Thanks for not engaging in hate speech and presenting an objective view of the unjust and unfair persecution of Mr. Trump by AG James and Judge Engoron. You covered it well. You stated that you did not want Mr. Trump to be elected, an opinion shared by millions of citizens, all within their rights to opine. My opinion is that fining the Trump organization for irregularities is legitimate, but the amount is several thousand times what is justified. The terms of bond and appeal might even be reasonable if the fine were reasonable. The penalty imposed on Mr. Trump is equivalent to the awards for 170 victims of the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
The penalty is commensurate with the amount of money involved (hundreds of millions of dollars) and his stated-under-oath wealth.
I'm of the opinion that fraud damages should be punitive, to ensure the offender does not commit fraud again. Anything else is just a slap on the wrist.
Trump's organization included ample disclaimers regarding property valuations in loan applications. Lenders are not victims. They did, or should have done, their own due diligence to assess any risk to collateral. They were repaid with the interest they agreed to.
If you ever bought a new house and paid attention, you would have noticed that appraised value was a few hundred dollars higher than the price of the house. I have purchased eight new homes, and this was true in every instance. Several of the closing attorneys told me it was pretty standard. The lenders want the business and rely on the credit worthiness of the buyer. When they don't, we get a crisis like the 2007 market crash.
At the retail level, lenders are predators more often than developers although they sometimes work together to extract more money from the consumer.
"However, defendants reliance on these "worthless" disclaimers is worthless . The clause does not use the words "worthless" or "useless" or "ignore" or "disregard" or any similar words. It does not say, "the values herein are what I think the properties will be worth in ten or more years. Indeed, the quoted language uses the word "current" no less than five times, and the word "future" zero times.
Additionally, as discussed supra, a defendant may not rely on a disclaimer for misrepresentation of facts peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge. Basis Yield Alpha Fund at 136. Here, as the valuations of the subject properties are , obviously, peculiarly within defendants knowledge, their reliance on them is to no avail.
Furthermore, "[t]his special facts doctrine applies regardless of the level of sophistication of the parties." TIAA Glob. Invs. LLC v One Astoria Square LLC, 127 AD3d 75, 87 ( 1st Dept 2015)
(emphasis added)(holding disclaimer does not bar liability for fraud where facts were peculiarly within disclaiming party's knowledge).
Thus, the "worthless clause" does not say what defendants say it says, does not rise to the level of an enforceable disclaimer, and cannot be used to insulate fraud as to facts peculiarly within defendants knowledge, even vis-à-vis sophisticated recipients."
The TL;DR sum up: the "disclaimer" was not legal and not enforceable.
Are you telling me the officers of the huge financial center banking institutions are clueless rubes? They knew what they were getting which was almost certainly a good investment that paid the interest rate their profit margin required. Lenders are not victims of fraud. How many showed up during the trial to testify they were defrauded by Mr. Trump? All that BS about levels of sophistication means nothing except as it applied to whatever cases cited in the ruling and even then, it might have come from a bought-off judge.
Happy to leave it to the courts to adjudicate the constitutionality of this penalty and how it was arrived at, and how it was applied. This doesn't seem to be like an innovative case procedurally. (I don't recall anyone else complaining about bench trials and whether they were Constitutionally kosher - especially when Trump HAD an opportunity to have a jury trial and waived that right.) Perhaps the size of the penalty makes this something functionally different - happy to leave that in the hands of an appeals (or Supreme) court and respect their decision.
That said, given that Trump has a decent chance of becoming President again, and he's still having problems raising money to post the bond, the lack folks rushing to his aid in a moment of his greatest peril is probably the karma of all of the one-way loyalty he's exhibited over his career finally coming due. No one wants to be the next Rudy Guiliani left hanging out to dry.
I really do think Trump will attempt to liquidate a property and pay the bond. It’s his best political move. Being bailed out by small donors does not project “strength” to Trump’s supporters. But if he sells a property and then posts the bond, people will donate. Strange times we live in.
