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.
I hate doing research this way, but on Prosecutorial Immunity:
“Prosecutorial immunity is an absolute shield against damages lawsuits for claims that arise from prosecutorial actions. Believing that the constant worry of lawsuits would impede prosecutors’ ability to do their job, in its 1976 decision Imbler v. Pachtman, the Supreme Court created this immunity to serve the “public trust” and ensure “the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.”
Instead, experience shows that this immunity enables prosecutors to disregard constitutional rights in order to pursue convictions. Examples of prosecutors escaping liability are ubiquitous in the United States. For example, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a group of nurses could not sue Suffolk County prosecutors who hid evidence and engaged in other misconduct as a political favor.
Similarly, a Maryland court held in 2021 that a prosecutor could not be held personally accountable for withholding lab test results proving that a man jailed for allegedly flying with methamphetamines was in fact carrying only honey, just like he said. In both cases, prosecutors withheld the truth to serve their own interests, and they were never held to account for their violations.
Despite prosecutorial immunity’s fundamental flaw, there is only one carveout to this otherwise impervious protection: It does not shield prosecutors from being sued for actions that are not related to advocating for the prosecution, such as acting as an investigator or police detective. In other words, “the actions of a prosecutor are not absolutely immune merely because they are performed by a prosecutor.”
However, because the line between prosecutor and investigator can be difficult to identify and judges define prosecutorial conduct very broadly, this exception is rarely applied. And in the very few cases where courts do not grant prosecutorial immunity, prosecutors are afforded the additional protection of qualified immunity. This means that victims who overcome the steep hurdle of prosecutorial immunity must also show that the prosecutor’s behavior violated clearly established law before they will receive their day in court.
https://ij.org/immunity-for-prosecutoril-conduct/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CProsecutorial%20immunity%E2%80%9D%20is%20a%20judge,matter%20how%20egregious%20the%20behavior.
———————-
Sadly, this is the sort of thing that we never had to much think about – suing judges, suing prosecutors, or qualified immunity for cops. But things change, and since the Democrats seem determined to convert the judicial system into their own personal weapon against their enemies, perhaps these immunities need to change.
It seems like they did in Canada.
Yeah, it’s definitely Democrats who charged the guy with the honey.
Or perhaps it was Republicans, and you just don’t care about that.
No, ShillAnon, I don’t care whether it was Democrats or Republicans who charged the guy with the honey. You are correct on that. You know why I don’t care? Because I have integrity and pride, and it matters not to me the party, because wrong is wrong, whoever does it.
You, on the other hand, care greatly which Party did it, because you are sick and twisted inside. Because you have neither pride nor integrity. You just want to win. You are the kind of person who would pay off an official, for your team to win, and then feel good about it when they won.
If you think “it matters not to me the party, because wrong is wrong, whoever does it,” why are you complaining that “the Democrats seem determined to convert the judicial system into their own personal weapon against their enemies” instead of more accurately complaining that “some Democrats and Republicans seem determined to convert the judicial system into their own personal weapon against their enemies”?
Uh, because that is what this article is about, and the people doing it are Democrats??? (Was that a trick question?)
You see, only in Shill World, or in Crazy Obsessed Person World, does talking about a bad thing one party did require a “but the other party did something bad too!”. That is childish, and partisan, and immature. It is a way for people in a cult, not to see that they are in a cult. I have talked before about a drunk in the neighborhood, or actually now, a drunk living under a bridge down the street from my neighborhood. He walked around with a bottle of Jim Beam in his pocket, and his hands shook if he did not drink. If you hired him to do an odd job, you had to pay him after he did the work, lest he split on you to run to the liquor store. I do not drink much, but one day I was having a drink, I forget why, and he saw me, and his face lit up, and he was all excited, like you, saying “Look! There you are having a drink! You are just like me!” No, I am not, I said. I have a house, a car, a phone, my bills are paid, and I will put this bottle away, after I have had a drink, and it maybe 6 months or more before I touch it.”
