The NY case may be setting the stage for Trump to win- Billions of $.

I didn’t giggle or clap.

I do think that it is a telling condemnation of Americans however that are wanting to vote back in this individual however.

 

Translation... well you got me there..... so side step to something else...

 

And that is another indicator of the desperation of the liberal minions when it comes to Trump.
James got her "conviction" with a judge so clearly biased against Trump that the outcome of the case was preordained.
Like the Nancy Antoinette star chamber investigation into January 6.
But the appeals courts will now have the final say, and the liberal minions, finally starting to actually THINK about this case, are realizing that a) it wasn't a prosecution but a persecution b) There are fundamental elements of the case that have not only NOT been proven, but are completely missing in the case c) That their position is not at all on firm ground, and they are at a bigly risk of sliding into the abyss. d) Their media darlings and managers from headquarters probably lied to them. e) They will not be backed up when the ofal hits the rapidly rotating device.

 

Not sure how many times I need to say this. The fraud law is intended for neophyte consumers going against powerful corporations and not the other way around. Let's assume for a minute that you have a commercial building and it was doing lousy. You overinsured it for both the replacement cost and loss of income. The area had changed and you couldn't rent half the units. You have Louie burn it to the ground while you were in BVegas (Actually one of the top excuses for those burning their own properties).

You are naive and don't think the insurance companies know anything and submit a claim that is inflated and submit a contractor's estimate to rebuild it at $1,000.00 a square foot claiming all sorts of improvements you made to the building and you also submit a projection of loss of rents on the office spaces and restaurant and bank that occupied the building at the highest rents possible and full occupancy on the premise that your improvements would have resulted in that income over the next twelve months.

Are you committing fraud (other than the arson)?

You hear from the insurance company that the building can be replaced at $700.00 a square foot according to their contractors and that the loss of income their accountants calculate is just 60% of what you claimed. You accept their expert findings.

Where is the fraud?

 

In the case of the school he set up.

 

Which case are you talking about?

 

Wuuuuut?

 

Not accurate

Yes

Insurance fraud occurs the moment you attempt to lie on documents — not once they pay it out.

Is your argument really that as long as they catch you or the fraud is unsuccessful then there is no fraud?

No wonder you love trump

 

Look up all of the judgments / settlements against trump, his family and his companies

All of those

 

I just knew someone would completely miss the point. I used arson only to spice things up. Forget the arson aspects. If I have a major fire to my 30,000-square-foot commercial building and I submit 2 estimates to rebuild it at $50 million and $60 million and the insurance company gets a bid from their lackeys at $40 million, WHO is committing fraud? One could assert that the insurance company is and not me. Leticia James would say I committed fraud because she's a stupid fool.

 

Irrelevant to what we are talking abut unless you want to discuss the Biuden Crime Family.

 

Nobody, because, usually, the insurance company will go with the middle bid because they don't want to listen to the **** storm coming at them or deal with the bad press. At least that's been my experience when dealing with fender benders. I imagine when that kind of money is involved there is some kind of arbitration that kicks in.

Two could, hell 30 could and your example would still be far fetched and not real world. What you've side-stepped is that "fraud was commited when the application was filled out and an over valued price entered.

Oh! Glad you cleared up how fair and reasonable you're being; not at all.

 

Sorry, but you are wrong on what the insurance company would do. My scenario is almost identical to the Trump case, and people like Leticia and Erdogan don't know what they are talking about. He is a former cab driver and political protester and I tried to find his experience in cases like Trump's and find nothing at all. Thus, he is a former radical hippie who drove a cab.

In my scenario, I presented the opinions of both sides of the equation. An estimate to rebuild a huge commercial structure would be hundreds of pages long and the cost to replace various items is not always cut and dry. If someone says it should cost $5,000. to replace a grass banister rail and another guy says it should cost $4,500. that is not a fraud. It is perception and opinion and that sort of thing would be found throughout the hundreds of pages with each expert having different figures. If my expert had the banister rail at 100 feet and it was really 75 feet, is that "fraud"?

The same thing with rents and loss of income. There can be no cheating on that as the parties know that they will be checked by the insurance company's forensic accountants. The only judgment item would be the projection of lost income for the next year or two.

