Big D vs Twitter
- Thread starter Mors
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Right. So what exactly do you need to prove Trump did? That he overvalued his properties. The exact same thing you'd have to prove Henry did with Nunez.
You have to be a total moron with no understanding of the law or valuation to think that is even remotely possible. Which is what you hopefully now are starting to understand.
You have to be a total moron with no understanding of the law or valuation to think that is even remotely possible. Which is what you hopefully now are starting to understand.
Yes, I'm sure he'll admit that he lied, under strong questioning, yes, yes he'll crack and confess to it all! Mr Trump, did you order the code red???!! For the tax payers who will foot the bill, I wish them the best of luck with that.
That isn’t what the case is about though.
The analogy would be, in order to get a loan to buy Nunez, Henry effectively claimed that Naby Keita was worth £100m and could be used to guarantee the loan.
He did this, not by pulling a number out of his ass, but instead by augmenting or changing stats and reports on Kieta’s performance - to “show” he was better and therefore more valuable than he was.
Additionally it would require Henry to have done that same hundreds of times since he took over.
Interested to see if the same valuations appear on the tax returns as well.
The IRS are interested in a couple of properties he “gifted” to charity - if he overstated them then it’s possibly fraud to gain tax benefit.
Alternatively, if he’s understated all the property on tax returns to avoid tax that he overstated to get favourable loan agreements then he could be in all sorts of shit.
That’s probably why he or his lawyers were apparently desperately trying to settle this before it was filed.
Hey-ho though, he’ll just call me NY “woke”, “pay” the fine (or fleece his fan base to pay it).l and move his “business” somewhere else - no biggie, unless it fuels some criminal charges in other investigations.
It’s a well-known fact that Trump’s accountants put wildly different valuations on the same property when when it came to paying taxes compared to borrowing against value of the same property - sometimes different by order of magnitude. I think it’s a really bad look for the US justice system that he was allowed to get away with this blatant fraud for so long. How do you do this for years and not get caught by the IRS and the banks keep lending you money? It sounds so basic and shouldn’t be hard to catch, unless the relevant people are deliberately choosing to look the other way.
Who knows - I’ve heard all sorts of speculation reasons from not being willing to go after a sitting President (while he was), Trump’s business not recording much on paper, hard to find anyone in his organisation willing to flip, Trump’s legal spoiling tactics, settling problems with before they escalate, difficulty in proving intent and the way he structures his business to make it very opaque.
One report I read was surprised Trump hasn’t settled out of court on this one early on before it got as far as it did - maybe his ego and hubris have got the better of him of late.
It isn’t the first time the Trump empire has been compared to a criminal enterprise in the way it’s run.
Who knows - he’ll have a mysterious death soon and even Dantes might move on.
He offered to settle - Leticia James refused.
The pattern of fraud and criminality way predates his entry into politics - although he probably became much more brazen in recent years.
Wasn’t he pretty much broke before The Apprentice became successful?
Maybe it’s because lawyers weren’t woke before 2015?
That's the same analogy. You just want to sue him for overvaluing Keita instead of Nunez, because of reasons. So again, how is that case going to turn out for you? Because the stats were incorrect, you think that will become a "doctored the log book moment" and Johnny boy will inexplicably crack and confess to ordering the code red? Good luck.
The actual case filed with the actual court:
[article]
11. Nearly every one of the Statements represented that the values were prepared by Mr. Trump and others at the Trump Organization in “evaluation” done with “outside professionals,” but that was false and misleading; no outside professionals were retained to prepare any of the asset valuations presented in the Statements. To the extent Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization received any advice from outside professionals that had any bearing on how to approach valuing the assets, they routinely ignored or contradicted such advice. For example, they received a series of bank-ordered appraisals for the commercial property at 40 Wall Street that calculated a value for the property at $200 million as of August 1, 2010 and $220 million as of November 1, 2012. Yet in the 2011 Statement, they listed 40 Wall Street with a value $524 million and increased the valuation to $527 million in the 2012 Statement, and to $530 million in
2013—more than twice the value calculated by the “professionals.” Even more egregiously the valuation of more than $500 million was attributed to information obtained from the same professional appraiser who prepared both valuations putting the building’s value at or just over $200 million.
