Judge Engoron's $355 Million Fine Against Donald Trump May Have Far-Reaching Consequences

[HisArpy]

I read the unsigned decision and some commentary about the separate documents about this. All, or the unanimous part, referred to the agreement of concurrence with the States not having the right to remove Trump from the ballot.

I am not certain about the distinction between why some decisions apparently can be issued unsigned—the distinction is not clear to me.

As to the 'at best 6-3 or 5-4' concerned the feelings that some of the justices felt the decision went further than it should have in answering the matter.

Perhaps that is what MSNBC was pointing out.

You claim unreasonable reporting. They reported it as unanimous right and added some context, perhaps? Did they say the SC made a wrong decision or just pointed out some background to the story? I didn't see that news item.

You admit the process isn't clear but you also say I'm clueless regarding the process which earned me my daily bread and butter?

WTH kind of logic is that?

The law isn't simple. If it was anyone could be a lawyer. There are procedures which have to be followed and rules obeyed. When those things are rejected the higher courts are supposed to step in and correct the errors. There's a procedure for that too and it affects how the world has to treat the decisions which were changed because they were in error.

All of this is complicated and complex. There are those who think they can shortcut the way it all works because either they're connected or they're stupid. (Like that idiot who tried to pass of Google AI citations as real legal citations in his law brief.) I am neither yet I've been a successful attorney for decades.

Yet you insist that I don't know what I'm talking about because you believe what you've been told BY THE MEDIA.

Basically you're taking the word of a media personality/talking head over the information given to you by an attorney. Worse, you're doing it merely because you want to believe what you've also been told by that same media. You're not doing it because it's true, you're doing it because that's what you were told to believe.

The media has played you. It's played you to the point of folly. The progressive house of cards is falling down as I post this and you STILL refuse to believe anything other than the lies you're being fed.

You can turn it around. All you have to do is stop being a lemming and go educate yourself. Or, in the lexicon of the interwebz, swallow the red pill.

 

[Rightguide]

This is a newspaper account of the trial, not a legal document. It supports what I posted. The article doesn't contradict Engoron's citation - it affirms it.

Yes, it shows the bank agreed they gave Trump the loan based on the SFC documents and added that they would not have loaned Trump the money without his personal promise to pay if in default. THAT REVIEW the bank did was Trump's false SFC numbers!

The DA, in the case decision I cited, said Trump lied about the accuracy of the SFC to a level of fraud. Trump's auditor firm concurred after finding out the real numbers from the DA and fired Trump. Judge Engoron concurred.

Trump lied, defrauded the State of NY according to the findings by the judge.

This AP article reiterates those facts - not disproves them.

Your post confirms my quotes of the trial records.

It is on the record, and you fail to recognize he lost. You are the zero here!

Trump has some time to appeal. You don't have that time - you lost the case of public opinion.

Public based on ignorance. Communist-like show trials are always successful.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The "facts" you claim about the bank never doing their own assessments are false and are brought to you by those with an interest in continuing the controversy surrounding Trump because it sells advertising generated by clicks on the lies being published.

I never claimed that fraud had to have a "victim." I've quoted the required elements for fraud in one of the threads and I'm sure you've misread it like you idjits always seem to do.

Elements for fraud:

• A false statement
• Of a material fact
• Made for the purpose of inducing another to rely on the false statement
• And the false statement was actually relied upon.

Applying those elements in the light most favorable to the accused (as REQUIRED by the law) results in:

Trump gave his opinion on the value of his property which is consistent with the other properties in the neighborhood (which is called comps in the real estate world). This is not a "material fact" because bargaining on price isn't a material fact, statements about the quality and condition of the item being bargained for are. Trump's statements about the quality and condition of the property supporting the value he claimed are supported by comps of other properties.

The bank stated that they did not rely on the values Trump provided. See:




If you read the NY Times story you'll get some other interesting facts too. One of which is that Engoron determined that Trump had committed fraud BEFORE the trial began.

That's very interesting to say the least since fraud isn't purely a question of law. Fraud requires evidentiary facts provided by witness testimony and evidence. Deciding that fraud occurred before those witnesses and evidence could be brought to light is beyond the province of the judge when deciding questions of law.

