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

[Rightguide]

Governor Hochul says this is "an extraordinary and unusual circumstance" because most businesspeople in New York are law-abiding and follow the rules--unlike Donald Trump.

This is what she said: This is a circumstance where we had to go to extraordinary lengths including the use of novel untested legal theory to put down a political opponent. All will be well in NY as long as you think like we do.

 

[icanhelp1]

Johnathon Turley's hyperbole-laden opinion article in The Hill is one person's viewpoint. The Hill's small print statement above the article notes that it does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the publisher as a protective statement to cover itself from the appearance of bias. That's well and good. The tone taken in this reference reflects Turley's attempt to paint Judge Engoron as overzealous in finding Trump guilty, as noted by the "... throwing Trump into the wood chipper." remark.

Professor Turley is a noted legal scholar who often publishes and contributes articles as a paid consultant to organizations such as Fox News. If you don't 'puff up' your news article to draw in readers, a consultant isn't likely to make money or the publisher either. The Washington Post once quoted him as saying, "I suggest The Washington Post follow the legal rule de minimis non curat lex -- 'the law does not concern itself with trifles.' I am a trifle as are the other commentators in the media."

In other words, Turley suggests that his view is one of many in the free press, no greater or no less than anyone else's view. Neither is the viewpoint expressed by icanhelp1 nor my own as the humble opinion of a Literotica member and contributor.

One should read widely, from different perspectives, and reach their own conclusions about the case's merits. Look at the preponderance of the evidence, so to speak, and see if it squares and represents a sound decision. This case, as noted, is novel. Never applied before in this manner, but then the situation is also novel, as is the accused. The legal bounds of the law have always been evolving; they have in this case. Does it hold merit? That may or may not be the case. The appeals process may find that out. Meanwhile, the public court of opinion stands in the wings for a chance to be heard.

Engoron finally reined in Trump's continued violation of slandering the complainant - by using a substantial fine. Readers should note Donald Trump failed to adhere to the gag orders when the fines for failure to follow those orders were a paltry 15,000 dollar amount. Other news sources, by other scholars, point out that the fine was within the six-to-one commonly accepted ratio for such cases. True, it is a very large amount and beyond the norm. Then again, Donald is not prone to follow a legal order to refrain from slandering his victims in the public eye. Trump has since stopped his slander. Evidently, the amount awarded had the right effect.

It’s the prevailing view or opinion. Turkey’s opinion is grounded in legal precedent not some cockamamie theory.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

This is what she said: This is a circumstance where we had to go to extraordinary lengths including the use of novel untested legal theory to put down a political opponent. All will be well in NY as long as you think like we do.

Governor Hochul didn't say that.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

And yet somehow I've been correct on the outcome of the subjects of discussion most of the time.

Where?

While you have not.

Really, who won the last election for President? The base of water is what again?

Which is a factor a smart individual would take into consideration when determining who understands how things work.

I don't consider myself to be smart. Just smarter than you.

Which leads to more than one inescapable conclusion, none of which increase your prognostication skills or stature in the eyes of the world.

I don't claim to be seer. Just a person who can understand fact from fiction.

 

[Bn2f]

This is a precedent, and if allowed to stand, will allow the state to raid any business at any time based on the notion that "this is a special case."

To my conservative friends: Look, I get it. You’re sitting there in Conway, Arkansas or Laredo, Texas and Trump‘s business interests in the city of New York are of vital interest to you. But don’t worry, I am here to put your mind at ease with a little adage of hope that you sometimes share with minority communities. Just follow the law. Obey the respected laws and authorities. If you’re running a business, then make sure your books are clean. Don’t run a fraudulent university or charity or misuse funds to pay to a porn star or commit perjury on the stand. If you do this, then I promise that a black female attorney general won’t put her knee on your neck and stifle your business to death.

 

[Rightguide]

Governor Hochul didn't say that.

That was her meaning. After all, she is an idiot with no foresight.

 

[schism666]

That was her meaning. After all, she is an idiot with no foresight.

vetteman mansplaining to a woman another woman's intentions is some seriously meta shit.

 

[schism666]

Turkey’s opinion is grounded in legal precedent not some cockamamie theory.

turley. grounded turkey doesn't hold an opinion.

 

[dmallord]

Total idiocy

Reference #120.