12. The inflated asset valuations in the Statements cannot be brushed aside or excused as merely the result of exaggeration or good faith estimation about which reasonable real estate professionals may differ. Rather, they are the result of the Defendants utilizing objectively false assumptions and blatantly improper methodologies with the intent and purpose of falsely and fraudulently inflating Mr. Trump’s net worth to obtain beneficial financial terms from lenders and insurers.
13. Nor can the false and fraudulent asset values in the Statements be defended based on boilerplate disclaimers in the accountant’s compilation report accompanying each Statement. While the accountants gave notice in the reports that they did not audit or review the Statements to verify the accuracy or completeness of the information provided by Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization, they confirmed that their clients were responsible for preparing the Statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”). The disclaimers may relieve the accountants of certain obligations that would otherwise adhere to their work on a more rigorous audit engagement, but they do not give license to Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization to submit to their accountants fraudulent and misleading asset valuations for inclusion in the Statements.
14. Moreover, Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization have no excuse for issuing Statements of Financial Condition that repeatedly violated GAAP rules in multiple ways despite expressly representing in the Statements that they were prepared in accordance with GAAP. Among the many GAAP rules they violated are: (i) including as “cash” funds that Mr. Trump could not immediately liquidate because they did not belong to him and may never be distributed to him; (ii) failing to determine the present value of projected future income when including the income as part of an asset valuation; (iii) failing to disclose a substantial change in methodology from the prior year’s statement for how an asset value was derived; (iv) failing to value the entirety of Mr. Trump’s interest in a partnership, including all limitations and restrictions on his interest; and (v) including intangibles such as internally-generated brand premiums when calculating an asset’s value.
15. As discussed in greater detail in the sections that follow, Mr. Trump and others affiliated with the Trump Organization who are named as Defendants employed a number of deceptive strategies as part of the overall scheme to fraudulently and falsely inflate Mr. Trump’s assets in order to comply with Mr. Trump’s instruction to increase his net worth. A chart showing many of the deceptive strategies employed by Mr. Trump and other Defendants by asset and year is attached as Exhibit 1, and includes the following, to list just a few:
[/article]
TLDR:
(1) The asset values were inflated, (2) they cannot be explained by the normal differences in professional valuations because they were arrived at with the intention of committing fraud, (3) they are not covered by the disclaimers between the two parties because they were arrived at with the intention of committing fraud, (4) we know they intended to commit fraud because look, they said they followed GAAP when in these four or five obscure instances they deviated from GAAP, so see, they're liars, and so they committed fraud, stamp feet repeatedly to get the attention of the judge, froth a little (5) case closed.
[article]
11. Nearly every one of the Statements represented that the values were prepared by Mr. Trump and others at the Trump Organization in “evaluation” done with “outside professionals,” but that was false and misleading; no outside professionals were retained to prepare any of the asset valuations presented in the Statements. To the extent Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization received any advice from outside professionals that had any bearing on how to approach valuing the assets, they routinely ignored or contradicted such advice. For example, they received a series of bank-ordered appraisals for the commercial property at 40 Wall Street that calculated a value for the property at $200 million as of August 1, 2010 and $220 million as of November 1, 2012. Yet in the 2011 Statement, they listed 40 Wall Street with a value $524 million and increased the valuation to $527 million in the 2012 Statement, and to $530 million in
2013—more than twice the value calculated by the “professionals.” Even more egregiously the valuation of more than $500 million was attributed to information obtained from the same professional appraiser who prepared both valuations putting the building’s value at or just over $200 million.
12. The inflated asset valuations in the Statements cannot be brushed aside or excused as merely the result of exaggeration or good faith estimation about which reasonable real estate professionals may differ. Rather, they are the result of the Defendants utilizing objectively false assumptions and blatantly improper methodologies with the intent and purpose of falsely and fraudulently inflating Mr. Trump’s net worth to obtain beneficial financial terms from lenders and insurers.
