╌>

Judge Engoron's 'Violation' Opens Door for Trump Appeal: Attorney

  
Via:  Just Jim NC TttH  •  10 months ago  •  215 comments

By:   Kate Plummer (Newsweek)

Judge Engoron's 'Violation' Opens Door for Trump Appeal: Attorney
Sol Wisenberg told Fox News there were constitutional problems with the civil fraud ruling against Trump as there was "no victim."

Leave a comment to auto-join group Americana

Americana


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


By Kate Plummer FOLLOW

Judge Arthur Engoron has created an opportunity for Donald Trump to appeal his civil fraud judgment by a "due process violation," an attorney has said.

Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, former Whitewater lawyer Sol Wisenberg said there were constitutional problems with the ruling that the former president and top executives at The Trump Organization committed fraud by inflating the value of his assets to obtain more favorable terms from lenders and insurers.

On Friday, Engoron ordered Trump to pay $355 million in fines. New York State mandates a 9 percent interest rate on the sum of damages and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the lawsuit, said that with pre-judgment interest the penalty totals over $450 million—an amount "which will continue to increase every single day" until the judgment is paid.

Donald Trump speaks during a Fox News town hall on February 20, 2024 in Greenville, South Carolina. Speaking on Fox News, Sol Wisenberg criticized the civil fraud ruling against Trump.Donald Trump speaks during a Fox News town hall on February 20, 2024 in Greenville, South Carolina. Speaking on Fox News, Sol Wisenberg criticized the civil fraud ruling against Trump.Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Speaking about the judgment, which Trump has vowed to appeal, Wisenberg said: "It seems to me there's some real constitutional problems with the $355 million judgment when there is no victim, no financial loss of any kind."

"You have an argument for a substantive due process violation," he continued, and said the decision might send a message to certain businesses that if you upset the orthodoxy they could face similar action.

He added: "I think that they do have again, a potential constitutional argument here, a very strong one here if they appropriately raised it at trial."

"It's outrageous there's no way you can defend this judgment," he said.

However, Bradley Moss, a partner at Mark S. Zaid, disagreed. He told Newsweek: "Unless the state law itself is struck down, this argument will go nowhere. Many white collar criminal cases do not have a traditional victim. Many criminal drug offenses do not have a traditional victim. Many licensing and registration offenses do not have a traditional victim.

"The victim is the public that was defrauded."

Carlton Fields attorney Gene Rossi also told Newsweek: "The Trump family and organization received loans when they should not have. You cannot lie to get money. Moreover, if the banks had known of the real assets and liabilities, then they would have required more unfavorable terms for Trump World. That is a crime no matter how you look at it. Substantive due process violation because of no victims? I think not."

Trump's lawyer Christopher Kise told Newsweek that the former president plans to appeal the judge's ruling in James' "unjust political crusade against the front-running candidate for President of the United States."

Alina Habba, an attorney for Trump, also announced an appeal will be filed.

"Given the grave stakes, we trust that the Appellate Division will overturn this egregious verdict and end this relentless persecution against my clients," Habba said in a statement.

"Let me make one thing perfectly clear: this is not just about Donald Trump—if this decision stands, it will serve as a signal to every single American that New York is no longer open for business," she added.

James called the judge's ruling "a massive victory" in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Friday. She added in a statement: "No matter how big, how rich, or how powerful you are, no one is above the law. Not even Donald Trump."


Red Box Rules

Calling members trolls or dishonest will cause your comments to be deleted. NT rules apply


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH    10 months ago

Oh oh. This is going to open a whole new can of worms. Can you say SCotUS?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    10 months ago

Why would one attorney's opinion make any difference here?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    10 months ago

It opens other attorney's, and perhaps judges, eyes.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.1    10 months ago

It won't.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.2    10 months ago

It won't make a bit of difference, I meant to say.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  Tessylo    10 months ago

FRAUD IS FRAUD

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3  Jeremy Retired in NC    10 months ago
if the banks had known of the real assets and liabilities, then they would have required more unfavorable terms for Trump World.

So because the lenders didn't do their part, this is Trump's (and his organizations) fault?  How stupid do you have to be (NOT IT'S NOT A CHALLENGE) to even think that makes sense?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    10 months ago
So because the lenders didn't do their part, this is Trump's (and his organizations) fault?

Yes, hence the FRAUD charges.....  Trump knowingly falsified documents and values then knowingly signed those documents attesting to their truth despite knowing that they were not true.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    10 months ago

And the dumbfucks didn't do their due diligence and have appraisal and assessments done.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.1    10 months ago

Makes no difference.  FRAUD IS FRAUD.  The falsified documents = FRAUD.  PERIOD.  END OF SENTENCE.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.1    10 months ago
And the dumbfucks didn't do their due diligence and have appraisal and assessments done.

Not their problem.  They have a signed, probably notarized, document swearing to the truth of the document under penalty of law.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.5  CB  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.2    10 months ago

Moreover, MAGAs are attempting to drop a 'rabbit-hole' here. The matter is a matter of law; not supposing or passion. I have shared on this article at 5.1.2. and 6.1.3 what New York law is regarding this matter. MAGAs want to argue emotion. Odd, when others express emotion about any matter of law, MAGAs draw their attention back to the law. They should not be allowed to argue away from the rule of law in this case, since the facts have been established to have occurred/proven to the satisfaction of the judge. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.1    10 months ago

And we can't forget about that the lenders testified that THEY approved the loans, and the loans were paid in full with interest.  So, it begs to question....exactly where is the fraud?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    10 months ago

New York is indeed open for business.  Just follow the law, unlike the former 'president'.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @4    10 months ago

Yeah hold onto that thought.............gonna be wide open if much more of this shit happens.

