Trump loses in NY
-
I don't like weaponization of government to screw over people for the sake of it, but DJT made a career of weaponizing the legal system against small businesses - not paying bills, threatening lawsuits, etc. so there is some Orwellian justice to this. Rosebud.
-
Questions:
-
Why was there no jury? I've read conflicting reports that Trump's legal team decided not to request a jury trial and other saying that the judge wouldn't allow it (I'm skeptical of that claim).
-
Is it true that this statute was enacted after Trump announced his candidacy for the 2024 election?
-
Has this ever been prosecuted before in such a manner?
-
As Turley comments, if, as the judge said, the sin is "venial," why is the punishment almost mortal? Will this be reversed on appeal? Trump, in order to appeal, has to put up bond in the amount of the judgment. Does he have that kind of cash? Can he put up something other than cash (Mar-a-Lago?) as collateral?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
-
I don't like weaponization of government to screw over people for the sake of it, but DJT made a career of weaponizing the legal system against small businesses - not paying bills, threatening lawsuits, etc. so there is some Orwellian justice to this. Rosebud.
@kluurs said in Trump loses in NY:
I don't like weaponization of government to screw over people for the sake of it, but DJT made a career of weaponizing the legal system against small businesses - not paying bills, threatening lawsuits, etc. so there is some Orwellian justice to this. Rosebud.
Lot of difference between an individual and the power of the State. A lot.
Otherwise, fuck Blind Justice.
-
Companies and Wall St. won't be abandoning NY in droves. The simple fact is this was a targeted political attack. Almost all of these companies and Wall St. have either already been taken over by this ideology or have already capitulated. They can shrug, say "glad it's not me" and move on.
-
Companies and Wall St. won't be abandoning NY in droves. The simple fact is this was a targeted political attack. Almost all of these companies and Wall St. have either already been taken over by this ideology or have already capitulated. They can shrug, say "glad it's not me" and move on.
@LuFins-Dad said in Trump loses in NY:
The simple fact is this was a targeted political attack.
And that is simply wrong. Maybe gratifying to some in the short term, but detrimental to all in the long term.
-
Questions:
-
Why was there no jury? I've read conflicting reports that Trump's legal team decided not to request a jury trial and other saying that the judge wouldn't allow it (I'm skeptical of that claim).
-
Is it true that this statute was enacted after Trump announced his candidacy for the 2024 election?
-
Has this ever been prosecuted before in such a manner?
-
As Turley comments, if, as the judge said, the sin is "venial," why is the punishment almost mortal? Will this be reversed on appeal? Trump, in order to appeal, has to put up bond in the amount of the judgment. Does he have that kind of cash? Can he put up something other than cash (Mar-a-Lago?) as collateral?
@George-K said in Trump loses in NY:
Questions:
- Why was there no jury? I've read conflicting reports that Trump's legal team decided not to request a jury trial and other saying that the judge wouldn't allow it (I'm skeptical of that claim).
**>
Trump's attorney screwed up - failed to check the box is what I've read.**
- Is it true that this statute was enacted after Trump announced his candidacy for the 2024 election?
**New York Executive Law § 63(12), sometimes called simply "63 12" or "63(12)",[2] is a New York law that gives the Attorney General of New York broad powers[3] to investigate and prosecute cases of alleged civil fraud.[2][4] Due to its broad definitions,[5] section 63(12) provides the AG with far-reaching powers to issue subpoenas, as well as low legal hurdles to do so.[6] The law was passed in 1956, while Jacob Javits was attorney general.[7][1] It was invoked in the New York civil investigation of The Trump Organization.[8]
There was some clarification made in 1965. **
Further - the AG initiated this case in 2022 - so, prior to Trump's announced candidacy.
Per the judgment....
Defendants argument is to no avail, as none of plaintiff's causes of action requires that it demonstrate reliance. Instead, plaintiff must merely show that defendants intended to commit the fraud. Reliance is not a requisite element of either Executive Law§63(12) or of any of the alleged Penal Law violations.- Has this ever been prosecuted before in such a manner?
Have to wait for someone to do that assessment.
- As Turley comments, if, as the judge said, the sin is "venial," why is the punishment almost mortal? Will this be reversed on appeal? Trump, in order to appeal, has to put up bond in the amount of the judgment. Does he have that kind of cash? Can he put up something other than cash (Mar-a-Lago?) as collateral?
From a quick scan of the judgment, it looks like they estimated the value of the "ill gotten gains" from the misrepresentation along with interest.
-
-
@Mik said in Trump loses in NY:
If it can happen to him.....
But it won't.
Could it happen to Soros? They own real estate and conduct business in NY. Think they've ever overvalued holdings in financing and acquisitions? I bet they have. So yeah, it could happen to them.
Think Letitia or her successors will be going after him/them? It ain't happen.
It could happen to anybody, but if you're on the left ide of history in New York, it won't.
The Brad
-
@George-K said in Trump loses in NY:
Questions:
- Why was there no jury? I've read conflicting reports that Trump's legal team decided not to request a jury trial and other saying that the judge wouldn't allow it (I'm skeptical of that claim).
**>
Trump's attorney screwed up - failed to check the box is what I've read.**
- Is it true that this statute was enacted after Trump announced his candidacy for the 2024 election?
