Hundreds of examples of fraud by Trump and his family, corporations

#351
#351
McDad said:
I does matter. Especially if an AG is filing a civil suit against me for fluctuating values based on the party I am speaking to. I find it disingenuous to be flippant about it when it is me and my example and vitriolic when it is about Trump and his behavior.
Click to expand...
Well, people are saying that I’m right. A lot of people… the best people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#353
#353
volinbham said:
as you've pointed out - what I value properties at varies depending on the situation and also the relevant partner in the transaction can accept or not accept my valuation.
Click to expand...
I fully understand why we want to see Trump get his comeuppance. He is not a nice person. But on the other hand, being a a-hole is not illegal. Wanting the legal system to take him down for something commonplace is a dangerous precedent. Literally, the value of my property differs depending on who I am speaking with. How can it not be the same for the Orange Blowhard? The only caveat will be, I think, were his fluctuations intentionally fraudulent and excessive. There may be a case for those characteristics. But the practice of fluctuating values is so routine we don't even really give it much thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolTookie, Vol since 77, AirVol and 2 others
#355
#355
StarRaider said:
have you looked it up on zillow?

If not then the g sez:
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAPs) in the United States require the valuation of fixed assets at historical cost, adjusted for any estimated gain and loss in value from improvements and the aging, respectively, of these assets.
Click to expand...
We can add this method to the list of valuation options. At some point, a finite value must be established. If we can't for my meager property, how can we for Trump's?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#356
#356
McDad said:
I fully understand why we want to see Trump get his comeuppance. He is not a nice person. But on the other hand, being a a-hole is not illegal. Wanting the legal system to take him down for something commonplace is a dangerous precedent. Literally, the value of my property differs depending on who I am speaking with. How can it not be the same for the Orange Blowhard? The only caveat will be, I think, were his fluctuations intentionally fraudulent and excessive. There may be a case for those characteristics. But the practice of fluctuating values is so routine we don't even really give it much thought.
Click to expand...

agree - orange man is bad but that doesn't justify a vendetta (this particular AG made it a campaign promise to sue Trump back in 2018)

the state bringing this as civil case (the state is the victim?) doesn't make sense - if there is sufficient evidence to prove criminal actions then let the proper authorities document and a bring the charges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolTookie, Vol since 77, MWR and 5 others
#359
#359
volinbham said:
agree - orange man is bad but that doesn't justify a vendetta (this particular AG made it a campaign promise to sue Trump back in 2018)
Click to expand...

the state bringing this as civil case (the state is the victim?) doesn't make sense - if there is sufficient evidence to prove criminal actions then let the proper authorities document and a bring the charges.
Click to expand...

You are 100 percent dead wrong on both accounts.

That the state AG does not like Trump has nothing to do with whether, objectively, the claims are true and the lawsuit meritorious. It makes her look bad, but does not in any way, shape, or form, excuse Trumps' own misconduct. All it does is provide a distracting talking point -- much like you have done here.

And you are wrong about it being civil versus criminal. First, it has been referred to the feds to see if they want to prosecute criminally. Second, the state can always lodge criminal charges later, if they wish. Third, it makes sense to do it this way because it being brought as a civil case means broader discovery and access to documents and witnesses.

Ergo you are just as wrong as you could possibly be in both aspects of your post.
 
#360
#360
Septic said:
Outside of the alleged bank fraud, one of my daily emailers had a link to a good article about the insurance misrepresentations that has some takes that may be hard to defend.

New York AG’s Financial Fraud Suit Against Trump Details Insurance Scenarios (insurancejournal.com)
Click to expand...
I don't see much there which is the smoking gun gotcha. He inflated his net worth, he appealed to insurance companies to cover more with lower rates and the insurance company agreed to the negotiation. Maybe he used his political influence, too. That would make his actions much worse, imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#361
#361
lawgator1 said:
You are 100 percent dead wrong on both accounts.

That the state AG does not like Trump has nothing to do with whether, objectively, the claims are true and the lawsuit meritorious. It makes her look bad, but does not in any way, shape, or form, excuse Trumps' own misconduct. All it does is provide a distracting talking point -- much like you have done here.

And you are wrong about it being civil versus criminal. First, it has been referred to the feds to see if they want to prosecute criminally. Second, the state can always lodge criminal charges later, if they wish. Third, it makes sense to do it this way because it being brought as a civil case means broader discovery and access to documents and witnesses.

Ergo you are just as wrong as you could possibly be in both aspects of your post.
Click to expand...

I'm not wrong on either.

The fact the AG was prejudiced against Trump can certainly be brought to bear in the case.

At this point it is civil only - you can talk about you want about if (feds bringing charges/state doing it later) but the point is THIS case is civil in nature and it is entirely unclear who the victim is that experienced damages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR and StarRaider
#362
#362
McDad said:
I don't see much there which is the smoking gun gotcha. He inflated his net worth, he appealed to insurance companies to cover more with lower rates and the insurance company agreed to the negotiation. Maybe he used his political influence, too. That would make his actions much worse, imo.
Click to expand...