Some nationwide real estate investors, like Cardone Capital’s Grant Cardone, have started telling their teams to pack their bags   and leave New York   after the verdict in former President Trump’s fraud trial. "We thought this year was the opportunity to come into Chicago, California and New York City. I've been waiting for 40 years now to invest in that marketplace. I was completely confident this was the year to come," Cardone told Steve Doocy   on "FOX & Friends"   on Wednesday. "And when that ruling happened, it was like, pencils down. Don't touch it. Don't go there."

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1    10 months ago

Good riddance to anyone who leaves NY because of the fraud, the former 'president'.

Who cares?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1    10 months ago

Much more of 'what shit'?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    10 months ago

Or who decided because of this decision (Yeah, right jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif ) to now NOT do business in NY?

I don't think so!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
4.1.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    10 months ago
Who cares?

People who rely on them for jobs and taxes paid to NYC probably.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1.5  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.2    10 months ago
Some nationwide real estate investors, like Cardone Capital’s Grant Cardone, have started telling their teams to pack their bags   and leave New York   after the verdict in former President Trump’s fraud trial.

Guess you didn't read this the first time.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Right Down the Center @4.1.4    10 months ago
People who rely on them for jobs and taxes paid to NYC probably.

Which wasn't Trump since he committed fraud with the IRS to minimize his taxes.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1.7  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.6    10 months ago

And he was audited every year and no charges or fines were ever levied.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
4.1.8  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.6    10 months ago
committed fraud with the IRS to minimize his taxes

When and for how much?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1.9  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    10 months ago
Who cares?

Those who live in New York when the tax base decreases. Real estate investors bring a lot of money into an area and provide for a higher tax base. As more of them decide to do business elsewhere, it will have a negative effect on the tax base that New York is able to draw in. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1.10  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.6    10 months ago

Funny how the IRS hasn't brought any charges for this. Maybe you should take your knowledge and present it to them.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.5    10 months ago

Read it again.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.9    10 months ago

They won't really leave NY.  And if they do, no one really gives a fuck.   It won't make any difference.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1.13  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.12    10 months ago

We shall see. It won't happen overnight, but gradually. Kind of like how California is looking at a huge deficit hole in their budget. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.13    10 months ago

No, we won't.  It won't make any difference.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.5    10 months ago

That's exactly what I said, which part of that can't you comprehend?

That's what they claimed.  Why should I believe him/them?

It won't make one bit of difference either way.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.1.17  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.6    10 months ago
"Which wasn't Trump since he committed fraud with the IRS to minimize his taxes."

You're confused, that never happened. It's not illegal to take steps to minimize your taxes.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.17    10 months ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.20  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.17    10 months ago

You're confused, that never happened. It's not illegal to take steps to minimize your taxes.

It is if it's illegal, Greg. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1.22  Snuffy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.20    10 months ago
It is if it's illegal, Greg. 

And if what Trump had done was illegal, the IRS would have brought charges. Since they haven't, it seems like you are spreading false news. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.23  MrFrost  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.22    10 months ago
And if what Trump had done was illegal, the IRS would have brought charges.

So fraud isn't a crime anymore? Wow, talk about spreading false news. He LOST. Fucking get over it. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.24  MrFrost  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.22    10 months ago
And if what Trump had done was illegal, the IRS would have brought charges.

Put it another way, if Hillary did the exact same thing, would you be defending her? Never in a million fuckin' years. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1.26  Snuffy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.23    10 months ago

You're the one who insinuated that what Trump had done to reduce his tax liability was illegal. I countered with had he done so I'm confident the IRS would have caught it and already brought him to court. So why don't you provide some proof to your allegation or just admit you are spreading false news. 

And in case you missed it, post 4.1.22 said absolutely nothing about him losing in 2020. So in addition, you deflect. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.27  MrFrost  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.26    10 months ago

The case was in NY... Did you miss that part? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1.28  Snuffy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.24    10 months ago
And if what Trump had done was illegal, the IRS would have brought charges.
Put it another way, if Hillary did the exact same thing, would you be defending her? Never in a million fuckin' years. 

I would say the same fucking thing. Doing what you can WITHIN THE BOUNDRIES OF THE LAW to reduce one's tax liability is not illegal. What would you be saying if Hillary was accused of illegally not paying taxes owed?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1.29  Snuffy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.27    10 months ago

Nope, didn't miss that part at all. Would love for you to point out where Trump was found guilty of fraud against the IRS to lower his tax bill. After all, that's what you have been pointing out. So provide some fucking proof.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.30  MrFrost  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.28    10 months ago
Doing what you can WITHIN THE BOUNDRIES OF THE LAW to reduce one's tax liability is not illegal.

It is if you COMMIT FRAUD! 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.31  MrFrost  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.29    10 months ago
Would love for you to point out where Trump was found guilty of fraud against the IRS to lower his tax bill.

State case, not federal, already pointed out a few times. Quit being obtuse. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.32  MrFrost  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.28    10 months ago
WITHIN THE BOUNDRIES OF THE LAW

Which trump clearly did not do. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1.33  Snuffy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.31    10 months ago

Backpedaling already? Our entire conversation was about how you claiming Trump committed fraud to lower his tax liability. Did the State of New York Department of Revenue bring charges here? What fraud did Trump commit to lower his tax bill? There's no mention of tax fraud from Judge Engoron. You are the one pushing it, so you need to prove it. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1.35  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.33    10 months ago
Did the State of New York Department of Revenue bring charges here?