The counterpoint to your premise, "the law isn't supposed to be 'politically' driven," suggests that politics inevitably play a role in shaping laws and legal decisions. Consider the following:

In democratic societies, laws are often created through a legislative process involving elected representatives who are inherently political actors. These representatives introduce, debate, and vote on laws based on their political beliefs, ideologies, and the interests of their constituents. The current Republican Congress just rejected a bill to fund and govern border security purely out of political spite, even though it previously called for such actions. In addition, politics unavoidably influences the content of laws or, in the latter case, a lack of direly needed legislation and enforcement.

As to jurisprudence, even though judges are expected to interpret and apply the law impartially, their decisions can be influenced by their personal beliefs, values, and judicial philosophies, which may be shaped by political ideologies. This is manifested so frequently that it negates the premise that “it shouldn’t be politically motivated.” Judicial appointments themselves can be political processes, with different political parties advocating for judges who align with their views. Donald Trump made three Supreme Court decisions based upon his belief they would do ‘right by him’ because he appointed them. That’s politics on clear display and backed up by his own words.

Overall, while your purely apolitical legal system may exist as a state of mind, the reality is that politics permeates every aspect of law, from its creation to its interpretation and enforcement. Recognizing this reality is essential for understanding how laws are made and applied in society. Your premise that ‘it shouldn’t be …’ is refuted frequently by the preponderance of the evidence to the contrary. The New York ruling is valid unless it is overturned. To declare it as politically motivated at this point is specious.

 

[dmallord]

It’s the prevailing view or opinion. Turkey’s [sic] opinion is grounded in legal precedent not some cockamamie theory.

Got some support for the prevailing view or opinion? Where is credit given to his prevailing view? Was there a decision that overturned the case? Citation, please.

 

[YDB95]

Then explain how they would be aware of a legal eventuality that was never contemplated and has never occurred in their state's history.

That says more about how uniquely evil Donald Trump is than anything else.

There has never been a similar case or a legal construction or application of the NY statute as that handed down by Judge Engoron.

There has never been another businessman as shamelessly unethical as Trump, at least not in this particular way.

Why is there a need to assure business operators in NY that this won't happen to them?

There isn't. I like Hochul, but she always has had kind of a tin ear politically speaking. It probably goes back to when she was (briefly) a congresswoman from a red district and had to do this sort of thing to have any hope at winning re-election.

 

[schism666]

Got some support for the prevailing view or opinion? Where is credit given to his prevailing view? Was there a decision that overturned the case? Citation, please.

don't expect an answer. his best quality is to tuck tail and run when confronted about his bullshit.

 

[LaValliere]

“The non-jury Soviet-style show” he could have asked for a jury trial, you dope

 

[icanhelp1]

Got some support for the prevailing view or opinion? Where is credit given to his prevailing view? Was there a decision that overturned the case? Citation, please.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...ny-fraud-verdict-is-threat-to-all-businesses/

 

[DeluxAuto]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...ny-fraud-verdict-is-threat-to-all-businesses/

A TV game show host defending a TV game show host on a network that the latter TV game show host and yourself have discredited for years.

You tried.

 

[icanhelp1]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...ny-fraud-verdict-is-threat-to-all-businesses/

https://forum.literotica.com/

 

[DeluxAuto]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...ny-fraud-verdict-is-threat-to-all-businesses/

https://forum.literotica.com/

WHAT?

 

[Lazaran]

WHAT?

A sociopathic billionaire said something and ineedhelp1 drooled…



That same sociopathic billionaire also said this:

“You have to get to a place where you have $5 million in the bank,”

I wonder what percentage of American get to a point in their lives where they have “$ 5 million in the bank”???



Talk about elite and out of touch.



But that is who ineedhelp1 chooses to cite, so…



ineedhelp1

 

[KeithD]

Negotiating prices is not the same thing as lying about value. If I sign my name and knowingly overvalue an item... That is fraud.

Or undervalue it for tax purposes. Trump went both directions.

 

[dmallord]

Got some support for the prevailing view or opinion? Where is credit given to his prevailing view? Was there a decision that overturned the case? Citation, please.

Reply to #139 from @icanhelp1
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...ny-fraud-verdict-is-threat-to-all-businesses/

One talk show host says, 'Everybody does it.' And follows that with, 'I don't get it, where is the harm?'