The point is, that was one of his drunk techniques, to not have to admit to himself that he was a drunk. Same with you. Your party is crazy out of control now, castrating kids, aborting babies in the delivery room, opening the borders, letting criminals go unpunished, and abusing the organs of power. Right now, the Republicans are not doing those things to the same degree, if at all. But keep telling yourself that “we” are just like “you.”
NEITHER party does it. It is not a characteristic of either party. SOME people from both parties do it, and it’s counterproductive to honest discussion to characterize it as being true of either party when it is not. I should have been more careful in my sarcasm not to frame it in terms of the parties themselves. Also, we should be concerned about all of the people who do it, regardless of party.
As for “[Democrats are] crazy out of control,” I think the same of many (but not all) Republicans. No surprise that people often have different opinions.
You said, “It is not a characteristic of either party. SOME people from both parties do it, and it’s counterproductive to honest discussion to characterize it as being true of either party when it is not.”
I disagree with you on many levels here, but I agree that there is overlap between the parties on occasion. As Dan Bongino said, “Some Republicans are democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.”
But to generalize, Democrats, as a party, are for Open Borders, less criminal prosecution, child sexual castration and mastectomies, puberty blockers, Abortion up until birth, lawfare, shutting down free speech, siccing the FBI on its political enemies, lawfare, no voter ID, identity politics, etc.
That is why some Democrats are walking away from the party, and why so many of them report feeling like they have been brainwashed and lied to. Here is a really cogent walkaway story. Well worth the investment of your time.
Because the ability to weaponize the legal and judicial system is a consequence of the problem that John Adma’s pointed out more than two centuries ago
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
That is not some ideological statement. It is the foundation of the social contract.
We ceded to govenrment OUR right to initiate force in return for govenrments protection of our other rights.
When the power to govern – FORCE, is given to those without moral foundations – the result will be tyranny and lawlessness.
“If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
― James Madison
Madison is correct, But government CAN NOT control itself if it is made of men who have no moral foundations.
Whatever is wrong with Republicans – they are NOT a significant departure from the moral foundations that whatever else you may feel have worked for centuries.
The CORE – not principle but rule of conservatism is that we should take care when changing what has worked – even if imperfectly for centurries.
There is only one group in this country seeking to impose radical change that departs from centuries of a working but imperfect system.
That is the left.
Further democrats are open about this – you measure government by laws passed, by the amount of change you have been able to force through.
Republicans tend to measure a govenrment by standards, like – was a budget passed, was it adhered to. Were the existing laws followed.
FLOYD IS ESTOVIR.
I don’t believe that.
As I said last night, I wish I was! From what I hear Estovir is a manly man, with good looks, ready fists and quick wits. I am old and feeble, and for fun I am reading Chauncey Tinker’s 1910 translation of Beowulf. I wonder, do I dare eat a peach! I fall asleep easily, and I forget things. I look like a dang monkey, and I am not very smart.
Why don’t you tell us the prosecutor’s party affiliation if you want to make that complaint? The DA’s name is William Katcef,* and I couldn’t find any Internet information about his party affiliation.
In any event, your complaint is off point unless there’s some reason to believe the defendant in the honey case was a political challenger to the DA.
*See Haughton v. Katcef, No. 223 Sept. Term 2021, 2022 WL 557522 (Ct. of Special Appeals Feb. 24, 2022).
“In any event, your complaint is off point unless there’s some reason to believe the defendant in the honey case was a political challenger to the DA.”
How so? Trump is not a political challenger to James either.
My point was that Floyd only complains that “the Democrats seem determined to convert the judicial system into their own personal weapon against their enemies” instead of more accurately complaining that “some Democrats and Republicans seem determined to convert the judicial system into their own personal weapon against their enemies.”
How so? Trump is not a political challenger to James either.
That’s silly. The Dem lawfare against Trump is quite transparently a coordinated effort to keep him from being elected POTUS again. From this comment alone I can see that you are not a serious commenter.
