Below is my column on Fox.com on the demand for roughly a $455 million dollar deposit or equivalent bond for Donald Trump to be able to seek appellate review of the recent judgment against him. The combination of the fine and the deposit rule highlight the confiscatory elements of this judgment.
Here is the column:
In the wake of the massive judgment against Donald Trump, many in New York are celebrating the prospect that the former president could be forced to sell off his property just to be able to appeal the $355 million judgment against him. While Trump has good grounds to object to this excessive fine, he still has to come up with close to a half billion dollars just to make his arguments to the New York Court of Appeals.
In order to file an appeal, the courts require a deposit for the full amount of the damages or a bond covering the full amount. Even with escrow options, the call for cash or collateral can be enough to put some executives in a fetal position.
It can be challenging enough for many companies drained from years of litigation. For Donald Trump, the demand for $355 million plus $100 milion in interest could force a fire sale on properties to pony up just the deposit.
Many of us have been critical of the ruling of Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron who imposed the astronomical fine despite finding that Trump’s “victims” not only did not lose a single dollar but made handsome profits. Indeed, these banks testified that they wanted to continue to do business with Trump as a “whale” client, but Engoron is now barring them from doing so.
Putting aside the merits of this judgment, the threshold deposit rule magnifies the unfairness of this New York law that does not require that anyone actually lose money to claim hundreds of millions from a company.
One can argue that, if upheld, any insolvency is the fault of the company. However, this rule can force insolvency just to seek review of a judgment.
For Trump, even this fine would only amount to roughly 14-17% of his wealth. The addition of the recent $83.3 million in damages imposed in a separate New York courtroom for defamation would bring the demand to over half a billion dollars in deposits with interest.
So, by making the fine so large, Engoron not only makes an appeal difficult, but could guarantee that Trump will lose tens of millions even if his judgment is dramatically reduced or tossed out.
On top of this looming penalty, however, he already owes the writer E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in damages from a separate defamation case that concluded in January. His legal fees are also mounting as he battles four criminal cases at the federal and state level.
There is already speculation of whether Trump will have to leverage or sell his iconic properties at distressed prices. He has 30-days to ante up with the court and buyers could use that deadline to their advantage. The added amount is due to another New York provision imposing a massive 9 percent interest rate on judgments.
That means that every day, Trump is being hit by roughly $90,000 in just interest increases.
Trump could secure a bond, but such a guaranty would come at its own premium price. However, a bonding company requires a defendant to put up 10% for the total and would lose that amount even if he prevailed. That is a roughly $45 million cost just to secure the right to an appeal. In this case, the cost could be higher given the judgment and the bar on Trump doing business for three years in New York.
Trump can move to ask the trial court (or the appellate court) to allow him to proceed without posting the money or bond. That, however, is up to the courts in granting an exception.
The expectation is that Trump can make the deposit or secure a bond to avoid what some gleefully called a “fire sale” on this properties. The deposit is now being celebrated as an added indignity and penalty.
However, as New Yorkers cheer this moment, many business are likely wondering “but for the grace of God go I.” Undervaluing or overvaluing property is a common practice, particularly in real estate. That is why representations, like the one made by the Trump Corporation, come with a warning that estimates are their own and that the banks need to make their assessments.
Faced with high crime and high taxes, the spectacle in Manhattan is only likely to accelerate the exodus of businesses and high-earners from the city. That prospect has already alarmed Gov. Kathy Hochul who declared “business people have nothing to worry about, because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior.”
That sounds a lot like “you are fine so long as you are not Trump.” Yet, that is not reassuring to businesses who want a legal system that is based on something other than selective and arbitrary enforcement. Attorney General Letitia James campaigned on bagging Trump without even bothering to name the offense. She also sought to dissolve the National Rifle Association.
The line between doing business and a public execution appears to be the dubious discretion of Letitia James.
That is not the type of assurance that most businesses would accept in risking billions in investment. Despite the high taxes and falling services in New York, the city remained a draw for business as a commercial and legal center. The experience and objectivity of courts in dealing with business disputes was a selling point for companies.
