He can’t answer that question because he’s a liar who lacks above anverage intelligence. Always has been, always will be. Seems like the type who is waiting for a parent he can’t stand to die and leave their hard-earned assets to their loser son.
Hey retard, after you show off your brains again answering my question, head on back to the football board so you can embarrass yourself on it some more.
Defendants have argued vociferously throughout the trial that there can be no fraud as, they
assert, that none of the banks or insurance companies relied on any of the alleged
misrepresentations . The proponents of this theory posit that lenders demand complex statements
of financial condition but then ignore them.
Defendants' argument is to no avail, as none of plaintiff's causes of action requires that it
demonstrate reliance. Instead, plaintiff must merely show that defendants intended to commit
the fraud. Reliance is not a requisite element of either Executive Law § 63(12) or of any of the
alleged Penal Law violations. See, e.g., People v Essner, 124 Misc 2d 830, 834 (Sup Ct, NY
County 1984) ( Reliance then is not an element of [Penal Law § 175.45 - Falsifying Business
Records] , and documents subpoenaed to prove or disprove reliance by the banks are
immaterial ).
However, the Court notes that, although not required, there is ample documentary and
testimonial evidence that the banks, insurance companies, and the City of New York did, in fact,
rely on defendants to be truthful and accurate in their financial submissions. The testimony in
this case makes abundantly clear that most, if not all, loans began life based on numbers on an
SFC, which the lenders interpreted in their own unique way. The testimony confirmed, rather
than refuted, the overriding importance of SFCs in lending decisions.*
*To take one of innumerable examples, Robert Unell testified that Deutsche Bank and Ladder Capital
would have analyzed Donald Trump's net worth based on the contents ofthe SFCs. Indeed, witness after
witness testified that the SFCs were important to them, and/ or were the starting point of their analysis."
Comments
Open hypocrisy and fascism. I get H when things finally come to a head. Guaranteed he’s depending on others in a pinch.
He can’t answer that question because he’s a liar who lacks above anverage intelligence. Always has been, always will be. Seems like the type who is waiting for a parent he can’t stand to die and leave their hard-earned assets to their loser son.
Pitchfork is right again. Letticia is just the latest hero of the left to be a criminal fraud loved because she hates Trump
Maybe she can get a cell next to Michael Avennati
Exactly, there is a reason the banks do their own appraisals.
@HuskyBuck
Hey retard, after you show off your brains again answering my question, head on back to the football board so you can embarrass yourself on it some more.
To answer the original question.
Mean tweets - is your answer.
Disregard:
Great economy
Low unemployment
Low interest rates
Low rate of inflation
Peace breaking out in the Middle East
ISIS on the run
Russia staying in their own country
Historical funding of HBCU
Repeal of the crime bill Joe Biden put in place
Energy independence
Stay in Mexico
But really- It's about mean tweets.
"Reliance
Defendants have argued vociferously throughout the trial that there can be no fraud as, they
assert, that none of the banks or insurance companies relied on any of the alleged
misrepresentations . The proponents of this theory posit that lenders demand complex statements
of financial condition but then ignore them.
Defendants' argument is to no avail, as none of plaintiff's causes of action requires that it
demonstrate reliance. Instead, plaintiff must merely show that defendants intended to commit
the fraud. Reliance is not a requisite element of either Executive Law § 63(12) or of any of the
alleged Penal Law violations. See, e.g., People v Essner, 124 Misc 2d 830, 834 (Sup Ct, NY
County 1984) ( Reliance then is not an element of [Penal Law § 175.45 - Falsifying Business
Records] , and documents subpoenaed to prove or disprove reliance by the banks are
immaterial ).
However, the Court notes that, although not required, there is ample documentary and
testimonial evidence that the banks, insurance companies, and the City of New York did, in fact,
rely on defendants to be truthful and accurate in their financial submissions. The testimony in
this case makes abundantly clear that most, if not all, loans began life based on numbers on an
SFC, which the lenders interpreted in their own unique way. The testimony confirmed, rather
than refuted, the overriding importance of SFCs in lending decisions.*
*To take one of innumerable examples, Robert Unell testified that Deutsche Bank and Ladder Capital
would have analyzed Donald Trump's net worth based on the contents ofthe SFCs. Indeed, witness after
witness testified that the SFCs were important to them, and/ or were the starting point of their analysis."
(emphasis added for the rubes)
Look the dumbass is quoting something
Based on your post-voting history, how would any reasonable person conclude otherwise?
.
How is there fraud involved when the banks do their own, arms-length evaluation of the property?
A commercial appraisal is a rigorous endeavor.
The bank has no other compulsory duty than their own due diligence. Then they make their own decisions for themselves.
But fraud. Or some happy horseshit HH saw on msnbc.
.
I enjoy this thread for so many reasons.
Please continue.
Copy/paste without a source.
A new level of retardation for the Tug Leftists.
Of course you do. You’re an autistic asshole and you think you’re clever yet can’t answer the question addressed to you in this thread.
I’m guessing you cup your own farts, too.
Thanks again as always for responding in a timely manner to legitimate queries.
.
Mensa candidates can't figure out what's being quoted.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the subject
Dumbass
Still can’t answer. Fucking retard.
A law that had never been used before? That law?
It's only Trump guys
Why am I being asked? I’m not a subject matter expert on this.
People who are, however, have said…well…you don’t seem to agree.