Neither did any of the banks/financial institutions. Just an overzealous Attorney General.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.36  CB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.35    10 months ago

Too bad banks/financial institutions are not courts of law, because it would matter what they would do in this case. As it is, they do not. I do find it interesting that you have a perspective that lets Donald go "free and clear" and the court system and law be damned.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.1.38  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  CB @4.1.36    10 months ago

Never should have gotten to court.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.39  CB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.38    10 months ago

Donald Trump is not above the law, so he goes to civil court for a decision (just like you or I would) in this case.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  JohnRussell    10 months ago
"Unless the state law itself is struck down, this argument will go nowhere. Many white collar criminal cases do not have a traditional victim. Many criminal drug offenses do not have a traditional victim. Many licensing and registration offenses do not have a traditional victim." "The victim is the public that was defrauded."
 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
5.1  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @5    10 months ago

But they never really explained how the public was defrauded. How is the public the victim? 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.1  bugsy  replied to  Snuffy @5.1    10 months ago
How is the public the victim? 

Because Truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuump!!!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.2  CB  replied to  bugsy @5.1.1    10 months ago

New York Consolidated Laws, Executive Law - EXC § 63. General duties

12. Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law   3 or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper.  The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.  The term “persistent fraud” or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct.  The term “repeated” as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person.  Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.

In connection with any such application, the attorney general is authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and rules.  Such authorization shall not abate or terminate by reason of any action or proceeding brought by the attorney general under this section.

There. Research has been acquired and laid-out for consideration. No more excuses or plays at ignorance of N. Y. State law!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
5.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  CB @5.1.2    10 months ago

I've never denied the law. But what you posted doesn't explain the comment I replied to which states "The victim is the public that was defrauded." I do wish someone would explain just how the public was defrauded. Because the DA never really explained that. She just hopped on the bandwagon that the law states she can determine if fraud has occurred. 

Consider this law has never been used in New York where there were not damages of some sort, ie someone lost money or was harmed. It's never been used to put a business out of business except where there were injuries and loss. Consider this is a DA who campaigned on how she was going to "get Trump". How is this a fair judgement?

I suspect that this will get overturned on appeal but am willing to wait and see. I wonder how many on this board are also willing to wait.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Snuffy @5.1    10 months ago
How is the public the victim? 

Um, because the public pays taxes? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
5.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.4    10 months ago

Ok, so show some evidence that the public paid more in taxes because of what Trump was found guilty of. You keep pushing that line, so showing the evidence should be easy, right? After all, one would hate to be pushing false news.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.5    10 months ago
Ok, so show some evidence that the public paid more in taxes because of what Trump was found guilty of.

It doesn't matter, it's ILLEGAL!!!! WTF? Are you serious? 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.7  CB  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.3    10 months ago
Consider this is a DA who campaigned on how she was going to "get Trump".

Campaigning on "getting Trump" is not a legal motion or charge. This is a civil trial and when the matter came before the judge—you surely know that a judge rules/runs/manages his/her court and the legal proceedings which occur there so don't pretend like you don't SEE the judge's taking control from a jury and making a summary judgement as something on no value and you can ignore.

It is not my responsibility to argue with you about the facts. Facts that are being laid out a la carte in this discussion. And, you are being too stubborn to allow or internalize. 

If you want to dispute the judge do so, but you will get nowhere with a court (or me) trying to focus on rhetoric. A. G. James can't use the court as her 'instrument' to play if there are not instruments to be played on. Those were provided by Donald and his sons. Protest them: Not A.G. James who by the way did her job!

Finally, you often 'speak' about neutrality here. It's time you demonstrated it in this situation. And above all get the context of this case, its personalities, plantiffs, and decision-makers correct!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.8  CB  replied to  bugsy @5.1.1    10 months ago

Because 'they' are the Plantiff in this case. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.6    10 months ago

If it’s illegal, he surely must have been charged with a crime.  Funny New York forgot to do that 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.10  CB  replied to  bugsy @5.1.1    10 months ago

Because the public is the plantiff. The state allows for it to be so—legally. AKA: "The People."

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.1.11  MrFrost  replied to  CB @5.1.10    10 months ago
Because the public is the plantiff.

Exactly. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.1.12  MrFrost  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.5    10 months ago
Ok, so show some evidence that the public paid more in taxes because of what Trump was found guilty of.

You mean other than fraud?

Prove to me he is innocent? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.1.14  MrFrost  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.12    10 months ago

I love the block function.. LOL 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.1.17  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.11    10 months ago

So Ms. James took a vote or show of hands from the citizens and it was a yes? Fuck no she didn't. She campaigned on getting Trump and how she is getting away with this (we shall see after appeal) is bullshit.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.18  CB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.17    10 months ago

Partisan nonsense! There is a judge involved here and yet MAGAs train all their 'attack' on the A.G., as it seems selective shooting of the messenger is more important than law to MAGAs.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.14    10 months ago
I love the block function.

Nothing like an admission you can't show  some evidence  that  the public  paid  more  in taxes  because  of what  Trump  was found  guilty  of.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.20  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @5.1.18    10 months ago
There is a judge involved here and yet MAGAs train all their 'attack' on the A.G.

The judge is just as much a problem as the AG.  Not like you would stop with the partisan nonsense to acknowledge any of it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.21  CB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.20    10 months ago

I can see how Trump got himself into the mess he is in—from my location on the West Coast. You can't see it from your approximate position 'anywhere.' That is a problem for you and not for the courts! The court has decided, and possibly another court (or appeals) will decide farther and the SCOTUS after that will likely have to wrap this up and tie a bow on it. The courts will decide Trump's business fate in New York. And the rest of us will have no choice-either way-but to accept the final outcome. As with all things Trump we have no choice but to wait it out and, watch this space.

Donald Trump is a flaming idiot. He is a menace to society and community. You can have him and place him in your special menagerie and give the rest of us a break from the idiocy that is he

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.1.22  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  CB @5.1.18    10 months ago

Who brought the charges?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.24  CB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.22    10 months ago

Make a statement, please.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.25  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @5.1.21    10 months ago
I can see how Trump got himself into the mess he is in

We all see it.  He embarrassed the Democrats at their own game.  They've been gunning for him since.  

