Jump to content

A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 41.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • tx 3 putt

    1687

  • TwiceHorn

    1467

  • WhatTheBuck

    1322

  • atomheartbevo

    1315

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Beau Vine
Beau Vine

To be fair, President Trump’s four years in office weren’t so bad, except when when he incited an insurrection against the government, mismanaged a pandemic that killed nearly half a million Americans

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Y’all about to get a great visual representation of Cullman, Alabama. Only good things to come out of Cullman are the Britt brothers (Roll Tide!) and orange rolls from All Steak restaurant. That pla

ChiTownDoc
ChiTownDoc

You seem really pissed off for a nontrumper.  Just laugh at the trumpers, bro.  They’re really gullible dumbfucks who worship this orange blob…you know, people completely unlike yourself.  

Posted Images

Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27392

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It would probably be in their interest to do so.  I mean, they did grant a loan on a bigly overvalued property.

That’s my point. Can you legally refinance a balloon payment of $100M when you know (and more importantly the court knows) the collateral backing that loan is worth $10M?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31240

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

That’s my point. Can you legally refinance a balloon payment of $100M when you know (and more importantly the court knows) the collateral backing that loan is worth $10M?

Well, lets' assume something not-unlawful happens and the lender is woefully undercollateralized.  Hell yeah they can restructure/refinance and they have every incentive to do so, especially if the debtor has a good payment history.

They were somewhat willingly defrauded on the initial loan, so that's different, and apparently not going to be subject to criminal sanction, but they can still do more or less whatever they want to.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grade of D as in David

Grade of D as in David 13253

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, lets' assume something not-unlawful happens and the lender is woefully undercollateralized.  Hell yeah they can restructure/refinance and they have every incentive to do so, especially if the debtor has a good payment history.

They were somewhat willingly defrauded on the initial loan, so that's different, and apparently not going to be subject to criminal sanction, but they can still do more or less whatever they want to.

Well in that case refinance it at 200 million 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17420

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Well, I get that.  No evidence admitted yet may be a better way to say it.  And I am sure that there will be plenty of defense lawyers and experts doing cross examination, rebuttal and critique of whatever the AG's team will be putting up.

No, no there will not be. That isn't how summary judgment works. Otherwise it would neither be summary nor judgment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DalTxHornFan

DalTxHornFan 3085

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

No, no there will not be. That isn't how summary judgment works. Otherwise it would neither be summary nor judgment. 

Silly me.  I thought that summary judgment motions dealt solely with legal rather than disputed factual issues. 

And I used to think that disputed factual issues were dealt with in a court proceeding that was subject to rebuttal and cross examination.

Who knew?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 53978

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
4 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Silly me.  I thought that summary judgment motions dealt solely with legal rather than disputed factual issues. 

And I used to think that disputed factual issues were dealt with in a court proceeding that was subject to rebuttal and cross examination.

Who knew?

You also thought that no evidence had been presented, so we've already established that you don't know what the fuck's going on here, which means trying to make points by stating "I thought..." probably isn't the best tactic.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Haha 9
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Genco

Genco 3038

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Silly me.  I thought that summary judgment motions dealt solely with legal rather than disputed factual issues. 

And I used to think that disputed factual issues were dealt with in a court proceeding that was subject to rebuttal and cross examination.

Who knew?

spacer.png

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6559

Posted
Posted
Her post sex sandwiches would be amazing, but you would have to deal with about 20 pillows on the bed.
In my world Martha fucks everywhere but the bed. Sex swing, a handsome bench below the footboard that's just right for doggie, maybe a chair on the patio beneath the Apple tree that's Just right on fall morning and just naughty enough where neighbors can see over the fence but Not thier kids while I'm hitting that old ass doggystyle.

Sure she's old, but I'm mid 40s, variety is the spice of life, wood. Still have Midgets on my list also so bring it lil ladies let's go.
  • Drool 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6559

Posted
Posted
Please tell me somebody already has the Lake Travis pro-trump water parade meme cooked up.  There are already batteries on most boats, Captain Dipshit.  They may not yet power the engine, but most other functions are controlled via battery.  Kinda like your car's interior .  It is literally impossible he's this fucking stupid.  
No with a regular boat, if the boat starts sinking you are surounded by gasoline and oil. Which could catch fire amd kill you, with the hypothetical evil electic boat the electric battery sinks into the abyss killing all the whales believe you me, tremendously, bigly.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6559

