“From 2011-2021, the Palm Beach County Assessor appraised the market value of Mar-a-Lago at between $18 million and $27.6 million,” Engoron wrote in his ruling.

The judge noted Trump valued Mar-a-Lago at between $426.5 million and $612 million, “an overvaluation of at least 2,300%, compared to the assessor’s appraisal.”

But it’s widely known that the tax assessor valuation is typically, though not always, less than what a property would command on the open market.

In other words, it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. 

“Appraisal values and market values are just not the same thing. It’s a well-known fact,” said Eli Beracha, chair of the school of real estate at Florida International University. “That’s especially true for properties that are unique. And it’s very easy to argue this is a unique property.” 

Dina Goldentayer, executive director of sales at Douglas Elliman in South Florida, said in her experience in the ultra-luxury marketplace the tax assessor’s valuation isn’t considered when trying to value a property. 

“He wouldn’t make a very good realtor,” Goldentayer said of the judge. “It’s so widely known that it’s not an accurate determination of market value.”

Goldentayer added, “If there is a ranking as to what would have the lowest valuation, it’s the tax assessor’s office, followed by Zillow and then the realtor’s valuation is the highest.” 

It’s not correct to assume that a tax assessment and market value are the same thing, according to Jonathan Miller, president and CEO of Miller Samuel Inc., a real estate appraisal company in New York City.

“They can be, in some markets they are the same thing, but in most others they are not,” Miller said. 

Melissa Cintron, partner in the insurance defense and corporate and real estate practice groups at Harrington Ocko & Monk, said it’s “not contestable” that Mar-a-Lago is worth more than $28 million based on improvements and a market analysis. 

Of course, just because the tax assessment value used by the judge may have lowballed the value of Mar-a-Lago, doesn’t necessarily mean Trump used a fair valuation for Mar-a-Lago. That point is up for debate.

“It is certainly not clear what the value is,” said Miller. “The test is what the market would suss out for the property. The challenge is that isn’t a single-family house.”

The judge, in his ruling, noted that Trump agreed to use Mar-a-Lago as a social club and that there are restrictions limiting the property’s potential use as a single-family residence.

Typically, realtors, buyers and sellers would try to determine an estimated valuation on a property by comparing it to similar ones that have been recently sold in the same area. But that may not be possible when dealing with a unique property, especially one owned by a famous person and that functions as a private club. 

“Mar-a-Lago is such a trophy asset. It’s in a completely different league of its own,” said Goldentayer, the South Florida realtor. 

Goldentayer said to come up with a value on Mar-a-Lago, she would hire three independent appraisers and take a blended average of their valuations. She would not use the tax appraiser’s valuation. 

Trump and his attorneys have strongly criticized last week’s ruling. Trump attorney Christopher Kise called the ruling “completely disconnected from the facts and governing law.”

Trump accused Engoron of “doing the bidding” of New York Attorney General Letitia James.

However, the ruling was not based solely on Mar-a-Lago. The NY judge found multiple instances of Trump and his adult sons having inflated the value of properties. 

For instance, Engoron found that Trump inflated the value of properties at 40 Wall Street and the Seven Springs Estate in Westchester County, NY as well as a golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland.

Notably, Engoron found Trump inflated the size of his triplex apartment at Trump Tower by three times, causing an overvaluation of between $114 million and $207 million.

“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,” Engoron wrote.

Cintron, the Harrington Ocko & Monk partner, doesn’t think the Mar-a-Lago valuation controversy moves the needle on the question of whether Trump committed fraud.

“There is enough of a pattern of this practice that he’s engaged with in respect to his properties to support Judge Engoron’s conclusions that there was an intent to defraud,” Cintron said.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/03/business/trump-fraud-judge-mar-a-lago/index.html#:

 

AT THE JUDGE VALUATION THERE WOULD BE A MILLION PEOPLE WANTING TO BUY MAR-A-LAGO... THE JUDGE SEEMS TO BE A NUTCASE.... SEE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISD3mEAf0mI

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Observers saw shades of Trump’s victorious 2016 campaign as the former president spoke to US media outside of a New York courtroom this week.

“It’s a scam, it’s a sham,” said the former president to reporters huddled outside of a Manhattan courtroom. “It’s a witch hunt and a disgrace.” The tenor of his comments was familiar as he opined on the civil fraud case that saw him accused of inflating the value of his businesses by millions of dollars. But the subject of his ire was somewhat new.

A longtime critic of the United States’ media and political establishments, former president Donald Trump has recently added the American judicial system to his list of targets in a campaign season that once again seems poised to position the iconoclastic businessman as an outsider candidate.

It’s a role Trump is all too eager to play. He briefly waded into US politics in 2000, forming a presidential exploratory committee and promising to challenge the then-bipartisan consensus around free trade, among other issues. He waged his 2016 campaign against perhaps the most well known living representative of the Washington political establishment (former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton). And he spent his turbulent four years as president constantly at odds with detractors from all sides of the political spectrum.