The court has decided,

I notice you leave out that it is a CIVIL court, not criminal.  I guess the burden of proof for the criminal court was difficult to meet.  

The courts will decide Trump's business fate in New York.

You actually think that by not being able to conduct business in NY will be a problem? 

Donald Trump is a flaming idiot. He is a menace to society and community.

He hurt your feelings.  I get it.  And actually, you haven't proven the second sentence there.  

You can have him and place him in your special menagerie and give the rest of us a break from the idiocy that is he

Thanks but he's living rent free in YOUR head.  It's evident every time you blather on about "Maga this" and Maga that".

Oh, and I did notice you couldn't put the partisan nonsense aside to respond objectively.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.1.26  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.19    10 months ago

Nothing like an admission you can't show  some evidence  that  the public  paid  more  in taxes  because  of what  Trump  was found  guilty  of.

You have no idea how our monetary system works do you?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.1.27  MrFrost  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.22    10 months ago

Who brought the charges?

The state of NY. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.28  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.26    10 months ago

Still waiting for some evidence  that  the public  paid  more  in taxes  because  of what  Trump was found guilty  of. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.1.29  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.27    10 months ago

No one Letitia James. She campaigned on getting Trump.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6  Ozzwald    10 months ago
Sol Wisenberg told Fox News there were constitutional problems with the civil fraud ruling against Trump as there was "no victim."

So the banks losing millions upon millions of dollars because of Trump's fraud do not make them "victims"?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @6    10 months ago

They didn't seem to think so............and you can't lose what you didn't have in the first place.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1    10 months ago
They didn't seem to think so.

Who did you ask?  Specifically.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.2  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.1    10 months ago

They testified basically on his behalf. Didn't follow the trial did ya?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.2    10 months ago

Who is 'they' and I thought that this was just this one attorney's opinion, which could open other attorney's, or judge's, eyes jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

Like they don't know the law in the first place

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.4  CB  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.3    10 months ago

MAGAs are complaining about the court system (again). Apparently, they point to the invalid clause in these contracts and non-existent clause in the law that states: 'When there is no victim/s the law is rendered irrelevant.'  Albeit, they can not point to either clause anywhere, unless it is in their minds.

One other interesting point (about the legal system): In this political climate we are in, the courts do well to realize that certain forces are massed together to coerce "parties" to conform and consent to abuse if they wish future MAGAs business contracts or be freedom of verbal and physical assaults.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.5  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.3    10 months ago

Banks. Follow the story if you are going to comment.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.2    10 months ago

They testified basically on his behalf. Didn't follow the trial did ya?

So 3rd or 4th hand accounts?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.6    10 months ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.9  CB  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.6    10 months ago

MAGAs are trying to deflect to other 'goalposts.' I remind us all that the courts have decided and this question has been settled as to why A.G. James can bring the case to court for the people: Read 5.1.2 above.

Psst. You know the deal: MAGAs want to talk about 'feelings' now, since the courts are stamping down on their 'dicks.' The 'facts only' MAGAs desperately want feelings to be the order of the day, when they can't coax a court or law to do their bidding. Such inconsistency. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
6.1.11  Snuffy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.5    10 months ago

[deleted]

[other members are not the topic]

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.1.12  MrFrost  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1    10 months ago
and you can't lose what you didn't have in the first place.

So if I slam into your car, and no one gets hurt, there is no crime. Awesome! 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.12    10 months ago

Yes, and you can do it over and over again, year after year, and no problem!

It's like 1/6, since it didn't get away with it, no problem, no big whoop.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.5    10 months ago

So,you're backpedaling now.  Got it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.7    10 months ago

Trump's misrepresentations cost banks $168M, expert testifies

The state's expert witness, Michiel McCarty, calculated that Donald Trump's lenders lost $168 million in potential interest between 2014 and 2023, according to a report he presented in court.

McCarty's testimony appeared to reinforce a central tenet of New York Attorney General Letitia James' case: that Trump's misrepresentations in his financial statements cost banks potential earnings from interest, even if the banks made money on the loans.

State attorney Kevin Wallace directed McCarty to a footnote in Judge Engoron's earlier   summary judgment order   about the concept of lost interest, in which Engoron said, "The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs [Statements of Financial Condition] cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principle of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did."

McCarty, who said he agreed with this assessment, ultimately found that banks lost a total of $168,040,168 in potential interest from loans related to four of Trump's properties in Miami, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.

Trump civil fraud case: Judge fines Trump $354 million, says frauds 'shock the conscience' - ABC News (go.com)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.17  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.16    10 months ago

Trump has long argued that sophisticated parties negotiated the transactions, and everybody made money. The attorney general countered that the banks approved loans on favorable terms, based on fraudulent statements of financial conditions (SFCs).

In his dissolution order, Engoron summarized that argument in a footnote.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.18  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.16    10 months ago

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.19  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.15    10 months ago

 when banks negotiated interest terms with trump  they  did so under the impression they were getting accurate financial information from the trump organization , but they werent, which means they were fraudulently put at a disadvantage in the negotiation. The State of New York says it is fraud punishable by fines and other 'retribution'

your argument is a loser

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.20  CB  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.18    10 months ago

That is another thing too: A.G. James when she finds the time in her otherwise busy schedule probably could make a career out of charging New York businesses with incorrect property valuations and reporting to banks, as well as charging banks for their seeming 'unawareness' of discrepancies. Because it is clear to me that if petitioners for loans and the banks are cutting deals with each other—there are other businesses left out of the financing loop that could use a loan, but are not getting it due to preferential treatment of some.