**New York Executive Law § 63(12), sometimes called simply "63 12" or "63(12)",[2] is a New York law that gives the Attorney General of New York broad powers[3] to investigate and prosecute cases of alleged civil fraud.[2][4] Due to its broad definitions,[5] section 63(12) provides the AG with far-reaching powers to issue subpoenas, as well as low legal hurdles to do so.[6] The law was passed in 1956, while Jacob Javits was attorney general.[7][1] It was invoked in the New York civil investigation of The Trump Organization.[8]
There was some clarification made in 1965. **
Further - the AG initiated this case in 2022 - so, prior to Trump's announced candidacy.
Per the judgment....
Defendants argument is to no avail, as none of plaintiff's causes of action requires that it demonstrate reliance. Instead, plaintiff must merely show that defendants intended to commit the fraud. Reliance is not a requisite element of either Executive Law§63(12) or of any of the alleged Penal Law violations.- Has this ever been prosecuted before in such a manner?
Have to wait for someone to do that assessment.
- As Turley comments, if, as the judge said, the sin is "venial," why is the punishment almost mortal? Will this be reversed on appeal? Trump, in order to appeal, has to put up bond in the amount of the judgment. Does he have that kind of cash? Can he put up something other than cash (Mar-a-Lago?) as collateral?
From a quick scan of the judgment, it looks like they estimated the value of the "ill gotten gains" from the misrepresentation along with interest.
@kluurs said in Trump loses in NY:
Trump's attorney screwed up - failed to check the box is what I've read.**
Say what you like about Trump, he really doesn't have a great history in his choice of attorneys.
- Why was there no jury? I've read conflicting reports that Trump's legal team decided not to request a jury trial and other saying that the judge wouldn't allow it (I'm skeptical of that claim).
-
@kluurs said in Trump loses in NY:
Trump's attorney screwed up - failed to check the box is what I've read.**
Say what you like about Trump, he really doesn't have a great history in his choice of attorneys.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Trump loses in NY:
@kluurs said in Trump loses in NY:
Trump's attorney screwed up - failed to check the box is what I've read.**
Say what you like about Trump, he really doesn't have a great history in his choice of attorneys.
When a client has a track record of not paying his bills, it kinda reduces the available pool.
-
@Mik said in Trump loses in NY:
If it can happen to him.....
But it won't.
Could it happen to Soros? They own real estate and conduct business in NY. Think they've ever overvalued holdings in financing and acquisitions? I bet they have. So yeah, it could happen to them.
Think Letitia or her successors will be going after him/them? It ain't happen.
It could happen to anybody, but if you're on the left ide of history in New York, it won't.
@LuFins-Dad said in Trump loses in NY:
@Mik said in Trump loses in NY:
If it can happen to him.....
But it won't.
Could it happen to Soros? They own real estate and conduct business in NY. Think they've ever overvalued holdings in financing and acquisitions? I bet they have. So yeah, it could happen to them.
First, one needs to consider that politicians participate in legalized immorality. That's how a politician who earns x will enrich themselves for 80x over a short term. It's magical. It may seem unethical as many unethical things appear to the innocent. It also means that whether Hillary Clinton or Tommy Tuberville - there's a gentleman's agreement to not look too closely or at least judge too harshly. A second point of consideration is politicians work for those who pay for them. Thus, it might seem inhospitable to investigate those who are generous to the cause. Donald Trump is a bit unreliable and while a savant of chicanery and fraud, he also is a bit clumsy and incautious so - a detriment to the whole political club. Should he leave the political theater, the GOP can evaluate whether to publicly or privately celebrate - while casting blame upon the enemy.
-
Questions:
-
Why was there no jury? I've read conflicting reports that Trump's legal team decided not to request a jury trial and other saying that the judge wouldn't allow it (I'm skeptical of that claim).
-
Is it true that this statute was enacted after Trump announced his candidacy for the 2024 election?
-
Has this ever been prosecuted before in such a manner?
-
As Turley comments, if, as the judge said, the sin is "venial," why is the punishment almost mortal? Will this be reversed on appeal? Trump, in order to appeal, has to put up bond in the amount of the judgment. Does he have that kind of cash? Can he put up something other than cash (Mar-a-Lago?) as collateral?
@George-K said in Trump loses in NY:
- Why was there no jury? I've read conflicting reports that Trump's legal team decided not to request a jury trial and other saying that the judge wouldn't allow it (I'm skeptical of that claim).
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-no-jury-fraud-new-york-judge-arthur-engoron/
Former President Donald Trump did not request a jury for his New York civil fraud trial, but even if he had asked for one, the answer would've been "no," a judge said Wednesday.
Judge Arthur Engoron addressed an issue that had been the subject of speculation on social media and by Trump himself, saying it "keeps coming up," even though he doesn't "read the papers or go online to read about" the trial.
Engoron is presiding over the bench trial of a $250 million lawsuit filed in 2022 by New York Attorney General Letitia James, in which she accused Trump, two of his sons, their company and other executives of years of widespread fraud. Engoron said that in paperwork certifying that the case was ready for trial, James' office checked a box suggesting it be a non-jury proceeding.
Trump's team had 15 days to oppose that, but did not, Engoron said, because there was no point in doing so.
"It would not have helped to make a motion. Nobody forgot to check off a box," Engoron said....
Engoron earned the gratitude of one Trump lawyer who has insisted the lack of a jury was not due to an oversight.
"I would like to say thank you, your honor," said attorney Alina Habba, before turning to reporters in the gallery. "Press, did you hear that? I didn't forget to check the box."
-
-
-
Musk asked a pretty good question: If nobody was hurt, who gets the money?
-
No right to a jury in this case - sez the judge. There were no "boxes to be checked."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/16/nyregion/trump-fraud-engoron-decision.html
Why, it's almost like we were lied to by the media.
