OT So, trump has to pay about 450,000,000 bucks for his, shall we say,
bad business practices.

And he was interviered today, and he cited the 8th Amendment, which
either he had learned by heart or he had a copy in his pocket!!

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

He thinks he'll get out of this because it's an excessive fine. But
it's not a fine at all. it's a disgorgment. And it's not excessive,
(except that it's more than he wants to pay). Maybe it's a cruel and
unusual punishment. He thinks any punishment he gets is cruel.

On 2/21/2024 8:57 PM, micky wrote:
> OT So, trump has to pay about 450,000,000 bucks for his, shall we say,
> bad business practices.
>
> And he was interviered today, and he cited the 8th Amendment, which
> either he had learned by heart or he had a copy in his pocket!!
>
> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
> cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
>
> He thinks he'll get out of this because it's an excessive fine. But
> it's not a fine at all. it's a disgorgment. And it's not excessive,
> (except that it's more than he wants to pay). Maybe it's a cruel and
> unusual punishment. He thinks any punishment he gets is cruel.
>
>

Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
excused of but the state brought it on itself. He was not allowed a
jury trial and an obviously highly prejudiced judge ruled.

The whole thing will be thrown out on appeal but the way the legal
system operates it could take a long time.

micky wrote on 2/21/2024 8:57 PM:
> OT So, trump has to pay about 450,000,000 bucks for his, shall we say,
> bad business practices.
>
> And he was interviered today, and he cited the 8th Amendment, which
> either he had learned by heart or he had a copy in his pocket!!

Maybe Rudy Giuliani is whispering in his ear, again.

> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
> cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
>
> He thinks he'll get out of this because it's an excessive fine.

Of course it's not excessive. Even Alex Jones can afford a billion
dollar fine.

> But
> it's not a fine at all. it's a disgorgment.

Coughing up?

> And it's not excessive,
> (except that it's more than he wants to pay). Maybe it's a cruel and
> unusual punishment. He thinks any punishment he gets is cruel.

It not cruel to a lot of people. They'd  say God works in mysterious ways.

Frank wrote on 2/22/2024 8:34 AM:
> On 2/21/2024 8:57 PM, micky wrote:
>> OT   So, trump has to pay about 450,000,000 bucks for his, shall we say,
>> bad business practices.
>>
>> And he was interviered today, and he cited the 8th Amendment, which
>> either he had learned by heart or he had a copy in his pocket!!
>>
>> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
>> cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
>>
>> He thinks he'll get out of this because it's an excessive fine. But
>> it's not a fine at all.  it's a disgorgment.   And it's not excessive,
>> (except that it's more than he wants to pay).   Maybe it's a cruel and
>> unusual punishment.  He thinks any punishment he gets is cruel.
>>
>>
>
> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
> excused of but the state brought it on itself.  He was not allowed a
> jury trial and an obviously highly prejudiced judge ruled.

A jury trial is for serious criminal cases. Falsifying business records
is not a serious criminal case. Just slap him with hefty fines until he
learns not to do it again.

>
> The whole thing will be thrown out on appeal but the way the legal
> system operates it could take a long time.

The long arm of the law can wait.

Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>On 2/21/2024 8:57 PM, micky wrote:
>> OT So, trump has to pay about 450,000,000 bucks for his, shall we say,
>> bad business practices.
>>
>> And he was interviered today, and he cited the 8th Amendment, which
>> either he had learned by heart or he had a copy in his pocket!!
>>
>> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
>> cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
>>
>> He thinks he'll get out of this because it's an excessive fine. But
>> it's not a fine at all. it's a disgorgment. And it's not excessive,
>> (except that it's more than he wants to pay). Maybe it's a cruel and
>> unusual punishment. He thinks any punishment he gets is cruel.
>>
>>
>
>Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>excused of but the state brought it on itself.

Completely irrelevent. A crime is a crime. He got caught. He got tried.
He got convicted.

