Any Bankers Here? Please Comment On What a FARCE the Trump Trial Is!!

[eyecu2]

Originally Posted by lustylad

If the legal system can be grossly abused in this manner against Trump, then in future it can also be brought to bear unfairly against you or anyone else.

This is the ruse that the GOP has been saying all along. If they can do it to him they can do it to you!

Well the sad fact of the matter is that most people don't lie on bank records, certainly not on loan applications, and when you get loans that are fraudulently obtained and the money comes through a wire transfer that's wire fraud.

I know of several people that have lied on loan applications and not only were threatened with the same legal action, but in fact we're sued and lost. Bank fraud is not a joke, and it does affect your holders as well as the bank itself. All banks do due diligence, but they do rely on financial statements that are provided by the applicant, and they have to attest that they are truthful to the best of their knowledge. In the case of the trumps, these folks have lied on multiple applications multiple times, and have abused the system to their benefit, and there is no claim from Trump they didn't.

They simply claim that it is very subjective, and that they put in a clause that says none of this shit's true. As far as their applications go.

Unfortunately that's about as useful as a hooker saying, no police or law enforcement. Just doesn't hold water, and all applicants must fill out applications for loans that are truthful, honest and to be as accurate as possible. At the end of the day the Trump's sign these applications but now want to claim it was the accountant who did the fibbing. And the accountant, mazers, is saying no, it's the Trump that are the fibbers.

If you lie, you can get caught. And Trump's have lied all their lives on just about everything.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by lustylad

???

Wrong trial. Letitia James is the DA for NY State, not Manhattan.

Intelligent comments only, please!

Well Mea Culpa to little old me.

With so many trials out there, I must have mixed up their dance cards (like i've been doing with there/their/they're of late.)
But people exercised intelligence knowing the meaning and intent.

So, though donny will yell in the streets but not present in the court room, the trail is about fraud. As I stated. And it was not brought to court by the bankers. So, who cares.

Intelligent people can see you are trying to focus away from the point of not paying what you owe.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Any Bankers Here? Please Comment On What a FARCE the Trump Trial Is!!

Any banker who would have taken Trump's word for the value of his assets or the content of his financial statement is an idiot. And for that matter anyone who would entirely trust an independent appraisal he presented, without knowing the appraiser, is probably an idiot too. The bankers would have known about his Atlantic City bankruptcies and other financial troubles in the 1990's. And his propensity to exaggerate about his net worth and the value of his assets was well known too.

Courts in New York have been pulling this shit for a long time, although admittedly it's been more at the federal than state level. They sue a business with deep pockets to correct a purported wrong, and then the state or the Feds collect more in fines than the allegedly aggrieved parties receive in compensation. Look at some of the actions brought against the banks in New York, for billions of dollars. On several occasions the banks didn't do anything wrong, it was more a case of "shit happens."

As I understand it, none of the $250 million from Trump would go to the banks and insurance companies. It would go to the state of New York. It sounds like a revenue grab by the state, with the added political benefit of sticking it to Trump to make it harder for him to do business in New York.

On a much smaller scale, in Texas, local police and sheriff departments take away cash from people they stop, and use it for new cars or equipment or Christmas parties or whatever. And they often do that without any real basis, just the thought that it's possible the person was engaged in an illegal activity. The individual has to sue to get his money back, and if it's, say, $8000 or $9000, is it really worth it?

The only silver lining is seeing politicians like Trump get caught in this web. If enough do maybe they'll change the laws. Probably not in the Peoples Republic of New York though.

I suspect Trump's legal team fucked up when it didn't request a jury trial.

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I suspect Trump's legal team fucked up when it didn't request a jury trial.

... You must have missed the fact that they were NOT able
to request a jury trial in this case.

#### Salty

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... You must have missed the fact that they were NOT able
to request a jury trial in this case.

#### Salty

Salty, I don't know jack about this, but read that you have a Constitutional right to a jury trial if the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages. Letitia James got around this by claiming the $250 million was actually "equitable relief" for ill-gotten gains. Which I believe means that she's claiming Trump somehow screwed his banks and insurance companies out of $250 million. Well, LustyLad and you and I believe that's bull shit.