In the end your determination that Trump committed fraud, like Engoron's decision, is rooted in bias rather than facts or law. You are wrong, Engoron is wrong, and the decision will be overturned on appeal.

You don't have to like it but pitching a public fit because you don't like the result of the law being applied evenly to Trump is unacceptable.

So again, who from the bank signed off that Trump’s NYC pad was 3x bigger than it really was?

 

[dmallord]

You admit the process isn't clear but you also say I'm clueless regarding the process which earned me my daily bread and butter?

WTH kind of logic is that?

The law isn't simple. If it was anyone could be a lawyer. There are procedures which have to be followed and rules obeyed. When those things are rejected the higher courts are supposed to step in and correct the errors. There's a procedure for that too and it affects how the world has to treat the decisions which were changed because they were in error.

All of this is complicated and complex. There are those who think they can shortcut the way it all works because either they're connected or they're stupid. (Like that idiot who tried to pass of Google AI citations as real legal citations in his law brief.) I am neither yet I've been a successful attorney for decades.

Yet you insist that I don't know what I'm talking about because you believe what you've been told BY THE MEDIA.

Basically you're taking the word of a media personality/talking head over the information given to you by an attorney. Worse, you're doing it merely because you want to believe what you've also been told by that same media. You're not doing it because it's true, you're doing it because that's what you were told to believe.

The media has played you. It's played you to the point of folly. The progressive house of cards is falling down as I post this and you STILL refuse to believe anything other than the lies you're being fed.

You can turn it around. All you have to do is stop being a lemming and go educate yourself. Or, in the lexicon of the interwebz, swallow the red pill.

I agree; the law isn't simple. You twisted my words. I said I was unclear as to why an SC decision is sometimes unsigned. You jumped on that to expand it out of proportion, claiming it is faulty logic and that I said you were clueless regarding an understanding of the process. That is a false claim. Like a lawyer's twisted logic attempt.

It's the lawyer's old line, "Tell me, Mr. Jones, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer me Mr. Jones. It's a simple 'yes' or 'no.'

You know why they have all those lawyer jokes, right? When they get down to arguing over what the definition of 'is' is - then someone is lying - possibly the lawyers on both sides.

I watch the media often interview attorneys, ex-AGs, retired judges, legal scholars, and grandmothers, too. They count as resources along with the printed stuff, so I get a variety of viewpoints—from you as well. You do not deviate from the foregone conclusion that Trump is perfect—though not yet tried. That point never varies, never once, never allowing that he errored. True Trumpism. Are you that person? Someone who fails to admit a client's faults is not a believable resource.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I didn't realize Trump's entire 83 million dollar verdict to E. Jean Carrol (now 91 million with interest) is due this Friday by close of business, or else her lawyers can start placing liens on his real property.

Of course, Trump's lawyers filed an "emergency" three day extension today at court in New York......
I wonder what variation of "it's NOT FAIR!" they will use as "legal" justification this time?

Perhaps JimArpy can give us some insight.

District court denies Trump's "emergency" relief request.

https://imgur.com/aFoHn7L

Perhaps Literotica Legal Scholar JimArpy could explain to the class with the statement
"Mr. Trump's current situation is a result of his own dilatory actions" means?l

Best headline yet:
Judge Kaplan: "You Shall Not Habba Stay!"

 

[dmallord]

I agree; the law isn't simple. You twisted my words. I said I was unclear as to why an SC decision is sometimes unsigned. You jumped on that to expand it out of proportion, claiming it is faulty logic and that I said you were clueless regarding an understanding of the process. That is a false claim. Like a lawyer's twisted logic attempt.

It's the lawyer's old line, "Tell me, Mr. Jones, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer me Mr. Jones. It's a simple 'yes' or 'no.'

You know why they have all those lawyer jokes, right? When they get down to arguing over what the definition of 'is' is - then someone is lying - possibly the lawyers on both sides.