On 2/22/2024 9:56 AM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote:
> Frank wrote on 2/22/2024 8:34 AM:
>> On 2/21/2024 8:57 PM, micky wrote:
>>> OT   So, trump has to pay about 450,000,000 bucks for his, shall we say,
>>> bad business practices.
>>>
>>> And he was interviered today, and he cited the 8th Amendment, which
>>> either he had learned by heart or he had a copy in his pocket!!
>>>
>>> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
>>> cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
>>>
>>> He thinks he'll get out of this because it's an excessive fine. But
>>> it's not a fine at all.  it's a disgorgment.   And it's not excessive,
>>> (except that it's more than he wants to pay).   Maybe it's a cruel and
>>> unusual punishment.  He thinks any punishment he gets is cruel.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.  He was not allowed a
>> jury trial and an obviously highly prejudiced judge ruled.
>
> A jury trial is for serious criminal cases. Falsifying business records
> is not a serious criminal case. Just slap him with hefty fines until he
> learns not to do it again.
>
>
>>
>> The whole thing will be thrown out on appeal but the way the legal
>> system operates it could take a long time.
>
> The long arm of the law can wait.
>
>
>
Maybe in Canada but not here.

On 2/22/2024 10:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>> On 2/21/2024 8:57 PM, micky wrote:
>>> OT So, trump has to pay about 450,000,000 bucks for his, shall we say,
>>> bad business practices.
>>>
>>> And he was interviered today, and he cited the 8th Amendment, which
>>> either he had learned by heart or he had a copy in his pocket!!
>>>
>>> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
>>> cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
>>>
>>> He thinks he'll get out of this because it's an excessive fine. But
>>> it's not a fine at all. it's a disgorgment. And it's not excessive,
>>> (except that it's more than he wants to pay). Maybe it's a cruel and
>>> unusual punishment. He thinks any punishment he gets is cruel.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.
>
> Completely irrelevent. A crime is a crime. He got caught. He got tried.
> He got convicted.

What was the crime and who did he defraud?

Scott Lurndal wrote on 2/22/2024 10:00 AM:
> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>> On 2/21/2024 8:57 PM, micky wrote:
>>> OT So, trump has to pay about 450,000,000 bucks for his, shall we say,
>>> bad business practices.
>>>
>>> And he was interviered today, and he cited the 8th Amendment, which
>>> either he had learned by heart or he had a copy in his pocket!!
>>>
>>> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
>>> cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
>>>
>>> He thinks he'll get out of this because it's an excessive fine. But
>>> it's not a fine at all. it's a disgorgment. And it's not excessive,
>>> (except that it's more than he wants to pay). Maybe it's a cruel and
>>> unusual punishment. He thinks any punishment he gets is cruel.
>>>
>>>
>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.
> Completely irrelevent. A crime is a crime. He got caught. He got tried.
> He got convicted.

And he got fined. Joy to the world.

Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>On 2/22/2024 10:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

>>>
>>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.
>>
>> Completely irrelevent. A crime is a crime. He got caught. He got tried.
>> He got convicted.
>
>What was the crime and who did he defraud?

A violation of NY Penal Laws 175.10 and 175.15, "Falsifying business Records".

'New York Penal Law sections 175.10 and 175.05 respectively,
are extremely serious offenses.'

https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/falsifying-business-records-ny-pl-175-10-and-175-15.html

All the laws require is "Intent to defraud".

Frank wrote on 2/22/2024 10:35 AM:
> On 2/22/2024 10:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>>> On 2/21/2024 8:57 PM, micky wrote:
>>>> OT   So, trump has to pay about 450,000,000 bucks for his, shall we
>>>> say,
>>>> bad business practices.
>>>>
>>>> And he was interviered today, and he cited the 8th Amendment, which
>>>> either he had learned by heart or he had a copy in his pocket!!
>>>>
>>>> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
>>>> cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
>>>>
>>>> He thinks he'll get out of this because it's an excessive fine.  But
>>>> it's not a fine at all.  it's a disgorgment.   And it's not excessive,
>>>> (except that it's more than he wants to pay).   Maybe it's a cruel and
>>>> unusual punishment.  He thinks any punishment he gets is cruel.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.
>>
>> Completely irrelevent.  A crime is a crime.  He got caught.  He got
>> tried.
>> He got convicted.
>
> What was the crime

Falsifying business records.

> and who did he defraud?

The US of A.

