Undisputed testimony under oath

I realize you attorneys take short-cuts all the time. That is part of the problem, as I see it.

Where the hell were you during the Covid scam and violations of constitutional rights?

But I digress ...

Back on point. Like I said, I would not be surprised if Trump's attorneys STUPIDLY waived his rights, which is what you imply here by claiming they stipulated to "undisputed facts."

But elsewhere in this thread, it is clear from an article that the appraisers in question STAND BY their work, meaning their valuations.

Trump is accused of fraudulent valuations of real estate. But those valuations are supported by the appraisals. AG doesn't like the valuations, but so what? The appraisals support the valuations.

Why were the appraisers (and bank employees who reviewed the appraisals) not brought in as witnesses, subject to cross-examination, by the defense in a TRIAL?

AG says Trump inflated valuations. Appraisers support Trump's valuations.

There IS a dispute of material facts, if the case is for fraudulent valuations and appraisers support the valuations.

Unless there is something I'm missing, which is possible because I have not been following it. But based on DJT and Eric Trump's reactions, they certainly seem to think that there was supposed to be a trial (scheduled for 10/2) to determine the issue of fraud.

34 years or not, your industry has a nasty habit of taking short-cuts, because salaries are more important than justice and law.

Prosecutors have a 99% success rate not because they are brilliant, but because they can put undue pressure on defendants, and defendants' attorneys would rather not rock the boat than put up a vigorous defense.

"In more than 60 years in court rooms across America, I have never -- hear me now, NEVER -- had a case in which the government did not lie or cheat. Not one time." -- Gerry Spence (never lost a criminal case, lost only one civil case in 61 years as a trial lawyer)

If the appraisers are saying they disagree with the AG's view of fraudulent valuations, and their valuations support Trump's claims, and THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY, then (a) why would Trump's lawyers stipulate to fraudulent valuations (if they did; hard to believe they would), and/or (b) what is the judge doing issuing this judgement without a trial?

Undisputed testimony under oath

I realize you attorneys take short-cuts all the time. That is part of the problem, as I see it.

Where the hell were you during the Covid scam and violations of constitutional rights?

But I digress ...

Back on point. Like I said, I would not be surprised if Trump's attorneys STUPIDLY waived his rights, which is what you imply here by claiming they stipulated to "undisputed facts."

But elsewhere in this thread, it is clear from an article that the appraisers in question STAND BY their work, meaning their valuations.

Trump is accused of fraudulent valuations of real estate. But those valuations are supported by the appraisals. AG doesn't like the valuations, but so what? The appraisals support the valuations.

Why were the appraisers (and bank employees who reviewed the appraisals) not brought in as witnesses, subject to cross-examination, by the defense in a TRIAL?

AG says Trump inflated valuations. Appraisers support Trump's valuations.

There IS a dispute of material facts, if the case is for fraudulent valuations and appraisers support the valuations.

Unless there is something I'm missing, which is possible because I have not been following it. But based on DJT and Eric Trump's reactions, they certainly seem to think that there was supposed to be a trial (scheduled for 10/2) to determine the issue of fraud.

34 years or not, your industry has a nasty habit of taking short-cuts, because salaries are more important than justice and law.

Proscutors have a 99% success rate not because they are brilliant, but because they can put undue pressure on defendants, and defendants' attorneys would rather not rock the boat than put up a vigorous defense.

"In more than 60 years in court rooms across America, I have never -- hear me now, NEVER -- had a case in which the government did not lie or cheat. Not one time." -- Gerry Spence (never lost a criminal case, lost only one civil case in 61 years as a trial lawyer)

If the appraisers are saying they disagree with the AG's view of fraudulent valuations, and their valuations support Trump's claims, and THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY, then (a) why would Trump's lawyers stipulate to fraudulent valuations (if they did; hard to believe they would), and/or (b) what is the judge doing issuing this judgement without a trial?

Undisputed testimony under oath

I realize you attorneys take short-cuts all the time. That is part of the problem, as I see it.

Where the hell were you during the Covid scam and violations of constitutional rights?

But I digress ...

Back on point. Like I said, I would not be surprised if Trump's attorneys STUPIDLY waived his rights, which is what you imply here by claiming they stipulated to "undisputed facts."

But elsewhere in this thread, it is clear from an article that the appraisers in question STAND BY their work, meaning their valuations.

Trump is accused of fraudulent valuations of real estate. But those valuations are supported by the appraisals. AG doesn't like the valuations, but so what? The appraisals support the valuations.

Why were the appraisers (and bank employees who reviewed the appraisals) not brought in as witnesses, subject to cross-examination, by the defense in a TRIAL?

AG says Trump inflated valuations. Appraisers support Trump's valuations.

There IS a dispute of material facts, if the case is for fraudulent valuations and appraisers support the valuations.

Unless there is something I'm missing, which is possible because I have not been following it. But based on DJT and Eric Trump's reactions, they certainly seem to think that there was supposed to be a trial (scheduled for 10/2) to determine the issue of fraud.

34 years or not, your industry has a nasty habit of taking short-cuts, because salaries are more important than justice and law.

Proscutors have a 99% success rate not because they are brilliant, but because they can put undue pressure on defendants, and defendants' attorneys would rather not rock the boat than put up a vigorous defense.

"In more than 60 years in court rooms across America, I have never -- hear me now, NEVER -- had a case in which the government did not lie or cheat. Not one time." -- Gerry Spence (never lost a criminal case, lost only one civil case in 61 years of law)

If the appraisers are saying they disagree with the AG's view of fraudulent valuations, and their valuations support Trump's claims, and THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY, then (a) why would Trump's lawyers stipulate to fraudulent valuations (if they did; hard to believe they would), and/or (b) what is the judge doing issuing this judgement without a trial?

Undisputed testimony under oath

I realize you attorneys take short-cuts all the time. That is part of the problem, as I see it.

Where the hell were you during the Covid scam and violations of constitutional rights?

But I digress ...

Back on point. Like I said, I would not be surprised if Trump's attorneys STUPIDLY waived his rights, which is what you imply here by claiming they stipulated to "undisputed facts."

But elsewhere in this thread, it is clear from an article that the appraisers in question STAND BY their work, meaning their valuations.

Trump is accused of fraudulent valuations of real estate. But those valuations are supported by the appraisals. AG doesn't like the valuations, but so what? The appraisals support the valuations.

Why were the appraisers (and bank employees who reviewed the appraisals) not brought in as witnesses, subject to cross-examination, by the defense in a TRIAL?

AG says Trump inflated valuations. Appraisers support Trump's valuations.

There IS a dispute of material facts, if the case is for fraudulent valuations and appraisers support the valuations.

Unless there is something I'm missing, which is possible because I have not been following it. But based on DJT and Eric Trump's reactions, they certainly seem to think that there was supposed to be a trial (scheduled for 10/2) to determine the issue of fraud.

34 years or not, your industry has a nasty habit of taking short-cuts, because salaries are more important that justice and law.

Proscutors have a 99% success rate not because they are brilliant, but because they can put undue pressure on defendants, and defendants' attorneys would rather not rock the boat than put up a vigorous defense.

"In more than 60 years in court rooms across America, I have never -- hear me now, NEVER -- had a case in which the government did not lie or cheat. Not one time." -- Gerry Spence (never lost a criminal case, lost only one civil case in 61 years of law)

If the appraisers are saying they disagree with the AG's view of fraudulent valuations, and their valuations support Trump's claims, and THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY, then (a) why would Trump's lawyers stipulate to fraudulent valuations (if they did; hard to believe they would), and/or (b) what is the judge doing issuing this judgement without a trial?