I watch the media often interview attorneys, ex-AGs, retired judges, legal scholars, and grandmothers, too. They count as resources along with the printed stuff, so I get a variety of viewpoints—from you as well. You do not deviate from the foregone conclusion that Trump is perfect—though not yet tried. That point never varies, never once, never allowing that he errored. True Trumpism. Are you that person? Someone who fails to admit a client's faults is not a believable resource.

@HisArpy

Is this article what supports your claim? If I read this correctly the SC did overturn the decision in Colorado but chose also to go beyond that narrow question of eligibilty and added the insurrection part as well. At least that is what Judge Luttig says here in a CNN interview.

Retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig on Monday called the Supreme Court decision allowing former President Trump to remain on the presidential ballot “stunning in its overreach.”

In an interview on CNN’s “The Lead,” Luttig refrained from criticizing the decision to let Trump stay on the ballot, but he said the Supreme Court’s expansive decision concerning other constitutional matters “was both shocking and unprecedented.”

“Not for its decision of the exceedingly narrow question presented by the case, though that issue is important, but rather for its decision to reach and decide a myriad of the other constitutional issues surrounding disqualification under [the] 14th Amendment,” Luttig told Jake Tapper.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday that Colorado cannot disqualify former President Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban.

The Supreme Court also ruled Congress has exclusive authority to enforce the 14th Amendment to disqualify federal candidates. Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberal justices in criticizing that decision.

Luttig, a longtime conservative jurist on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, agreed with the concurrence and said it was not necessary to go beyond the narrow scope of the case.

“In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter,” Luttig continued.

“But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,” he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

“It’s stunning in its overreach. It’s a textbook example, Jake, of the kind of activist judicial opinion from the 1960s and the Warren Court era that begat the conservative legal and judicial movement in the 1970s and 1980s. But of course, it’s different here. Because this is unmistakably a conservative court,” he said.

 

[HisArpy]

@HisArpy

Is this article what supports your claim? If I read this correctly the SC did overturn the decision in Colorado but chose also to go beyond that narrow question of eligibilty and added the insurrection part as well. At least that is what Judge Luttig says here in a CNN interview.

Retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig on Monday called the Supreme Court decision allowing former President Trump to remain on the presidential ballot “stunning in its overreach.”

In an interview on CNN’s “The Lead,” Luttig refrained from criticizing the decision to let Trump stay on the ballot, but he said the Supreme Court’s expansive decision concerning other constitutional matters “was both shocking and unprecedented.”

“Not for its decision of the exceedingly narrow question presented by the case, though that issue is important, but rather for its decision to reach and decide a myriad of the other constitutional issues surrounding disqualification under [the] 14th Amendment,” Luttig told Jake Tapper.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday that Colorado cannot disqualify former President Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban.

The Supreme Court also ruled Congress has exclusive authority to enforce the 14th Amendment to disqualify federal candidates. Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberal justices in criticizing that decision.

Luttig, a longtime conservative jurist on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, agreed with the concurrence and said it was not necessary to go beyond the narrow scope of the case.

“In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter,” Luttig continued.

“But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,” he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

“It’s stunning in its overreach. It’s a textbook example, Jake, of the kind of activist judicial opinion from the 1960s and the Warren Court era that begat the conservative legal and judicial movement in the 1970s and 1980s. But of course, it’s different here. Because this is unmistakably a conservative court,” he said.

Once again you're listening to a talking head tell you what to believe. And that's what you're doing.

JUST LISTEN to what that asshole said: "Activist court"? The decision was 9-0, how the hell can it be an activist court if the ENTIRE COURT signs on to the decision?

The answer is simple; the asshole trying to make you believe his bullshit is trading on the fact that you'll nod along with him because he's using all the buzzwords you've been taught are "correct."

They're not. Swallow the red pill.

 

[HisArpy]

I agree; the law isn't simple. You twisted my words. I said I was unclear as to why an SC decision is sometimes unsigned. You jumped on that to expand it out of proportion, claiming it is faulty logic and that I said you were clueless regarding an understanding of the process. That is a false claim. Like a lawyer's twisted logic attempt.