13. Nor can the false and fraudulent asset values in the Statements be defended based on boilerplate disclaimers in the accountant’s compilation report accompanying each Statement. While the accountants gave notice in the reports that they did not audit or review the Statements to verify the accuracy or completeness of the information provided by Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization, they confirmed that their clients were responsible for preparing the Statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”). The disclaimers may relieve the accountants of certain obligations that would otherwise adhere to their work on a more rigorous audit engagement, but they do not give license to Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization to submit to their accountants fraudulent and misleading asset valuations for inclusion in the Statements.
14. Moreover, Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization have no excuse for issuing Statements of Financial Condition that repeatedly violated GAAP rules in multiple ways despite expressly representing in the Statements that they were prepared in accordance with GAAP. Among the many GAAP rules they violated are: (i) including as “cash” funds that Mr. Trump could not immediately liquidate because they did not belong to him and may never be distributed to him; (ii) failing to determine the present value of projected future income when including the income as part of an asset valuation; (iii) failing to disclose a substantial change in methodology from the prior year’s statement for how an asset value was derived; (iv) failing to value the entirety of Mr. Trump’s interest in a partnership, including all limitations and restrictions on his interest; and (v) including intangibles such as internally-generated brand premiums when calculating an asset’s value.
15. As discussed in greater detail in the sections that follow, Mr. Trump and others affiliated with the Trump Organization who are named as Defendants employed a number of deceptive strategies as part of the overall scheme to fraudulently and falsely inflate Mr. Trump’s assets in order to comply with Mr. Trump’s instruction to increase his net worth. A chart showing many of the deceptive strategies employed by Mr. Trump and other Defendants by asset and year is attached as Exhibit 1, and includes the following, to list just a few:
[/article]
TLDR:
(1) The asset values were inflated, (2) they cannot be explained by the normal differences in professional valuations because they were arrived at with the intention of committing fraud, (3) they are not covered by the disclaimers between the two parties because they were arrived at with the intention of committing fraud, (4) we know they intended to commit fraud because look, they said they followed GAAP when in these four or five obscure instances they deviated from GAAP, so see, they're liars, and so they committed fraud, stamp feet repeatedly to get the attention of the judge, froth a little (5) case closed.
There's a good reason for that. The value of the business depends upon all of its future revenues. Say for example all your management staff get their MBA's this year, then that information feeds into the valuation of the business, and it goes up by 20% because an investor will believe you'll generate more revenues now. Under no circumstances do you then go to the IRS, and say hey look, my assets have gone up in value by 20%, so here, take this big wad of cash out of my bank account because I owe you capital gains tax. You're living in tds cuckoo land.
It’s got nothing to do with the value of Nunez - it’s to do with the practices involved with getting finance.
Its’s not the ordering of the Code Red that’s the problem - Private Santiago never existed, he was invented so that someone who wanted a code red could order it.
I guess I’m not surprised you don’t understand fraud - since Trump has been defrauding you of your mind and any sense you might have had for years.
No,
The problem is that you can't prove fraud, since there are only two logical ways to demonstrate the fraud (1) by the valuation, which is impossible since there is no such thing as an objective true value of any asset in this world, or (2) by getting trump to testify truthfully about his intentions when doing the valuation, which requires your woke lawyer to turn into tom cruise and get the code red out of him.
So you have two hopes. You don't need me to name them for you.
No,
The problem is that you can't prove fraud, since there are only two logical ways to demonstrate the fraud (1) by the valuation, which is impossible since there is no such thing as an objective true value of any asset in this world, or (2) by getting trump to testify truthfully about his intentions when doing the valuation, which requires your woke lawyer to turn into tom cruise and get the code red out of him.
So you have two hopes. You don't need me to name them for you.