The judge introduces the harm element and some support at the beginning and in depth further into the 90+ pages. Engoron starts the explanation this way on pages 3 and 4 of the finding:

This Court takes judicial notice that New York State, particularly New York City, is the financial capital of the country and one of the financial capitals of the world. The City’s fabled Wall Street is synonymous with capital formation, investing, trading, lending, and borrowing. In a summary judgment Decision and Order dated September 26, 2023, NYSCEF Doc. 1531, the Court addressed the State’s judicially recognized interest in an honest marketplace:​

​

In varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace.” People v Grasso, 11 NY3d 64, 69 at n 4 (2008); People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 346 (1st Dept 2008) (“the claim pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12) constituted proper exercises of the State’s regulation of businesses within its borders in the interest of securing an honest marketplace”); People v Amazon.com, Inc., 550 F Supp 3d 122, 130-131 (SDNY 2021) (“[T]he State’s statutory interest under § 63(12) encompasses the prevention of either ‘fraudulent or illegal’ business activities. Misconduct that is illegal for reasons other than fraud still implicates the government’s interests in guaranteeing a marketplace that adheres to standards of fairness …”).​

Timely and total repayment of loans does 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.​

The above entry is an example of 'prevailing' or 'precedence' from case law. You missed the mark of proof with the YouTube selection of a SharkTank host not certified in the subject matter. The video guy didn't get the fact that the harm is in the false financial statements and not the fact that the payments were made. This case is about fraud and underscores pervasive cases by Trump over years of fraudulent business practices. But that's okay; you tried, and I appreciate your reply.

Let's wait for the appeals process and see how the next-level court weighs in on this. They should have citations for and against Judge Engoron's decision basis.

 

[Bn2f]

dmallord: But that's okay; you tried, and I appreciate your reply.

Boy do I love condescending thrown shade.

 

[icanhelp1]

Reply to #139 from @icanhelp1
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...ny-fraud-verdict-is-threat-to-all-businesses/

One talk show host says, 'Everybody does it.' And follows that with, 'I don't get it, where is the harm?'

The judge introduces the harm element and some support at the beginning and in depth further into the 90+ pages. Engoron starts the explanation this way on pages 3 and 4 of the finding:

This Court takes judicial notice that New York State, particularly New York City, is the financial capital of the country and one of the financial capitals of the world. The City’s fabled Wall Street is synonymous with capital formation, investing, trading, lending, and borrowing. In a summary judgment Decision and Order dated September 26, 2023, NYSCEF Doc. 1531, the Court addressed the State’s judicially recognized interest in an honest marketplace:​

​

In varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace.” People v Grasso, 11 NY3d 64, 69 at n 4 (2008); People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 346 (1st Dept 2008) (“the claim pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12) constituted proper exercises of the State’s regulation of businesses within its borders in the interest of securing an honest marketplace”); People v Amazon.com, Inc., 550 F Supp 3d 122, 130-131 (SDNY 2021) (“[T]he State’s statutory interest under § 63(12) encompasses the prevention of either ‘fraudulent or illegal’ business activities. Misconduct that is illegal for reasons other than fraud still implicates the government’s interests in guaranteeing a marketplace that adheres to standards of fairness …”).​

Timely and total repayment of loans does 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.​

The above entry is an example of 'prevailing' or 'precedence' from case law. You missed the mark of proof with the YouTube selection of a SharkTank host not certified in the subject matter. The video guy didn't get the fact that the harm is in the false financial statements and not the fact that the payments were made. This case is about fraud and underscores pervasive cases by Trump over years of fraudulent business practices. But that's okay; you tried, and I appreciate your reply.

Let's wait for the appeals process and see how the next-level court weighs in on this. They should have citations for and against Judge Engoron's decision basis.

Standards of fairness for who? NY political elites are basically picking winners and losers. You just wrote a long dissertation of NY law that failed in this case to establish or identify a victim. There are many individuals like shark Tank that find James and Engoron’s aggressive behavior towards Trump’s business model as over the top. If there’s no victim then who gets this cash. I’m not wasting time digging up a lot of these legal beagles that I’ve listened, but with you *Trump haters* no sources or arguments are good enough. You lack objectivity, you only see things through the prism of Trump hatred and fail to see the long term effects this ruling will have on businesses. The big apple is rotten and businesses are migrating out of New York at alarming rates partly due to political hackery at the highest levels. You believe what you want to believe.

 

[Chobham]

The judge's rationale is weak pap for the masses.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

They cheer the unconstitutional taking thinking, "This can only happen to Trump and he deserves it. You cannot give a dangerous man like that due process."

What can happen to thee can happen to me.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

"This can only happen to Trump and he deserves it. You cannot give a dangerous man like that due process."

LOL Trump had "due process",and he still is getting due process. His lawyers fucked up by going with a trial by judge, his lawyers fucked up by letting Trump speak. But hey, you keep blaming everyone else for Trump's own fuck ups. Like a good Trump cocksucker.