New York judge finds Donald Trump liable for fraud

[gwb-trading]

Melania will be pissed.......her pie is being ravaged right in front of her eyes.

She might as well file for that divorce now.

'Wait until Melania finds out he’s only worth 800 bucks': The View mocks Trump’s business meltdown
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-is-poor-view/

 

[Bugenhagen]

I have encountered many villagers in third world Africa who struggle to understand 'victimless' or relatively so crime.

Classical legal theory distinguishes between two types of bad acts: malum prohibitum (wrong because it is against the law) and malum in se (wrong in itself). For example speeding is wrong because it is illegal, but murder is wrong in itself.

In a society governed by the rule of law, we all have a stake in the system. When the rules are applied fairly, we (non-narcissist/sociopaths) are willing to refrain from doing things that we might want to do but that are against the rules, even if we don't think they are morally wrong. We do this because we are invested in a society that works because of its rules. We view following the rules as the price of living in a functioning society.

When people believe that the system and its rules are fundamentally fair, they are more likely to follow them even when they disagree with them. When they don't believe that the system is fair, it breaks down and society begins to rot from the inside out. In the end, all that is left is a kleptocracy, where the powerful rule by force.

Again, in a society where the law is fair and applied fairly, people are more likely to follow it, even if they don't agree with every law. When people believe that the law is unfair, they are more likely to break it and society suffers as a result.

I’m not an attorney, so don’t take my comments as legal advice. Likely, a competent attorney, if Trump has one, would make a much more compelling case for Trump’s position, than I can.

Here are seven points related to the apparent political prosecution of Trump in the New York property valuation trial:

1. Presumption of innocence - Property valuations are subjective and subject to change. Even a property valuation on the same date, by the same appraiser, can vary by appraisal type and one of three common valuation methods. Normally, a bank orders the appraisal from a licensed appraiser as part of their decision making process.
2. Equal justice under the law - Political prosecution? Was Trump singled out or was there a major “Crackdown” on commercial borrowers, regardless of their political affiliation?
3. Was a party harmed by the valuation statement? If so, did the harmed party know or should have known the valuation was unreasonable? Is it ever reasonable for a bank to rely on borrowers valuation statements either because borrower lack of professional(State licensed) expertise or conflict of interest?
4. The lawsuit against Trump is in contravention of long established business practices. Possible long established tradition versus recently enacted rule change conflict.
5. Likely violation of bank’s fiduciary duty of confidentiality owed to Trump, tainting validity of lawsuit. Any regulatory requirement for a bank to calculate and report possible stated and probable asset valuations could be easily considered regulatory overreach or even unconstitutional by a higher court.
6. Bank officers often “Encourage” borrowers to inflate assets to increase their chance of procuring business. Further, banks verify information by the borrower (Processing) and make a decision whether to make the loan (Underwriting), making the bank effectively a party in determining property valuation.
7. One of the meta issues Leftist miss when engaging in political prosecutions is the adverse effect on the business environment. In the example above, borrowers may feel they are locked out of a market they may have otherwise qualified for, reducing profit potential for lenders. This in turn may cause related businesses to reduce expansion plans, limited local economic potential. We saw this effect during the Obama Administration are a nationwide scale where businesses, even though incentivized, were reluctant to expand over fears related regulatory and enforcement uncertainty. Just as the Republicans screwed themselves messing with the status quo with Roe versus Wade, Democrats risk screwing all of us by creating an unnecessarily unfriendly business environment. As far as the idea of selectively enforcing rules for politically aligned businesses, guess what happens to prices when competition is reduced?

 

[BeautifulStranger]

I have encountered many villagers in third world Africa who struggle to understand 'victimless' or relatively so crime.

Classical legal theory distinguishes between two types of bad acts: malum prohibitum (wrong because it is against the law) and malum in se (wrong in itself). For example speeding is wrong because it is illegal, but murder is wrong in itself.

In a society governed by the rule of law, we all have a stake in the system. When the rules are applied fairly, we (non-narcissist/sociopaths) are willing to refrain from doing things that we might want to do but that are against the rules, even if we don't think they are morally wrong. We do this because we are invested in a society that works because of its rules. We view following the rules as the price of living in a functioning society.

When people believe that the system and its rules are fundamentally fair, they are more likely to follow them even when they disagree with them. When they don't believe that the system is fair, it breaks down and society begins to rot from the inside out. In the end, all that is left is a kleptocracy, where the powerful rule by force.

Again, in a society where the law is fair and applied fairly, people are more likely to follow it, even if they don't agree with every law. When people believe that the law is unfair, they are more likely to break it and society suffers as a result.

There is a German saying: “The more laws, the less justice”.

There is such a thing as over regulation. Laws designed to break the chain of events that could lead to breaking of a more significant law, such as coolers at the beach possibly containing alcoholic beverages, to prevent drunken downing deaths etc., may be considered as overreaching. Obviously, some container laws are at the behest of certain alcohol serving businesses, which is also an example of legislative abuse.

Society, through the many interactions/transactions of people will often adjust to an efficient “Working arrangement”, which may not comply fully to the letter of the law, but still serves in the best interests of society at large.

For the sake of completeness, business and personal practices can devolve if there is extended lack of enforcement. For example, lack of interstate traffic law enforcement in the DFW area has created such a hazardous condition, that evasive action is required every minute of travel or so, compared to maybe one per day in other areas. Further, the current state of business conduct/ethics in the US is poor and devolving. Customers are being taking advantaged of. Ultimately, this will harm unethical businesses themselves and beyond, including the economy, as consumers become increasingly reluctant to spend.

In conclusion, an important differentiator is whether harm has clearly taken place and the relative competence of the parties. Trump and the banks are relatively on the same level. Often, a business has superior knowledge over a consumer for a particular service, thus justifying greater legal protection.