Trump could have asked Judge Engoron for a jury trial, and if he refused, litigated the issue. Engoron did have the power to grant a jury trial, although if he so ruled, the Attorney General probably could have appealed that decision.

And that and $5.00 will buy you a cup of Starbucks coffee.

Where's Blackman when you need him?

[Tiny]

Salty, here's the relevant part from the Constitution, the 7th Amendment:

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.

[Salty Again]

... Judge Engoron already ruled, anyway - claiming "guilty"
before the trial got started... And THAT was to try and
garner a plead deal... Which didn't work.

Now the onley recourse for Engoron is to either dismiss this
or agree to a mistrial. ... If he follows thru and rules "guilty"
it will no doubt be overturned on appeal.

#### Salty

[eyecu2]

Just a little recap since you "always Trumpers" have no ability to use the google search function.

At the start of the trial, Engoron noted that no parties in the case requested a jury trial and that the law mandated a “bench trial” decided by a judge.

“You have probably noticed or already read that this case has no jury,” Engoron said. “Neither side asked for one and, in any event, the remedies sought are all equitable in nature, mandating that the trial be a bench trial, one that a judge alone decides.”

Trump’s lawyers have pushed back on the notion that they failed to request a jury trial, as some have suggested based on paperwork filed in the case.

“Under 63 (12), which is what this case is, you don’t have a right, an absolute right to a jury,” Trump lawyer Alina Habba said on Fox News previously.

A Trump spokesperson said that the attorney general “filed this case under a consumer protection statute that denies the right to a jury.”

“There was never an option to choose a jury trial,” the spokesperson said. “It is unfortunate that a jury won’t be able to hear how absurd the merits of this case are and conclude no wrongdoing ever happened.”

In other legal cases that the former president has faced, however, Trump and his attorneys have lamented that he is unable to receive a fair verdict from a jury in New York. After a New York jury found that Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in 1996, attorney Joe Tacopina said that Trump is “firm in his belief” that he cannot get a fair trial in New York City “based on the jury pool.”

So why a Bench Trial and Not a Jury trial, that Trump himself has said he can't get a fair one in NYC, based on some bias. (It's odd to me that somehow, the place where 75% of his business dealings would offer him a tainted jury but that is for another post)

The reason is that the case was file as a consumer protection class case and not just a simple trial where he could have requested a jury trial. The fact that James filed it as a a CPC is why its' a bench trial vs. jury AND it's worth noting, where the facts were NOT disputed by Trump, or his team, hence the case of Fraud proceeded without a jury, and the judge determined that ALL the facts that were there, and WERE NOT disputed by Trump or his legal team, AND As presented, they met the requirements of Fraud, and was deemed guilty by the same.

So,- the next part- (current part) is sentencing. Was the fraud systemic and agreggious or a part of a scheme to defraud tax collectors, bank investors (share-holders) and to gain leverage unlawfully. So far, it's looking like yes on all accounts; despite the language that Mazars or Trump who SIGNED all the applications to being truthful to the best of his knowledge and under penalty of law, were accurate according to GAAP, (Generally accepted accounting principles.)

So in addition to the Fraud, here is what is going to be determined on next, and why the amount of detail etc. on things like who was aware, and who signed what etc.

What's at stake at trial: Trump and his companies could be forced to pay hefty sums in damages for the profits they've allegedly garnered through their fraudulent business practices.

Engoron will consider just how much the Trumps and their businesses will have to pay.

Since Engoron has already ruled on one of the claims — persistent and repeated fraud —he will now decide on the six other claims:

Falsifying business records
Conspiracy to falsify business records
Issuing false financial statements
Conspiracy to falsify false financial statements
Insurance fraud
Conspiracy to commit insurance fraud


The trials should wrap up by end of December. One thing to note- would be if he's already guilty of Fraud, Is he really going to be able to escape the other 6 charges and ADDITIONAL fines?

Sorry ALways Trumpers, but your boy is gonna get fucked hard and dry by the NY courts and he will spend the rest of the time wondering if the other AG's want to file a criminal case against him with the testimony that is garnered from this one. Conspiracy charges can be really bad when it comes to actually going to jail. If your business practices are ones that are used to deceive anyone about values, costs, taxes or insurance and yes banking, you're in deep shit.

