Trump Must Pay Half a Billion Dollars Before He Can Appeal New York Decision

a reply to: Allaroundya4k

What you just said is that you agree with me BUT because it's Trump, all the corruption is just fine and A okay.

a reply to: JinMI

I don't hate Trump.

I dislike him.

Tax assessed valuation?

I'll leave that point for other more knowledgeable folks.

Ahem. Not argued what the law says?

Yes, you have.

You quoted a precedent at me, asked me for my analog and said l "have nothing but anecdotes and rhetoric in response."

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Tax assessed valuation?

I'll leave that point for other more knowledgeable folks.

So you aren't aware of the facts of the case.

...I'm shocked.

hem. Not argued what the law says?

Yes, you have.

You quoted a precedent at me, asked me for my analog and said l "have nothing but anecdotes and rhetoric in response."

You asked me for precedent.

I supplied something to quibble over.

You said it doesn't apply.

No reason, just that your own failings of merit it as a non sequitur.

Which is consistent with you also not knowing the facts of this case. So that's at least one positive takeaway.

a reply to: matafuchs

arguing over this is pointless. Everyone knows it's political and had nothing at all to do with "justice". The idiot left is trying really hard to justify this as something other than what it so obviously is. But even they admit it. Ask the Gov, she even said the quiet part for everyone to hear. But that "assurance" may fall on deaf ears. If I was doing business in NYC, I'd be trying to find somewhere else to do it. Or is everyone who has a real estate business in NYC a liberal?

a reply to: JinMI

Of course Im aware of the facts.

I'm no expert on US law on that separate point.

Unlike you, I don't offer an opinion when others on here more knowledgeable about that point have already done so.

"No reason, just that your own failings of merit it as a non sequitur."

That makes no sense

Fact is, your precedent has no relevance to a case about fraud.

If you can explain how it might be relevant that might be a start.

Although as you claim you don't want to argue what the law is, why should I bother?

You obviously know more about everything so carry on.

By the way, I have no desire to "quibble" with you about the law.

I have said my piece.

You disagree.

That's fine.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

It's not now nor ever that I 'know more about everything."

It's about my opinions, as a nobody from nowhere, on a public forum. Them being up for challenge, debate and discussion.



I'm a moron...so the bar isn't even high.....

Because there is no precedent like one that is appealed and won with damages.

No, they won’t use this law again to target an individual.

a reply to: network dude

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Klassified

this is a brilliant way to weaponize the justice system. Just think about all those who don't have the means to put up a half a billion bond. They can't afford to appeal. I wonder how long it will take before some semi-vocal right leaning developer is charged in the same way, and forced to capitulate to the system.

Unless they are in the good books of a billionaire who has faced the same challenges and has the dosh to back them.

Just who will ultimately benefit from this and what effect will it have on the legal and real estate landscape in NYC in years to come?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: matafuchs

arguing over this is pointless. Everyone knows it's political and had nothing at all to do with "justice". The idiot left is trying really hard to justify this as something other than what it so obviously is. But even they admit it. Ask the Gov, she even said the quiet part for everyone to hear. But that "assurance" may fall on deaf ears. If I was doing business in NYC, I'd be trying to find somewhere else to do it. Or is everyone who has a real estate business in NYC a liberal?

Exactly.
If the governor has to go on television and tell businesses not to worry because it was only to get Trump, you know it was a witch hunt.
I would have been more concerned for Trump if she hadn’t gone on television and gave up the game.

a reply to: JinMI

That is not at all what I said.
The law is the law.
Did Trumo not break the law?

a reply to: JinMI

Did the former president of the United States of America break the law?

a reply to: Allaroundya4k

Did anybody else? We'll never know because the governor told the rest of NY businesses not to worry about it - it was only to get Trump.

But hey I know that makes you happy.

a reply to: Allaroundya4k

No one broke the law. There was no evidence of blatant and consistent fraud against anyone. He paid his state taxes right? I bet he wished he had an evaluation in NY like they gave him for MAL.

There was not victim who was a NY citizen.
There was no tax issues and they were paid.
There were no loan issues it was paid with interest.

No criminal convictions as that would be the lead into a civil case.

Sorry, there is no law broken.

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k
a reply to: JinMI

Did the former president of the United States of America break the law?

The court found that he is liable under the civil statute, correct.


Are courts and justices fallible?

a reply to: matafuchs

Trump did material misstatements.

Like he claimed his triplex apartment in Trump Tower in Manhattan was 30,000 square feet when it’s actually 11,000 square feet.

It`s considered fraud .

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k
a reply to: JinMI

Did the former president of the United States of America break the law?

The court found that he is liable under the civil statute, correct.


Are courts and justices fallible?

That's not the point.
No one person is above the law.
So you agree he did commit a crime punishable through means the courts seem fit.

a reply to: matafuchs

Not true and sadly believed.

a reply to: matafuchs

The Trump organizations CFO plead guilty...

'GoFundMe for Trump’s Legal Fees Raises Nearly a Half-Million Dollars in 3 Days'

It's a start.....