It’s your opinion that “The Dem lawfare against Trump is quite transparently a coordinated effort to keep him from being elected POTUS again.” It’s my opinion that there is no lawfare, and Trump is facing multiple legal cases because there’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed crimes (or, in the case of civil suits, a preponderance of the evidence shows he broke the law). I’m as serious as you are. We simply have different opinions.
A.N.D.
I’m as serious as you are. We simply have different opinions.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Democrat Lawfare is The White House working with the Natioinal association of Schoolboards gets to send a White House coached letter to the AG complaining about the dangers of parents attending schoolboard meetings. That letter generated an entire response plan created by the AG to spy on parents with the the temerity to attend schoolboard meetings.
That is democrat Lawfare
He kept saying he couldn’t release them because of the IRS audit.
Evidence huh?
Like a Democrat prosecutor running for office promises to take a Republican to court. Crime to be named later. She made the same promise repeatedly. Never making a single accusation of wrong doing.
That is the essence of Democrat lawfare.
Speaking of evidence. What evidence did James use to launch an investigation into Trump.?
The Govt is required to investigate crimes, not People. Another example of Democratic Lawfare
Floyd – an interesting little essay. What kind of change do you have in mind?
Also, I assume none of that affects whether the bar can impose discipline up to and including disbarment, right? (Think of Mike Nifong in North Carolina)
Well, you can’t just remove judicial or prosecutorial immunity, because if you did, every inmate in prison would be suing the judges and prosecutors. Maybe there is a way to increase the degree of exemptions, to encompass outrageous acts such as done by Engeron and James. This is why what they do is so harmful to the whole country. The system has worked fine for years, but no system can withstand an assault like this from determined fascists and crooks. Maybe a good faith exception, so that the people who sat on the honey jar pay a price if they did it in bad faith. You kind of have that rule now in regard to search warrants.
Finding a cure that’s not worse than the disease is the hard part. But it will be worth the effort if such a cure can ultimately be found.
In the meantime, I would think a resounding win for Trump at the polls might put the cancer into remission for a little while.
Judges have absolute immunity. Prosecutors and law enforcement have absolute and qualified immunity.
The system has NOT worked fine for years.
Qualified immunity is a creation of the courts and it really has no place in the law at all.
Those who work for government have absolute immunity so long as their actions are consistent with the law, and their roles.
They can not be held accountable for merely being wrong. They most actually violate a persons constitutional right and do so obviously.
I would note the same standard applies to Trump as president – though the powers of the president are far broader therefore the scope in which Presidential immunity applies is larger. Engron as an example can not order a drone stike on a US citizen in Yemen, so he needs no immunity for murdering US citizens. A president CAN.
Further immunity does NOT mean that it is impossible to charge or prosecute, it just means that those in govenrment can not be indicted for acts inside the scope of their job – until there has been a finding by a relevant body that the actions are outside those protected by absolute immunity and therefore they can be indicted. In the case of presidents and presidential appointees – they must be impeached and removed first.
The problem is NOT with our system.
It is with the people in it,
We have lost “the rule of law” – that is not a failure of the system itself. It is our failure for allowing left wing nuts to gain power.
As Adam’s noted
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
Without the core values that underpin western thought – the rule of law is not possible.
And that is where our failure is – it is evident by those posters here on this board on the left everyday.
They have decided that Trump (and any that stand in their way) are not innocent – because they hate them.
We are in the midst of an effort to bring the cultural revolution to the united states.
Floyd, Thank you for that. Thoughtful. Prosecutors will fight any change because they don’t want to be abused with lawfare the way Trump is. But some change needs to be made so that blatant wrongdoing can be punished. More necessary now that the quality of the bar is declining.