Do I think they will file criminal charges? Probably not. But in lieu of those, they will absolutely strip him of any ability to do business in the place where Trumps Pap, and he himself have been doing underhanded, shady dealings for years.

Building wealth legally is admirable. Building it falsely or by deceiving others in business is not. Which one is Trump?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're being terribly myopic, speedy.

If the legal system can be grossly abused in this manner against Trump, then in future it can also be brought to bear unfairly against you or anyone else.

Heck, you could even lose your home for telling your local lender you think it's worth more than the bank/appraiser does. But hey, that would only hurt you "monetarily" so it's no biggie, right?

If I lie on a form in order to get something that I do not deserve, I am committing fraud. If Trump knowingly lied on such forms, he is guilty of fraud. As I said, even if found guilty the consequences to him are minor.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

I know of several people that have lied on loan applications and not only were threatened with the same legal action, but in fact we're sued and lost. Bank fraud is not a joke, and it does affect your holders as well as the bank itself. All banks do due diligence, but they do rely on financial statements that are provided by the applicant, and they have to attest that they are truthful to the best of their knowledge. In the case of the trumps, these folks have lied on multiple applications multiple times, and have abused the system to their benefit, and there is no claim from Trump they didn't.

Fair enough. But did any of those people pay interest and principal in full and on time on all the loans, after lying on the applications? Did the government pursue legal action against the borrowers, without receiving complaints from the lenders?

Originally Posted by eyecu2

“You have probably noticed or already read that this case has no jury,” Engoron said. “Neither side asked for one and, in any event, the remedies sought are all equitable in nature, mandating that the trial be a bench trial, one that a judge alone decides.”

It kind of sounds like the judge has already made up his mind, before listening to a single witness in his courtroom. Actually we already know that for a fact, because he already issued a partial summary judgement, ruling for the plaintiff. Given that he'll determine "punishment" too, he's judge, jury and executioner.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

At the start of the trial, Engoron noted that no parties in the case requested a jury trial and that the law mandated a “bench trial” decided by a judge.....

Trump’s lawyers have pushed back on the notion that they failed to request a jury trial, as some have suggested based on paperwork filed in the case.

“Under 63 (12), which is what this case is, you don’t have a right, an absolute right to a jury,” Trump lawyer Alina Habba said on Fox News previously.

A Trump spokesperson said that the attorney general “filed this case under a consumer protection statute that denies the right to a jury.”

“There was never an option to choose a jury trial,” the spokesperson said. “It is unfortunate that a jury won’t be able to hear how absurd the merits of this case are and conclude no wrongdoing ever happened.”

From the same CNN article,

“It’s not entirely clear whether Trump would have been entitled to a jury trial under New York law – that would depend on nuanced legal determinations about the nature of the remedy sought by the attorney general,” said Elie Honig, a CNN senior legal analyst and former federal and New Jersey prosecutor. “But Trump’s legal team absolutely could have requested a jury, litigated the issue, and then appealed had they lost.”

From David Schoen, an attorney on Trump's defense team in his second impeachment trial,

...I would have filed a jury demand to litigate the issue, because here there are very severe monetary punishments at issue, potentially,” he added. “And I think there’s a strong argument to be made for the right to a jury trial.”


https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/04/polit...20jury%20trial.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

So,- the next part- (current part) is sentencing. Was the fraud systemic and agreggious or a part of a scheme to defraud tax collectors, bank investors (share-holders) and to gain leverage unlawfully. So far, it's looking like yes on all accounts; despite the language that Mazars or Trump who SIGNED all the applications to being truthful to the best of his knowledge and under penalty of law, were accurate according to GAAP, (Generally accepted accounting principles.)

So in addition to the Fraud, here is what is going to be determined on next, and why the amount of detail etc. on things like who was aware, and who signed what etc.

What's at stake at trial: Trump and his companies could be forced to pay hefty sums in damages for the profits they've allegedly garnered through their fraudulent business practices.

Engoron will consider just how much the Trumps and their businesses will have to pay.