On 2/22/2024 6:56 AM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote:
> Frank wrote on 2/22/2024 8:34 AM:
>> On 2/21/2024 8:57 PM, micky wrote:
>>> OT   So, trump has to pay about 450,000,000 bucks for his, shall we say,
>>> bad business practices.
>>>
>>> And he was interviered today, and he cited the 8th Amendment, which
>>> either he had learned by heart or he had a copy in his pocket!!
>>>
>>> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
>>> cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
>>>
>>> He thinks he'll get out of this because it's an excessive fine. But
>>> it's not a fine at all.  it's a disgorgment.   And it's not excessive,
>>> (except that it's more than he wants to pay).   Maybe it's a cruel and
>>> unusual punishment.  He thinks any punishment he gets is cruel.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.  He was not allowed a
>> jury trial and an obviously highly prejudiced judge ruled.

He was allowed a jury trial. He CHOSE not to request one.
Yes a highly prejudiced judge! Not one of those GOP ones that never
rules against a rich guy when they commit a CRIME.

>
> A jury trial is for serious criminal cases. Falsifying business records
> is not a serious criminal case. Just slap him with hefty fines until he
> learns not to do it again.

He is a slow learner. $5 M penalty, walks out the door and re-offends.
Let's see says the judge to the next jury, "what will it take to
convince him he can't keep doing this".

>
>
>>
>> The whole thing will be thrown out on appeal but the way the legal
>> system operates it could take a long time.

Don't hold your breath. trump will pay it. And WHINE, WHINE, WHINE all
the way to the bank. What a snowflake!

>
> The long arm of the law can wait.
>
>
>

Scott Lurndal wrote on 2/22/2024 10:45 AM:
> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>> On 2/22/2024 10:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>>>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.
>>> Completely irrelevent. A crime is a crime. He got caught. He got tried.
>>> He got convicted.
>> What was the crime and who did he defraud?
> A violation of NY Penal Laws 175.10 and 175.15, "Falsifying business Records".
>
> 'New York Penal Law sections 175.10 and 175.05 respectively,
> are extremely serious offenses.'
>
> https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/falsifying-business-records-ny-pl-175-10-and-175-15.html
>
> All the laws require is "Intent to defraud".

Apparently the slime ball is not repentant. Let's double the fine to
$700 million. That will be more effective deterrent for him to re-offend.

On 2/22/2024 9:57 AM, Bob F wrote:
>
> He was allowed a jury trial. He CHOSE not to request one.

That is a lie . Since you ALWAYS deny the credibility of any link I
provide I won't bother . This whole shit show is designed to keep Trump
from running , it's all election interference . They are that scared of
him ... and the people that support him . NCSWIC
--
Snag
"They may take our lives but
they'll never take our freedom."
William Wallace

Snag <snag_one@msn.com> writes:
>On 2/22/2024 9:57 AM, Bob F wrote:
>>
>> He was allowed a jury trial. He CHOSE not to request one.
>
>
>
> That is a lie .

Actually, what Bob wrote was accurate. Trump's lawyers chose not
to request a jury trial. However, even if they had, the answer
would likely have been "no".

"Engoron said that in paperwork certifying that the
case was ready for trial, James' office checked a box
suggesting it be a non-jury proceeding.

Trump's team had 15 days to oppose that, but did not,
Engoron said, because there was no point in doing so.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-no-jury-fraud-new-york-judge-arthur-engoron/

On 2/22/2024 9:45 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>> On 2/22/2024 10:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>>>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.
>>>
>>> Completely irrelevent. A crime is a crime. He got caught. He got tried.
>>> He got convicted.
>>
>> What was the crime and who did he defraud?
>
> A violation of NY Penal Laws 175.10 and 175.15, "Falsifying business Records".
>
> 'New York Penal Law sections 175.10 and 175.05 respectively,
> are extremely serious offenses.'
>
> https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/falsifying-business-records-ny-pl-175-10-and-175-15.html
>
> All the laws require is "Intent to defraud".
>

