The target was men 40-55 with substantial household income and net worth. Not ‘rich,’ perhaps, but not down-and-outers.
But that’s the key element of fraud: using a plausible, even admirable front to shill worthless goods. I don’t have trouble seeing how $40M worth of would-be Dealers stuck in middle management would take DT at face value on the offer. If you were promised substantial one-on-one and small-group access to the top guy in your field, with tutoring by those in the next tier down, what would it be worth to you?
Of course, you might be upset if that turned out to be a large and brief cocktail reception with Big Guy and tutoring by a bunch of community-college “experts.”
Even worse than not reading cites in general is not reading your own cites.
And even worse than that is continuing to misrepresent them after it’s been pointed out to you.
Your quote says two separate things. 1) “how would-be students were badgered into buying courses”, and 2) “how students were encouraged to make some extremely sketchy financial decisions in the process”.
To quote from the actual Trump literature cited in your article (emphasis added)
So they weren’t saying put up money for tuition that you don’t have by using credit cards, but rather, pay for investments with credit cards or pay tuition with credit cards to preserve capital for your investments (which is effectively the same thing).
I don’t think the case is going to come down to whether the advice was good, or whether people paid money they could afford. The issue, as I understand it, is how involved Trump was with the whole operation. The classes were billed as being taught by “real estate experts” that were “hand picked” by Trump. In reality, the people who taught the classes had no special real estate expertise (i.e. they were hired based on their ability to upsell the classes, so as to convince the person who paid for 1 day to pony up for a week). And none of them were interviewed by Trump. At best, he affirmed the selections made by the guy who hired the instructors (i.e. resumes were put on his desk, and he said, “fine” to the choices).
That is the fraudulent element.
[QUOTE=Amateur Barbarian]
If you were promised substantial one-on-one and small-group access to the top guy in your field, with tutoring by those in the next tier down, what would it be worth to you?
Of course, you might be upset if that turned out to be a large and brief cocktail reception with Big Guy and tutoring by a bunch of community-college “experts.”
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. (Except I don’t even think the students got to meet Trump. But they did get to take a picture next to a cardboard cutout of his likeness).
If you are a talented and knowledgeable person you do your own research and aren’t taken in by get-rich-quick schemes.
It’s a handwave at credibility without any intent of letting people out so they could actually consult with a lawyer. Surely you realize this wasn’t the only tactic they used to make the sale.
You’re missing one part of the equation: value for money. This is no better than most telemarketing scams I’ve come across over the years.
Agreed. I would say most wealth seminars are like this.
Does anyone remember those infomercials from the 80s and 90s from Henry Vu(I think that was his name) featuring the guy driving around in a motorboat surrounded by babes looking like something out of Miami Vice?
Same type of thing.
I feel the same about three friends from work who’ve into that Herbalife crap. I think they’re being conned and it’s obviously crap, but that doesn’t mean I don’t feel sympathy towards them.
Besides, I know I often come across as an arrogant prick who always thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room, but the fact is most of us when we’re desperate, are gullible. I’m sure we all have that friend who fell in love with a guy or girl who was awful for them whom we all knew was bad for them who common sense should have told them to get rid of but they wouldn’t.
If the guys had no real estate expertise I would tend to agree. But the “handpicked by Trump” stuff sounds like more standard jive.
I get all these mass-mailed letters claiming to be special offers offered to a limited number of hand-selected lucky recipients. [Some of these are addressed to “Fotheringay-Phipps or current resident” :)] Criminal?
Actually all the people I know who were successful in this field didn’t do either of these things.
The way to make it in this field (as with most other fields) is to work your way in gradually, starting small and hobnobbing with others who have more experience in the field. Gradually you expand your expertise and contacts and move into bigger and bigger investments.
But that’s neither here nor there, I would think.
What does “letting people out” mean in this context? They were advising people on how to get capital for their investments. They were not going to be holding them prisoner forever.
What of it?
Having said that “I would scoff at the notion that it would have been worthwhile for people to attend TU”, I don’t know what additional “value for money” aspect you’re adding here.
So much interest…years ago, when I was young and naive, I wrote a letter to the National Enquirer criticizing their reporting. Of course, the response was, “Thank you for reading the Enquirer…”
“I will be pres…” he says. President of the “University,” president of the US, or both simultaneously?