When did 'greedy' banks start saying it is okay (permissible) to stiff them on interest? And, that this is acceptable to do so on a city or state-wide basis for indefinite periods? (Rhetorical.)

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.22  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.12    10 months ago

The car, property, got hurt and thus I got hurt financially and unable to drive interrupting my freedom of life. Your example resembles swiss cheese.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.23  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.19    10 months ago

So cut the fine to what the "theoretical" loss was. $168M and split it up with the financial institutions. NOT the fucking state.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.24  CB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.23    10 months ago

Nope. The judge does not see how the law can PROP up Donald Trump above other New Yorkers!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.26  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.21    10 months ago

Obviously you have no reply to the fact that an expert witness said the banks were cheated , by TRUMP. Keep getting all that nonsense from right wing media, and you will continue to lose every argument. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.27  JohnRussell  replied to  CB @6.1.20    10 months ago

There are people here who are impervious to facts. 

What a mess. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.29  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.26    10 months ago
ve no reply to the fact that an expert witness said the banks were cheated

Right. Billion dollar banks who do this for a living were too stupid to realize they were cheated, but the professional "expert" for hire whose paycheck depends on offering the requested opinion is the one who understands what happened. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.31  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.30    10 months ago

It's amazing that the bloggers the left are relying on aren't reporting that the banks testified that, yes, they approved the loan and the loan was paid back in full with interest.

One would have to have a very low IQ to think that a bank would knowingly set themselves up to be part of this so called "fraud".  Even the AG couldn't provide enough proof to meet the standards in a criminal case.  That's why they opted for a civil case.  Lower standards.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.33  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.32    10 months ago

It's laughable to consider those who write for the (m)ass media anything other than bloggers.  None of them are objective in their articles.  It's all written by their feelings.  Yet some (who also have hurt feelings) lap drink it up.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.34  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.27    10 months ago
There are people here who are impervious to facts. 

Agree.  They also have a hard time differentiating between opinion and facts.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.35  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.26    10 months ago
Obviously you have no reply to the fact that an expert witness said the banks were cheated , by TRUMP.

You would think the lending institutions would know that even better than the expert if it were true.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.36  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.12    10 months ago
So if I slam into your car, and no one gets hurt, there is no crime

Pretty much...unless you were doing something nefarious like drinking or driving dangerously. Otherwise just another fender bender.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.37  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.16    10 months ago
ultimately found that banks lost a total of $168,040,168

His opinion based on what?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.38  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.19    10 months ago
your argument is a loser

Actually, yours is.

It has been noted many times that each financial statement submitted by Trump had a disclaimer stating that the banks had the responsibility of due diligence with what was submitted.

Apparently they did not.

Not Trump's fault.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.39  JBB  replied to  bugsy @6.1.38    10 months ago

Your lame pronouncements have no real value or legal standing in New York State where Trump was already found guilty...

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.40  bugsy  replied to  JBB @6.1.39    10 months ago

So prove me wrong.....

Without using a meme.

Can you do it?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.41  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.29    10 months ago

 Apparently, the big MAGAs thing was "elected officials" were THE appropriate go to—until it was not! I remember MAGAs in congress and on various campaigns dissing "unelected judges" and "unelected bureaucrats" and assenting to the power of ELECTED OFFICIALS as the be all.  But, now that propaganda talking point lands on a proverbial trash heap of the moment (to be retrieved when needed again) when Donald is getting his comeuppance. MAGAs once again caught being shamelessly phony and inconsistent.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.42  CB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.31    10 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.43  CB  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.35    10 months ago

Wow. Again with the support for a cheater who wants to be in charge of the country. Just stunning.  "New York means business in combating business fraud."

Anywho, here is Judge Engoron's statement on this:

Timely and total repayment of loans do not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict on the marketplace. Indeed, the common excuse that "everybody does it" is all the more reason to strive for honesty and transparency and to be vigilant in enforcing the rules. Here, despite the false financial statements, it is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments on time; the next group of lenders to receive bogus statements might not be so lucky . New York means business in combating business fraud.

A reasonable statement from the judge.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.44  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @6.1.38    10 months ago
Not Trump's fault.

You are literally saying that trump lying to the banks is not his fault.

lol

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.45  Right Down the Center  replied to  CB @6.1.43    10 months ago

Harm is being done on NYC marketplace as the judge said. Only it is not trump doing the damage.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.46  CB  replied to  bugsy @6.1.38    10 months ago

The law, in this case, does not allow for "invincibility" against a lawsuit based on adding "worthless [disclaimer] clauses" - the responsibility for submission of accurate documents to lenders resides with businesses under signing. A line of reasoning suggesting it should fails.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.47  CB  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.45    10 months ago
 It is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments on time; the next group of lenders to receive bogus statements might not be so lucky . New York means business in combating business fraud.

Bogus statements submitted for loans. . . is against the law. You should not make comments in support of or steering people to act the rule of law (in New York state)! Such advice is against the law and will get those who receive it and act on it in legal jeopardy of a lawsuit!

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6.2  George  replied to  Ozzwald @6    10 months ago
So the banks losing millions upon millions of dollars because of Trump's fraud do not make them "victims"?

I would ask you to prove that the banks lost millions and millions but we both know you can't.  But i'm willing for you to surprise me, No bullshit anecdotal evidence because it is just that, bullshit, but actual proof.  Show me a bank that has said it was a victim of trumps "fraud"

 
 
 
goose is back
Junior Guide
6.3  goose is back  replied to  Ozzwald @6    10 months ago
So the banks losing millions upon millions of dollars

Tell me what banks lost MILIONS and MILLIONS of dollars?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.3.1  CB  replied to  goose is back @6.3    10 months ago

'The people of the state of New York.' 