There was never any intent to defraud . He borrowed money , paid it
back with interest , and the banks - who did due diligence before making
the loan - were happy . Had the judge allowed him to present evidence
the outcome would have been the same . Kangaroo court with the only
objective to harass Trump .
I suppose you think Big Fanny Willis is a fine upstanding citizen too ...
--
Snag
"They may take our lives but
they'll never take our freedom."
William Wallace

On 2/22/2024 10:45 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>> On 2/22/2024 10:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>>>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.
>>>
>>> Completely irrelevent. A crime is a crime. He got caught. He got tried.
>>> He got convicted.
>>
>> What was the crime and who did he defraud?
>
> A violation of NY Penal Laws 175.10 and 175.15, "Falsifying business Records".
>
> 'New York Penal Law sections 175.10 and 175.05 respectively,
> are extremely serious offenses.'
>
> https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/falsifying-business-records-ny-pl-175-10-and-175-15.html
>
> All the laws require is "Intent to defraud".

Thanks for letting us all know it was not political.

Bob F wrote:
> Don't hold your breath. trump will pay it. And WHINE, WHINE, WHINE all the way to the bank. What a snowflake!

ROFLMAO!

On 2/22/2024 12:03 PM, Snag wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 9:45 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>>> On 2/22/2024 10:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>>>>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.
>>>>
>>>> Completely irrelevent.  A crime is a crime.  He got caught.  He got
>>>> tried.
>>>> He got convicted.
>>>
>>> What was the crime and who did he defraud?
>>
>> A violation of NY Penal Laws 175.10 and 175.15, "Falsifying business
>> Records".
>>
>>    'New York Penal Law sections 175.10 and 175.05 respectively,
>>     are extremely serious offenses.'
>>
>> https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/falsifying-business-records-ny-pl-175-10-and-175-15.html
>>
>> All the laws require is "Intent to defraud".
>>
>
>   There was never any intent to defraud . He borrowed money , paid it
> back with interest , and the banks - who did due diligence before making
> the loan - were happy . Had the judge allowed him to present evidence
> the outcome would have been the same . Kangaroo court with the only
> objective to harass Trump .
>   I suppose you think Big Fanny Willis is a fine upstanding citizen too
> ...

Evidently you are not a lawyer. Just because he paid it back does not
mean the loan was not obtained with some fraud. He overstated size and
values of properties to get a loan. That is fraud.

On 2/22/2024 1:07 PM, Ed P wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 12:03 PM, Snag wrote:
>> On 2/22/2024 9:45 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>>>> On 2/22/2024 10:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>>>>>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Completely irrelevent.  A crime is a crime.  He got caught.  He got
>>>>> tried.
>>>>> He got convicted.
>>>>
>>>> What was the crime and who did he defraud?
>>>
>>> A violation of NY Penal Laws 175.10 and 175.15, "Falsifying business
>>> Records".
>>>
>>>    'New York Penal Law sections 175.10 and 175.05 respectively,
>>>     are extremely serious offenses.'
>>>
>>> https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/falsifying-business-records-ny-pl-175-10-and-175-15.html
>>>
>>>
>>> All the laws require is "Intent to defraud".
>>>
>>
>>    There was never any intent to defraud . He borrowed money , paid it
>> back with interest , and the banks - who did due diligence before
>> making the loan - were happy . Had the judge allowed him to present
>> evidence the outcome would have been the same . Kangaroo court with
>> the only objective to harass Trump .
>>    I suppose you think Big Fanny Willis is a fine upstanding citizen
>> too ...
>
> Evidently you are not a lawyer.  Just because he paid it back does not
> mean the loan was not obtained with some fraud.  He overstated size and
> values of properties to get a loan.  That is fraud.