That has been shattered by the James campaign and the Engoron ruling. Telling business to just “don’t be like Trump” is more menacing than consoling. Letitia James is now the face of New York corporate law — it is the “face that launched a thousand ships” . . . toward Florida. Businesses can get lower taxes, lower crime, better schools, and a better regulatory environment in virtually any other state. Fewer are likely to want to come for the shows, but stay for the disgorgement.
Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary said Monday that he would “never” invest in New York after this absurd judgment.
Creating an ad hoc business code for Trump undermines the city’s reputation as a premier jurisdiction for corporate and tax law. If the rate of exit increases, it will impact not just employees working for these companies (like the Trump companies) but the vast network of supporting businesses, including law firms.
As New York politicians campaigning on “eat the rich” platforms, the confiscatory Trump judgment leaves many in the city wondering if they could be the next course.
Evidently we are in a civil war.
Evidently you like hyperbole.
“Evidently you like hyperbole” said the guy that supports Democrats like Hilary Clinton who stated yesterday that Trump will arrest people for the way they look, Joe Biden who says that Trump is going to end Democracy, even after we had Trump for 4 years and he was less tyrannical than Biden himself.
HullBobby,
Exactly!
We have been in a civil war of elites against the rest of us for some time. We just didn’t realize it.
Edward mahl,
I think there were hints at it during the Obama admin, but really came out in 2016.
All those Democrat elites, academics looking down on anyone that were not them. And those Democrats not them, they are useful idiots to the Democrat elites.
That is why they have alienated the Black, Hispanic, Asian communities and now to a degree the Jewish community.
What Turley fails to point out here is that Trump uses the court system – offensively – filling all kinds of frivolous suits against people, stiffing contractors and then wearing them out in court. Many of his targets cannot afford to fight back. His strategy always is to delay and appeal, and drain the other party of resources until they settle or give up.
So cry me a river that the court system is making it difficult for Trump to appeal. Let’s worry about victims of the court system other than Trump. Let’s worry about the people who just can’t afford to fight Trump in court.
so you’re upset that Trump is using the legal system legally? can you provide verifiable specific examples?
How many of trumps lawyers have been sanctioned?
I’ll help you out. Start here
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-sanctioned-by-courts-election-lawsuits-2022-12?op=1
Bob I’m still waiting for your proof that Prof. Turley defends DJT, and not rule of law and the Constitution.
Read JTs posts. I have pointed out a great many of his posts that give only one side. A number of posts where he sides with as yet proven allegations only to never talk about this allegations once more information is available.
For a current example. How’s that impeachment of Biden going? I think I read something about the star witness being charged with a crime for making up stuff about the Biden’s. How many Biden impeachment posts has JT put out there recently?
And as I have pointed out many times, the good professor is not siding with Trump.
The good professor is pointing out the corruption, censorship, cancel culture, antisemitism, wokeism, that has gripped the Democrat party.
The same for government institutions.
The same for academia.
And this is the good professor’s blog. He can write about or not about something as he chooses.
Your demands he writes about what you want are, well . . . childish.
“Your demands he writes about what you want are, well . . . childish.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Demands? When has any of my comments been a demand that JT write anything?
Just pointing out how JT writes about something, usually with minimal factual information. And when the facts (you know what those are don’t you?) turn out to prove his original post incorrect, what do we hear from JT? Crickets.
How’s that impeachment of Biden going? Are you allowed to put a witness on the stand that is under arrest for lying about what he is about to testify to? Not sure witnesses like that get a lot of credibility from the court. But hey, at least we can dig up that Hunter porn right?
“How’s that impeachment of Biden going?”
Bob, take note how when your argument doesn’t hold up you change the subject to something different. This is more proof that your complaints about Turley are lies.
We wait for you to defend your argument when the time comes, but we know you will change the subject.
Just pointing out how JT writes about something, usually with minimal factual information. And when the facts (you know what those are don’t you?) turn out to prove his original post incorrect,
Making such claims requires evidence. Something you rarely provide. You cant even pick a post from memory.
