that even ONE percent of loan applicants (probably lower) make valuation representations which they KNOW to be OBJECTIVELY false.

---

BTW, I didn't watch the trial and apparently you did, but what did they use to prove Trump KNEW the valuations were incorrect?

---

No, I did not watch the trial. As I have said, I have NO OPINION as to whether the AG met her burden of proof to my satisfaction. I have NO OPINION as to whether the evidence presented at trial supports this Judgment.

I am simply explaining that most of our posters do not remotely understand the statute and have instead convinced themselves that the case should be governed by common law concepts of fraud. They are wrong.

jja79 said:

---

Yes I think 98% of loan applicants use unrealistic asset values and that is why banks do not rely on such valuations.

---

That is not remotely what I said, and not remotely what the AG alleged.

Quote:

---

The banks loaning money to Trump did not rely on his valuations and in the end collected 100% of the principal plus interest they contracted for. Fraud has a victim and there is no victim.

---

I give up. You will continue to insist that this case be governed by common law concepts of "fraud," no matter how many times I explain that this was not a common law fraud case, but rather a statutory enforcement proceeding. You are content in your ignorance, and I obviously cannot change that. Have a nice evening.

After reading your posts I'm concerned that these banks are still in business and more than that insured by the FDIC. In a state that can't even prosecute violent criminals this is even an issue? Anyone that has applied for a loan and paid said loan plus interest should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Where is the fraud and the victim of fraud because fraud has a victim?

Antoninus said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Why? Is it your opinion that 98% of New York loan applicants make representations regarding valuation which they OBJECTIVELY KNOW to be inflated?

Not opinion. Objective knowledge. Because THAT is what the AG alleges that Trump did.

Maybe I am naive, but I doubt that even ONE percent of loan applicants (probably lower) make valuation representations which they KNOW to be OBJECTIVELY false.

---

BTW, I didn't watch the trial and apparently you did, but what did they use to prove Trump KNEW the valuations were incorrect?

---

No, I did not watch the trial. As I have said, I have NO OPINION as to whether the AG met her burden of proof to my satisfaction. I have NO OPINION as to whether the evidence presented at trial supports this Judgment.

I am simply explaining that most of our posters do not remotely understand the statute and have instead convinced themselves that the case should be governed by common law concepts of fraud. They are wrong.

---

What is your opinion on whether this statute actually applies in this case?

That is, not selective application, but if the statute actually was applicable to what occurred in Trump's transactions with banks...

Not fair that Trump's going to trial only 3 and a half years after the alleged misconduct....while RINO Paxton gets his trial delayed NINE years. What's this country coming to when plaintiffs get less than 9 years to prepare?

Ag with kids said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

No, I did not watch the trial. As I have said, I have NO OPINION as to whether the AG met her burden of proof to my satisfaction. I have NO OPINION as to whether the evidence presented at trial supports this Judgment.

I am simply explaining that most of our posters do not remotely understand the statute and have instead convinced themselves that the case should be governed by common law concepts of fraud. They are wrong.

---

What is your opinion on whether this statute actually applies in this case?

That is, not selective application, but if the statute actually was applicable to what occurred in Trump's transactions with banks...

---

The statute is extraordinarily-broad, probably intentionally so. It appears to have been written to give the AG broad discretion.

The actions ALLEGED against Trump clearly fall within its purview, which can be interpreted to apply to any intentional misrepresentation in the context of doing business in New York. I cannot opine as to whether those allegations were accurate.

Even assuming such to be the case, however, I agree that this is an egregious case of selective enforcement.

Antoninus said:

---

It is AMAZING to me how many people have such strong opinions about how a specific NEW YORK statute should be applied, based upon a very general understanding of real estate transactions in a more general sense ... and OUTSIDE the State of New York.

---

Simpin' ain't easy.

Antoninus said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

No, I did not watch the trial. As I have said, I have NO OPINION as to whether the AG met her burden of proof to my satisfaction. I have NO OPINION as to whether the evidence presented at trial supports this Judgment.

I am simply explaining that most of our posters do not remotely understand the statute and have instead convinced themselves that the case should be governed by common law concepts of fraud. They are wrong.

---

What is your opinion on whether this statute actually applies in this case?

That is, not selective application, but if the statute actually was applicable to what occurred in Trump's transactions with banks...

---

The statute is extraordinarily-broad, probably intentionally so. It appears to have been written to give the AG broad discretion.

The actions ALLEGED against Trump clearly fall within its purview, which can be interpreted to apply to any intentional misrepresentation in the context of doing business in New York. I cannot opine as to whether those allegations were accurate.

Even assuming such to be the case, however, I agree that this is an egregious case of selective enforcement.

---

If this is the case, then you'd think there would be LOTS of prosecutions under this statute...

Is selective enforcement something that can be brought up on appeal? Because it sure looks that's some good evidence.

Antoninus said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Repaying a loan does NOT mean that you did not LIE to GET the loan. For good or ill, the State of New York wants to discourage the LYING, regardless of repayment.

Why is this so hard for Trump sycophants to grasp?

Would NY have done the same to someone without the surname "Trump?" Probably not, but that is an ENTIRELY distinct argument. You people have me in your corner when you make reasonable arguments (like "selective enforcement"), but you lose me when you stink them up with red herrings (like "no money damages").

---

Your use of sycophants tells me you're a far left, progressive.

Just stop. They/them Marxist.