And there were due diligence warnings in the contract , which the
lenders did . And then they loaned him the money . Apparently they
didn't see his valuation claims as "fraud" or they would have denied the
loan(s) . It's all to harass him , and it's classic 3rd world "show me
the man and I'll find a crime" tactics to keep him from winning this
election .
And apparently it ain't workin' so well .
--
Snag
"They may take our lives but
they'll never take our freedom."
William Wallace

Snag <snag_one@msn.com> writes:
>On 2/22/2024 1:07 PM, Ed P wrote:
>> On 2/22/2024 12:03 PM, Snag wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2024 9:45 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>>>>> On 2/22/2024 10:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>>>>>>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Completely irrelevent.  A crime is a crime.  He got caught.  He got
>>>>>> tried.
>>>>>> He got convicted.
>>>>>
>>>>> What was the crime and who did he defraud?
>>>>
>>>> A violation of NY Penal Laws 175.10 and 175.15, "Falsifying business
>>>> Records".
>>>>
>>>>    'New York Penal Law sections 175.10 and 175.05 respectively,
>>>>     are extremely serious offenses.'
>>>>
>>>> https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/falsifying-business-records-ny-pl-175-10-and-175-15.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All the laws require is "Intent to defraud".
>>>>
>>>
>>>    There was never any intent to defraud . He borrowed money , paid it
>>> back with interest , and the banks - who did due diligence before
>>> making the loan - were happy . Had the judge allowed him to present
>>> evidence the outcome would have been the same . Kangaroo court with
>>> the only objective to harass Trump .
>>>    I suppose you think Big Fanny Willis is a fine upstanding citizen
>>> too ...
>>
>> Evidently you are not a lawyer.  Just because he paid it back does not
>> mean the loan was not obtained with some fraud.  He overstated size and
>> values of properties to get a loan.  That is fraud.
>
> And there were due diligence warnings in the contract , which the
>lenders did . And then they loaned him the money

That doesn't matter. The law is the law, and the Trump Organization
broke it.

On 2/22/2024 2:38 PM, Snag wrote:
> On 2/22/2024 1:07 PM, Ed P wrote:
>> On 2/22/2024 12:03 PM, Snag wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2024 9:45 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>>>>> On 2/22/2024 10:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Completely irrelevent.  A crime is a crime.  He got caught.  He
>>>>>> got tried.
>>>>>> He got convicted.
>>>>>
>>>>> What was the crime and who did he defraud?
>>>>
>>>> A violation of NY Penal Laws 175.10 and 175.15, "Falsifying business
>>>> Records".
>>>>
>>>>    'New York Penal Law sections 175.10 and 175.05 respectively,
>>>>     are extremely serious offenses.'
>>>>
>>>> https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/falsifying-business-records-ny-pl-175-10-and-175-15.html
>>>>
>>>> All the laws require is "Intent to defraud".
>>>>
>>>
>>>    There was never any intent to defraud . He borrowed money , paid
>>> it back with interest , and the banks - who did due diligence before
>>> making the loan - were happy . Had the judge allowed him to present
>>> evidence the outcome would have been the same . Kangaroo court with
>>> the only objective to harass Trump .
>>>    I suppose you think Big Fanny Willis is a fine upstanding citizen
>>> too ...
>>
>> Evidently you are not a lawyer.  Just because he paid it back does not
>> mean the loan was not obtained with some fraud.  He overstated size
>> and values of properties to get a loan.  That is fraud.
>
>   And there were due diligence warnings in the contract , which the
> lenders did . And then they loaned him the money . Apparently they
> didn't see his valuation claims as "fraud" or they would have denied the
> loan(s) . It's all to harass him , and it's classic 3rd world "show me
> the man and I'll find a crime" tactics to keep him from winning this
> election .
>   And apparently it ain't workin' so well .

I apologize. I did not know you were in the meetings at the bank and
knew exactly how the decisions were made. I'm sure they were never
greedy and let something slip by.