11. (a) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary and except as provided by paragraph (b) of this subdivision, no state agency or a state official or employee acting in their official capacity, may pay out or otherwise disburse funds obtained as the result of a judgment, stipulation, decree, agreement to settle, assurance of discontinuance, or other legal instrument resolving any claim or cause of action, whether filed or unfiled, actual or potential, and whether arising under common law, equity, or any provision of law, except pursuant to an appropriation.  Such funds shall not be retained by any state official, employee, or agency in any fund held in the sole custody of a state agency for a period of more than thirty days but shall, consistent with  section seven of article seven of the state constitution  be deposited in the state treasury, or fund under its management as may be directed by statute or as otherwise directed by the comptroller with the concurrence of the director of the budget.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this subdivision shall not apply to (1) moneys to be distributed to the federal government, to a local government, or to any holder of a bond or other debt instrument issued by the state, any public authority, or any public benefit corporation;  (2) moneys to be distributed solely or exclusively as a payment of damages or restitution to individuals or entities that were specifically injured or harmed by the defendant's or settling party's conduct and that are identified in, or can be identified by the terms of, the relevant judgment, agreement to settle, assurance of discontinuance, or relevant instrument resolving the claim or cause of action;  (3) moneys recovered or obtained by a state agency or a state official or employee acting in their official capacity where application of paragraph (a) of this subdivision is prohibited by federal law, rule, or regulation, or would result in the reduction or loss of federal funds or eligibility for federal benefits pursuant to federal law, rule, or regulation;  (4) moneys recovered or obtained by or on behalf of a public authority, a public benefit corporation, the department of taxation and finance, the workers' compensation board, the New York state higher education services corporation, the tobacco settlement financing corporation, a state or local retirement system, an employee health benefit program administered by the New York state department of civil service, the Title IV-D child support fund, the lottery prize fund, the abandoned property fund, or an endowment of the state university of New York or any unit thereof or any state agency, provided that all of the moneys received or recovered are immediately transferred to the relevant public authority, public benefit corporation, department, fund, program, or endowment;  (5) moneys to be refunded to an individual or entity as (i) an overpayment of a tax, fine, penalty, fee, insurance premium, loan payment, charge or surcharge;  (ii) a return of seized assets, or (iii) a payment made in error;  and (6) moneys to be used to prevent, abate, restore, mitigate, or control any identifiable instance of prior or ongoing water, land or air pollution.

New York Consolidated Laws, State Finance Law - STF § 4. Payments, transfers and deposit

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
6.3.3  Snuffy  replied to  CB @6.3.1    10 months ago
'The people of the state of New York.'

That's not a bank, try again.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.3.4  CB  replied to  Snuffy @6.3.3    10 months ago

I don't have to. You and others can't set up a false narrative and have any expectations of a court abiding by it. It's. . .delusional. Courts don't do delusion. And me neither.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
6.3.6  Snuffy  replied to  CB @6.3.4    10 months ago

Nope, wrong again. The post you responded to asked a simple question, 

So the banks losing millions upon millions of dollars
Tell me what banks lost MILIONS and MILLIONS of dollars?

You are deflecting away from the question and reposting the same as before as if it answers all questions. Try answering the questions directly.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.3.7  CB  replied to  Snuffy @6.3.6    10 months ago

If you don't want an answer just say so and be done. Cat and Mouse games are not what this site is about, Snuffy. As for the comment about banks, at 6.3.1 "the state treasury" is its bank repository enough to satisfy its need—whether it suffices for you personally in this discussion is not a matter the courts or state of New York cares to deal with as rhetoric

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.3.9  MrFrost  replied to  goose is back @6.3    10 months ago

Tell me what banks lost MILIONS and MILLIONS of dollars?

Prove that fraud isn't a crime?

We'll wait. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.3.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @6.3.9    10 months ago

Fraud is a crime. Why wasn’t trump charged with a crime?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.3.13  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.3.11    10 months ago
Why wasn’t trump charged with a crime?

So hundreds of millions in damages and trump committed no crime at all? Maybe you should apply to be his lawyer and prove his point. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.3.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @6.3.13    10 months ago
eds of millions in damages and trump committed no crime at all? Maybe you should apply to be his lawyer and prove his point. 

Now you are getting it. He was not charged with a crime. Why would he need a lawyer to defend him from a crime no one claims he committed? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.3.17  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.3.15    10 months ago
He was not charged with a crime.

Fraud....pretty sure that's a crime... 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.3.18  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.3.15    10 months ago
He was not charged with a crime.

Wow...

 
 
 
goose is back
Junior Guide
6.3.20  goose is back  replied to  MrFrost @6.3.9    10 months ago
Prove that fraud isn't a crime?

Fraud is a crime:

specifically   :   intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
/www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud
Who surrendered something of value?
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @6    10 months ago

This should be obvious, but If the banks lost millions, they’d be the ones suing trump. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.4    10 months ago

Why didn't you let the Judge know that?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.3  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.4    10 months ago

See 6.3.1.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.4.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @6.4.3    10 months ago

That's not responsive to what I wrote. 

If you defraud a bank, the bank sues you to  recover the money.  The bank(s) get no money from this. Can you figure out why?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.6  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.4.4    10 months ago

The courts could give a damn about providing you a satisfactory response. And I agree with the  courts! As it STANDS right now the state of New York treasury will house the funds (be all the bank needed as provided by statue of law) from Donald and serve the people (New York public) from its largesse. It is the law. Like it or lump it. It is what it is.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.4.7  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.4    10 months ago

This should be obvious, but If the banks lost millions, they’d be the ones suing trump. 

Name a bank, today, willing to lend trump money?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.4.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  MrFrost @6.4.7    10 months ago
Name a bank, today, willing to lend trump money?

