Quote:
Originally Posted by 1blackman1
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev
Thanks for admitting the crux of the matter: to deem the fine excessive, you have to understand the reasoning behind it. Here you go. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaMan
MAGAs continue to deny Trumps lies.
They can't understand the statute and law did not require a trial by jury.
They haven't read the 92 page summary judgement.
The only question is: why do they support him ?
|
OK, I read it. Here are some thoughts
Crow
On page 2, Judge Engoron notes says the defendants “crow that the borrowers paid back all loans fully and on time.” That sounds very professional and impartial. Crow.
New York Executive Law, Section 63(12): A Prosecutors Wet Dream
Judge Engoron provides background on New York Executive Law 63(12), which the state of New York used to persecute, err, prosecute Donald Trump. Jacob Javits, the Attorney General of New York and State Comptroller Arthur Levitt, who presciently was looking for novel ways to screw politically unpopular businesses AND raise money for the state, decided “Why not grant the Attorney General authority” to prosecute almost anyone if it will put money in the state’s pockets. Subsequently the law was revised to allow the state to sue for “deception, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.”
Engoron notes the statute casts a wide net,” and “the general grant of power to the Attorney General under section 63(12) has traditionally been his most potent." This is a prosecutor’s wet dream!
Justification for the State of New York to Sue Anybody, Anywhere
Engoron says that New York City is the financial capital of the country, synonymous with capital formation, investing, trading, lending and borrowing, the “state has a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace.”
And so has it acted. The state of New York will line its coffers for fines related to loans by a German bank secured by properties in Chicago and Florida. That money won’t go to the German bank. Or Chicago or Florida. It goes to New York State!
The state of New York also attempted to line its coffers with money from Exxon Mobil for a ridiculous claim that the company misrepresented the risks of global warming to shareholders. In other words, the state of New York, using the same law it used to prosecute Trump, tried to make shareholders of Exxon Mobil pay the state of New York to compensate for harm done to the shareholders! Is that Kafkaesque or what?
Time limitation
This is key. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court ruled that only claims accruing after July 13, 2014 may be considered. Trump did default on loans before that date. Banks and bondholders and at least one hedge fund did suffer losses as a result. But to my knowledge he hasn’t defaulted since 2014.
A $455 million award for a victimless crime?
“It is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments on time.”
-Judge Engoron
Imposition of a corporate “death penalty”
Without hearing a word of testimony in court, Judge Engoron issued a 35 page Decision and Order on September 26, 2023, which granted the state of New York a Summary Judgement on the state’s first cause of action. As part of the judgement, Engoron cancelled the Trump Organization’s business certificates in the State of New York! He made it illegal for Trump’s entities to do business in the state! How the fuck is that supposed to happen when they own numerous real estate properties? Do the properties just escheat to the state, which sells them and keeps the money? Engoron however was overruled by the Apellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, “pending the final disposition of the defendants’ appeal.” This ruling disappeared from Engoron’s final decision. But shows how ridiculously prejudiced he was from the start.
Are you entitled to a trial by jury in front of your peers before the State absconds with $455 million of your property?
Well, fuck no.
“Constitutional provisions guaranteeing a jury trial…apply to only cases at common law. The phrase at common law is used in contradistinction to cases that are equitable in nature. Here, plaintiff seeks…equitable relief. Thus there was no right to a jury.”
Translation: It’s perfectly OK for a judge who’s affiliated with the Democratic Party to sit in judgement and determine fines all on his lonesome, even though the defendant is the second most unpopular Republican politician of the last 100 years. (The first was Joseph McCarthy.) We shouldn’t worry however because Engoron “was able to observe expressions demeanor and body language,” and consider “the simple touchstones of self-interest and other motives, common sense, and overall veracity,” while the Defendants crowed away.
Testimony of Witnesses
OK, this is where it gets a little tedious. Two accountants working for Trump said they took the Trump Organization’s word that documents it gave them were true and correct. Now IMHO nobody in his right mind would accept anything that came from Trump as true and correct, but given that they weren’t auditing his accounts, that’s standard accounting practice.
Next there are summaries of testimony from several Deutsche Bank employees. Please remember that only claims accruing after July 13, 2014 could be considered by Kangaroo Engoron. Well, by 2014, Deutsche Bank employees, unless they were totally incompetent, wouldn’t have assumed that Trump’s financial statements were “broadly accurate.” Yeah, maybe they testified to that effect, but given Deutsche Bank’s big hit on unsecured loans related to the Trump International Hotel & Tower around 2010, they knew better.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/b...ago-taxes.html
And Yada yada. I’m tired of this. Other than Winn Dixie, you gentlemen never stray from the MSNBC line. When we get to the Washington, D.C. and Fulton County, Georgia trials I’ll probably agree with you. Until then, try coming up with more convincing arguments related to Trump’s loans and sex life than you have. You don’t sound much different from those Republicans who claim Joe Biden got paid off to get the Ukrainian Prosecutor General fired, except there's perhaps a bit more basis to your accusations. I do believe that Trump’s misrepresentations related to his financial condition were unethical, and they’re one of a long list of reasons why I’d never vote for him. But it’s ridiculous to fine him $455 million when his creditors knew he was exaggerating his net worth, still chose to do business with him, and were paid off on schedule, after 2014 at least. If Trump were a Democrat you wouldn’t have a problem with any of this.
