Eric really is that stupid

Eric Trump blasts NYAG civil trial as a disgusting 'charade,' says his family will 'win this thing' FOXNEWS
Dude, you've already lost this is just the penalty phase and you're not scoring points with the judge.

 

no remorse, means max punishment

 

Link please.

 

guessing this one

"Eric Trump blasts NYAG civil trial as a disgusting 'charade,' says his family will 'win this thing'"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/er...disgusting-charade-says-family-win-this-thing

 

Eric is a classic example as to why there is so much INBREEDING among the ELITISTS, without his money no self respecting woman would want to have his kids. He would be just another dumb hickster scraping by still working for minimum wage at a fast food chain in his 40's.

 

Eric really is that stupid

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

 

The initial ruling was based on faulty information, like using tax assessments in place of market value. And, their key witness admitted to perjuring himself on the stand.

They know Engoron and his clerk are a joke. He's talking about the long game when they can appeal a lot of funny business that has been going on. He's calling this trial a charade. And, he's not wrong that it has been a circus.

 

Unfortunately, yes he is. His testimony cost the company in the trial. It was the same type of defense that he gave on the stand that Sam Bankman-Fried was found guilty of. All Eric is doing is lashing out because he knows he got caught. He is a 40-year-old man acting like a 5-year-old child after momma caught him with his hand in the cookie jar.

 

What faulty information? If the Trump Org had concrete calculations on the value of those properties anywhere close to what the company gave the banks, Trump nor his two sons, with the company would be in this legal jam.

 

Link please.... AGAIN.

 

This is getting overturned. What part of that don't you get?...lol

 

Prove it.... show us the victim or the crime.... The banks made the loans, they signed the contracts, they were paid with interest...

 

Victims? From what I gather they'd be every L on this forum, it reads as if its always personal here to them

 

And you're basing YOUR claim that the judge had faulty information on, well, faulty information.

You're not in the courtroom, you haven't been listening to the testimony, you don't have the documents that have been entered into evidence.

You're basing your claim on REPORTING about what is going on...reporting that is, almost certainly, biased in favor of Trump.

Your opinion on this is based on the old adage of GIGO, Garbage In, Garbage Out.

 

I think he's behaving like a child desperate for his father's approval.

 

So here's the problem.
First, the accepted basis of FRAUD is that there is a victim. You know, someone was harmed.
With Trump, no one was harmed.
The banks made their own valuation assessments independent of Trump's.
So did the taxing authorities.
That's the normal course. But even so, Trump told everyone in his disclaimer that the evaluations were theirs, based on their criteria, and you know, stuff happens, so don't rely on us, do your own evaluation.

So the banks and taxing authorities were never harmed by Trump's assessment, and he also repaid all the loans and paid all the taxes.
No harm, no fraud.
But second, Engoron and James have shown such bias, such animosity towards Trump, and are basing their case on such shaky legal theory and laws that on appeal the case is almost certain to be tossed.

And I'll take odds on that.

 

Based on New York statute 63(12), the state is the victim if the business conducts its operations consistent with "repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on." But this has been explained to you over and over and over and over.

 

Really?

Care to point to the statute, law, regulation or definition that states that legal fraud must have a "victim"?

And even if you can produce that, there WERE victims. As has been said many times before, defrauding someone who still makes money off the deal and doesn't complain doesn't mean they were not a victim of fraud. The banks were defrauded. If Trump had been honest on his SFO's the banks would have charged a higher interest rate. So the difference between what they charged and what they would have charged is the amount of the fraud.

And I'll take odds the judgement of liability stands..

 

It's this judge that's stupid. What did he claim the correct value on Mar-a-lago was, again?

They are just trying to rig the election, with a conviction, which will fail on appeal. It doesn't seem to be working thought. I read in the NYT's, which is also where this trial is:

'Voters under 30 — a group that strongly voted for Mr. Biden in 2020 — said they trusted Mr. Trump more on the economy by an extraordinary 28 percentage-point margin after years of inflation and now high interest rates that have made mortgages far less affordable. Less than one percent of poll respondents under 30 rated the current economy as excellent, including zero poll respondents in that age group in three states: Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin.'

'“I actually had high hopes for Biden,” said Jahmerry Henry, a 25-year-old who packages liquor in Albany, Ga. “You can’t be worse than Trump. But then as the years go by, things happen with inflation, the war going on in Ukraine, recently Israel and I guess our borders are not secure at all.”'

'Now Mr. Henry plans to back Mr. Trump.'

https://archive.ph/YUKrn#selection-1181.0-1193.38

I think that Trump should select Ron DeSantis as AG, and then the DOJ have a good look at Leticia and this corrupt judge and see what kind of criminal activity they are involved in. Do the same thing to them that was done to Trump, wiretap everyone they communicate with and see what shakes loose.

 

The judge never claimed a value for Mar-a-Lago.

He merely ruled that the difference between the assessed value and the appraised value was around 2,300%. A difference so large that it constitutes fraud.

Add to that the fact that Trump left out very important information when making the appraisal for his SFO also constitutes fraud.

 

Well, but we can agree that the banks, and the insurance companies, and the tax authorities all did their own valuations when they made the loan, or issued the policy, or taxed the property, right?