---

Then you are not very perceptive. I have been voting GOP since you were suckling at mommy's breast, and I think that the pronoun thing is just as stupid as you do.

And I think that Donald Trump is the worst thing to happen to the GOP in a century. MANY lifelong GOP voters agree with me.

---

So what is your solution then? You're either switching to D or voting independent, which, in the latter means you're essentially wasting a vote. I am in my 40s, and I'm really tired of seeing our economy goto crap, paying higher taxes, and of those taxes seeing them being sent directly to Ukraine, instead of being kept here in the United States to fix issues here. Another thing that really hits home for me, is that I grew up in Uvalde, which is where the school shooting happened. Which is also an hour away from the border, that Biden has zero control over. He's letting thousands of evil people into our country every day. These are the people that are drastically raising our crime rates, taking away jobs, bringing in deadly drugs, and getting their healthcare paid for, while our citizens suffer. I would be terrified if I lived in Uvalde right now, with the cartels and overall evil people that are invading our border. If there's one thing about Trump, it's that he was allocating our tax dollars to keeping our border secure. Right now we have not only Mexican cartels coming in on a regular basis but terrorists from other countries getting easy access to the United States, where they can plot terrorist attacks. It is downright scary.

If the GOP could run some legitimate candidates, I could see your point, but they don't have any. Trump hits home on a couple major issues that us as citizens should be concerned about. Most notably our safety, the safety of our families, and not turning our country to communism. This is how the Democrats stay in power, because they will eventually make these people that are coming in by the boatloads US citizens down the road. They want power, they want control, and they want to continue to launder their money via sending our tax dollars to foreign wars that we are not a part of. We're on the verge of a Civil War if these types of legal battles keep Trump from legitimately running for office. There will be a revolution.

aglaes said:

---

You have to admit that Trump brings a lot of this xxxx on himself. If he wasn't such a despicable character none of this would be happening.

---

if we follow this hypothesis, wouldn't you agree that this should also be happening to Biden? And yet there nothing but goaltending for a career politician that is easily as despicable as you say Trump is.

Can we use this same logic against property appraisals by the county tax appraisers? Can they be liable for fraud against home owners?

BillYeoman said:

---

Remember when the FBI/CIA spied on a political campaign and used false evidence to attempt to remove a duly elected sitting President of the United States? And people argued it was correct?

I remember and will never forget the Chavistas. Treason….and it is still happening

Either people are willfully ignorant or just outright stupid to trust our legal system when it comes to Trump

---

America was great while it lasted. We are headed into a much different world in the next decade.

agAngeldad said:

---

Can we use this same logic against property appraisals by the county tax appraisers? Can they be liable for fraud against home owners?

---

I love this point. Every time your appraisal gets lowered by a review board, which happens constantly, the tax appraiser "lied" and committed fraud. Can we get us a judge to award us the difference and several times that for punitive damages? The difference between this and Trump is that in this case there actually IS a victim! I know I have had this happen several times in my life - I want these tax appraisers prosecuted!

Trump's binder doesn't go missing and the trials never get this far.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3444575

Quote:

---

Mar A Lago was searched in order to seize a "binder" that will show John Brennan, the CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton campaign, foreign actors, FISA courts, MSM, the entire deep state of Government, etc, have all been involved since 2015 in taking down Donald Trump to insure he would never be President. The pee tape, crossfire hurricane, Mar A Lago, both impeachment efforts, all the lawfare, etc. In summary, virtually every attack on Trump was initiated or carried out by the US Government with the help of non-govt people.
. . .

---

You'd think that's good news that all those parties have their comeuppance err, coming. However

Quote:

---

So where is "the binder"?

---

Quote:

---

"The binder is missing."

---

The thread devolved into the usual anarchy thereafter.

Regardless there is a Hunter laptop like binder out there with all the evidence in one place against the Deep State (rather than salacious selfies, and the other incriminating stuff). I imagine there will be a reward for any who are able to give information that leads to the binder's recovery.

Quote:

---

It is NOT "competing appraisals" that give rise to this enforcement. It is the fact that the AG was able to present evidence that Trump used valuations which he OBJECTIVELY KNOW were inflated.

---

Chill dude. So the AG was able to "present evidence that Trump used valuations the he objectively know we're inflated" which would mean he either made a mistake (not against the law), or he lied. If he lied, then that would be evidence of deception and the intent of the deception is to commit fraud. Fraud has a victim. You may be 100% correct that NY is applying the law as written, , but it's more apparent the law was misinterpreted to bring down Trump.

aglaes said:

---

You have to admit that Trump brings a lot of this xxxx on himself. If he wasn't such a despicable character none of this would be happening.

---

No, I don't. Because you can't actually point to actions he's taken that warrant it. He "brings on himself" fake claims of sexual assault"? Would it be fair to say then that if Biden is impeached for his clear criminal activity and/or transparent failure to adhere to his oath to "faithfully execute the laws of the United States" (enforce the current immigration laws), he "brought it on himself"? Because he actually HAS.

It's completely ridiculous how you people adopt one standard for the dip****s you vote for, and another for those you don't. You controversialize a person, and then accuse them of being controversial. Your voters are so easily manipulated- which is why they vote for ridiculous fairy tale & rainbow bs to begin with - that they never realize it's happening.

Does NY have a law about illegals beating the **** out of cops? Seems like they didn't want to enforce that one until the outrage started.

Of course this is political lawfare against someone they want to selectively punish, I don't know why that is so hard for some to admit.