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

#426
#426
VolStrom said:
You lose. If you had an answer, it would easily roll off of your lips. Since you can't answer, you're just making **** up.
Click to expand...

cool-story.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: IluvdoubleD's
#431
#431
In looking at the linked NY Executive Law 63.12 there is this process statement

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   3 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.

Is this saying that James should have taken this to the NY SC rather than to civil court?
 
#432
#432
volinbham said:
I'm still trying to figure out if the banks/insurance companies are the ones that allegedly damaged but they chose not to bring suit can the state bring civil charges on their behalf?

If the suit prevails does the cash penalty get distributed to the banks/insurance companies or is the state planning to keep it? If companies suffered the damages shouldn't they be the ones who get the award?

Is the suit claiming the state of NY was the victim and suffered the damage?
Click to expand...

The State has police powers, the power is going to come from there to sue. But the State doesn't always have the power to sue, meaning there has to be connection to State function more or less.

I couldn't tell you NY statute law enough to tell how money would be distributed if at all.
 
#433
#433
hog88 said:
Again, no lawyer here. Sounds pretty weak and petty to me especially since there are no parties claiming damage.
Click to expand...

More or less its kind of hard to envision how the banks could claim damages if they did due diligence at least on the real estate assets, the liquid assets.... maybe. But than they are going to have to prove its material and intent, but that is only one of the assets (more or less).

Like I said, it could be case where if it goes to a jury.... $1 judgment, which makes little sense to me in a fraud case, imo.

If the banks didn't do due diligence they are opening themselves up to potential investor suits and bank regulatory problems. How in the world would nobody do due diligence on these dealings? LoL
 
#435
#435
hog88 said:
Again, no lawyer here. Sounds pretty weak and petty to me especially since there are no parties claiming damage.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's not the case. As was stated before - the evidence supplied to the AG probably came from the lenders and insurance companies. They may not have to bring suit or do anything but report damages to the AG. I would suspect that any damage, even a .001% interest rate benefit would check the box of "damages." Assuming that element would be required.

I'm not sure why this is the sticking point, I don't see how this even a debatable point. The defense in my opinion would certainly focus on intent as the get out of jail free card. No doubt trumps lawyers will blame the accountants and underlings and that trump was oblivious to the day to day aspects of loan and insurance procurement.
 
#436
#436
hog88 said:
Again, no lawyer here. Sounds pretty weak and petty to me especially since there are no parties claiming damage.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking the crime here is that Deutsche Bank loaned Trump money, and the state of NY thinks they could have made more money than they did by loaning him money at a higher interest rate because of his stated net worth wasn't close enough to his actual worth. Trump could have also just gone down the street to Goldman Saks or Bank of America or any of a hundred banks and got a loan from them of which I'm sure he shopped. This is a BS lawsuit against a former president for no reason at all other than the current party doesn't like him and I hope the payback is hell because in addition to trying to take down a former president they have done a really, really crappy job with the economy and have tried to destroy our morals and way of life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolTookie and 825VOL
#437
#437
Septic said:
I'm not sure that's not the case. As was stated before - the evidence supplied to the AG probably came from the lenders and insurance companies. They may not have to bring suit or do anything but report damages to the AG. I would suspect that any damage, even a .001% interest rate benefit would check the box of "damages." Assuming that element would be required.

I'm not sure why this is the sticking point, I don't see how this even a debatable point. The defense in my opinion would certainly focus on intent as the get out of jail free card. No doubt trumps lawyers will blame the accountants and underlings and that trump was oblivious to the day to day aspects of loan and insurance procurement.
Click to expand...

I doubt Trump's lawyers will ever have to prove anything. This will either get tossed or settled for less than what the estimated legal fees would be.
 
#439
#439
VolStrom said:
I'm thinking the crime here is that Deutsche Bank loaned Trump money, and the state of NY thinks they could have made more money than they did by loaning him money at a higher interest rate because of his stated net worth wasn't close enough to his actual worth. Trump could have also just gone down the street to Goldman Saks or Bank of America or any of a hundred banks and got a loan from them of which I'm sure he shopped. This is a BS lawsuit against a former president for no reason at all other than the current party doesn't like him and I hope the payback is hell because in addition to trying to take down a former president they have done a really, really crappy job with the economy and have tried to destroy our morals and way of life.
Click to expand...
The flood of future lawsuits based on the reasons for the case against Trump will be keep the legal system under water for decades.

I mean, this is common right? Common practice and commonly prosecuted. Right???
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb, 825VOL and hog88
#440
#440
hog88 said:
I doubt Trump's lawyers will ever have to prove anything. This will either get tossed or settled for less than what the estimated legal fees would be.
Click to expand...
We'll get links next week showing the case is meritless. Like we're getting yesterday and today showing merit. In the end, it will be another dud.

Government has to keep him out of contention by any means necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and hog88
#441
#441
McDad said:
The flood of future lawsuits based on the reasons for the case against Trump will be keep the legal system under water for decades.

I mean, this is common right? Common practice and commonly prosecuted. Right???
Click to expand...

I would think there's a whole lot of similar developers looking at exit strategies today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb, VolTookie, Orangeburst and 1 other person
#443
#443
McDad said:
We'll get links next week showing the case is meritless. Like we're getting yesterday and today showing merit. In the end, it will be another dud.

Government has to keep him out of contention by any means necessary.
Click to expand...

My guess is even if the petition is true or mostly true that damages will be very little to $1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#444
#444
Wouldn't a bank put its charter at risk by not doing DD wrt loans? Should there not be consumer protection lawsuits against those banks?

Same for an insurance company's license to sell insurance in a state?
 
#445
#445
McDad said:
Wouldn't a bank put its charter at risk by not doing DD wrt loans? Should there not be consumer protection lawsuits against those banks?

Same for an insurance company's license to sell insurance in a state?
Click to expand...

Eggselent points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#447
#447
McDad said:
Wouldn't a bank put its charter at risk by not doing DD wrt loans? Should there not be consumer protection lawsuits against those banks?

Same for an insurance company's license to sell insurance in a state?
Click to expand...

Based on the petition.

If the banks did do due diligence the government has a problem as there is no or limited damages. (I'm still hedging on those liquid assets though)

If the banks didn't do due diligence than the banks have a problem as they were not following the law in particular to banking and requirements to shareholders, and the banks were not operating in good faith to start with which could be added as an affirmative defense - among other things Trump & Co. could do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#450
#450
Some polling data on NY AG race

https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/NY-General-Poll-Report-0913.pdf

Hochul Holds Early 14-Point, 53-39%, Lead Over Zeldin; Schumer & DiNapoli Each Up 21 Points, James Up 14 Points

who knows what the real spread is - the Trafalgar is current vs 6 or so weeks ago for James but they are pretty different in findings. FYI 538 rates Trafalgar as A- and Sienna as A in terms of quality of pollsters (both are high ratings)

Still a close enough race to incentivize James to make a splash ahead of the election
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and McDad
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top