Note, however, that, as an attorney licensed in the State of New York, Letitia James is subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct in New York. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY) has filed a 64-page Ethics Complaint against James with the New York Bar. I am reading it now. As a member of the New York Bar, I find her conduct in bringing the case shameful! Ditto for her smirking in the courtroom.
Floyd,
While there’s a high threshold… it doesn’t mean that its not possible.
You seem to skirt the issue of prosecutorial misconduct.
Wasn’t it Nifong the prosecutor in that Duke Lacrosse case?
Suing prosecutors due to Brady violations.
I think here. If the appellate court finds that there was prosecutorial misconduct… e.g. a willful misinterpretation of the law… it would open the door for Trump to sue James directly.
-G
Professor Turley Writes:
“However, as New Yorkers cheer this moment–
………………………………..
Trump ‘is’ a native New Yorker. The Trump name has been a New York brand for decades. Donald Trump actually functioned as one of New York’s biggest cheerleaders for much of his career.
So how is it that New Yorkers have turned so hostile towards one of their own??
The answer to this question is pretty simple: ‘Trump’s entire political agenda is geared to small town White, Christian conservatives’.
In other words, ‘Trump essentially became an anti-New Yorker to cement his control of the Republican Party’.
Trump’s political agenda is NOT geared to “small town White, Christian conservatives”
It is geared to the working class – which is why the republican party has turned arround the left wing nut narative that demographics is destiny.
Trump has the strongest support among minorities of any republican since the 50’s.
All politicans appeal to a variety of groups – it is rare that appealing to one group makes you “anti” another.
Trump was a cheerleader for the NYC of Rudy Guiliani, not that of DeBlasio, James, and Bragg.
It is not Trump that has changes.
Frankly much of whats changed about NYC is not the people, but the idiots in power.
Anonymous – At this point, I doubt that residents of Los Angeles and San Francisco think that controlling illegal immigration, drug-usage, the drug trade, vagrancy, and crimes against property and persons, are “small town” values.
From what I’ve read, the premium for dealing with a surety company doesn’t typically exceed 4% and is often 2% or less. So I don’t know where Turley’s 10% number comes from.
However, Trump doesn’t have to ask for a stay at all. He could allow enforcement to proceed and then recollect from the state later if he wins on appeal. And the payments to the state could be arranged to be in installments. And that would help Trump preserve interest income during this time for monies he hasn’t yet paid.
The cost of a surety bond ranges from 1-10% of the bonded amount, based on the credit worthiness of the person being bonded.
The CORE to Engron’s idiotic case is that Trump’s and the banks assessment of Trump’s creditworthyness constitutes Fraud.
If Trump gets a surety bond at 1% – the nipple judge will find him in criminal contempt – because nipples engron has substituted himself for fundimental laws of economics.
The value of ANYTHING is what a willing buyer and a willing sellor agree to. There is NO OTHER VALUE.
This was resolved in the socialist calculation debate – which socialist lost and was later demonstrated by the failure of socialist systems.
It was also later reflected in economist Ronald Coase’s Nobel prize winning work on “The problem of social cost”.
Engron – and those on the left’s error here is right at the core of economics.
It is why price controls ALWAYS fail.
The Primary role of govenrment in free exchange is to assure that the exchange actually is free – Deutche Bank could have walked away from providing Trump mortgages had they wished to – therefore the exchange weas free.
The only other role of govenrment in free exchange is to assure that all parties live up to whatever they agreed to.
There is no one in this case claiming that the other party did not do as they agreed.
Therefore there is no role for government.
The idiot that Engron has put incharge of Trump’s businesses has already cost those businesses millions.
In what world would any say person believe that a female left wing nut judge is capable of running multimillion collar businesses ?
The entire premise of Engrons case is bogus.
The role of Trump’ businesses is to get the best peossible deal when working with Banks.
The role of banks is to get themselves the best possible deal.
So long as neither side uses force and so long as both sides keep whatever agreements they made – there is no role AT ALL for govenrment.