 

[Bugenhagen]

There is a German saying: “The more laws, the less justice”.

There is such a thing as over regulation. Laws designed to break the chain of events that could lead to breaking of a more significant law, such as coolers at the beach possibly containing alcoholic beverages, to prevent drunken downing deaths etc., may be considered as overreaching. Obviously, some container laws are at the behest of certain alcohol serving businesses, which is also an example of legislative abuse.

Society, through the many interactions/transactions of people will often adjust to an efficient “Working arrangement”, which may not comply fully to the letter of the law, but still serves in the best interests of society at large.

For the sake of completeness, business and personal practices can devolve if there is extended lack of enforcement. For example, lack of interstate traffic law enforcement in the DFW area has created such a hazardous condition, that evasive action is required every minute of travel or so, compared to maybe one per day in other areas. Further, the current state of business conduct/ethics in the US is poor and devolving. Customers are being taking advantaged of. Ultimately, this will harm unethical businesses themselves and beyond, including the economy, as consumers become increasingly reluctant to spend.

In conclusion, an important differentiator is whether harm has clearly taken place and the relative competence of the parties. Trump and the banks are relatively on the same level. Often, a business has superior knowledge over a consumer for a particular service, thus justifying greater legal protection.

Yep, that's what the villagers say.

 

[Bugenhagen]

How to put this into trailerpark avoiding receiving a chatTPK generated response.

This Subaru WRX:

Gets more attention by law enforcement than this Buick Encore:

 

[Sprout]

I’m not an attorney, so don’t take my comments as legal advice. Likely, a competent attorney, if Trump has one, would make a much more compelling case for Trump’s position, than I can.

Here are seven points related to the apparent political prosecution of Trump in the New York property valuation trial:

1. Presumption of innocence - Property valuations are subjective and subject to change. Even a property valuation on the same date, by the same appraiser, can vary by appraisal type and one of three common valuation methods. Normally, a bank orders the appraisal from a licensed appraiser as part of their decision making process.
2. Equal justice under the law - Political prosecution? Was Trump singled out or was there a major “Crackdown” on commercial borrowers, regardless of their political affiliation?
3. Was a party harmed by the valuation statement? If so, did the harmed party know or should have known the valuation was unreasonable? Is it ever reasonable for a bank to rely on borrowers valuation statements either because borrower lack of professional(State licensed) expertise or conflict of interest?
4. The lawsuit against Trump is in contravention of long established business practices. Possible long established tradition versus recently enacted rule change conflict.
5. Likely violation of bank’s fiduciary duty of confidentiality owed to Trump, tainting validity of lawsuit. Any regulatory requirement for a bank to calculate and report possible stated and probable asset valuations could be easily considered regulatory overreach or even unconstitutional by a higher court.
6. Bank officers often “Encourage” borrowers to inflate assets to increase their chance of procuring business. Further, banks verify information by the borrower (Processing) and make a decision whether to make the loan (Underwriting), making the bank effectively a party in determining property valuation.
7. One of the meta issues Leftist miss when engaging in political prosecutions is the adverse effect on the business environment. In the example above, borrowers may feel they are locked out of a market they may have otherwise qualified for, reducing profit potential for lenders. This in turn may cause related businesses to reduce expansion plans, limited local economic potential. We saw this effect during the Obama Administration are a nationwide scale where businesses, even though incentivized, were reluctant to expand over fears related regulatory and enforcement uncertainty. Just as the Republicans screwed themselves messing with the status quo with Roe versus Wade, Democrats risk screwing all of us by creating an unnecessarily unfriendly business environment. As far as the idea of selectively enforcing rules for politically aligned businesses, guess what happens to prices when competition is reduced?

None of your points are relevant. He chose to run a political campaign during his lifelong criminality.

 

[Sprout]

1. Who was the victim and how were they affected?
2. Did the bank(s) directly or indirectly have a part in determining “Reasonable value”?
3. How was reasonable value determined and why should that method have authority?
4. How many other businesses has the prosecution brought a similar lawsuit?
5. Did the judge err when categorically denying an apparent reasonable defense?
6. The case has not been actually decided yet. The judge apparently ruled on a lesser point of the case, correct?

bruh, your spinning your wheels in nonsense

 

[Sprout]

I have encountered many villagers in third world Africa who struggle to understand 'victimless' or relatively so crime.

Classical legal theory distinguishes between two types of bad acts: malum prohibitum (wrong because it is against the law) and malum in se (wrong in itself). For example speeding is wrong because it is illegal, but murder is wrong in itself.

In a society governed by the rule of law, we all have a stake in the system. When the rules are applied fairly, we (non-narcissist/sociopaths) are willing to refrain from doing things that we might want to do but that are against the rules, even if we don't think they are morally wrong. We do this because we are invested in a society that works because of its rules. We view following the rules as the price of living in a functioning society.

When people believe that the system and its rules are fundamentally fair, they are more likely to follow them even when they disagree with them. When they don't believe that the system is fair, it breaks down and society begins to rot from the inside out. In the end, all that is left is a kleptocracy, where the powerful rule by force.

Again, in a society where the law is fair and applied fairly, people are more likely to follow it, even if they don't agree with every law. When people believe that the law is unfair, they are more likely to break it and society suffers as a result.

Thank you

 

[DTB2]

Amazing that some do not understand the difference between a County Assessed Valuation and Market Value.

 

[BeautifulStranger]

Amazing that some do not understand the difference between a County Assessed Valuation and Market Value.

Have you ever tried to correlate recent sales prices with recent assessed “Value”. If you have, what is your conclusion? I have and I’ll tell you my conclusion in a bit.