It's the lawyer's old line, "Tell me, Mr. Jones, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer me Mr. Jones. It's a simple 'yes' or 'no.'

You know why they have all those lawyer jokes, right? When they get down to arguing over what the definition of 'is' is - then someone is lying - possibly the lawyers on both sides.

I watch the media often interview attorneys, ex-AGs, retired judges, legal scholars, and grandmothers, too. They count as resources along with the printed stuff, so I get a variety of viewpoints—from you as well. You do not deviate from the foregone conclusion that Trump is perfect—though not yet tried. That point never varies, never once, never allowing that he errored. True Trumpism. Are you that person? Someone who fails to admit a client's faults is not a believable resource.

I get it, you're confused and you're blaming me for your confusion. The problem you have is that I haven't twisted your words or anything else, I've explained in simple terms exactly how you're being used.

The solution to your problem is very simple; stop listening to those who have an agenda when they tell you things that just aren't realistic or possible.

 

[RobDownSouth]

District court denies Trump's "emergency" relief request.

Perhaps Literotica Legal Scholar JimArpy could explain to the class with the statement
"Mr. Trump's current situation is a result of his own dilatory actions" means?l

Best headline yet:
Judge Kaplan: "You Shall Not Habba Stay!"

Well what do you know?
On the last possible day, Don Trump posted the entire 91 million dollar cash bond this morning to allow his appeal to go forward.

Crafty "Art of the Deal" stuff... whine and bitch and moan....then hang your head and post the goddamned bond.
That Turkish despot must've come through for him. I wonder what Top Secret documents Trump had to sell to obtain that kind of money?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Well now, detail are out. Don Trump's 91 million dollar appeal bond was posted by Chubb Personal Insurance company, a publicly traded firm.

I'm guessing they charged a healthy premium to fund his fantasy, given his spotty repayment history.

 

[Rightguide]

DEVELOPING: NY Appellate Judges Skeptical of Letitia James’ Civil Fraud Case Against Trump, Blast Her Deputy Solicitor General During Opening Statement​

by Cristina Laila Sep. 26, 2024 5:30 pm

Trump’s attorneys sent a letter to the Appellate Division of New York’s Supreme Court and asserted Letitia James’ actions are “unconstitutional.”

“It would be completely illogical — and the definition of an unconstitutional Excessive Fine and a Taking — to require Defendants to sell properties at all, and especially in a ‘fire sale,’ in order to be able to appeal the lawless Supreme Court judgment, as that would cause harm that cannot be repaired once the Defendants do win, as is overwhelmingly likely, on appeal,” Trump’s attorney Cliff Robert wrote.

Two of the appellate judges interrupted Letitia James’s deputy solicitor general Judy Vale during her opening statement to ask her if there are any other examples of the state suing private business transactions where there was no victim.

“Every case that you cite involves damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace,” Justice David Friedman told Vale, according to Reuters.

“We don’t have anything like that here,” Friedman added, saying that nobody “lost any money.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...pellate-judges-skeptical-letitia-james-civil/

Appellate judges skeptical of New York civil fraud case against Trump​

By Jack Queen and Luc Cohen
September 26, 202410:53 AM PDT

Members of the five-judge panel on the Appellate Division – the mid-level state appellate court hearing arguments in Trump’s appeal – appeared concerned about possible overreach by James.

Two of the judges interrupted Judith Vale, the lawyer arguing for New York, during her opening statement to ask if there were any other examples of the state suing over private business transactions between sophisticated parties under a law aimed at protecting market integrity.

“Every case that you cite involves damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace,” Justice David Friedman told Vale.
“We don’t have anything like that here,” Friedman added, saying that nobody “lost any money.”

The judges also wondered about what constraints applied to the law James cited in bringing the case – one that is typically used to go after fraudsters who target vulnerable consumers. “How do we draw a line or at least put up guardrails? Justice Peter Moulton asked.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tr...arly-500-mln-civil-fraud-judgment-2024-09-26/

As predicted, it would appear that the Soviet-style prosecution of Donald Trump and the attempted robbery of his assets may be in trouble in the NY Appellate Court.