Now Trump can add judges and prosecutors to his long list of adversaries.

“Every time he’s in a courtroom, he’s campaigning,” said Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman from Illinois who became a fierce critic of Trump from within his own party.

 

 

“The courtroom has replaced his rallies and that’s what the next 14 months are going to look like. He’s a showman; he loves this s***. This will be his campaign and it could work.”

 

Trump’s civil case compounds his recent legal woes, which include 91 criminal charges from four separate indictments and another civil trial that saw the former president held liable for sexually abusing and defaming columnist E. Jean Carroll earlier this year. Then, as now, he decried the case as part of a witch hunt to derail his 2024 presidential candidacy.

The legal proceedings create an unprecedented dynamic in next year’s campaign. In any other election, with any other candidate, they might spell certain doom.

Yet Trump currently remains the overwhelming favorite to win his party’s presidential primary. Most recent polling shows him running even with Biden in the general election, if not leading him.

In 2020 Trump ran as an incumbent, forced to defend his political record and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. But recently, events have conspired to once again give him the aura of an outsider, running against a political figure who was first elected to national office in 1972.

In the context of 2024’s presidential contest, the judiciary becomes just another aspect of Trump’s audacious challenge to America’s political and social system.

Polling has long shown sharply declining trust in a broad swath of US institutions. Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court remain among some of the least-respected institutions in American public life, but most others fare no better.

Such wide skepticism could create the perfect environment for Donald Trump to triumphantly return to the White House. But whatever the outcome of next year’s contest, the American public may be ready for deep reform in almost every corner of society. Whether our institutions permit such change may dictate their very survival.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20231008/teflon-don-will-donald-trump-win-by-waging-war-on-american-institutions-1114009538.html

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Judge tells Trump’s lawyers to ‘control him’

The former US president has stirred outrage at his New York fraud trial, calling the case against him a “political witch hunt”

Former US President Donald Trump has taken the stand in the New York civil fraud case against him, angering the judge by criticizing the court and arguing that he is being attacked by politically motivated prosecutors around the country.

The trial resumed on Monday with Trump testifying for the first time to rebut allegations by New York Attorney General Letitia James that he and other executives in his real estate organization fraudulently inflated the value of key properties to get favorable loan terms. James is seeking $250 million in damages in her lawsuit, which comes at a time when the ex-president also faces felony charges in four separate criminal cases against him.

While being questioned by state attorney Kevin Wallace, Trump said, “You and every other Democratic district attorney, AG, US attorney were coming after me from 15 different sides – all Democrats, all Trump haters.” He accused James of perpetrating a “political witch hunt” and claimed that Judge Arthur Engoron was biased against him.

The judge repeatedly interrupted Trump’s testimony to complain that his answers were not directly responsive to the questions and veered off into political speeches. “This is not a political rally,” Engoron told Trump’s lawyers, suggesting that they “need to have a talk with him right now.” As the ex-president continued to offer his opinions on the case, the judge said, “I beseech you to control him if you can. If you can’t, I will. I will excuse him and draw every negative inference that I can.”

At stake is the future of Trump’s real estate empire. The judge, who has already found Trump and his co-defendants liable for “persistent and repeated” fraud, will decide on penalties at the end of the trial. He has said that he will dissolve some of Trump’s companies, which could result in the ex-president losing some of his most prominent New York properties. Trump, who is polling as the leading Republican candidate in the 2024 presidential race, has called Engoron a “deranged, Trump-hating judge.”

The loans related to the disputed property valuations have already been repaid. Trump testified on Monday that although he lowered the valuations on two of his properties, his holdings were actually worth more overall than claimed on the financial statements given to lenders. “The most valuable asset was the brand value,” he said. “I became president because of my brand.”

Christopher Kise, one of Trump’s lawyers, told Engoron that it was only fair for the American people to hear the ex-president’s views on the case. “This is a situation where you have on the stand a candidate for president of the United States,” Kise said. “The court needs to hear what he has to say about these statements.”

Engoron shot back, “No, I am not here to hear what he has to say.” When another Trump lawyer stood up to argue that Trump should be allowed to answer the questions in his own way, the judge shouted, “Sit down already. Sit down.”

Undeterred by the judge’s interjections, Trump said, “This is a very, very unfair trial – very -- and I hope the public is watching it.”

READ MORE: Trump charges are political persecution – Putin

 

https://www.rt.com/news/586702-trump-angers-judge-in-new-york-fraud-trial/

 

SEE ALSO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv2Xk5pU0ZE

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVNyy58FuAY

Is this an abuse of power?