Trump produced financial reports that overstated the value of his property. This is a fact because there are independent valuations that are a lot lower. They’re also higher than Trumps own internal valuations.
He can continue to plead the fifth and not explain why - but it’s a civil lawsuit so she doesn’t need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, she only needs to to prove on balance of probability.
The minute the banks and insurers confirm that he got favourable rates and the IRS confirm that he used the inflated valuations to get increased tax breaks, he has a problem.
Then if this can be proven to be a pattern established over a period of time - then it amounts to a pattern of fraudulent activity that unless Trump can explain, he’ll be found guilty.
It’s no biggie - he’ll get a five and it’ll fuck up his ability to do business in NY for a while - but the devil is in the detail and that’s why he wanted to settle before court and probably why the DA didn’t want to settle.
The IRS ones are likely to be his biggest problem - because they can pick that up and go for a criminal conviction on tax fraud.
Remember his CFO has already pleaded guilty for fraud, etc - so all these cases are coming quick and fast, harming his credibility as a businessman and publicly whilst also opening the door to other more serious prosecutions which will break him.
Once you start to establish a pattern of lies and deception - then everything becomes about lies and deception.
You might like to be lied to and deceived, Dantes, that’s up to you, I suppose.
No, it's fraud, you don't know because you've never been a lawyer. To use the balance of probability standard you have to alledge that the fraudulent statements were due to negligence. She hasn't done that because then her damages and other remedies evaporate. Oh and it's damages, not a fine, damages which she needs to prove were incurred.
She has to say the fraud was intentional in order to get around the "boilerplate disclaimers". That is not balance of probability. It's not beyond reasonable doubt. Your common sense may tell you what the applicable standard is relative to those two.
What on earth makes you think you know more about law than I do?
She has to say the fraud was intentional in order to get around the "boilerplate disclaimers". That is not balance of probability. It's not beyond reasonable doubt. Your common sense may tell you what the applicable standard is relative to those two.
What on earth makes you think you know more about law than I do?
I don’t think it’s going to be too hard to prove he “intentionally” overstated the value of his property to gain benefit.
There aren’t really that many reasons why you would do it are there? - particularly when they don’t match the internal valuations?
Q. Did you overstate your property valuations?
A. Your goddamned right I did!!!!
Even Lt Coffey would have only needed to ask once…. What else could Big D say?
“plead the fifth and say nothing” or just say “errr… yes… we’re Dumb Bums and we kept making the same mistake over and over for the last 10 years… Soz”.
Either way - Here’s what you priced them at internally and here’s what you priced them at externally, here’s the independent valuations - oh look there’s a difference!!!!
Now here’s how much you benefited, $ wise, by doing that thing you did that you’re not supposed to do - so we’ll be having that, thank you very much and let’s just keep close eye on you for the t 5 years or so to make sure you don’t do it again.
And while we’re at it - our friends in the IRS want to have a look at these ones in a bit more detail - because, we’ll that’s tax fraud and that means you really are fucked.
$250m big D and fuck off from NY for 5 years - my final offer or we go to court!!!!
Do you want that set of steak knives or not.
He would say 'no'. There is no such thing as a correct valuation. The idea of holding up the outside valuation or the internal valuation as evidence that the Trump valuation is wrong is laughable. If that is your case, then quit being a laywer and trade equities. You'll make the $250m back on your first day. Go right ahead.
So on the "balance of probability" you expect the court to believe you are able to judge the correct value from an incorrect value, you can do this, and yet you're not a trader because reasons? You just altruistically decided to be a laywer / expert witness rather than the wealthiest human being who ever lived? Sure thing. Seems legit.
So on the "balance of probability" you expect the court to believe you are able to judge the correct value from an incorrect value, you can do this, and yet you're not a trader because reasons? You just altruistically decided to be a laywer / expert witness rather than the wealthiest human being who ever lived? Sure thing. Seems legit.
Again - it’s what you do with the valuation that matters.
I must remember that there’s no such thing as a “correct valuation”.