Folks in Chicago here are rooting for him to liquidate the tower on the river. Saw a cheeky comment that we should chip in to rename it "Sears Tower" if the property was sold.
Also, on the issue of the jury trial, while I think Trump's lawyers are daft for working for him (note the wreckage of law careers left in his wake), I also don't think that they were being dumb and missed the deadline to opt into the jury trial.
I believe that they would have better luck with a judge than a jury of New Yorkers, and they still ended up with a poor outcome. Whether that is better or worse than he would have gotten from a jury is speculation (until we can hop into alternate dimensions to observe the counterfactual), but Trump and his lawyers made their bet and are squawking that it's now time to pay up on their wager. Not a lot of sympathy coming from me on that front.
Even i, as anti-trumper, see this large a penalty as an overreach. That said, i'm also a glass-half full kind of guy , so i can see two upsides for trump in this: Great whining material for months to come and more importantly , fabulous fodder for the fund raising grist mill.
This response also allows me the luxury of fact-checking MNSBC's comments yesterday that his donors list gets up to "10 emails per day?" That would drive me wild, i find 1 or 2 per week annoying from the DNC and related candidates.
The settlement for Trump University was fair and legal. I know everyone enjoys calling
Trump a fraudster, FACTUALLY PROVE IT! Trump has played the game within the legal margins in a whole lot of stuff. WITHIN THE MARGINS. When he as been proven not to, he has settled. It really does not matter if you like it or not. Those are the facts.
James and Engoron know full well there are no bond companies who can legally insure a loan for over $100 Million. Trump tried to put together multiple bonds but is constrained by law and these PERSECUTORS know this full well.
James and Engoron plan to make this painful even though they know they will be reversed in the end. They hope to do maximum damage to the Trump's Financial Brand in the mean time. Just like the Georgia case this is the concept design by the Blob, Deep State, Swamp, Bureaucracy, or whatever you want to call it. "We the People", I think even you, see through this scheme.
Obviously Trump can never redeem himself in the eyes of people like you or the Elites. I do not have reason to believe you fall within their circle but some of the things you attribute to him makes me wonder.
Trump stated under oath he had $400mil+ cash on hand. He just stated on social media he has $500mil cash on hand. To my knowledge he has not submitted any proof he bothered asking for a bond - just a statement that he did, which from a fraud like him means nothing.
Did he even bother trying to get a bond? Does he just not actually want to part with his money to appeal because he knows he'll lose?
There really was only one crime here from the left's perspective, that was/is Trump running for office. As usual, this will come back and haunt the left. American's have a pretty good handle on what they get from the politicians and this version of politics, lawfare, is not the American way. I think it just ensures that he will be our next President and we can get the country back on the right track.
That’s a terrible answer because it’s bad public policy. Of course it’s true but the implication is that if your political enemies have a slam dunk on you or can build one then watch out. But if those same people are your political friends you can get away with s whole lot of fraud.
A banana republic so one in which the extraction/production of a single resource is the sole economic means - and thus easily controlled and ruled by despots.
Failing to hold the powerful to account for violating the law is a feature of a banana republic: this is quite the opposite.
Well, isn't that the truth - that the rich, powerful, and connected often get away or are otherwise minimally punished for corrupt actions that those that are not rich, powerful, or connected would not?
It's not that I think this is as it should be: on the contrary, I think an anti-corruption policy platform that holds all accountable regardless of their status would do very well in the US.
It is sad that I agree with you. Adam Schiff, and Eric Swalwell, Nancy Pelosi. Again, common sense over-rules, narratives, PSYOP's, and outright lies. Russia, Russia, Russia.
Please define the crime. Other than, because we said so. The main thing MAGA brings to the table is: Common Sense. Narratives and PSYOP's have a great deal of trouble when dealing with facts, truth, and common sense.
