Laniakea
Not of this world
You're talking about New York again. A Republican being elected there is an anomaly. In NY, the person is running for office needs to be gay, and lie about everything, or simply be a democrat.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump ordered to pay nearly 355 million in NY fraud case.
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
Laniakea
Not of this world
Here's where all his properties are named. Imagine how many jobs will be eliminated due to Latrice james campaign promise to "get Trump" and prevent him from doing business: What Real Estate Does Trump Own in NYC Anyway?
Laniakea
Not of this world
So you can't show it? Noted.
A willingness to commit fraud can do that for ya.....
Laniakea
Not of this world
You didn't prove evidence at the time. No point in you not doing so again.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You should check your sources before you make silly claims. Here is a map that shows the representatives by party. It is much closer than you think that it is:
Currently there are 16 Democrats and ten Republicans.
Laniakea
Not of this world
Only if success=fraud in your opinion.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It was explained to you. If you did not understand you should have asked questions. If you needed evidence you could have asked for that too.
Laniakea
Not of this world
Show me where you explained it to me.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Once again, it was shown that without doubt, from the evidence that Trump's team supplied that he committed fraudy.
You are aware of the building in which he tripled the square footage. Are you aware of how he lied using Mar a Lago?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it was in this thread. If you ignored explanations that is one you. You are not able to demand that others do your homework for you.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Bollocks. For there to be fraud it would have to have been a zero-sum game. It was unfair enrichment, but not fraud.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Where do you get this nonsense from? Citation needed.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
LMAO! You can't support your claim because it is not based upon the law. You still seem to think that the US is under "Common Law". It isn't. Statutory Law is now the standard.
If you have any questions about the suit, such as evidence, or the judge's reasoning you will find it here:
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Not my problem that you don't know what a zero sum game is.
Size doesn't matter in banking or boinking.
(Thanx for setting me up for that.)
I think there must've been a corrupt relationship
between Trump & banking officers. It's the only
explanation for bankers entirely ignoring their
normal due dilligence.
I don't assume it.
I deduced it.
Have you ever taken out a commercial loan?
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
It's based on the law because fraud requires a victim, as shown from Black's law dictionary, and the doctrine of contra proferentem. Both Trump and the banks could have benefitted from the deal, and given the fact that the state brought the case, not the banks, this is probably the case.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
See above.
But as I said. The US is not under "Common Law". There is a good reason that we are now under Statute Law. The link that I mentioned brings this up early:
"Common Law Fraud
The instant action is not a garden-variety common law fraud case. Common law fraud (also known as “misrepresentation”) has five elements: (1) A material statement; (2) falsity; (3) knowledge of the falsity (“scienter”); (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) damages. See, e.g., Kerusa Co. LLC v W10Z/515 Real Estate Ltd. Partnership, 12 NY3d 236, 242 (2009) (“[T]he elements of common law fraud” are “a false representation . . . in relation to a material fact; scienter; reliance; and injury.”). Alleging the elements is easy; proving them is difficult. Is the statement one of fact or opinion? Material according to what standard? Knowledge demonstrated how? Justifiable subjectively or objectively? In mid-twentieth century New York, to judge by contemporary press reports and judicial opinions, fraudsters were having a field day.
Executive Law Section 63(12)
Along came Executive Law § 63(12), which began life as Laws of 1956, Chapter 592, “An act to amend the executive law, in relation to cancellation of registration of doing business under an assumed name or as partners for repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.” Jacob Javits, then the Attorney General of the State of New York (the position that Attorney General James now occupies), pushed for the bill, as did the Better Business Bureau of New York City. See Senate Bill Jacket, February 21, 1956. State Comptroller Arthur Levitt asked, “Why not grant the Attorney General authority to enjoin anyone from continuing in a business activity if such person has been guilty of frequent fraudulent dealings.” The preponderance of the evidence standard, the one used in almost all civil cases would apply. Comptroller Levitt noted: “In a suit for an injunction, there is no need to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal case—a mere preponderance of evidence would be sufficient.” Id. In the subsequent six decades, the State has toughened the statute. In Laws of 1965, Chapter 666, the definitions of the words “fraud” and “fraudulent” were expanded to include “any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretence [sic], false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.” The statute casts a wide net.
“The general grant of power to the Attorney General under section 63(12) has traditionally been his most potent.” 3 Fordham Urb. L. J. 491, 502 (1975).
Executive Law § 63(12) now reads as follows:
Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply… 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 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. The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term “persistent fraud” or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term “repeated” as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law."
From the link to the judge's descision.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
A common sovereign citizen mistake. I hope that you are not one of them. Black's Law Dictionary has no legal standing. It is a tool that lawyers, judges, and lawmakers use. But it is just a guide. What matters is the law. One of the reasons that Sov Cits lose all of the time in court is because they make the mistake of trying to use Black's Law as a book of laws. They get laughed at.
I accused his supporters of failing to understand
how real estate lending works. Read better.
As for Trump, his success was due to inheriting
a fortune to start with. Then to commit fraud
in building it up. And now to lose much of it
as the sexually assaulted chickens come home
to roost.