Posted
Posted
I’m just a simple caveman transactional guy, but isn’t the whole point of summary judgment, you know, to quickly deal with some asshole who has no plausible, legally valid rebuttal to the claims against him?  
But, of course, that would require contemplating the possibility that perhaps Donald Trump didn’t provide a convincing rebuttal because he simply doesn’t have one.  “No, that’s not it.  The judge must have just not let Donald tell his side of the story!  I mean, other than in all those hearings and briefs and motions, but those don’t count!”
You missed the tragic part where he was denied Cross examination!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dogg

Horn Dogg 3807

Posted
Posted

Seriously, does Trump actually have any chance of winning the 2024 election?  I know polls from 2016 and all…..but it’s been 4 years since 2020 and a shitload of boomers have died and a shit load of younger voters have become eligible to vote.  How the hell does that give Trump any real chance?  Fuck that fat motherfucker, he’s on the fast track to hell.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6559

Posted
Posted
Seriously, does Trump actually have any chance of winning the 2024 election?  I know polls from 2016 and all…..but it’s been 4 years since 2020 and a shitload of boomers have died and a shit load of younger voters have become eligible to vote.  How the hell does that give Trump any real chance?  Fuck that fat motherfucker, he’s on the fast track to hell.
Yes he does, I recommend studying our state politics and history and then accepting a natural position on the ledge.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89396

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
21 minutes ago, Horn Dogg said:

Seriously, does Trump actually have any chance of winning the 2024 election?  I know polls from 2016 and all…..but it’s been 4 years since 2020 and a shitload of boomers have died and a shit load of younger voters have become eligible to vote.  How the hell does that give Trump any real chance?  Fuck that fat motherfucker, he’s on the fast track to hell.

He's not even bothering to really campaign in the battleground states that he would need to flip from Biden (that had flipped from Trump to Biden in 2020).

It's all about hitting the areas that donated the most to him in the past.

grifting-community.gif

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89396

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Born to Run said:

In my world Martha fucks everywhere but the bed. Sex swing, a handsome bench below the footboard that's just right for doggie, maybe a chair on the patio beneath the Apple tree that's Just right on fall morning and just naughty enough where neighbors can see over the fence but Not thier kids while I'm hitting that old ass doggystyle.

Sure she's old, but I'm mid 40s, variety is the spice of life, wood. Still have Midgets on my list also so bring it lil ladies let's go.

If she invited me over, I'm not going to fuck around or fuck up, I'm bringing the lube, because I am a gentleman.

water-based-lubricant-1000-litres-lubeli

I bet she has a waterslide in her backyard, so I'll bring the 55 gallon drum as well

81Cdo-YCiTL._AC_UF350,350_QL80_.jpg

Which works just fine for those times we are hanging out on the couch

81iLFh7H0WL.jpg

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
UpperWestside

UpperWestside 6126

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Fucking numbnut.  There have been gigantic batteries on submarines for 100 years.

Fake news! Marines don’t take batteries underwater. They tell me all the time how they are trained to swim for days at a time without even so much as a life jacket. What would they do underwater with a battery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28703

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

You also thought that no evidence had been presented, so we've already established that you don't know what the fuck's going on here, which means trying to make points by stating "I thought..." probably isn't the best tactic.

Cut him some slack. He studied law at Trump University. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
G650

G650 14074

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Doesn’t he have several balloon payments coming due soon? If his entity is with a receiver will they do the refinancing?

 

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It would probably be in their interest to do so.  I mean, they did grant a loan on a bigly overvalued property.

In my experience in property loans, which are part of my business, absolutely not

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
locodos

locodos 5330

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Born to Run said:
9 hours ago, YGIFS said:
Please tell me somebody already has the Lake Travis pro-trump water parade meme cooked up.  There are already batteries on most boats, Captain Dipshit.  They may not yet power the engine, but most other functions are controlled via battery.  Kinda like your car's interior .  It is literally impossible he's this fucking stupid.  

No with a regular boat, if the boat starts sinking you are surrounded by gasoline and oil. Which could catch fire amd kill you, with the hypothetical evil electic boat the electric battery sinks into the abyss killing all the whales believe you me, tremendously, bigly.

sorry for the diversion, but if your boat is on fire the gas and oil are the last thing you need to worry about.  That stuff is usually below the waterline.  It might catch after a while, but you wouldn't want to hang around till that happened.  Basically everything on a boat is petroleum based or flammable.  Point her into the wind, walk to the bow and figure the best way to gtfo(ff) of that soon to be flaming/toxic hellscape.

Also the ocean is basically one huge ass all encompassing negative terminal so you'd have to work pretty hard to electrocute yourself with a submerged battery, if it's even possible at all.

 

553d9993-2abc-4aa2-ad14-aa18585c3091-lar

Seen above: Ron DeSantis' campaign

Edited by locodos
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 7
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4610

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Silly me.  I thought that summary judgment motions dealt solely with legal rather than disputed factual issues. 