"..the language of the 7th Amendment is key. The right to a jury is “preserved.” This actually means that the Constitution was preserving whatever rights were available to litigants in civil trials under English law as it was before the Constitution. English law had some particularities that are still relevant today. Under English law, a party had a right to a civil suit at law but not in equity. The distinction is subtle and, in modern law, much less discernible. But for the sake of simplification, suits at law involved specific areas of the law that had concretely developed in early English society. Suits in equity involved areas of the law that were less defined and required more case-by-case adjudication, and more tailored remedies, than cases at law. Today, generally, areas of the law that are descendants of old suits at law do trigger the 7th Amendment. But areas that stem from suits in equity do not."
Just for the record, all the loans that were central to this case were repaid in full on time. I think that was the testimony of the banks in question.
On the contrary, he received ~$287mil of debt forgiveness since 2010 - mostly related to his Chicago tower project. He had been excluding the value of the project since 2009 as he wanted to claim it as a loss under tax code, but then used it as collateral to receive a $107mil loan from Deutsche Bank in 2012, expanded another $47mil in 2014 - and then later he defaulted and sued DB for predatory lending practices. This led them forgiving a large amount of his debt.
So there's a victim. Regardless, NY State allows for the State to go after corporate fraud:
"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 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."
Which has nothing to do with this travesty of justice unless of course your goal is to stop him from running for President or if you find yourself so consumed with trump derangement syndrome that you invent crimes to be prosecuted.
Who is deranged here: someone that describes what the law states, or the person that thinks the law should not apply because of their love for the offender?
The text of the 9th amendment is as follows, and is irrelevant to the case:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This appears to be irrelevant to the above, and instead should be referring to the 7th amendment which states:
“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
Your reference to the 7th amendment should be towards the 5th:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Thanks for not engaging in hate speech and presenting an objective view of the unjust and unfair persecution of Mr. Trump by AG James and Judge Engoron. You covered it well. You stated that you did not want Mr. Trump to be elected, an opinion shared by millions of citizens, all within their rights to opine. My opinion is that fining the Trump organization for irregularities is legitimate, but the amount is several thousand times what is justified. The terms of bond and appeal might even be reasonable if the fine were reasonable. The penalty imposed on Mr. Trump is equivalent to the awards for 170 victims of the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
The penalty is commensurate with the amount of money involved (hundreds of millions of dollars) and his stated-under-oath wealth.
I'm of the opinion that fraud damages should be punitive, to ensure the offender does not commit fraud again. Anything else is just a slap on the wrist.
Trump's organization included ample disclaimers regarding property valuations in loan applications. Lenders are not victims. They did, or should have done, their own due diligence to assess any risk to collateral. They were repaid with the interest they agreed to.
If you ever bought a new house and paid attention, you would have noticed that appraised value was a few hundred dollars higher than the price of the house. I have purchased eight new homes, and this was true in every instance. Several of the closing attorneys told me it was pretty standard. The lenders want the business and rely on the credit worthiness of the buyer. When they don't, we get a crisis like the 2007 market crash.
At the retail level, lenders are predators more often than developers although they sometimes work together to extract more money from the consumer.
From https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-judges-ruling/ce6de7d636227e1b/full.pdf:
"However, defendants reliance on these "worthless" disclaimers is worthless . The clause does not use the words "worthless" or "useless" or "ignore" or "disregard" or any similar words. It does not say, "the values herein are what I think the properties will be worth in ten or more years. Indeed, the quoted language uses the word "current" no less than five times, and the word "future" zero times.
Additionally, as discussed supra, a defendant may not rely on a disclaimer for misrepresentation of facts peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge. Basis Yield Alpha Fund at 136. Here, as the valuations of the subject properties are , obviously, peculiarly within defendants knowledge, their reliance on them is to no avail.
Furthermore, "[t]his special facts doctrine applies regardless of the level of sophistication of the parties." TIAA Glob. Invs. LLC v One Astoria Square LLC, 127 AD3d 75, 87 ( 1st Dept 2015)
(emphasis added)(holding disclaimer does not bar liability for fraud where facts were peculiarly within disclaiming party's knowledge).
Thus, the "worthless clause" does not say what defendants say it says, does not rise to the level of an enforceable disclaimer, and cannot be used to insulate fraud as to facts peculiarly within defendants knowledge, even vis-à-vis sophisticated recipients."