Nothing but lies
Bob, we do not expect you to understand the difference between discussion of the law and cr-p. That requires intelligence. Most of your comments are filled with error and lies. When it comes to the law, you are looking for a legal opinion that doesn’t match the circumstances or the law.
I have yet seen you defend any of your arguments. They all fail on first observation.
Bob. this is simple. Find one time that our host was defending Trump.
You cant.
Because Turley is in fact defending the Rule of law, or the Constitution.
I asked for you to show me just ONE were Turely ONLY defends Trump
The leftist double speak babble, does not count.
You tried to Use the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony. But Turley only pointed out hearsay is not evidence. Testimony from SS agents witnessing the Trip contradicted Cassidy. That is simple rule of law.
Get with it Bob your mouth is writing checks you butt can’t cover
C’mon Iowan2,
Everyone knows that Turley and Trump are best buds.
Heck they routinely meet outside of Trump Tower and head over to the local Mc D’s and have a lunch of Big Macs and Diet cokes. (Trump is now skipping the fries to help control his weight.)
Usually Alan Dershowitz tries to join, but he couldn’t due to his commitments w Harvard and helping to sort out their antisemitic mess.
Bobby boy here is spot on!
-G
{Do I really need to add the sarcasm tag or is it *that* obvious?}
Bob – . . . because it has been part of Democratic strategy to attack Trump through his lawyers. To try to “turn” past lawyers against Trump, like Michael Cohen and Ty Cobb, or to discourage other lawyers from representing him in the future.
>>”so you’re upset that Trump is using the legal system legally? can you provide verifiable specific examples?
>How many of trumps lawyers have been sanctioned?”
Bob, Provide an argument where you think Trump used the legal system illegally instead of changing the subject. You keep doing that while complaining. You provide links but are too stupid to understand that your links don’t prove your case.
And this link just popped up today about one of trumps vaunted lawyers. MAGA – Make Attorneys Get Attorneys.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4478279-supreme-court-sanctions-pro-trump-2020-campaign-lawyers/
Even the headline of the link you provided doesn’t accurately state what the Supreme Court did. You are such a boob, Bob.
DJT is not allowed to exercise his constitutional power to access the Judicial system.
Get Sharpton
Imagine an AG who runs a campaign of “get Sharpton.” Who then proceeds to prosecute Sharpton. Which AG then enjoys a judge who openly detests Sharpton — which judge at the outset declares Sharpton guilty. Which judge then bankrupts Sharpton.
Then some on the Right cheer. And they rationalize their cheering by citing the AG and judge.
Image the howls of protests from the Left. Imagine the “mostly peaceful” protestors that would be unleashed.
I know, I know. Politicizing the law is unjust — unless the Left does it to the opposition.
I agree and Sharpton needs to be drug into court by his balls and made to pay his taxes. How does he go Scott free? Oh that’s right he gets invited to the White House dinners. This is utterly ridiculous and I hope New York crumbles to the ground under these liberals feet. This judge and attorney General will be the poster children of who destroyed your city. Not only are the truckers not coming your way but neither are the tourists, potential new businesses of any magnitude. Enjoy having illegals elected or appointed to positions and watch them complete the leveling of the Big Apple!!!
Jonathan: They say if you don’t want to do the time don’t do the crime. So where is DJT going to come up with the money to appeal Judge Engoron’s judgment? Not many options.
DJT’s net worth may not actually be $2.6 billion since he has consistently overvalued his properties. And Forbes recently removed DJT from their billionaire “Forbes List”. In a deposition in the same case DJT said he only had about a little over $400 million in liquid assets. So if you add the $83.3 million in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case appeals may exceed what cash DJT has on hand. That means DJT will have to secure bonds. In the Engoron judgment that means posting a bond of about $35 million–a fee he doesn’t get back.
As you point out DJT could try to sell one of his properties. But the clock is running because he has only 30 days to come up with the money to appeal in either case. That means sales at “distressed prices” as you say. And, as pointed out in a previous comment, the market value of “Trump” branded condos in Manhattan has fallen by over 50%. It would definitely be a “fire sale”.