And I used to think that disputed factual issues were dealt with in a court proceeding that was subject to rebuttal and cross examination.

Who knew?

If you think there are disputed fact issues, and the court erred by granting the partial summary judgment, then maybe you should reach out to Trump and let him know!

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19092

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Those with standing to sue relative to a private business transaction.

If there is a alleged false tax filing, etc. -- I have no brief with the parties involved (those with standing to sue each other, the filer, the taxing authority, etc.) resolving their dispute through legal process. 

 

22 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Hardly my Orange God.  But time will tell if my opinion about this issue is correct or not.

 

22 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

I appreciate your comments, Twice.  I'm guessing that most of the time that sort of approach is used against some sort of Ponzi scheme or other situations where "civilians" or other consumers have made complaints to the AG seeking relief.

I also note that this ruling was simply made upon the pleadings.  It would appear that there is currently no evidence before the court, certainly none that has been subjected to cross examination or rebuttal.

 

22 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

But no cross examination or rebuttal -- so no evidence is before the court.

 

22 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Well, I get that.  No evidence admitted yet may be a better way to say it.  And I am sure that there will be plenty of defense lawyers and experts doing cross examination, rebuttal and critique of whatever the AG's team will be putting up.

 

21 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Who is trolling?  Just because something is used as a deposition exhibit doesn't make it trial evidence.

Every post shows your ignorance.  It's breathtaking how uninformed you are.  And yet, here you are, bleating like you know a goddamned thing.

Edited by PenelopeWitherspoon
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17420

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Silly me.  I thought that summary judgment motions dealt solely with legal rather than disputed factual issues. 

And I used to think that disputed factual issues were dealt with in a court proceeding that was subject to rebuttal and cross examination.

Who knew?

Sarcasm isn't very effective when you don't sufficiently understand the material you're discussing. 

Yes, summary judgment is used to resolve purely legal issues. However I'd say its primary use is identifying those cases where there is no genuine dispute regarding a material fact (i.e., a fact that matters). Further, in order to oppose summary judgment, one has to present actual evidence indicating a dispute of material fact (yes, summary judgment requires consideration of evidence, which generally has to be capable of being converted into an admissible format). Mere allegations that the matter is disputed isn't going to do anything. This is pretty basic and black letter law.

From the order, it appears Trump's legal team made a very poor effort in providing such evidence, relying mainly on poor legal arguments or unsupported conclusory statements, e.g.:

Quote

 

The Trump Tower Triplex

This Court takes judicial notice that the Trump Tower apartment in which Donald Trump resided for decades (the “Triplex™) is 10,996 square feet. NYSCEF Doc. No. 816 at 2. Between 2012- 2016, Donald Trump submitted SFCs falsely claiming that the Triplex was 30,000 square feet, resulting in an overvaluation of between $114-207 million dollars. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 782 at Rows 833-834, 1028, 783 at Rows 799-800, 1199, 784 at Rows 843-844, 785 at Rows 882-883, 789 at Row 913, 817. The misrepresentation continued even after defendants received written notification from Forbes that Donald Trump had been overestimating the square footage of the Triplex by a factor of three.!!

In opposition, defendants absurdly suggest that “the calculation of square footage is a subjective process that could lead to differing results or opinions based on the method employed to conduct the calculation.'” NYSCEF Doc. No. 1293 at 20. Well yes, perhaps, if the area is rounded or oddly shaped, it is possible measurements of square footage could come to slightly differing results due to user error. Good-faith measurements could vary by as much as 10-20%, not 200%. A discrepancy of this order of magnitude, by a real estate developer sizing up his own living space of decades, can only be considered fraud.'

OAG unquestionably satisfies its two-prong burden of demonstrating the SFCs from 2012-2016 calculated the value of the Triplex based on a false and misleading square footage, and that some of the defendants repeatedly and persistently used the SFCs to transact business.

 

There is no factual dispute here. Trump inflated the square footage to 300% of its actual value. His purported dispute of fact was that maybe math isn't math and a building's measurements are subjective. That is stupid.  And it was never going to be sufficient to defeat summary judgment. 

 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 10
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 47836

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Solid research. Bless your heart.

You got drug by about 10 posters here pointing out your ignorance on things, as well as facts and misunderstandings you've had that are blatantly wrong, and your response to all that was some version of "Bookmark this thread when it all gets resolved." It's been akin to watching an aggie convince themselves that they are a championship team, every year, despite an entire existence of proof otherwise. Honestly I haven't gotten this kind of vibe since TTomTerrific was here posting pictures of Amy Coney Barrett and saying she was going to overturn the election in the supeme court. 

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 9
  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...