The TL;DR sum up: the "disclaimer" was not legal and not enforceable.
Are you telling me the officers of the huge financial center banking institutions are clueless rubes? They knew what they were getting which was almost certainly a good investment that paid the interest rate their profit margin required. Lenders are not victims of fraud. How many showed up during the trial to testify they were defrauded by Mr. Trump? All that BS about levels of sophistication means nothing except as it applied to whatever cases cited in the ruling and even then, it might have come from a bought-off judge.
It's legal precedent: TIAA Glob. Invs. LLC v One Astoria Square LLC 2015
Once again BS. In the case cited, there was a victim, the Plaintiff, who showed up in court to testify they were defrauded by the defendant.
Happy to leave it to the courts to adjudicate the constitutionality of this penalty and how it was arrived at, and how it was applied. This doesn't seem to be like an innovative case procedurally. (I don't recall anyone else complaining about bench trials and whether they were Constitutionally kosher - especially when Trump HAD an opportunity to have a jury trial and waived that right.) Perhaps the size of the penalty makes this something functionally different - happy to leave that in the hands of an appeals (or Supreme) court and respect their decision.
That said, given that Trump has a decent chance of becoming President again, and he's still having problems raising money to post the bond, the lack folks rushing to his aid in a moment of his greatest peril is probably the karma of all of the one-way loyalty he's exhibited over his career finally coming due. No one wants to be the next Rudy Guiliani left hanging out to dry.
I really do think Trump will attempt to liquidate a property and pay the bond. It’s his best political move. Being bailed out by small donors does not project “strength” to Trump’s supporters. But if he sells a property and then posts the bond, people will donate. Strange times we live in.
Folks in Chicago here are rooting for him to liquidate the tower on the river. Saw a cheeky comment that we should chip in to rename it "Sears Tower" if the property was sold.
Also, on the issue of the jury trial, while I think Trump's lawyers are daft for working for him (note the wreckage of law careers left in his wake), I also don't think that they were being dumb and missed the deadline to opt into the jury trial.
I believe that they would have better luck with a judge than a jury of New Yorkers, and they still ended up with a poor outcome. Whether that is better or worse than he would have gotten from a jury is speculation (until we can hop into alternate dimensions to observe the counterfactual), but Trump and his lawyers made their bet and are squawking that it's now time to pay up on their wager. Not a lot of sympathy coming from me on that front.
Even i, as anti-trumper, see this large a penalty as an overreach. That said, i'm also a glass-half full kind of guy , so i can see two upsides for trump in this: Great whining material for months to come and more importantly , fabulous fodder for the fund raising grist mill.
This response also allows me the luxury of fact-checking MNSBC's comments yesterday that his donors list gets up to "10 emails per day?" That would drive me wild, i find 1 or 2 per week annoying from the DNC and related candidates.
The settlement for Trump University was fair and legal. I know everyone enjoys calling
Trump a fraudster, FACTUALLY PROVE IT! Trump has played the game within the legal margins in a whole lot of stuff. WITHIN THE MARGINS. When he as been proven not to, he has settled. It really does not matter if you like it or not. Those are the facts.
James and Engoron know full well there are no bond companies who can legally insure a loan for over $100 Million. Trump tried to put together multiple bonds but is constrained by law and these PERSECUTORS know this full well.
James and Engoron plan to make this painful even though they know they will be reversed in the end. They hope to do maximum damage to the Trump's Financial Brand in the mean time. Just like the Georgia case this is the concept design by the Blob, Deep State, Swamp, Bureaucracy, or whatever you want to call it. "We the People", I think even you, see through this scheme.
Obviously Trump can never redeem himself in the eyes of people like you or the Elites. I do not have reason to believe you fall within their circle but some of the things you attribute to him makes me wonder.
'cause it needs be posted:
Trump stated under oath he had $400mil+ cash on hand. He just stated on social media he has $500mil cash on hand. To my knowledge he has not submitted any proof he bothered asking for a bond - just a statement that he did, which from a fraud like him means nothing.