Ed P wrote on 2/22/2024 4:38 PM:
> On 2/22/2024 2:38 PM, Snag wrote:
>> On 2/22/2024 1:07 PM, Ed P wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2024 12:03 PM, Snag wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2024 9:45 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2024 10:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what
>>>>>>>> Trump was
>>>>>>>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Completely irrelevent.  A crime is a crime.  He got caught.  He
>>>>>>> got tried.
>>>>>>> He got convicted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was the crime and who did he defraud?
>>>>>
>>>>> A violation of NY Penal Laws 175.10 and 175.15, "Falsifying
>>>>> business Records".
>>>>>
>>>>>    'New York Penal Law sections 175.10 and 175.05 respectively,
>>>>>     are extremely serious offenses.'
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/falsifying-business-records-ny-pl-175-10-and-175-15.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All the laws require is "Intent to defraud".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    There was never any intent to defraud . He borrowed money , paid
>>>> it back with interest , and the banks - who did due diligence
>>>> before making the loan - were happy . Had the judge allowed him to
>>>> present evidence the outcome would have been the same . Kangaroo
>>>> court with the only objective to harass Trump .
>>>>    I suppose you think Big Fanny Willis is a fine upstanding
>>>> citizen too ...
>>>
>>> Evidently you are not a lawyer.  Just because he paid it back does
>>> not mean the loan was not obtained with some fraud.  He overstated
>>> size and values of properties to get a loan.  That is fraud.
>>
>>    And there were due diligence warnings in the contract , which the
>> lenders did . And then they loaned him the money . Apparently they
>> didn't see his valuation claims as "fraud" or they would have denied
>> the loan(s) . It's all to harass him , and it's classic 3rd world
>> "show me the man and I'll find a crime" tactics to keep him from
>> winning this election .
>>    And apparently it ain't workin' so well .
>
> I apologize.  I did not know you were in the meetings at the bank and
> knew exactly how the decisions were made.

He was on mushroom, which gave him visions.

> I'm sure they were never greedy and let something slip by.

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 07:57:51 -0800, Bob F
<bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/22/2024 6:56 AM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>> Frank wrote on 2/22/2024 8:34 AM:
>>> On 2/21/2024 8:57 PM, micky wrote:
>>>> OT   So, trump has to pay about 450,000,000 bucks for his, shall we say,
>>>> bad business practices.
>>>>
>>>> And he was interviered today, and he cited the 8th Amendment, which
>>>> either he had learned by heart or he had a copy in his pocket!!
>>>>
>>>> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
>>>> cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
>>>>
>>>> He thinks he'll get out of this because it's an excessive fine. But
>>>> it's not a fine at all.  it's a disgorgment.   And it's not excessive,
>>>> (except that it's more than he wants to pay).   Maybe it's a cruel and
>>>> unusual punishment.  He thinks any punishment he gets is cruel.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.  He was not allowed a
>>> jury trial and an obviously highly prejudiced judge ruled.
>
>He was allowed a jury trial. He CHOSE not to request one.

Frank may well have honestly believed what he just said about no jury
trial, but Frank should take a lesson from this, that if he only listens
to trump-leaning sources, he won't hear the whole story, or he'll even
hear an inaccurate story, like this time.

I heard, and it's hard for someoen to be sure of a negative, that Fox
had not reported what trump said about letting Russia do whatever it
wanted with NATO countries that had not paid their "dues". Could be.
Even Fox knowws that sounds terrible.

>Yes a highly prejudiced judge! Not one of those GOP ones that never
>rules against a rich guy when they commit a CRIME.
>
>>
>> A jury trial is for serious criminal cases. Falsifying business records
>> is not a serious criminal case. Just slap him with hefty fines until he
>> learns not to do it again.
>
>He is a slow learner. $5 M penalty, walks out the door and re-offends.
>Let's see says the judge to the next jury, "what will it take to
>convince him he can't keep doing this".

Maybe 320 million next time. He's already again claiming he didn't
know her but he didn't say who he didn't know or what she had done. He
just said, roughly, "What about hat woman last week". He seems to think
that if he doesnt' give her name, that helps him, and that's very true,
but I think there's a point where if the person is firmly identifiable,
not saying the name is not enough. I think there have already been
such cases in many states.

>>
>>
>>>
>>> The whole thing will be thrown out on appeal but the way the legal
>>> system operates it could take a long time.
>
>Don't hold your breath. trump will pay it. And WHINE, WHINE, WHINE all
>the way to the bank. What a snowflake!

Yes, he will. The whole amount.
>
>>
>> The long arm of the law can wait.
>>
>>
>>

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 16:52:15 GMT,
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

>Snag <snag_one@msn.com> writes:
>>On 2/22/2024 9:57 AM, Bob F wrote:
>>>
>>> He was allowed a jury trial. He CHOSE not to request one.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is a lie .