Finally, you claim Engoron’s judgment is “only likely to accelerate the exodus of businesses and high earners from the city”. That’s unlikely because NY is the center of the financial industry–both in the US and internationally. The only ones who might leave are those who have also cooked their financial books. Engoron’s judgment is a huge warning shot that if you engage in systematic fraud in NY you will be prosecuted!
Trump can ask one of his rich supporters for a loan.
The guy paying Hunters bills?
“So where is DJT going to come up with the money to appeal Judge Engoron’s judgment?”
That was another of the Dems’ Errors in this Prosecution. Donald is Not going to “come up with the money”.
In 9 months He will be Elected President. Even if Donald is wearing an Orange Jump Suit, it will not tip the Election in the favor of another Candidate.
And even if it is tipped to another it won’t be a Democrat. He will be pardoned of his ‘sins’.
The Democrats have made their Bed, and lost. A Blind Man can see that. The Biden Crime Family has also “cooked their financial books”.
Dennis, It’s cold out, I really need a $2.7 Million Dollar Beach House in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware to warm my toes in the sand.
Please get me one in “The Delaware Way”.
This is a state civil case. No one is going to pardon Trump for it.
Your right, I stand corrected Sir. It is a Civil Case. No matter in 9 months the results will still be Trump.
But would you want to be Judge Engoron or James or any of the Players in the Election Lawfare Junta Witch Hunt?
As they say: Paybacks a B_ _ _ h, Heads are going to roll.
“It can be challenging enough for many companies drained from years of litigation. For Donald Trump, the demand for $355 million plus $100 milion in interest could force a fire sale on properties to pony up just the deposit.”
It can also be hard for someone who is poor to begin with to come up with money to appeal a judgment, but of course, JT isn’t going to point that out. He only weeps for the wealthy. 37% of Americans lack enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense.
@Anonymous
Yes, and it’s what you voted for and continue to advocate for. It’s also the undeniable opposite of how things were when Trump was POTUS. Spare us.
The good professor is pointing out the injustice of this and the efforts of Democrats to “Get Trump” at all costs.
And that 37% of Americans lack enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense is due to Bidenflation and Bidenomics.
Your comparison of “a $400 emergency expense” to legal expenses imposed by the government is so absurd it does not even deserve a reasoned reply.
This is another brilliant use of the legal system to attack and cripple a National Political Figure. Politics has truly become a win-at-all-costs ball game. In the process, we have learned that New York State can take your property if you sign a loan application. Good to know.
We need to have a country where even rich people have to follow the rules. I mean, Trump was found guilty of rape and defamation of Jean Carroll and then ordered to pay $5 million and Trump just went on defaming her. So the next jury imposed a more significant fine.
The Trump Corp last year was found criminally liable for fraud and tax evasion and they got the maximum fine of $1.5 million. That did nothing to change their ways.
Hi Hector! I rewrote something for you!
We need to have a country where even the Democrat Party has to follow the rules.
That would have been a better start.
@Hester
Uh-huh. Tell us another. 🙄
Oh good f’in grief. Carroll couldn’t even tell you the year, and the case was brought up years after the fact. I hope something like that happens to you.
Carrol could not remember what day, month or year it supposedly happened.
Then the dress she claimed she was wearing on that day, was not made till several years later.
The NYT fact checkers debunked her claim.
@Hester,
Let us assume a defendant is poor as dirt. You are found “guilty of rape and defamation” in a ‘civil trial’.
-Don’t you even wonder why this finding is made in a ‘civil trial’ and not a ‘criminal trial’, Hester?
-Don’t you wonder why the plaintiff can not even remember what year this alleged “rape” took place, Hester?
-Don’t you wonder why the jury at this ‘civil trial’ called it guilty of “battery and defamation” and not “rape and defamation”, Hester?
-Don’t you wonder why the plaintiff did not make a criminal complaint of an alleged crime until long after the statute of limitations expired, Hester?
-Don’t you wonder why the plaintiff would want their case tried in a court with a lower standard for conviction than a criminal court, Hester? Do you think this had anything to do with the potential for a monetary award, Hester? And, of course, since the defendant is poor as dirt, that really has no bearing because the plaintiff would pursue this course of action regardless, right Hester?
