床总再赔3.55亿刀！

[qwerty0]

也许75M的评估过于骇人听闻，法官没有采纳，判决书这样瞒天过海：

Nonetheless, Donald Trump insisted that he believed Mar-a-Lago is worth “between a billion
and a billion five” today, which would require not only valuing it as a private residence, which
the deed prohibits, but as more than the most expensive private residence listed in the country
by approximately 400%. 20 TT 3530.

注意，这里法官评估地产价值的方法是引用下面这篇报道，比较专业：

According to a CNBC report, as of January 7, 2022, the most expensive private family residence listing
in the United States was $295 million, for a newly developed 105,000 square foot mega-mansion in Los
Angeles, California. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/07/most-expensive-home-in-america-lists-for-295-
million-may-head-to-auction.html.

 

[飞来客]

床总也带货，卖鞋了？！

他是生意人，被罚了3.55亿，能甘心吗？当然要从其他渠道捞回些。

美国式民主，就是这样。

 

[qwerty0]

原告：

In other words, valuing Mar-a-Lago as an operating business would not have supported the sky-high numbers the Trump Organization had generated using a valuation method based on a hypothetical residential development without Mar-a-Lago’s restrictions—so the Trump Organization simply chose not to value the property as the operating business it was.

可惜如同主流媒体只扣帽子不亮干货的作风一致，原告没有讲为什么按照私人住宅评估会比商业用途评估高很多
原告还列举了很多诸多Trump夸大Mar-a-lago评估价值的具体方法，估计诸位大侠们看了会大呼过瘾 ... 不过不知是因为过于玄虚还是什么原因，这些判决书没有提，而是重点在：

Mar-a-lago被错误地 “valued Mar-a-Lago as if it could be sold as a single-family residence, notwithstanding the deeded prohibitions against such use in perpetuity”

 

[qwerty0]

关于能不能按照私人住宅评估，没有找到协议原文，两份文档关于这个限制的文字有：

- limits changes to the Property including, without limitation, division or subdivision” of Mar-a-Lago “for any purpose, including use as single family homes

- When confronted with the 2002 deed18 in which he signed away, in perpetuity, the right to use or develop Mar-a-Lago as anything other than as a social club, in exchange for a conservation easement tax benefit, he offered that “when you say, ‘intend,’ intend doesn’t mean we will do it.”

- In 2002, Donald Trump granted a conservation easement to the National Trust for Historic Preservation and signed a deed in which, in addition to conveying the rights to develop or use Mar-a-Lago for any purpose other than a social club, the Deed further “limits changes to the Property including, without limitation, the division or subdivision of the Property for any purpose, including use as single family homes

- In exchange for executing the 2002 Deed, in which he gave away, in perpetuity, the right to develop or use the property as a single-family residence, Donald Trump paid significantly lower property taxes on Mar-a-Lago.

那么按照私人住宅评估，而不是有限制的商业用途评估地产价值，是否违反了这两份协议？如果违反了这两份协议算什么罪？

 

[qwerty0]

Trump的人辩护：

Flemmons testified that it would be “appropriate” for the Trump Organization to use a methodology that valued selling Mar-a-Lago to a private individual to be used as a private residence,

On direct examination, Shubin attempted to offer a host of legal conclusions about the deed restrictions that encumber Mar-a-Lago, plaintiff’s objections to which this Court sustained, as it is exclusively the Court’s province to interpret and apply the law

这个算不算罪俺不懂，大侠们发挥吧

 

[qwerty0]

法盲阿Q总结的Mar-a-lago干货在这里，不对请指正

126-room, 62,500 sq ft (5,810 m2)[1] mansion (on 17 acres of land[2])

- 2012年Trump评估价值$769M
- NY AG说 generated annual revenues of less than $25 million and should have been valued at closer to $75 million
- 法官说两个问题
1. 违反了Trump跟当地签的两个协议，不应该按照私人住宅评估
2. 就算按照私人住宅评估，引用这篇报道说估价过高，但没有说合理的估价多少

惊天大诈骗案最重要的一环，就这么简单

 

[qwerty0]

关于能不能按照私人住宅评估，没有找到协议原文，两份文档关于这个限制的文字有：

- limits changes to the Property including, without limitation, division or subdivision” of Mar-a-Lago “for any purpose, including use as single family homes

- When confronted with the 2002 deed18 in which he signed away, in perpetuity, the right to use or develop Mar-a-Lago as anything other than as a social club, in exchange for a conservation easement tax benefit, he offered that “when you say, ‘intend,’ intend doesn’t mean we will do it.”

- In 2002, Donald Trump granted a conservation easement to the National Trust for Historic Preservation and signed a deed in which, in addition to conveying the rights to develop or use Mar-a-Lago for any purpose other than a social club, the Deed further “limits changes to the Property including, without limitation, the division or subdivision of the Property for any purpose, including use as single family homes

- In exchange for executing the 2002 Deed, in which he gave away, in perpetuity, the right to develop or use the property as a single-family residence, Donald Trump paid significantly lower property taxes on Mar-a-Lago.