Turley’s major error is failing to grasp that the judgement is excessive not because 50M would have been correct,
or $10m, but because the correct number is $0, with ZERO legal costs for a bogus and contemptable abuse of power.
Enron makes a big deal that Trump was not “contrite”.
That is correct – there is no obligation to be polite when the court is a party to fraud.
I would note you lefties keep ranting that Trump does not have immunity.
That is obviously false – Judge Engron has absolute immunity. There is no circumstance in which Engron or James or NY will be held accountable for the damages this idiotic abuse of power caused.
Trump committed fraud and violated NY law. Engoron made a judgment according to the law. Trump has been found to have committed fraud. It’s simple.
It’s not simple. The legal theory of the case is a stretch. It was a bench trial before a judge who, based on his conduct, should not be a judge. At least there is an Ethics Complaint against the prosecutor who brought the complaint. As a resident of New York State, I do not appreciate seeing taxpayer dollars squandered in this manner. It’s a sad day for the legal profession in New York State.
From “Newsweek”:
WHY DOES TRUMP OWE SO MUCH?
Engoron found that Trump’s phony wealth claims were critical to his success, affording him lower loan interest rates and allowing him to build projects he wouldn’t have otherwise been able to finish. The judge determined that those savings and windfall profits were “ill-gotten gains” and ordered him and his co-defendants to cough them up to the state, with interest.
Trump, both individually and as the owner of various corporate entities, must pay:
— $168 million, plus interest, in savings on loans he obtained using his inflated financial statements for a golf resort near Miami, a Chicago hotel and condominium tower, a Washington, D.C. hotel and a Manhattan office building. Trump obtained three of the loans through Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management unit, which offered lower interest rates than its commercial real estate division, and used his financial statements to show the bank he was wealthy and a good credit risk.
— $126.8 million, plus interest, in profit from selling the Trump International Hotel in Washington in May 2022 to a company that now operates it as a Waldorf Astoria. Trump used $170 million of the $375 million to pay off a loan on the property. Other proceeds went to his children.
— $60 million, plus interest, from selling the rights to manage a New York City golf course in June 2023. Engoron noted in his ruling that the buyer, Bally’s Corporation, stands to pay Trump an additional $115 million if it obtains a casino license for the property. However, he did not say if he would require Trump to give up that money, too.
Trump’s sons, Eric and Donald Jr., must each pay a little over $4 million, plus interest, to the state for their shares of the Washington hotel sales. Weisselberg, the former Trump Organization finance chief, was ordered to pay $1 million — half of the $2 million severance he’s receiving.
FILE – Allen Weisselberg, right, stands behind then President-elect Donald Trump during a news conference in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York, Jan. 11, 2017. A New York judge ruled Friday, Feb. 16, 2024, against Donald Trump, imposing a $364 million penalty over what the judge ruled was a yearslong scheme to dupe banks and others with financial statements that inflated the former president’s wealth. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File).”
Judge Engoron based his damages awards on the savings on interest rates and windfall profits Trump obtained as a result of his fraud. He didn’t make up numbers and they are not egregious, given the extent of benefit Trump obtained by his misdeeds.
Obviously, it is time to scrap the legal system and start fresh. This “Oh, you can’t do anything” is balderdash. Trump represents “Mr. Everyman” and “Mr. Every Business” who the courts and the legal system prey on because “we are a nation of laws”. Yes we are a nation of “Laws for me but not for Thee”, thus, “Trump has to post an additional half billion.” Oh yeah, since when do Kangaroo courts get away with this? At least the mob points a gun at you so you know where they stand.
The looters after Trump and his money are no better than the scumballs looting retail stores. There are no consequences. They are God like criminals.
If the Supremes do not step in, it is time to turn out the lights. America has finally lawfared itself into a criminal mob, as looters and rioters have proved over and over. The only thing missing from the looters is the robes and suits.
NO!!!
It is time for courts to follow the law AS WRITTEN,
Broadly with respect to individual rights and narrowly with respect to government powers.