Sometime around 2003-2004 my boss at the time got a hold of some tickets that were given to her for a “SUCCESS” seminar at the Minneapolis Convention Center with keynote speaker Donald Trump. They had some outrageous face value on them like $250/ea but somehow they were generously given to “choice” companies around town.
She wanted me to go to the event and while I had no desire to go it was a weekday and an excuse to get out of work. So I went in blind expecting some type of motivational crap. (I had been sent to a Tony Robbins seminar at a previous job and thought it was a bunch of b.s.)
It ended up being a long list of opening speakers starting at 9a.m. and Trump wasn’t going to appear til around 4.
I lasted through 2-1/2 speakers. The entire thing was a sham. Each “speaker” was there to hawk their own get-rich-quick books/tapes/software etc. The place was crammed with people giving up their day to sit through infomercials.
The most depressing thing was watching the crowd get sucked into every presentation. Some guy I remember was showing off his software that would track the entire stock market, find patterns, and give you buy/sell flags.:smack: Of course it was for sale immediately after at the side tables for hundreds of dollars. And huge lines would form. Poor schlubs handing over their cash for this garbage.
I left at noon with a bad taste in my mouth and a permanent impression of Donald Trump as the ring leader of a modern traveling snake-oil salesmen troupe.
I once skimmed the deposition of Trump by the opposing counsel. It’s online. There are a lot of questions about whether he knew the instructors, whether he interviewed them, how he selected them. I expect that is part of the angle.
Of course, you are correct that the other side would have some argument that Trump didn’t really mean he was going to be personally there. He’s so yuuuuge that no reasonable person would think he was going to be able to attend graduations or actually deal with the students (or their instructors, I guess) in any personal way.
Republicans-your party is going to nominate this thieving doofus to run for President of your country. How does it feel to be as relevant to your own party as the Log Cabiners?
Doesn’t seem very quick for a get-rich-quick scheme to me.
Giving them time to consult with a lawyer, not continuing to push them to buy right now. I know sales too; you don’t give potential customers time to change their minds; you get the credit card number at all costs. Sadly, some people are much more vulnerable to these tactics than others.
Your rationale was that it wasn’t fraudulent for the staff to sell this garbage, basically invoking caveat emptor. Your claim, in effect, was that it was the consumers who were weak enough to be taken in by their tactics that were at fault. The issue isn’t whether you thought it was of value; it’s whether it was reasonably of value for their money, and it clearly wasn’t.
I’d be willing to bet you’re going to see a settlement from Trump in the end, because otherwise the courts are going to slap him sideways. Gotta love punitive damages.
Well, recall that Trump is also being sued for elder abuse: [INDENT][INDENT]His now-discontinued Trump University operation has been accused not just of fraud, false advertising, and unfair business practices, but also of having used such tactics against vulnerable seniors in ways that violated special “financial elder abuse” statutes in California and Florida. [/INDENT][/INDENT] Trump University: How Bad Are the Charges Against Trump U? Really bad. | Fortune
More generally, most people aren’t particularly sophisticated financially. As an example, while index funds are popular, there is a lot money devoted to mutual funds with high expense ratios and unclear merit given tendencies for returns to revert to the mean. Past results in no way guarantee future performance. I admit I shake my head at those who respond to high pressure sales tactics (teachers at Trump University were chosen more for that background than for actual real estate experience), but it’s not exactly uncommon. Something I don’t fully understand.
Oh, I have no problem prosecuting him to the full extent of the law. But, really, how gullible do you have to be. Is there anyone here who can honestly say they might give Trump thousands of dollars to take a class at his University? It’s laughable.
What they were advocating was possibly using your retirement funds to buy real estate. TU wasn’t selling real estate, they were selling seminars, and they didn’t advocate using retirement fund to pay for the seminar.
This was not a sales technique. It was part of the course.
By the time you were up to the point of using your retirement money to fund your real estate purchase you had long since departed from the seminar, and they couldn’t do anything to stop you from consulting a lawyer.
I don’t see your point here, but whatever, I guess.
“Consult your tax attorney” is head fake. First, they flatter you that you have a tax attorney, being as you are clearly the sort of upscale, successful person that this all appeals to. Not the oldest trick in the book, one of them. And Danny Dumfuk is going to say to himself, “Well, if they are that confident that my tax attorney would approve, then they must be legit!” Just guessing here, but I very much doubt that anyone who has a tax attorney on retainer has signed up with Trump Univ…excuse, Entrepreneurial Center…has done so. Because they don’t have one, and the salesman knows that.