那么按照私人住宅评估，而不是有限制的商业用途评估地产价值，是否违反了这两份协议？如果违反了这两份协议算什么罪？

没有协议原文，阿Q假设原告/判决书会引用所有对他们有利的条文，可惜没有看到这些：
- Trump能不能卖这个地产 -- 臆想一下，如果不能卖的话，Trump死后咋办？充公？
- 如果能卖，卖给下家的时候这个协议是否继续生效？下家能改变使用用途吗？
- 当然协议不会涉及到在没有改变用途，没有出卖意图的情况下，应该怎样评估该资产
- 没有说明如果违反协议将得到什么处罚？

所以什么都是法官说了算。牛

 

[qwerty0]

只看湖海山庄，其他的“欺诈“案就不用看了吧

 

[qwerty0]

不会吧？这么容易CFC就达成共识了？不管你讨厌不讨厌Trump，都认可这是一个赤裸裸的低级的司法迫害，政治迫害？

 

[ztbll]

不会吧？这么容易CFC就达成共识了？不管你讨厌不讨厌Trump，都认可这是一个赤裸裸的低级的司法迫害，政治迫害？

相当低级的政治迫害。不承认的，无非就是出自内心的恨，各种各样的恨，而cfc上的绝对都是那种蠢恨蠢恨的。

 

[向问天]

不会吧？这么容易CFC就达成共识了？不管你讨厌不讨厌Trump，都认可这是一个赤裸裸的低级的司法迫害，政治迫害？

CFC达成不达成共识重要吗？司法系统和司法实践本质上是人类社会自己搞出来的系统，即不是自然的或者上帝创造的。这个系统怎么创建、后面怎么调整，都是人类的实践和探索。

美国是灯塔国。它的司法实践就是人类前进的方向。说什么政治迫害，难听了。司法可以独立于政治吗？政治既然必须参与司法，其结果你认为是迫害，你的对面可能认为是政府主持了公道。前面的帖子中我说了，川普可以反咬过去，他还享有这个权利。他是能人，他有翻盘的机会。所以这个司法对他就是公平的。

 

[qwerty0]

其实啊，阳光底下真的没有新鲜事。

鲁迅文章中的“看客”形象

“看客”是中国现代文学作品中刻画的一类重要群体，这类人的精神往往是病态的，他们麻木冷漠，对别人的悲惨遭际冷眼旁观。很多现代文学作品都对“看客”形象与心理进行了刻画，其中鲁迅的小说对“看客”的描写尤为…

zhuanlan.zhihu.com

 

[qwerty0]

CFC达成不达成共识重要吗？

非常重要！比如以后阿Q如果在村长的垃圾楼里说话腰杆子就硬些了

前面的帖子中我说了，川普可以反咬过去，他还享有这个权利。他是能人，他有翻盘的机会。所以这个司法对他就是公平的。

其一，楼是讲Trump的：

- Trump有翻盘的机会吗？当然有，而且机会极大，但是可能在大选之后了
- 他们搞司法迫害终极是为了把Trump放倒吗？当然不是。其一，上台之前干扰大选； 其二，如果在台上，逼其就范，按照deep state的意愿治国
- 所以对于Deep state来讲，最终Trump能不能在这些尿官司中翻盘根本不重要。何况他们是拿纳税人的钱在打官司，最终输了官司deep state没有任何个人会受到任何惩罚
- 如果Trump没有远远超乎常人的意志力，早就被干趴下，早就缴械投降了
- Trump一家做了什么伤天害理的事情，要承受这样的灾难？你们还认为罪有应得？

其二，单从Trump个人的角度看问题显得格局小了 参照上面鲁迅的帖子

 

[qwerty0]

单从Trump个人的角度看问题显得格局小了 参照上面鲁迅的帖子

不太对，改改

- 看客的问题， 参照上面鲁迅的帖子：只要不直接关系到自己的钱包，就和自己无关；柿子挑软的捏，不捏白不捏，别人捏我不能不捏 ... ...
- 这种事情真的跟屁民无关吗？真的吗？seriouslly.
- 你Y除了在网上JJYY，你还能干点啥实事? 至少我们有手里的选票

 

[ztbll]

不太对，改改

- 看客的问题， 参照上面鲁迅的帖子：只要不直接关系到自己的钱包，就和自己无关；柿子挑软的捏，不捏白不捏，别人捏我不能不捏 ... ...
- 这种事情真的跟屁民无关吗？真的吗？seriouslly.
- 你Y除了在网上JJYY，你还能干点啥实事? 至少我们有手里的选票

有选民支持也没用，毕竟枪杆子刀把子都在敌人手里，光讲道理没有用，老川的问题就是太守法了，结果被法律给玩死。