It does not matter what political syste you have or what the law is – unless we do not do these – we do not have “the rule of law”.
When ever you read “this is the first time this law has been used this was in decades” – you can be SURE that those “using” the law aere acting lawlessly.
If government must stretch the meaning of decades old laws far beyond their plain language – then government is acting lawlessly.
Which is quite obvious.
The Biden administration – ignores that it does not like or that get in the way of doing what is wants – such as immigration laws.
And they stretches laws way past their intentions in order to target political enemies and ordinary citizens suffering from “wrongthink”
This is the definition of the rule of man not law, of lawlessness, of anti-demnocratic, of fascism.
You can not make a workable government, when the law is variable depending on the day or the target.
Amen to THAT!!!! You’re 1000% CORRECT…👏 👏 👏
This makes me look back many moons ago when a bank purchased another bank.
The bank being acquired had a decent OBS portfolio. (Off Balance Sheet … aka Derivatives)
This was due to hedging their funding for their loan operations.
Now the OBS portfolio carried some risk.
The SVP banker who managed the risk used some models which were a bit optimistic.
She highlighted and outlined the assumptions that were made for that specific model.
The bankers who were buying the bank, were not sophisticated enough to understand the risk models or ask the SVP to run different models using different assumptions.
The deal closed.
I did my work and moved on to my next client.
About 2yrs later, I got a call from a lawyer. Seems the markets moved in a different direction and the assumptions for the risk model didn’t hold true.
There was a lawsuit. ( I won’t get into the details… but the purchasing bank claimed that they overpaid for the bank. )
For anyone familiar w interest rate risk and models… along w derivatives… the banker didn’t commit fraud or lie about a possible outcome when painting an optimistic picture. This is the same for what Trump did along w anyone who deals in real estate investments.
To say Trump lied… is wrong.
So when I see Denise, and Giggly along w their sock puppets making statements… I can honestly say its their TDS showing.
-G
Here’s one example of the flaw with your argument: Trump represented, under oath, that his condo in Trump Tower was 33,000 sq ft, and used the value of a unit of that size to get a loan. The condo is actually slightly less than 11,000 sq ft., so he tripled the size. The actual square footage of the apartment is an objective fact—not an opinion—and it was no mistake. It’s called “cheating “—something Trump is famous for. He got caught. If he was the smart businessman he claims to be, to cut his losses, he should have just settled with the AG—but he saw a chance to milk the situation for publicity and donations. People who give him money ought to have their heads examined. There’s no political agenda or miscarriage of justice here—New York has the right and obligation to protect the financial market against cheaters since it is the financial capital of the world.
Giggly,
Nope.
Trump provides the address of the unit,
Everything else the bank does its due diligence and comes up with their own number.
Anonymous: NOPE. From “Newsweek’:
In a statement, James gave an example of how Trump allegedly valued his triplex apartment at $327 million in 2015 and 2016 financial statements, based on claims it was 30,000 square feet in size.
However, the actual size of Trump’s triplex apartment was 10,996 square feet.
In 2017, Trump’s financial statement changed the value of the property yet again, stating it was worth $116.8 million and for the first time revealing it was only 10,996.39 square feet in size.
As noted by James’ office, longtime Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg previously testified to them that the value of Trump’s apartment had been overstated by “give or take” $200 million.
James’ office also states that Trump himself publicly claimed his triplex apartment in Trump Tower was 30,000 square feet in size or larger, as evidenced in a 2017 article for Forbes magazine entitled “Donald Trump Has Been Lying About The Size Of His Penthouse.”
So, Forbes Magazine even noted that Trump LIED. Whoever told you that fairy tale about the bank coming up with the size and value of the condo LIED to you.
America was established as a well-restricted-vote republic.
Never did the Founders intend for the one-man, one-vote “dictatorship of the proletariat” imposed by the murderous megalomaniacal communist lunatics to exist.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“So, the lunatics have taken charge of the asylum.”