He allegedly misrepresented his net worth to secure bonds. He also allegedly misrepresented the values of his properties to secure better rates.

If these are true, these could be more troubling for him than the loan misrepresentations. If prosecutors can prove intent, he could have a bad day.

Unlike loan fraud, I'm not sure damages are even required.

NEW YORK PENAL LAW 176.05
Fraudulent Insurance Act

A fraudulent insurance act is defined as any act committed by an individual with the intent to defraud. In doing so, this person must either present, cause to be presented, or prepare a written statement either as part of or in support of any application for insurance, proof of self insurance, a claim of payment and other documents. The accused must also commit this act knowing or under the belief that this written statement will be presented to or by an insurer whether real or purported. Additionally, the accused must also know that the written information contains materially false information concerning a material fact or that the written information will conceal the material fact by misleading the person(s) who receive the information.
 
#363
#363
Septic said:
He allegedly misrepresented his net worth to secure bonds. He also allegedly misrepresented the values of his properties to secure better rates.

If these are true, these could be more troubling for him than the loan misrepresentations. If prosecutors can prove intent, he could have a bad day.

Unlike loan fraud, I'm not sure damages are even required.

NEW YORK PENAL LAW 176.05
Fraudulent Insurance Act

A fraudulent insurance act is defined as any act committed by an individual with the intent to defraud. In doing so, this person must either present, cause to be presented, or prepare a written statement either as part of or in support of any application for insurance, proof of self insurance, a claim of payment and other documents. The accused must also commit this act knowing or under the belief that this written statement will be presented to or by an insurer whether real or purported. Additionally, the accused must also know that the written information contains materially false information concerning a material fact or that the written information will conceal the material fact by misleading the person(s) who receive the information.
Click to expand...

are you talking about this particular case that James brought or potential criminal charges that may materialize later?

I ask because what you posted appears to be a criminal violation.
 
#364
#364
volinbham said:
I'm not wrong on either.

The fact the AG was prejudiced against Trump can certainly be brought to bear in the case.

At this point it is civil only - you can talk about you want about if (feds bringing charges/state doing it later) but the point is THIS case is civil in nature and it is entirely unclear who the victim is that experienced damages.
Click to expand...

The "victims" could be easily identified as the lenders, who knowing the truth, wouldn't have allowed him to secure loans with lower interest rates or at all. Or the insurance companies who relied on his financials to issue bonds or lower rates than he would not have otherwise enjoyed. I think any banking loan officer or insurance company underwriter would not agree with these alleged crimes with the sentiment that 'it all worked out, so what's the big deal?'
 
#365
#365
#366
#366
Septic said:
The "victims" could be easily identified as the lenders, who knowing the truth, wouldn't have allowed him to secure loans with lower interest rates or at all. Or the insurance companies who relied on his financials to issue bonds or lower rates than he would have otherwise enjoyed. I think any banking loan officer or insurance company underwriter would agree with these alleged crimes with the sentiment that 'it all worked out, so what's the big deal?'
Click to expand...

my point is that he has not been charged with any crimes at this point. you've identified a potential crime that could possibly bring a criminal charge.

so if we are evaluating the merits of the existing case we'd still be looking at civil code and it's requirements rather than criminal code and it's requirements
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#367
#367
Septic said:
He allegedly misrepresented his net worth to secure bonds. He also allegedly misrepresented the values of his properties to secure better rates.

If these are true, these could be more troubling for him than the loan misrepresentations. If prosecutors can prove intent, he could have a bad day.

Unlike loan fraud, I'm not sure damages are even required.

NEW YORK PENAL LAW 176.05
Fraudulent Insurance Act

A fraudulent insurance act is defined as any act committed by an individual with the intent to defraud. In doing so, this person must either present, cause to be presented, or prepare a written statement either as part of or in support of any application for insurance, proof of self insurance, a claim of payment and other documents. The accused must also commit this act knowing or under the belief that this written statement will be presented to or by an insurer whether real or purported. Additionally, the accused must also know that the written information contains materially false information concerning a material fact or that the written information will conceal the material fact by misleading the person(s) who receive the information.
Click to expand...

I understand it. I just don't see the significance or the smoking gun. As I offered earlier in this thread, even real property values are ill-defined. You layer on top of that issue, you have the perceived value his "celebrity" element brings and I think it is a challenging case.
But at the end of the day, I see it as a government employee (AG) who I assume is a liar because of her position going after a known liar. Which liar do I choose to trust. I side with Trump only because I have real estate on a micro scale compared to his.
 
#369
#369
Nikki Haley Backs Mike Henry for NY AG amid Feud with Letitia James

Former US Ambassador to the UN and White House hopeful Nikki Haley endorsed Republican Michael Henry for New York state attorney general amid a feud with Democratic incumbent AG Letitia James.