With those thoughts in mind Hester, would you still consider it reasonable if the defendant (poor as dirt) were were fined $5 million in a ‘civil trial’ and and then fined $85 million in a subsequent trial because you had the audacity to still claim you were innocent? Of course, the defendant being poor as dirt, your position would still be “people have to follow the rules”, right? And you would think that those fines were not at all related to any external factors (such as wealth) at all, right Hester?
Exactly what “rules” are you referring to Hester? A country where a person can be tried on a criminal complaint in a ‘civil trial’ because the evidence in the complaint does not rise to the criminal court level?
By changing the the jury finding from ‘battery and defamation” to “rape and defamation”, your implied view of the law is that of a disgusting way to make money, Hester. Some “country”, eh Hester?
Government cannot create laws targeting a specific individual and prosecutors cannot use existing legislation in novel ways because that is no different than government enacting laws targeting a specific individual subjecting individuals to prosecution “subject to the tyranny of the shifting majority.” Justice Powell pointed this out in his concurring opinion to INS v. Chadha, 462 US 919, 966 (1983) (Powell, J., concurring). Government is accountable only when government prescribes rules of general applicability. This is the only effective constraint on the power of government. When government “decides the rights of specific persons, those rights are subject to ‘the tyranny of the shifting majority.’” Powell Paul cited Fletcher v. Peck, 10 US (1 Cranch) 87, 136 (1810) (“It is the peculiar province of the legislature to prescribe general rules for the government of society….”).
When prosecutors apply law in novel and unpredictable ways, especially to politicians who are simply vessels of the speech of their voters, then the cap on the limited power of government is removed. It is foundational to the creation of penal codes since the Enlightenment that no person may be tried for any offense that is not specified in the statutory law of the state. In the arena of speech such as the speech of voters represented by current or former politicians, it is twice as important that the power of government represented by prosecutions be constrained by predictability. Just as government can only pass laws of general applicability as an important limit to government power, prosecutors similarly may not wield the power of government having gained that position of power by promising to target a specific individual. The combination of promising to target a specific individual followed by the novel and possibly “unintended by the legislature” use of particular law removes all limits on government power entirely. It combines the power of the legislative and the judicial within a single person, which is the very definition of tyranny.
Montesquieu‘s writings make clear that government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another. Montesquieu emphasized the connection between liberty and the known details of criminal law. Freedom required the right “to do all that the laws allow; and if a citizen could do what they defend, it would not have any more freedom, because the others would have this power all the same.“ Only in this way was it possible for the government to ensure the freedom of all. It is no different than a system of tyranny when the legislative and judicial powers are united in the same person or in the same body of magistrates. When this occurs nothing prevents the application of law in a tyrannical manner and thus there can be no liberty. When a prosecutor extends a law to a novel use potentially not foreseen by the legislature, then the prosecutor has taken on the mantle of combined legislative and executive power, destroying liberty with tyranny.
I also had this find, last night well into a comment-laden thread.
U-Haul or other NYC moving companies might be a good investment for the short term.
What we are witnessing is the transformation of America into a third world banana republic.
This has nothing to do with the law, justice.
It is using the courts to “Get Trump.”
Banana Republics will soon start studying the tactics of our Democrats. Maybe Letitia James can rent herself out as an advisor. Fani is certainly willing to rent herself out.
This is like if Mayella Violet Ewell, in To Kill A Mockingbird, got on the stand and honestly said, “No, Tom Robinson did not make any advances towards me. He fixed the curtains, as I asked, and then left.” – and then the jury finds him guilty anyway.
To all the people here, who do not know better, Jonathan Turley is not a person given to partisan hyperbole. If anything, he will almost always hedge his judgment a bit, and make some conciliatory statement toward the other position. For him to call a thing “obscene”, it must actually be “obscene times ten.”
@Floyd
Agreed. The Professor is a classical liberal who can be infuriatingly objective at times. 😂 This thing stinks to high heaven no matter who you are. Modern progressives ran out of feet to shoot themselves in so now they’re shooting at *ours*. The gleeful dehumanization of others is unreal.
