Findings do not support Judges allegations against Trump

 Jay Tucker:

Last week, a New York court issued judgments against Donald J. Trump and his sons, asserting violation of state anti-fraud law in connection with several real estate mortgage loans. The judgments, which aggregate $355 million and may escalate to $454 million or more, shocked Republicans and Democrats alike and stunned the national real estate community. It was immediately apparent that something was wildly wrong, since the Trump transactions were nothing unusual or remarkable for the real estate industry.

Essential Requirements for Claims of Fraud

The case primarily involves applications for mortgage loans submitted by Trump entities to major federal banks. The state of New York claims that Trump, in connection with such loans, committed repeated fraudulent and illegal acts. The judge acknowledges that common law fraud (also known as “misrepresentation”) requires a finding of five elements: (1) A material statement of fact (not opinion), (2) falsity, (3) knowledge of the falsity, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim, and (5) damages. Although the judge apparently concludes that all of the elements have been proven, it is quite obvious that none, let alone all, of the required elements of fraud and misrepresentation were proven.
...

There is much more.

I have prosecuted several fraud cases, but I have never seen one where no money was lost much less one where damages were charged even though no money was lost.  This looks more like a fraudulent politically motivated suit than reality. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more