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GLrr2yNRE8

JUST IN: Donald Trump Jr. Goes After Letitia James Over 'Precedent' Being Set With NYC Fraud Trial

 

Former President Trump’s attorney Alina Habba said Sunday that she will be filing for a mistrial in the former president’s fraud cause in New York “soon,” while raising concerns that it will be the same trial judge deciding on the motion. 

Trump has repeatedly expressed concerns on both social media and in court about the judge presiding over the case, along with the judge’s principal clerk, claiming they are biased and motivated by politics. 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4306843-trump-file-mistrial-new-york-fraud-case-very-soon/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Testifying on Monday morning, Mr Trump Jr continued the charm offensive seen in his first appearance two weeks ago, appearing relaxed, cheerful and confident.

Soon after being sworn in, he drew laughs by saying New York Attorney General Letitia James - the prosecutor bringing the case - might sue him for perjury if he said "it's good to be here".

 

And, nodding to his past complaints about the courtroom sketch art, he said he "already had a talk" with the artist depicting the day's proceedings and joked that he wanted the AI version of himself - with a strong jawline and broad shoulders - to be drawn.

He even made Judge Arthur Engoron laugh when he said: "I'm, like, the nongolfer of the family, which has relegated me to the children's table in perpetuity."

• Why Trump's children are testifying in fraud case
• Trump's sons a study in contrasts in court showdown

Dressed in a dark suit and light lavender tie, the Ivy League graduate spoke of going from bartending in Colorado to starting as a project manager at the Trump Organization, and then ultimately becoming an executive.

The company dealt with "world class assets" but was like a "mom and pop" business, he said, adding that it operated as a "meritocracy".

Defence lawyers put on a lengthy presentation to introduce evidence of "the Trump story" and recount the company's history.

When prosecutors objected that the lawyers were practically giving him a "script", Mr Trump Jr quipped: "Your honour, I promise I'll keep it under six weeks."

 

It was a light jab at the state, which took six weeks to present their case.

 

As lawyers flicked through various Trump properties, Mr Trump Jr expounded on each one, from 40 Wall Street to Seven Springs.

Trump Tower was the breakthrough project that launched his father's career and "the first time he changed the skyline".

"It would be one of the first great examples of ultra-luxury real estate emerging in Manhattan - the project by which all future high-end residential condominiums would have been judged," he said.

The Mar-a-Lago resort in West Palm Beach, Florida, was "one of the few sort of American castles", with a "virtually unheard of" location that placed it by the lake and also by the ocean.

"You couldn't build that atrium for $18m today," he said, challenging appraisers' assessments of the property's worth.

 

"You need to understand it and see it to actually fully grasp the spectacular nature of this property."

He described his father, who was not present in court, as someone who was on the leading edge of creating value in properties and could turn "eyesores" into "jewels".

"He see the things that other people don't see," Mr Trump Jr said. "He sees the thing that other people would never envision. He plays the long game."

Much of the testimony was largely unrelated to the claims at the heart of the case.

Judge Engoron has already ruled Mr Trump significantly inflated the value of his properties. The trial focuses on charges of falsification of business records, insurance fraud and conspiracy.

But the judge indicated he was willing to listen to how the defence's case plays out. The Trump lawyers have already floated filing for a mistrial, accusing the judge and his clerk of bias.

As prosecutors tried to object at various points that the presentation was irrelevant, he said: "There's no jury - I don't see any prejudice to this."

Later, after an objection to a document offered by defence lawyers, he asked prosecutors: "Do you want to risk a reversal over this one stupid document?"

The state had focused heavily on financial statements and spreadsheets, but Mr Trump Jr's encore set the tone for a defence case that may last into mid-December.

After two damaging weeks of testimony already from the Trump family, however, legal experts told the BBC the case may be beyond salvaging at this point.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67408894

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

BY Peter Van Buren

 

No former president has challenged the limits of freedom of expression like Donald Trump. Often overbearing and at times downright rude, Trump has tested the boundaries of what can be called political speech. Here’s the latest.

The most significant challenge to the First Amendment came during Trump’s penalty phase trial for fraud, based on his over-valuing his properties in New York to obtain favorable loan rates. Trump tussled there with the presiding judge, Arthur Engoron and, oddly, the law clerk seated beside him on the bench.

Already upset over what he felt was the clerk’s overinvolvement in the trial (including whispering in the judge’s ear) Trump seized on a vanilla selfie photo of the clerk with Democratic Senator Charles Schumer to taunt her with the phrase “Schumer's girlfriend” and insinuate as a Democrat the clerk was inherently biased against Trump.

In the way things work in 2023, these fifth grade-level slurs plus a few Trump complaints about Engoron himself being biased morphed into “threats,” somehow. Engoron went as far as to suggest that Trump was sending attack messages to his MAGA army (“targeting”), and lives were in danger.