Snag, you need to broaden your source of news too, and maybe exclude the
one that told you something false this time.
>
>Actually, what Bob wrote was accurate. Trump's lawyers chose not
>to request a jury trial. However, even if they had, the answer
>would likely have been "no".
>
> "Engoron said that in paperwork certifying that the
> case was ready for trial, James' office checked a box
> suggesting it be a non-jury proceeding.
>
> Trump's team had 15 days to oppose that, but did not,
> Engoron said, because there was no point in doing so.
>
>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-no-jury-fraud-new-york-judge-arthur-engoron/
It explains why it would not have been granted. I think reporters at
first thought it was the lawyer's fault for inadvisedly checking a box
or leaving it unchecked, whichever happened. Mostly because the lawyer
in court was complaining that they didn't have a jury trial, as if they
wanted one, so the reporter reasonably concluded and maybe even the
judge said that you didn't request one, which repoirters took to mean
that if trump had, he wouldn't have gotten one.

But whichever it had turned out to be, either way, trump did not request
a jury trial, unlike what Snag and Frank were led to believe.

BTW, there used to be courts of law and courts of equity. Some time in
US history they were combined. You can still see a remnant of this when
a lawyer is described has "attorney at law". That might sound silly,
like: What other kind of attorney could there be?, but there used to
also be attorneys at equity. I don't think anyone ever calls himself
that anymore. Maybe it's too ambiguous these days, or not as impressive,
or no one else is doing it.

I don't know if England still has both kinds of courts or not.

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:38:29 -0600, Snag
<snag_one@msn.com> wrote:

>On 2/22/2024 1:07 PM, Ed P wrote:
>> On 2/22/2024 12:03 PM, Snag wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2024 9:45 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>>>>> On 2/22/2024 10:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>>>>>>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Completely irrelevent.  A crime is a crime.  He got caught.  He got
>>>>>> tried.
>>>>>> He got convicted.
>>>>>
>>>>> What was the crime and who did he defraud?
>>>>
>>>> A violation of NY Penal Laws 175.10 and 175.15, "Falsifying business
>>>> Records".
>>>>
>>>>    'New York Penal Law sections 175.10 and 175.05 respectively,
>>>>     are extremely serious offenses.'
>>>>
>>>> https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/falsifying-business-records-ny-pl-175-10-and-175-15.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All the laws require is "Intent to defraud".
>>>>
>>>
>>>    There was never any intent to defraud . He borrowed money , paid it
>>> back with interest , and the banks - who did due diligence before
>>> making the loan - were happy . Had the judge allowed him to present
>>> evidence the outcome would have been the same . Kangaroo court with
>>> the only objective to harass Trump .
>>>    I suppose you think Big Fanny Willis is a fine upstanding citizen
>>> too ...
>>
>> Evidently you are not a lawyer.  Just because he paid it back does not
>> mean the loan was not obtained with some fraud.  He overstated size and
>> values of properties to get a loan.  That is fraud.
>
> And there were due diligence warnings in the contract , which the

Doesn't matter. You can't fill out an application and include, "I may
be wrong. I may be lying" and except to relieve yourself of liability,
especially when you are lying.

>lenders did .

The bank is not in a position to know his financial situation as well as
he does. "Due Diligence" would include getting financial reports from
him, reading and analysing them. But they are still taking his word
that they are true. Due Dilgence does NOT include sending inspectors to
spend all day with his accountants for the preceding year checking if
they are recording things accurately.

Have you ever lied, for example, on your income tax form, failed to
report income (more than what you take in from a garage sale) and then
put on your 1040 form, "These numbers may be incorrect". Do you think
that lets you off the hook, or that it *should* let you off the hook,
for reporting false numbers.

>And then they loaned him the money . Apparently they
>didn't see his valuation claims as "fraud" or they would have denied the
>loan(s).

Because they didn't know he was lying.

> It's all to harass him , and it's classic 3rd world "show me
>the man and I'll find a crime" tactics to keep him from winning this
>election .

If you think that everyone is dirty, that says a lot about you.
Apparently you would lie before signing a contract, so I'll never lend
you money or go into business with you, and I'd advise others not to
either. I don't deal with people who think that everyone is hiding a
crime.

> And apparently it ain't workin' so well .