Did he even bother trying to get a bond? Does he just not actually want to part with his money to appeal because he knows he'll lose?
Facts matter. We'll see.
Yes, because the judge has ordered that they provide proof they tried to get bonds.
Either they prove it, or they have lied to the court.
There really was only one crime here from the left's perspective, that was/is Trump running for office. As usual, this will come back and haunt the left. American's have a pretty good handle on what they get from the politicians and this version of politics, lawfare, is not the American way. I think it just ensures that he will be our next President and we can get the country back on the right track.
What the left may learn through this exercise is their own PSYOP is coming back home to roost.
Perhaps a better way of putting it:
Don't bring attention to yourself if you're committing crime/fraud.
That’s a terrible answer because it’s bad public policy. Of course it’s true but the implication is that if your political enemies have a slam dunk on you or can build one then watch out. But if those same people are your political friends you can get away with s whole lot of fraud.
The term banana republic comes to mind as we draw closer and closer to it.
A banana republic so one in which the extraction/production of a single resource is the sole economic means - and thus easily controlled and ruled by despots.
Failing to hold the powerful to account for violating the law is a feature of a banana republic: this is quite the opposite.
Well, isn't that the truth - that the rich, powerful, and connected often get away or are otherwise minimally punished for corrupt actions that those that are not rich, powerful, or connected would not?
It's not that I think this is as it should be: on the contrary, I think an anti-corruption policy platform that holds all accountable regardless of their status would do very well in the US.
It is sad that I agree with you. Adam Schiff, and Eric Swalwell, Nancy Pelosi. Again, common sense over-rules, narratives, PSYOP's, and outright lies. Russia, Russia, Russia.
Please define the crime. Other than, because we said so. The main thing MAGA brings to the table is: Common Sense. Narratives and PSYOP's have a great deal of trouble when dealing with facts, truth, and common sense.
The crime was fraud. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Technically speaking, the banks were in fact victims in that they did forgive hundreds of millions of dollars of his debt.
Regarding the 7th amendment, there's some important things to understand. From https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-07/:
"..the language of the 7th Amendment is key. The right to a jury is “preserved.” This actually means that the Constitution was preserving whatever rights were available to litigants in civil trials under English law as it was before the Constitution. English law had some particularities that are still relevant today. Under English law, a party had a right to a civil suit at law but not in equity. The distinction is subtle and, in modern law, much less discernible. But for the sake of simplification, suits at law involved specific areas of the law that had concretely developed in early English society. Suits in equity involved areas of the law that were less defined and required more case-by-case adjudication, and more tailored remedies, than cases at law. Today, generally, areas of the law that are descendants of old suits at law do trigger the 7th Amendment. But areas that stem from suits in equity do not."
Just for the record, all the loans that were central to this case were repaid in full on time. I think that was the testimony of the banks in question.
On the contrary, he received ~$287mil of debt forgiveness since 2010 - mostly related to his Chicago tower project. He had been excluding the value of the project since 2009 as he wanted to claim it as a loss under tax code, but then used it as collateral to receive a $107mil loan from Deutsche Bank in 2012, expanded another $47mil in 2014 - and then later he defaulted and sued DB for predatory lending practices. This led them forgiving a large amount of his debt.
So there's a victim. Regardless, NY State allows for the State to go after corporate fraud:
NY State Executive Law 63 (12) (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EXC/63):
"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 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."
Which has nothing to do with this travesty of justice unless of course your goal is to stop him from running for President or if you find yourself so consumed with trump derangement syndrome that you invent crimes to be prosecuted.
Who is deranged here: someone that describes what the law states, or the person that thinks the law should not apply because of their love for the offender?
Corrections needed:
The text of the 9th amendment is as follows, and is irrelevant to the case:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This appears to be irrelevant to the above, and instead should be referring to the 7th amendment which states:
“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
Your reference to the 7th amendment should be towards the 5th:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Also, the bond required is 110% not 120%.