This wasn't the first time that Trump took out loans. He knew that his submissions were just starting points. He PAID for the appraisal the bank used and knew that was what the bank would use. There is zero fraud on this because Trump would assert on appeal, "Look, the people who went after me are radical leftists. The judge is a former protester and cab driver and has never bought real estate. I have and was fully aware that any submissions I made were irrelevant and that the bank would make ME pay for independent appraisers and accountants. Therefore, the documents I submitted to them were NOT used and I knew they would not be used."

 

I am usually pretty good at analogy and hypotheticals but I don’t understand how this ties back to lying on financial disclosures.

If you had said the cost to rebuild your 30k sq/ft commercial space was 50m and had a bid for it when in reality the building was only 12k sq/ft and the actual repair cost was only 20m — is that fraud?

 

Are you really trying to assert that a defendants history of similar crimes should never be allowed to be mentioned when discussing their current alleged crime?

ROFL! You people.

 

Which still begs the question of who the victim is in this case.
The idea that someone is a criminal, even a convicted criminal (Trump is not a convicted criminal but whatever) would be important only in sentencing.
Their past record cannot be used to convict them of a current crime.
You see, that's in our law.

As hard as you spin and twist it, the fact remains that there is no victim in this case and without a victim one cannot have fraud.

 

No. It is NOT when the person going for the loan did not do the paperwork and knows that whatever he submitted would be ignored because the BANK decides who does the REAL appraisal that Trump pays for.

Does anyone in their right mind think that a bank is going to just accept your appraisal and a huge error on square footage? Like the bank wouldn't catch it? It is moronic to suggest that. IF someone knows the bank gets their own appraisals how in the hell does anyone here think that the banks' appraisal would make that same square foot error? Besides, I don't care that someone says Trump is supposed to check the submissions. That is a smokescreen. It's like saying he is supposed to scour every line of an estimate or accountant's report before submitting it when this is never done.

They key here is that Trump knew his own submission would never in a million years be submitted and it was only submitted as a starting point for the bank to consider whether or not they even wanted to take the time to explore making the loan. BOTH sides knew that the only evaluation that would be considered was the banks.

This is not even like the insurance claim example I gave because on a claim, the policyholder is required to submit their own claim and the insurer then checks on that submission and does not have to get their own evaluations unless they think the claim is inflated. On a loan, it is different because each party knows the bank does their own evaluation and would catch square-foot errors.

 

Yep. It is irrelevant to the Lawfare cases against Trump.

 

And yet Judge Engoron rose to be a NY State Supreme Court Justice.

But! IF you are not happy with the insurance company estimate AND you've honestly filled out your application AND you have competing estimates AND can prove them valid the State Insurance Commission and Courts would side with you. Insurance agencies are regulated and overseen, still - so far, they can't just push their weight around unfairly without consequence.

Yes! the same thing.

And the suit wasn't about one loan or a few, it was about his continual practice of over evaluating and under evaluating his properties as it suited him to HIS best advantage.

 

Why are you "forgetting" the little fact that the bank requires the borrower to use one of THEIR approved appraisers/accountants, thereby making whatever you submit irrelevant and worthless? Is it because it destroys any fraud allegations?

 

Apparently they put tRaitor tRump on the honor system; yeah I KNOOOOW!

 

That has to do with my post how exactly?

 

Not only no victim but no crime. Someone said the square footage was exaggerated and that is "fraud". It MIGHT be if that person making the mistake intentional or not, knew that the other person would never check. The law she is using is just Lawfare to get Trump, which she vowed to do, \come hell or high water. It was intended for a situation where one party uses superior knowledge or power to take advantage of someone without that, such as a used car salesman knowing a car's engine is bad and they filled it with Stop leak that would hold for only a month and didn't disclose it, or an insurance company knowing their state supreme court just decided a case against them for their interpretation of policy language on the identical case they have that they are still not paying, or an electronics store being saddled with TVs they know are faulty and cause fires and selling them to unwary buers anyway.

The law is NOT for two equals who are experienced and agree on terms, where the loan is paid and everyone is happy. In those cases, there is no crime. Especially, when both sides are aware that the borrower submission is tossed in the round file and the bank gets their unbiased professional experts to evaluate the collateral.

 

The state. The bank. Insurance companies. Other banking customers.

No spin or twists needed.

Not to mention the damage to our entire system if suddenly lying on loan applications is not only legal but acceptable.

 

It isn’t
But ok

It proves premeditation