Haley last month accused James’ office of breaking tax laws by leaking the list of donors to her conservative not-for-profit advocacy group, Stand for America.

“I’m proud to endorse him because he’s pro-law and order, pro-government transparency, and will restore integrity to the NY Attorney General’s office,” Haley said.

“I’m proud to receive the endorsement of Ambassador Nikki Haley. She is a leader who is not afraid to fight back against corrupt and illegal behavior from my opponent’s office. She knows that I will root out this corruption and brazen political attacks that have no place in such an esteemed office,” Henry said.

Untitled-1.png

During their ongoing feud, Haley has publicly endorsed James’ counterpart Michael Henry.

Nikki Haley backs Mike Henry for NY AG amid feud with Letitia James
 
#370
#370
volinbham said:
my point is that he has not been charged with any crimes at this point. you've identified a potential crime that could possibly bring a criminal charge.

so if we are evaluating the merits of the existing case we'd still be looking at civil code and it's requirements rather than criminal code and it's requirements
Click to expand...

Agreed, one has to wonder if the lending institutions or insurance companies simply need to file a formal complaint with the NY department of financial services. I'm not versed in the nuances of what triggers a civil or criminal white collar crime.
 
#371
#371
Septic said:
Agreed, one has to wonder if the lending institutions or insurance companies simply need to file a formal complaint with the NY department of financial services. I'm not versed in the nuances of what triggers a civil or criminal white collar crime.
Click to expand...

I presume either firms would need to (though I still don't know that you penal code you posted has mirror requirements in civil code) or James would need to go to some authority to bring criminal charges. I heard earlier that she would have needed to go to some banking regulators to do some type of approval/joining in to level criminal charges.

So we are back to the who is the victim plaintiff that suffered demonstrable damages from the alleged fraud
 
#372
#372
volinbham said:
I'm not wrong on either.

The fact the AG was prejudiced against Trump can certainly be brought to bear in the case.

At this point it is civil only - you can talk about you want about if (feds bringing charges/state doing it later) but the point is THIS case is civil in nature and it is entirely unclear who the victim is that experienced damages.
Click to expand...

I'm interested in these "losses" via "financial benefits", its kind of strange to say you have X number of assets so Y is giving you a benefit. That information is just there for credit worthiness or to security, it carries no "benefit" in normal english, imo. Pretty immaterial but than you get to the point of how exactly did the government calculate the "benefit" and is that a true loss to these companies?

I think the liquid assets are a little easier to understand but even that one is tricking as the government might not be aware of other agreements. You can assume stuff but most of this seems kind of fluffy at best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#373
#373
volinbham said:
I presume either firms would need to (though I still don't know that you penal code you posted has mirror requirements in civil code) or James would need to go to some authority to bring criminal charges. I heard earlier that she would have needed to go to some banking regulators to do some type of approval/joining in to level criminal charges.

So we are back to the who is the victim plaintiff that suffered demonstrable damages from the alleged fraud
Click to expand...

Presumably the varying institutions cooperated with the AG to supply the evidence presented within the complaint. If I had to guess, all they had to do was show that damages occurred, even if they aren't willing to bring suit directly.

Again, I don't know what the trigger is to file civil versus criminal on a legal level - I'm not a lawyer. My assumption however is that it met a bar high enough to file the complaint. Otherwise, trumps attorneys will feast on the AG sooner rather than later and this will fall flat. Given the specificity of the complaints and the sheer volume of them, intent may be easier to prove than if it were a one or two off issue.
 
#374
#374
volinbham said:
I presume either firms would need to (though I still don't know that you penal code you posted has mirror requirements in civil code) or James would need to go to some authority to bring criminal charges. I heard earlier that she would have needed to go to some banking regulators to do some type of approval/joining in to level criminal charges.

So we are back to the who is the victim plaintiff that suffered demonstrable damages from the alleged fraud
Click to expand...

Getting that information from banks and lenders plus asking them to be part of a lawsuit will not be as easy as most think. They will most likely not want to be involved in the publicity. To prove his "over evaluation" of his properties made a material effect on the interest rates offered, they would have to open their books up for comparison. They do not want the public to see that there is one set of standards for normal people and another for rich folks. It is a lose-lose for any bank involved regardless of the bank employees' political leanings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#375
#375
volinbham said:
So we are back to the who is the victim plaintiff that suffered demonstrable damages from the alleged fraud
Click to expand...

Even if true its hard to imagine $250m with total assets of only $3.1b, and the banks/insurance companies might just go... we don't know. LoL

If they lied about assets they own, meaning they didn't have ownership of any kind than they might have more teeth. (I don't recall that... some of the liquid assets maybe) But much of this seems like, well, I think its worth $10m, no I think its worth $20m. Who gives a ****, let the bank do due diligence. :D

Heck, the federal government stopped the banks from having to mark to market to avoid collapse. :D

There is a reason why the IRS either doesn't go after big institutions or plays nice.... all of this is very problematic at scale.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top