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

a reply to: Threadbarer

So you can repeat the law.

Name one instance this has been used where there is no defined victim. You can't.

There is no proof of widespread fraud, and if there is, criminally charge him and throw his ass in jail.

They won't, because there is no evidence.

If there was fraud would a bank testify he paid back his loan AND they would do business again? Nope.

Live in your fantasy. I live in the real world where this could only happen to Trump. Just ask the governor of New York she will tell you.

The end game of this is to capture one of his properties and humiliate him. Sick.

Oh, and as far a property values......

Link

MAL is not worth 18 million dollars....

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Klassified

once they get Trump, they won't use something this drastic ever again. I mean sure it worked, it accomplished the goal so far, but don't worry a bit, things like this just don't happen in Amerika.

Nothing to see here...just keep moving, etc.

smh

originally posted by: Myhandle

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Klassified

These people are just stupid.
Trump is pretty moderate, he was anyway.

Makes one realize we never once had a legitimate choice until he came along.

It's funny that you say that.

I voted for him for 2 reasons.

The biggest one being *anybody* but Hillary - that corrupt, Benghazi murdering wench.

The second was as a goof of sorts ("You're fired!"). Although in retrospect he turned out do a better than average job while in office.

It was nice to be pleasantly surprised for a change.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k
a reply to: Klassified

So a judge ordered him to pay up.
What law is being used againt him for political persecution exactly?

Those being the novel legal theories applied specifically for Trump.

With E jean it was literally created.

Here it's a case of stretching an oft used (i've heard it's not been used in 50 years) fraud civil statute reserved for pyramid schemes.

The entire point of fraud is to make someone whole "again."

I think you meant rarely, not oft.

"Oft" is synonymous with and is also used as an abbreviation for often.

But if I misread your intention, my apologies.

a reply to: SchrodingersRat

It was used as recently as 2019 upon last examination.


Here is a non exhaustive list of it's use and applications.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Who is the victim and where is the money going? I will continue to say it because you have no real answer. There is not one.

As previously stated to you:

1. There doesn't have to be a victim.
2. I don't know. I'd have to look it up. Why don't you?

These are answers.

Already given.

Now, go pester someone else.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Threadbarer

So you can repeat the law.

Name one instance this has been used where there is no defined victim. You can't.

There is no proof of widespread fraud, and if there is, criminally charge him and throw his ass in jail.

They won't, because there is no evidence.

If there was fraud would a bank testify he paid back his loan AND they would do business again? Nope.

Live in your fantasy. I live in the real world where this could only happen to Trump. Just ask the governor of New York she will tell you.

The end game of this is to capture one of his properties and humiliate him. Sick.

The low IQ cult is gonna defend this until doomsday.

Trump has triggered something in what’s left of their brains…..pun intended.

They might have been almost normal before 2016, but they will never be the same again because of butt hurt feelz.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Threadbarer

So you can repeat the law.

Name one instance this has been used where there is no defined victim. You can't.

There is no proof of widespread fraud, and if there is, criminally charge him and throw his ass in jail.

They won't, because there is no evidence.

If there was fraud would a bank testify he paid back his loan AND they would do business again? Nope.

Live in your fantasy. I live in the real world where this could only happen to Trump. Just ask the governor of New York she will tell you.

The end game of this is to capture one of his properties and humiliate him. Sick.

Here s the Fraud Act over here. Note s(1).


www.legislation.gov.uk...

No need for a victim there.

Also, the standard of proof required for a criminal prosecution is much higher than the civil standard.

These are facts.

Is this all politically motivated?

Yes, of course.

You, however, keep wanting to argue with me about the law which is what I have replied to.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Serious question.

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

Wouldn't this have to accost another by definition?

a reply to: RazorV66

"because of butt hurt feelz."

I don't suppose you will see the irony inherent in that statement.

a reply to: JinMI

Not for the charge to be made out, just deception.

He got the loans, ie a gain, by deception.

As I say, I'm no expert in NY law, but the principle seems to be the same.

Similarly, over here there is an offence under the Theft Act 1968 of "obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception".

Doesn't need a "victim" either. A third party, yes. And deception.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

You said that over in the UK that no victim is required. Then provided the statute.


So my question is just in general.

How can one fraudulently produce something illegally while it not accosting another (victim)?


It may sound like a stupid question but I assure you it is genuine.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: RazorV66

"because of butt hurt feelz."

I don't suppose you will see the irony inherent in that statement.

You are the one feeling it not me, I couldn’t care less.

a reply to: JinMI

Not a stupid question at all.

You may find this helpful:

"It is not necessary to prove or demonstrate any consequences of fraud (though they will clearly be material to sentence, compensation and confiscation). "Preddy" type difficulties will not arise (where the property obtained had not belonged to another); "

www.cps.gov.uk...

a reply to: RazorV66

Could've fooled me!

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I do not.


You provided the UK statute while saying that the UK requires no victim.

So in turn, I posted the part that doesn't imply there need be a victim.


So still, the question is;

How can one fraudulently produce something illegally while it not accosting another (victim)?

If the framing is wrong, please show me. If you don't know, that is fine too.

As I said, the question is genuine.

a reply to: JinMI

"It It is not necessary to prove or demonstrate any consequences of fraud ..."

This bit.

You don't have to have had your hand in someone else's pockets.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

That part is literally under the section:

Charging Practice
Overlap with theft and other offences

ou don't have to have had your hand in someone else's pockets.

I understand that.

If there is no material gain/loss then who was defrauded? Even granting the premise that fraud can be separate from being defrauded. This would indicate that fraud on it's own can not stand.

This even translates to the topic. You can say Trump committed fraud and try him on it. Yet the damages require something else. That being the summary judgement.

a reply to: JinMI

That's the thing. Fraud is different to defrauding.

The value he gained by his deception?

Anyways I have said my piece so I will await his appeal, with interest.

I know that your questions are genuine.

We have had our little spats but I would never question your integrity.