In retaliation, Engoron slapped a gag order on Trump, later extended to his attorneys as well. The order prohibited Trump from commenting on the trial, out loud, in the press, or on social media, and specifically said the law clerk was off-limits. Trump paid little attention to the order and was fined twice for a total of $15,000. Trump called Engoron an “extremely hostile” judge. His lawyers said there was evidence of “tangible and overwhelming” bias. Trump’s lawyers then filed a lawsuit against Engoron challenging his gag order as a violation of the First Amendment.

Lawyers for Engoron argued he and his staff received hundreds of antisemitic calls and letters. They blamed Trump’s comments about Engoron and the clerk for amplifying his supporters’ anger toward them and said the clerk is “playing Whack-A-Mole now trying to block her phone number.” 

“It’s not that Mr. Trump has directly issued threats to the staff and Judge Engoron, it’s that what he’s said has led his constituents” to make threats, the lawyers argued, comparing the potential effect to the January 6 riot and a violent attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband. 

“That is not political speech. That is threatening behavior and it should be stopped,” Engoron's lawyers argued.

The initial appeals forum which heard the case disagreed, particularly about the part saying what Trump was engaged in was not political speech. Judge David Friedman of the state’s intermediate appeals court issued a temporary stay suspending the Engoron gag order and allowing the former president to speak freely about court staff while the longer appeals process played out. Friedman questioned “Engoron’s authority to police what Trump says outside the courtroom. He also disputed the trial judge’s contention that restricting the 2024 Republican front-runner’s speech was necessary or the right remedy to protect his staff’s safety.”

Engoron’s gag order, once stayed, was reimposed pending a full hearing by an appeals court but no matter, the point had been made.

Another gag attempt was also struck down last month, after the judge overseeing Trump’s Washington J6 case briefly paused a gag order she had imposed on him. Trump reacted to this three times in three days, callingSpecial Counsel Jack Smith “deranged.” Twice he weighed in about the deposition testimony of his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who could end up a witness at the trial.

These moves prompted Smith’s team to ask the judge, Tanya Chutkan, to reinstate the gag order. She put the order back in place, though it has been frozen again as a federal appeals court considers whether Judge Chutkan properly imposed it in the first place. That suspension left Trump temporarily free of all of the gag orders placed on him.

Long term, a federal appeals court panel appeared poised to significantly narrow the gag order imposed against Donald Trump by Chutkan. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel raised concerns the order—which bars Trump from criticizing witnesses, prosecutors, and courthouse staff—created murky restrictions stifling the former president’s right to push back against his detractors, particularly in the heat of the campaign.

What at first seems novel—it happened mostly on social media!—and so very Trump—the insults, the elementary school–quality teasing—was in fact at the core of what the First Amendment is all about. Political speech is among the most protected forms of speech, moreso political speech criticizing the government. In fact not novel at all, Trump was engaged in the most basic form of expression designed to be protected by the First Amendment.

Engoron, standing in for King George here, played the role of evil government perfectly. He chose to use the power of government to stop Trump (who claims the trial is political persecution in the first place) from criticizing the government, in the guise of his court, and then doubled down by extending the order to Trump’s lawyers, and then triple-downed the whole mess saying the gag applied 24/7 to those named. This was all way beyond the limited point of a gag order, whose proper use is almost always to shield important information from a jury to not prejudice a case. A gag order should enhance democracy by protecting the right to a trial by jury, not run roughshod over it silencing the political speech of someone on trial.

The hardest thing sometimes to accept about the First Amendment is it often protects speech you don't like made by people you don’t like, in this case Trump, who is presumed guilty by some half of the electorate. This idea is captured in the quote “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” often attributed to Voltaire and apparently missing from both Engoron’s and most undergraduates’ education.

Those who bleat that support for Israel or support for Palestine has no place on campus fall squarely into the same narrow box as Engoron, wanting to block speech which personally threatens them but does not rise to the level of threat established by the Supreme Court, or offends them, somehow believing the First Amendment does not protect “hate speech.” While speech might be offensive, or even feel threatening, to some people, to others “it is an expression of a political opinion, an unfiltered reaction to a recent event, or an attempt to rally support for a cause. The freedom to share provocative ideas and spark robust debate about political issues is essential to democracy, social justice, and progress.”

That’s exactly what Trump is doing when allowed, criticizing his trials and their participants in real time via press conferences and especially social media, all protected by the First Amendment.

 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-first-amendments-unlikely-champion/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Trump Wins Appeal and Gets Bond Massively Reduced in New York Fraud Case, with Michael Knowles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJSbUkYM8Ig

 

Megyn Kelly is joined by Michael Knowles, host of The Daily Wire's "Michael Knowles Show,” to discuss Donald Trump winning his appeal and getting the bond massively reduced in the New York fraud case, the left’s hysterical reaction to this reduction, Trump's ability to continue overcoming the legal cases being thrown at him, and more.

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....