USSA watch: Mar a Lago worth $300 million plus; judge lies & calls it $18 million as threat to Biden's opposition leader
-
@blablarg18 said in USSA watch: Mar a Lago worth $300 million plus; judge lies & calls it $18 million as threat to Biden's opposition leader:
For generations, before him, people done real estate appraisals wrong.
I'm not sure why the Trump defense team didn't call you two brain-trusts as witnesses for the trial. As it was, they didn't produce any credible appraisal witnesses during the trial to corroborate your theories on the property's values.
Why? Why didn't all of Trump's lawyers just find one of these trustworthy appraisers you guys are relying on? How could they have been so negligent in his defense?
-
Why aren't you ranting about a $195 mil condo in NYC?
We all know why, because it has nothing to do with Trump, so it doesn't trigger your extreme TDS.
-
@raphjd Why? Why didn't all of Trump's lawyers just find one of these trustworthy appraisers you guys are relying on? How could they have been so negligent in his defense?
-
Lawyers are quite often shit.
I'm not defending the appraisals, just pointing out that $300 mil isn't that much.
The judge in the case has a history of ruling against developers, per the link I posted earlier in the thread.
You have extreme TDS. If we switched Biden for Trump, you would be raging.
-
Update: New York court throws out penalty.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y09q1zgg8o
on USA 8A grounds: Even if there was fraud (but there wasn't) or harm (none was shown), $500m penalty was so far out, it violates USA ban on "cruel and unusual punishment."
Case suffers from many more flaws. Appeals rightly will continue until case is obliterated.
While several [NY-lib] judges said she was "within her lawful power in bringing this action", one believed the case should have been dismissed and two said that there should be a new trial of a more limited scope.
Those two, though, joined the decision to throw out the fine "for the sole purpose of ensuring finality", wrote Judge Moulton.
American voters had "obviously rendered a verdict" on Trump's political career, Judge Moulton also wrote, and "this bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business".
The ruling amounted to a "judicial version of kicking the can down the road", said Will Thomas, an assistant professor of business law at the University of Michigan.
"By its own admission, the Appellate Courts is punting the real legal decision up to the New York Court of Appeals, noting that its unusual decision was made 'for the sole purpose of ensuring finality,'" he said.
"Would you have a 300-page opinion if this were Joe Smith the businessman, and not Donald Trump?"