Anyway, I’m off to argue with my car insurer that my 2006 Mazda 3 is worth several million crisp Australian dollars - so if my dear friend “Ummi” were to unfortunately meet his demise after years of service in getting me to one winery after another and transporting countless beers back from local craft breweries, then I will be properly compensated.
Alternatively I might use “Ummi” as collateral for a second house by argung that some unspecified “modifications” I’ve made value him at said several million crisp Australian dollars and not the 2 grand the independent car valuation website says he’s worth - pfffft - as if that’s “correct”.
For personal tax purposes - “Ummi” will remain being worth $2k or so - would want any nasty tax bills if the nasty tax man thinks he’s worth millions.
All perfectly normal and in no way fraudulent as long as I say nothing, apparently
Easy-Peasy!!!
I must remember that there’s no such thing as a “correct valuation”.
Anyway, I’m off to argue with my car insurer that my 2006 Mazda 3 is worth several million crisp Australian dollars - so if my dear friend “Ummi” were to unfortunately meet his demise after years of service in getting me to one winery after another and transporting countless beers back from local craft breweries, then I will be properly compensated.
Alternatively I might use “Ummi” as collateral for a second house by argung that some unspecified “modifications” I’ve made value him at said several million crisp Australian dollars and not the 2 grand the independent car valuation website says he’s worth - pfffft - as if that’s “correct”.
For personal tax purposes - “Ummi” will remain being worth $2k or so - would want any nasty tax bills if the nasty tax man thinks he’s worth millions.
All perfectly normal and in no way fraudulent as long as I say nothing, apparently
Easy-Peasy!!!
Sure thing, but the insurer will not agree with your valuation, obviously, and so your "fraud" would go no further than you being laughed at like a dumb clown who fails to grasp the concept of valuation.
Trump on the other hand actually secured the loan from his bank because he provided them with a reasonable valuation that did not illicit instant laughter. Yet you want to pretend that it ought to have provoked hysterical laughter because it was a fraudulent lie. So lets break that down a little, your case is actually that Trump lied to fraudulently obtain his loan from the bank, but in order to not get laughed at like a clown, I guess he made sure his lie was the same number as a reasonable valuation, or just a little higher than what you think ought to be the more reasonable valuation. So Trump could have not lied and submitted a reasonable valuation, but because orange man bad, he got to a reasonable valuation by lying. Naughty orange man! How dare he!!! So you're essentially suing Trump because he told a lie, which you somehow hope to prove at trial by your tom cruise routine, and the result of the lie was that the bank accepted a figure from him they deemed reasonable, instead of using the figure that you're now putting forward that you think is even more of a super duper bestest most reasonable number there is in the whole wide world? Still got that TDS haven't you, probably caught it off the attorney general.
Trump on the other hand actually secured the loan from his bank because he provided them with a reasonable valuation that did not illicit instant laughter. Yet you want to pretend that it ought to have provoked hysterical laughter because it was a fraudulent lie. So lets break that down a little, your case is actually that Trump lied to fraudulently obtain his loan from the bank, but in order to not get laughed at like a clown, I guess he made sure his lie was the same number as a reasonable valuation, or just a little higher than what you think ought to be the more reasonable valuation. So Trump could have not lied and submitted a reasonable valuation, but because orange man bad, he got to a reasonable valuation by lying. Naughty orange man! How dare he!!! So you're essentially suing Trump because he told a lie, which you somehow hope to prove at trial by your tom cruise routine, and the result of the lie was that the bank accepted a figure from him they deemed reasonable, instead of using the figure that you're now putting forward that you think is even more of a super duper bestest most reasonable number there is in the whole wide world? Still got that TDS haven't you, probably caught it off the attorney general.
You should probably read the detail of the case to see what “reasonable valuations” he reached and how he reached them.
Fraud generally involves telling lies - glad to see you’re finally getting it.
I reckon he might get away with some of the Deutsche Bank loan stuff - unless they (and they’re co-operating with the DA in some way) decide to fuck Trump over.