New York should be more concerned about the number of people deciding not to invest there because they are afraid the same bullshit will happen to them.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.4.10  MrFrost  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.4.9    10 months ago

New York should be more concerned about the number of people deciding not to invest there because they are afraid the same bullshit will happen to them.

So you can't name even one, got it. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.4.11  Right Down the Center  replied to  MrFrost @6.4.10    10 months ago

Name one what? You are flailing.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.4.13  Right Down the Center  replied to  MrFrost @6.4.7    10 months ago

nothing about the business NYC will lose?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.14  CB  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.4.9    10 months ago

This implies you side with business fraud and fraudsters in general since you ignore or 'combat' the instruction and direction of state aw. A sickening case of "Buyer beware." 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.4.15  Right Down the Center  replied to  CB @6.4.14    10 months ago

Totally irrelevant 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.4.16  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.4.13    10 months ago

Here's one.......................

Alas, in late 2023, union leaders learned that RemArms, which  acquired  the Remington facility in 2020, would  close  its Ilion plant and relocate to the greener pastures of Georgia, leaving displaced workers and village officials to mourn the loss.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.4.17  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.4.13    10 months ago

And another

Some nationwide real estate investors, like Cardone Capital’s Grant Cardone, have started telling their teams to pack their bags    and leave New York    after the verdict in former President Trump’s fraud trial.   "We thought this year was the opportunity to come into Chicago, California and New York City. I've been waiting for 40 years now to invest in that marketplace. I was completely confident this was the year to come," Cardone told Steve Doocy    on "FOX & Friends"   on Wednesday. "And when that ruling happened, it was like, pencils down. Don't touch it. Don't go there.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.18  CB  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.4.15    10 months ago

Dodgy. The dismissal of the implication is indicative of your agreement with an extreme "buyer beware" default position for New York and possibly other states as well. To state it a different way: You appear to have no interest in the rule of law that governs New York state due to this Trump case.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.4.19  Right Down the Center  replied to  CB @6.4.18    10 months ago

Nope

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.20  CB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.4.17    10 months ago

So CORRUPT business practices that go around or ignore the rule of law is a viable 'game' for MAGAs. I hope 'everybody' reading this gets the message being sent and delivered.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.22  CB  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.4.19    10 months ago

Yous statements of recent contradict you above on its face.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.23  CB  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.4.9    10 months ago

Trump legal lawsuits are due to being over creative and treating the (business) rule of law with disrespect. Other companies, wise to avoid Trump's poor business model, will do well. . . and stay and invest in the state. As for fraudsters wanting to come to New York:

ALL MONEY AIN'T GOOD MONEY.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.4.24  Right Down the Center  replied to  CB @6.4.22    10 months ago

Nope

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.4.25  Right Down the Center  replied to  CB @6.4.23    10 months ago
and stay and invest in the state

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.26  CB  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.4.25    10 months ago

Corporations that want to be "unchecked" can go to the other states and hope and pray that the A.G. there (or newly elected one day) will not take the lawsuit approach to cleaning up state authorized corporations. Corporations operate under state control or they will be sanctioned, fined, or dissolved

New York will get clean businesses; that will be nice for everybody.

Now that light is entering New York business community. . . let the corporate "cockroaches" scatter like the bottom-feeders they are!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.4.27  Right Down the Center  replied to  CB @6.4.26    10 months ago

I can't wait until ny goes after someone else. When do you think that will happen? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
6.4.28  Snuffy  replied to  CB @6.4.26    10 months ago

The law that New York used is unique to New York so businesses who move to other states won't run into that risk. And this case was also unique in that this is the first time ever a DA requested a business be shut down without anyone suffering a loss. I'm more than willing to wait until all the appeals play out, it will be interesting to watch. But I suspect this will hurt New York in the long run due to the loss of capital investments.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.29  CB  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.4.27    10 months ago
I can't wait until NY goes after someone else.

When fraud/sters is found the state should seek resolution to it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.30  CB  replied to  Snuffy @6.4.28    10 months ago

The saying goes, "If you build it: they will come."  New York will prosper from good businesses and not a corrupt business community. It will 'blossom,'  be beautiful, an vibrant in all its affairs—as it should. The A.G. executed her duties and responsibilities to the betterment of the state. Now then, if Trump stays or goes-he will conform to the rule of law in New York, fight to change the law to his liking, or go pull his. . .shtick. . .in new ground of operation. 

The difference will be those new states upon his entry. . .will see him/his business coming

States can make laws that protect themselves from fraud of this kind too.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.4.31  Right Down the Center  replied to  CB @6.4.29    10 months ago
When fraud/sters is found the state should seek resolution to it.

They would have to look, there are plenty that have done exactly what Trump has done.  Do you expect them to look for more or just be happy with the big fish they may have caught?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.32  CB  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.4.31    10 months ago
They would have to look, there are plenty that have done exactly what Trump has done.

See 6.1.20.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.4.33  Right Down the Center  replied to  CB @6.4.32    10 months ago

So no, she is too busy.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.4.34  CB  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.4.33    10 months ago

I don't know what the New York A.G. will do after this case, but this one is now in the hands of the courts!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.4.35  MrFrost  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.4.11    10 months ago
Name one what? You are flailing.

Not at all, I asked you a question. Following a thread really isn't that hard. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @6    10 months ago

They didn't lose any money with Trump's loans and in fact wanted to continue to do business with him.

As usual, you can't support your assertions with any credible facts.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.6.1  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @6.6    10 months ago
They didn't lose any money with Trump's loans and in fact wanted to continue to do business with him.

Being an idiot isn't a crime, but fraud is. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.6.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @6.6.1    10 months ago
You have no idea what he gave up for the money!

And they couldn't prove fraud.  That is why this was a CIVIL court and not a criminal court.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @6    10 months ago
So the banks losing millions upon millions of dollars because of Trump's fraud do not make them "victims"?