I am a pure Trump hater, and even I think the fine is excessive. I think $20M would have been more appropriate.
Thank you, Sammy, for saying something honest! I do not think Trump was guilty of anything here, as a matter of law, but if he was, that sort of fine would have been more reasonable.
Sammy, that is your best comment ever! Finally an honest and fair Liberal Democrat. Of course you are probably worried that this insane judgment is actually bad for the Dems and good for Trump. It is really riling up his base and is also motivating non-Trump conservatives like myself. It is so unfair that it screams injustice. Then to see Letitia James tweeting out what a great day she is having just puts the icing on the partisan cake.
“I think $20M” plus treble damages to Trump for malicious prosecution.
Sounds about right.
I hate to say this too but a lot of this anti-business rhetoric originated, has circulated within, the New York black community, over the last decade or two. As many were (apparently) highly envious of the success of the white working-class, and immigrating others. The idea, for example, that the IRS should crackdown, or act to limit, the typical tax-avoidance efforts of small business, originated in the black community. Logic here truly evades but the impression, I suppose, is that many seem to believe those on services might thus enjoy greater benefit (?) Well, alrighty then, live long and prosper! Ehhh?
Add that it’s not just real estate developers that apply for loans. And many nationwide will overstate, exaggerate, seek to paint in a better light, income and assets. Banks are fully aware; it it their business to be aware; in choosing to award a loan, they do what? They state the obvious – there has been no significant “fraud,” or overestimation.
The question becomes, who does the NY Attorney General seek to defend here? Because apparently it’s not the banks, who have by their own admission profited handsomely. Well, again, alrighty then! Who does New York seek to defend? If not the banks?
And how does one logically conclude, as businessman, that New York is anything other than state-racketeering masquerading as an apropos “politics”? How does one not process this as anything other than violation of American concepts of justice?
@betuadollar
Yes Sir, you nailed it at the State Level (NY), Now take it to the Federal Level the SEC, Federal Reserve, and Treasury. and you have a National ‘Gambit’.
At the ‘Operational Level it’s a RICO Syndicate. WE all know, it’s a House of Cards, at least most of Us endowed with reason.
Any non-liberal that visits NY should be ashamed of themselves. Would you support MSNBC? The Washington Post? The NY Times? CNN? No, of course not. DO NOT SPEND ANY MONEY IN NY!
NY and especially NYC are Bud Light, Target and Disney all rolled into one ugly, fascist package. If you give them money you are aiding the enemy. Go to FL, TX, Vegas, TN or any other red or purple state that doesn’t support this fascism.
HullBobby,
The wife and I discussed leaving after this ruling.
Problem is, where else am I going to find 200+ acres for less than $1k an acre?
Upstate, if you are ever fortunate enough to retire please do what my wife and I did, we left Blue MASS and never looked back. We went from having Liz Warren and Ed Markey as our senators to living where the governor and both senators, and even my Rep, are all Republicans.
Please keep up the great comments and the strong support for our fellow commenters that keep fighting the good fight.
HullBobby,
Not really sure retiring is really in the cards.
Not because we have to work til death.
Just not our style. This is our, we are dying here, home.
Will do! You too, keep up the good fight!
@Upstate
If you don’t mind being in the boonies, you can still find inexpensive acreage in places like Tennessee. Part of me wants folks like you to stay so there’s balance, the other part says, ‘Get out. Get the heck out!’. I have a generational family home in upstate NY (they moved there long before it was wealthy), and I can’t bring myself to visit anymore. 😐 NYC? Forget it. Haven’t been since 2015 and not going back anytime soon.
James,
I live in the boonies now. I like it that way.
Not sure I could stand the heat of TN though.
Next you’ll be telling us that all of the non-liberals who live in NY should leave.
All non-liberals should leave NY. Let the state get even more blue as they continue to lose seats in Congress. Let them replace tax payers with illegals and people on assistance as their tax base shrinks and their obligations grow. DOOM LOOP BABY!