It’s the overvaluations to get tax easements that he’ll have to worry about more.
If there’s no case - why’s he desperately trying to settle?
Fraud generally involves telling lies - glad to see you’re finally getting it.
I reckon he might get away with some of the Deutsche Bank loan stuff - unless they (and they’re co-operating with the DA in some way) decide to fuck Trump over.
It’s the overvaluations to get tax easements that he’ll have to worry about more.
If there’s no case - why’s he desperately trying to settle?
Yes, they were below the parts I pasted, and I skimmed through them. You presumably read them and frothed that he "lied" about the square footage of the building for example. Again, this is fraud, you have to prove intention with clear and convincing evidence, not a bunch of frothing allegations on a complaint about a contract you were not even a party to. Putting the wrong number into the valuation is a factual error, shit happens, that's called negligence. To get from there to he did it deliberately to commit fraud requires him to admit that under oath. There is no other form of clear and convincing evidence of his intentions. A stream of inferences from a frothing lawyer won't cut it.
His reasons for settling are what they are. Perhaps he doesn't want a public trial where his voter base will see him get away with tax evasion. Optics. Or perhaps he doesn't want to put his evidence/cards on the table for the otherwise useless IRS lawyers to have a good long look over, and using his locked-in story to then tailor their future claim against him. Or perhaps it was just a derisory offer made for the sake of demonstrating that you attempted to resolve the matter out of court, which is an important requirement when you make your costs applications. Costs that will be footed by the tax payers. But hey ho, it's a small price to pay for their feels being warmed by the froth of momentarily believing they finally got him, this time is the time, it's real this time at, I lose count, what is it, the fifteenth time of asking?
His reasons for settling are what they are. Perhaps he doesn't want a public trial where his voter base will see him get away with tax evasion. Optics. Or perhaps he doesn't want to put his evidence/cards on the table for the otherwise useless IRS lawyers to have a good long look over, and using his locked-in story to then tailor their future claim against him. Or perhaps it was just a derisory offer made for the sake of demonstrating that you attempted to resolve the matter out of court, which is an important requirement when you make your costs applications. Costs that will be footed by the tax payers. But hey ho, it's a small price to pay for their feels being warmed by the froth of momentarily believing they finally got him, this time is the time, it's real this time at, I lose count, what is it, the fifteenth time of asking?
You’re slowly getting there. If it were an isolated incident, then yes, but 200 times suggests a pattern.
I love that you talk about frothing - whilst frothing about your hero being taking to task over his clearly dodgy practices.
Again… civil case…. If Big D says nothing, doesn’t explain why the valuations sent to banks, insurers and the IRS were consistently different in over 200 occasions over a 10 year period and said differences benefited Trump to the tune of $250m - then there’s a fair chance it becomes, on the “balance of probabilities”, a pattern of activity to defraud said banks, insurers and the IRS of income.
Anyway if frothing means - I’ve found something mildly entertaining to do while I squeeze out last nights dinner - then the froth has been flushed away….
Maybe you’ll realise that I couldn’t give two fucks either way what happens to Trump - but it’s fun seeing you tie yourself in knots and make a tit of yourself every now and then defending him to the end on everything like his shit could never stink.
I love that you talk about frothing - whilst frothing about your hero being taking to task over his clearly dodgy practices.
Again… civil case…. If Big D says nothing, doesn’t explain why the valuations sent to banks, insurers and the IRS were consistently different in over 200 occasions over a 10 year period and said differences benefited Trump to the tune of $250m - then there’s a fair chance it becomes, on the “balance of probabilities”, a pattern of activity to defraud said banks, insurers and the IRS of income.
Anyway if frothing means - I’ve found something mildly entertaining to do while I squeeze out last nights dinner - then the froth has been flushed away….
Maybe you’ll realise that I couldn’t give two fucks either way what happens to Trump - but it’s fun seeing you tie yourself in knots and make a tit of yourself every now and then defending him to the end on everything like his shit could never stink.
Similar threads
- Locked