How did the banks "lose millions" if the loans were repaid in full with interest?  Did you miss that part? 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7  CB    10 months ago
"Let me make one thing perfectly clear: this is not just about Donald Trump—if this decision stands, it will serve as a signal to every single American that New York is no longer open for business," she added.  ~ Article.

Please. For the love of. . .life. . .somehow, someway, I hope the "heavens" will allow this to end already one way or the other. Enough with the sanctimonious grandstanding. There are not enough narcissists in New York to warrant such a caution. Trump is unique in this one aspect.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
8  Tacos!    10 months ago
Speaking about the judgment, which Trump has vowed to appeal, Wisenberg said: "It seems to me there's some real constitutional problems with the $355 million judgment when there is no victim, no financial loss of any kind."

I get that. Probably seems like common sense to most people. But the law underpinning this suit empowers the attorney general to protect the marketplace against continuing fraud, and no complaining victim is required. If you like, the state is the victim.

 
 
 
goose is back
Junior Guide
9  goose is back    10 months ago
Enough with the sanctimonious grandstanding

You don't get it do you?  They persecuted Trump for something probably every real estate investor does.  Anybody who completes "any" paperwork can be accused of fraud and have a crazy ass prosecutor and Judge level a bankruptcy verdict against you when, no one has been harmed, no one has claimed a loss, no one has filed a complaint.   

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1  CB  replied to  goose is back @9    10 months ago

No one has been 'harmed' by the pretense of Biden's (speculative and impending) impeachment, but still you MAGAs be-dog the point! Get over it. The argument you are making does not appear to be over a matter of law, but over a whataboutism. And law is not situated to operate in regards to that one thing!

Trump's case in out of the hands of prosecutors and wholly in the hands of judges and justices at this point (should they decide to accept it). 

If you want prosecutors to bring charges against all other similar cheaters. . . find them out. . . ask your D. A. to file charges and seek an indictment based on the merits involved. Complaining to us about what the 'system' is doing to Donald is not helping him or for that matter. . . us.

 
 
 
goose is back
Junior Guide
9.1.1  goose is back  replied to  CB @9.1    10 months ago
No one has been 'harmed' by the pretense of Biden's (speculative and impending) impeachment

How do you know?  You have no idea what he gave up for the money!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.2  CB  replied to  goose is back @9.1.1    10 months ago

Ahh sheesh! Prove it already. Until you do, this is a dead thread on account of the lack of it.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
9.2  MrFrost  replied to  goose is back @9    10 months ago
They persecuted Trump for something probably every real estate investor does.

That doesn't make it legal, does it?

Lots of people drive drunk and don't get caught...does that make it legal? No. 

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
10  squiggy    10 months ago

It’s ironic that the same crowd bashing Trump, having paid his loans, are for ripping off all Americans in a scheme to excuse legitimate college debt.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
10.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  squiggy @10    10 months ago

Great Point!!

256

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11  CB    10 months ago

About jury trials (according to the Judge Engoron) :

Constitutional provisions guaranteeing a jury trial, such as the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, apply only to cases "at common law," so-called "legal" cases.

The phrase "at common law" is used in contradistinction to cases that are "equitable" in nature.

Whether a case is "legal" or "equitable" depends on the relief that plaintiff sought.

Here, plaintiff seeks disgorgement and injunctions, each of which are forms of equitable relief.

Thus, there   was no right to a jury.   (In any event, neither party applied nor moved for a jury trial.) and the case was "tried to the Court;" the Court being the sole factfinder and the sole "judge of credibility."

This court listened carefully to every witness, every question, every answer. Witnesses testified from the witness stand, approximately a yard from the Court, who was thus able to observe expressions, demeanor, and body language. The Court has also considered the simple touchstones of self-interest and other motives, common-sense, and overall veracity. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12  CB    10 months ago

About fraud: 

fraud_definition_final-resized-f42aeb7b3f224ce98cc66272b56092cf.jpg

Investopedia / Sydney Saporito

Fraud is an intentionally deceptive action designed to provide the perpetrator with an unlawful gain or to deny a right to a victim. Types of fraud include tax fraud, credit card fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud, and bankruptcy fraud. Fraudulent activity can be carried out by one individual, multiple individuals or a business firm as a whole.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
  • Fraud involves deceit with the intention to illegally or unethically gain at the expense of another.
  • In finance, fraud can take on many forms including making false insurance claims, cooking the books, pump & dump schemes, and identity theft leading to unauthorized purchases.
  • Fraud costs the economy billions of dollars each and every year, and those who are caught are subject to fines and jail time.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.1  CB  replied to  CB @12    10 months ago

Continuation :  

Legal Considerations

While the government may decide that a case of fraud can be settled outside of criminal proceedings , non-governmental parties that claim injury may pursue a  civil case . The victims of fraud may sue the perpetrator to have funds recovered, or, in a case where no monetary loss occurred, may sue to reestablish the victim’s rights.

Proving that fraud has taken place requires the perpetrator to have committed specific acts. First , the perpetrator has to provide a false statement as a material fact. Second , the perpetrator had to have known that the statement was untrue. Third , the perpetrator had to have intended to deceive the victim. Fourth , the victim has to demonstrate that they relied on the false statement. And fifth , the victim had to have suffered damages as a result of acting on the intentionally false statement.


I do not know if this definition at 11 and 12 is suitable in this case, but from the appearance: First through Third "acts" above definitely were found to occur in this case by the perpetrator. "Acts" Four and Five may not have been clear to the A.G. who charged. Thus, it strikes me this why the route to action was a civil proceeding and not a criminal proceeding. In my opinion-only.

 
 

Who is online

Nerm_L


64 visitors