HullBobby,
With exception of down state, NYC and the immediate surrounding counties, a few college dominated cities like Ithaca, Rochester, the rest of the state is normal and Red.
Cuomo, and then Hochul told us we weren’t welcome there….so why would we stay and let them trample all over us with high taxes to pay for illegals to live comfortably on our dime??
“Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary said Monday that he would “never” invest in New York after this absurd judgment.”
In the name of justice, nobody should support that looter’s state — not a visit, not a meeting, not a product or service (in or out). They want to confiscate and destroy? Fine. Bleed them dry.
Bear in mind: Bostonians destroyed their own supply of tea. For a noble cause.
I posted this last night, after the thread had already grown to nearly 400 comments, so I will repost a shorter version here. This is what happens when courts and the prosecutorial system no longer pursue justice, and become weapons of political warfare (lawfare). Themovie was Judgment at Nuremburg, by Stanley Kubrick:
Ernst Janning or Judge Engeron, the result was the same:
I had reached my verdict on the Trump case before I ever came into the courtroom. I would have found him guilty, whatever the evidence. It was not a trial at all. It was a sacrificial ritual in which Trump, the Republican, was the helpless victim.
“That is why representations, like the one made by the Trump Corporation, come with a warning that estimates are their own and that the banks need to make their assessments.”
Nope. Other companies use GAAP and hire appraisers and real accounting firms. Trump comes up with numbers himself. The warning Trump uses is not a common thing.
I think Mr. Turley misses several important points in his advocacy. First, government power is only limited when prosecutors and courts are required by our Supreme Court to hew tightly to the intended uses of legislation.
Novel uses of law combine the power of the legislative and the executive in a single person, which is the very definition of tyranny. Novel uses of law especially against current or past political candidates – who are simply the vessel of the speech of their voters – simply cannot be allowed. It infringes speech. It takes the lid off the Constitution. It violates prohibitions on ex post facto laws. Appellate courts may sometimes develop new rules but will studiously avoid applying the new development to the defendant then in front of the court to avoid violating the prohibition of post facto rules. Letitia James and Fani Willis both fail this test.
Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Article 1, § 9 prohibits the federal government including prosecutors from passing or using laws which apply ex post facto. Article 1 § 10 extends the same prohibition to state prosecutors. This isn’t about the business climate in New York. This is about our specific limited government democracy – the only sustainable kind. It’s about liberty versus tyranny.
Second, any finding of guilt which has the potential to result in a material deprivation of property, as happened here, requires a jury trial in the first instance. It matters not that New York State law does not provide for a jury in this circumstance. The US Constitution demands it. The US Constitution does not distinguish between liberty and property. Both are equally important rights because the power of government to deprive one of property creates the power to control an individual, which has the same deleterious effect of depriving one of liberty by incarceration.
Finally, Trump has applied for credit thousands of times and knows intuitively that it does not matter to sophisticated commercial banks what value he places on anything. If real estate forms any part of a credit underwriting decision, Trump knows federal law requires the commercial lender to independently commercially appraise the real estate. He knows this because he is forced to pay in advance for every appraisal. Trump knows that if the commercial lender did not require him to appriase Mar-a-Lago, that means Mar-a-Lago’s value played no role in the credit underwriting. Because Trump knows he cannot deceive his commercial lenders, he cannot have the intent to deceive. Fraud is not possible without intent. There is no rule prescribing negligent fraud. Fraud must be intended, but Trump’s understanding of commercial underwriting makes it impossible for him to form the fraudulent intent. How does Trump know this? Because he has been turned down for credit for projects as many times as he has been granted credit. In every decision turning him away, the commercial banker gave him a specific reason, and the banker always pinned the blame on the appraiser. Trump could have called 1000 real estate developers as witnesses and asked each of them if, just like himself, the developers understood that it makes no difference what value they assign to anything. If it’s important, the banks will independently appraise it. If it is not a part of the underwriting criteria, then the value is meaningless. There cannot be fraud without intent. Trump has a Constitutional right to have a jury decide whether he possessed the intent to defraud.
Where is “snake plissken” when you see him?