Since Engoron has already ruled on one of the claims — persistent and repeated fraud —he will now decide on the six other claims:

Falsifying business records
Conspiracy to falsify business records
Issuing false financial statements
Conspiracy to falsify false financial statements
Insurance fraud
Conspiracy to commit insurance fraud

I've looked at probably hundreds of deals or companies where the promoters or owners exaggerated the merits or value of what they were selling. If they fraudulently misrepresented the deal and someone buys it and loses money, then the buyer has recourse through the courts. But how often does a "seller" get sued by the government, for defrauding huge corporations, when the corporations never complained and received 100% of the investment return that the seller said it would deliver? That looks to be what's happening here with the banks and it stinks to high heaven. It's politically motivated.

Now if Trump were submitting false information to, say, lower his property taxes, then that's different. And I have no idea exactly how over or underestimating property values would constitute insurance fraud. But those points don't appear to be a central part of Letitia James' case.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Sorry ALways Trumpers, but your boy is gonna get fucked hard and dry by the NY courts and he will spend the rest of the time wondering if the other AG's want to file a criminal case against him with the testimony that is garnered from this one. Conspiracy charges can be really bad when it comes to actually going to jail. If your business practices are ones that are used to deceive anyone about values, costs, taxes or insurance and yes banking, you're in deep shit.

Do I think they will file criminal charges? Probably not. But in lieu of those, they will absolutely strip him of any ability to do business in the place where Trumps Pap, and he himself have been doing underhanded, shady dealings for years.

Building wealth legally is admirable. Building it falsely or by deceiving others in business is not. Which one is Trump?

Trump may indeed deserve to get fucked hard and dry, for attempting to steal an election. But not for the issues raised by the State of New York or by the Manhattan D.A. The later is even more ridiculous, claiming that paying off Stormy Daniels was a violation of campaign contribution laws.

I'd make a similar argument that Trump supporters did about Trump's first impeachment, over the perfect phone call with Zelensky. An election was coming up later that year, so let the voters decide. They did, and Trump lost. Similarly, if the banks and insurance companies want to sue Trump, then let them have at it. The state of New York shouldn't be trying to put Trump out of business and fine him $250 million for fraud, when none of the allegedly defrauded parties are complaining.

[Salty Again]

... This will be overturned on appeal .... As I've stated.
Judge Engoron and his team are in enough trouble already.

... You lads really believe the Courts want to see cases
when AGs bring political lawsuits against companys
for over-valuations and what-not when the BANKS THEMSELVES
are loaning monnies and doing the valuations??

#### Salty

[1blackman1]

As I’ve noted prior, if the action is illegal it’s subject to the law of the state to be resolved in courts.

I’ve given plenty of examples of victimless crimes that get prosecuted every day.

I had 4 martinis at Ruth’s Friday night. I was likely tipsy and legally drunk. I made it home safely without harming anyone on the road. No one should have a complaint. Nonetheless, were I pulled over I’d be charged with a DUI.

Whether the banks care about Trump’s fraud or that Trump paid back the loans is of no moment. They apparently committed fraud. Which evidently is illegal in the state of New York. The approach that “banks didn’t care” “he paid the loan” is irrelevant in whether he broke the law.

Now as for damages, that’s to be determined. If the law required a specific harm then maybe the damages would be zero regardless of fraud. I don’t believe that’s what’s required under the statute and the law makes a determination of damages simply based on the fraud itself.

Once again, why should I go to jail for drinking and driving if I don’t actually harm anyone. Oh yeah, because that’s what the law requires.

Some laws, such as the DUI law and the statute under which Trump faces huge civil fines are to prevent people from taking these illegal acts. He chose not to do so and take his chances. Nonetheless, the law is what it is and he has been found culpable for fraud and now damages are being determined.

All these other arguments border on ridiculous. And when I say that they are on the other side of the ridiculous border, not approaching it.

As for Trump and co’s guilt before testimony, that’s pretty simple. Both sides provided evidence - this thing we use in courts of law - to support a factual finding or factual dispute. Trump’s attorneys failed to rebut in any meaningful way the undisputed facts presented by the AG regarding the commission of fraud. Were there an actual factual dispute regarding whether fraud was committed, there would have been no finding of fraud on summary judgment.

The funniest part is that the bar isn’t really that high to defeat summary judgment. Trump and Co simply had no facts that there wasn’t a fraud committed. I suspect that in New York they could have made an interlocutory appeal of the summary judgment but didn’t do so. (Maybe they did and lost but I didn’t check and see).