When you bought a house and went to the bank and said "this property is worth $400,000 cause that's what I paid for it." Did the bank go "oh, OK, here's your loan?"
No. No, they didn't.
They did their own valuation, didn't they?
Same with Trump and his property.
For loans, and for insurance and for taxing.

If anyone got bit dealing with Trump it's because they didn't do their own due diligence, not because Trump put valuations on his properties.

And by the way, you assume a fact not proven, mainly that the banks "woulda coulda shoulda" charged a higher interest rate, even assuming they only used Trump's valuation.

But, bets on.

 

'Real estate insiders question how Trump fraud judge valued Mar-a-Lago'

https://www.cnn.com › 2023 › 10 › 03 › business › trump-fraud-judge-mar-a-lago › index.html
Real estate insiders question how Trump fraud judge valued Mar-a-Lago - CNN
Oct 4, 2023A New York judge ruled last week that former President Donald Trump inflated the value of his Mar-a-Lago estate by an eye-popping 2,300%.

Your claim is fake news. He didn't merely 'note', he ruled that because of the comparison with appraised value that it was fraud. This judge is an idiot, Eric would have never said something that stupid.

Once Trump's DOJ is in place this corrupt judge needs to be thoroughly investigated for corruption, the same way that Trump was investigated, wiretap him and everyone he knows, audit his every financial transaction over the last several decades and see what can be fashioned into felony indictments.

Then clobber him with a 100 indictments in 4 different venues. Let's see how this corrupt judge likes playing FAFO.

NYT: 'Voters preferred Mr. Trump over Mr. Biden on immigration by 12 points, on national security by 12 points and on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by 11 points.'

https://archive.ph/YUKrn#selection-1221.0-1221.386

 

So first, the statute in play only is relevant to Judge Engoron.
It has to stand up on appeal.

fraud | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
Fraud is both a civil tort and criminal wrong.

In civil litigation, allegations of fraud might be based on a misrepresentation of fact that was either intentional or negligent. For a statement to be an intentional misrepresentation, the person who made it must either have known the statement was false or been reckless as to its truth. The speaker must have also intended that the person to whom the statement was made would rely on it. The hearer must then have reasonably relied on the promise and also been harmed because of that reliance.

A claim for fraud based on a negligent misrepresentation differs in that the speaker of the false statement may have actually believed it to be true; however, the speaker lacked reasonable grounds for that belief.

A promise that goes unfulfilled may give rise to a claim for fraud only under particular circumstances. For example, in California law, a false promise is only fraudulent if the promisor intended both not to perform on the promise and also that that the promisee would rely on the promise; and, the promisee must have reasonably relied on the promise and been harmed as a result of that reasonable reliance. When the promise was made as part of a contract, most states forbid a plaintiff from recovering under both contract law and tort law.

Lastly, opinions are not usually actionable as fraud except under very specific circumstances defined by either the common law or statutes in each state. In California, for example, a jury may be instructed that an opinion can be considered a representation of fact if it is proven that the speaker “claimed to have special knowledge of the subject matter” that the listener did not have; OR that the representation was made “not in a casual expression of belief, but in a way that declared the matter to be true;” OR if the speaker was in a position of “trust and confidence” over the listener; OR if the listener “had some other special reason to expect” the speaker to be reliable. Once the jury decides that an opinion qualified as a misrepresentation of fact under the circumstances, the plaintiff must still demonstrate all of the other elements of an intentional or negligent misrepresentation already described, such as reasonable reliance and resulting harm.

In criminal law, fraud usually takes very specific forms, such as bankruptcy fraud, credit card fraud, or healthcare fraud. California law, for example, also recognizes distinct crimes for check fraud, access card fraud, insurance fraud, and making false financial statements. Some criminal fraud statutes might be classified under laws forbidding larceny, others under forgery, and others as a crime covered by laws regarding a specific industry, like insurance or banking laws. Suspicions of criminal fraud should be reported to law enforcement authorities.

[Last updated in May of 2020 by the Wex Definitions Team]

Now, as I understand the New York law in play here, it says that there need not be shown any harm, only the intent to harm, and/or that the state is harmed by consistent acts of misrepresentation.
Well, I'm pretty sure that the state has grossly overreached on the point and the appeals courts will happily point that out.

Plus, the blatant favoritism and bias Engoron has shown will put off the appeals courts, I'm sure. If there be justice both he and James are gonna get skewered on appeal.

 

No, we can't agree. The whole purpose of the annual "Statement of Financial Condition" put out by companies like the Trump organization is so that financial institutions and investors can make informed decisions about where to put their money and what risk is involved. These annual reports are so important to the proper functioning of our financial systems that it is considered fraud to lie on them.

Do you really think that the bank has the resources and manpower to do a detailed analysis of the entire Trump organization in order to decide about loans and terms? No. They rely on the SFC's. The Trump organization taking a loan is not like you or I getting a mortgage or a loan on a car.

When I provide my payroll information or my bank information that is one item a bank has to check up on. Easy peasy.

How many pages do you think the Trump organization SFC consisted of? Probably thousands, tens of thousands maybe even hundreds of thousands.

And that's just one large organization. How many multinational corporations do you think Duestch Bank deals with? And you think they have the people and resources to go over every line item or every SFC submitted?

 

Did you even read my post? I said, very clearly, that the judge RULED. I did not say he "noted". He RULED that the 2,300% difference between the assessed value and the appraised value constituted fraud.