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

As I’ve noted prior, if the action is illegal it’s subject to the law of the state to be resolved in courts.

I’ve given plenty of examples of victimless crimes that get prosecuted every day.

I had 4 martinis at Ruth’s Friday night. I was likely tipsy and legally drunk. I made it home safely without harming anyone on the road. No one should have a complaint. Nonetheless, were I pulled over I’d be charged with a DUI.

Whether the banks care about Trump’s fraud or that Trump paid back the loans is of no moment. They apparently committed fraud. Which evidently is illegal in the state of New York. The approach that “banks didn’t care” “he paid the loan” is irrelevant in whether he broke the law.

Now as for damages, that’s to be determined. If the law required a specific harm then maybe the damages would be zero regardless of fraud. I don’t believe that’s what’s required under the statute and the law makes a determination of damages simply based on the fraud itself.

Once again, why should I go to jail for drinking and driving if I don’t actually harm anyone. Oh yeah, because that’s what the law requires.

Some laws, such as the DUI law and the statute under which Trump faces huge civil fines are to prevent people from taking these illegal acts. He chose not to do so and take his chances. Nonetheless, the law is what it is and he has been found culpable for fraud and now damages are being determined.

All these other arguments border on ridiculous. And when I say that they are on the other side of the ridiculous border, not approaching it.

As for Trump and co’s guilt before testimony, that’s pretty simple. Both sides provided evidence - this thing we use in courts of law - to support a factual finding or factual dispute. Trump’s attorneys failed to rebut in any meaningful way the undisputed facts presented by the AG regarding the commission of fraud. Were there an actual factual dispute regarding whether fraud was committed, there would have been no finding of fraud on summary judgment.

The funniest part is that the bar isn’t really that high to defeat summary judgment. Trump and Co simply had no facts that there wasn’t a fraud committed. I suspect that in New York they could have made an interlocutory appeal of the summary judgment but didn’t do so. (Maybe they did and lost but I didn’t check and see).

Insightful post, thanks. Particularly the DUI analogy. The difference in my opinion, which is totally unrelated to the law, is that you're much more likely to kill someone when DUI. But no informed, seasoned loan officer in his right mind would have been taken in by Trump's financial statements or property valuations, let alone large banks like Deutsche Bank.

If Trump were not an unpopular politician in New York, do you think Letitia James would be trying to fine him $250 million and put him out of business there? Apparently she's using a very novel interpretation of New York's Executive Law, which has never been used before.

[eyecu2]

Originally Posted by Tiny

If Trump were not an unpopular politician in New York, do you think Letitia James would be trying to fine him $250 million and put him out of business there? Apparently she's using a very novel interpretation of New York's Executive Law, which has never been tried before.

I don't think it's merely Trump's political slant. I think that most of the issues that were parent to where these dirty deals happened, is where it happened- NYC.

When your arrogant and braggart, and claim you know more about taxes than anybody else -alla Trump, you invite a lot of people to prove you wrong. Leticia James is exactly that type of person. She's watched from the wings, a guy who skirted legal repercussions and accountability by being a bully. Suing ppl instead of paying what he owed, and she got to be in a position that was above being sued or beaten by the bully.

It's probably the most appropriate justice to a guy who is a walking example of fake / false impressions vs. being genuine.

Well she genuinely putting both feet directly up Trump's ass, and it's just getting started. Imagine as the next 6 charges get reviewed. It is going to be the start of a major meltdown on this family of grifters.

No single other family would instigate, chide or name call a judge, or legal system. The disdain that Trump has for being held accountable knows no lowest limit. And the gaslight followers are just beginning to see it.

Some supporters will say who cares- look at the polls. Well the folks on the left and middle care, and when you tie in the Reproductive rights part....


Dead man walking. We got us a dead man walking.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Brot

Deutsche Bank, who wanted into the US market so badly they were self blinded to Trumps lies and scammery. It is a safe bet, fool me once applies here.

Trust me on this, Deutsche Bank has had a very large presence in the US going back decades and long preceding Donald Trump, who never accounted for more than a tiny tiny sliver of their US business.