– Richard A. Rowland, 1926
_______________________________
America will regain its sanity and rationality once the vote regains its.
If there is ever again a conservative actual American president, he must replicate Lincoln, impose martial law, and require a new restricted vote under rigorous and rational vote qualifications.
Lincoln took desperate measures to Save the Union.
The next American president must take desperate measures to Save the Republic.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“For extreme diseases, extreme methods of cure, as to restriction, are most suitable.”
– Hippocrates, 400 BC
There seem to be many comments on this thread and even in the article conflating New York City and New York state. This court case was brought by the state of New York, not the city of New York. The whole state needs to be avoided like the plague from Niagara Falls (the Ontario side is better anyways) to Fisher Island off of New London CT
It will come as no solace, but … there is a hell. And elected people like James and Bragg and Fanny who bear such hatred for President Trump will spend eternity there. Ditto for that evil special prosecutor in the District of Columbia and FL. Then, there are the sorry excuses for members of the judiciary, whether elected or appointed, who have permitted such PERSECUTorial litigation to proceed; they too shall pay a price of eternal damnation for abusing their oaths and offices.
Has there ever been an appeal bond like this?
Businesses only need to worry if they are breaking the laws and committing fraud just like your dear leader. Your argument is pathetic!
So is your comment. I only wish they’d allow down-voting.
The last man to give and suffer so much for his country was George Washington.
The battle for Americans now is to stop the dictatorial, megalomaniacal, anti-constitutional, and anti-American communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) in America.
Yikes. Lincoln and Kennedy both lost their lives, just to name a couple other presidents. Now go to all the soldiers who have died or spent their lives crippled. Trump was treated wrong here, but, jeez…. cool the hyperbole.
I was referencing men of ideological import, integrity, maturity, and solemnity whose endeavors were accretive to the perpetuation of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
“Crazy Abe” was an anti-capitalist, antithetical American, a fellow traveler of Karl Marx, and an egregious criminal of high office who denied not prohibited and fully constitutional secession, secession that at least three states included in their State ratifications of the U.S. Constitution, and everything Lincoln did subsequent to that denial was similarly unconstitutional, and remains invalid, illegitimate, and illicit to this day. Lincoln threw the baby out with the bathwater; he threw the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery which was exclusively a legislative matter. In a society of law, laws must be adhered to. Ultimately, it is physically axiomatic that for every action there is a reaction and it may be that Lincoln’s incognizance and tyrannical machinations caused him to fail to plan well.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
________________________________________________
John F. Kennedy was a vacuous empty-suit and international playboy who had the presidency, which he did not win or deserve, purchased for him by his bootlegger, “Mob” associate, and financial market manipulator father, and who was duped by the Soviet Union into a foolish existential military crisis before granting huge embarrassing concessions to Premier Khrushchev in order to extricate himself from a morass of his own incompetence and making. JFK left American and allied security forces stranded on the beach and subject to capture, imprisonment, and wholesale slaughter at the Bay of Pigs, which may have caused a degree of ire in those most closely affected, such as Allen Dulles, the CIA et al. Commanding for fewer than four months, John F. Kennedy’s cavalier gross and incorrigible ineptitude, with an emphasis on navigation, led to the halving of his P.T. boat by a Japanese destroyer, causing two fatalities among the 10-man crew. Ultimately, this naive, foolhardy, and extreme egoist* was removed from office by the same forces that falsely ensconced him in such.
*
“JFK, Monster”
By Timothy Noah
“I knew that John F. Kennedy was a compulsive, even pathological adulterer, given to taking outlandish risks after he entered the White House. I knew he treated women like whores. And I knew he had more than a few issues with his father about toughness and manliness and all that. But before I read in the newspaper that Mimi Alford’s just-released memoir, Once Upon A Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy And Its Aftermath, described giving Dave Powers a blow job at JFK’s request and in his presence, I didn’t know that Kennedy had an appetite for subjecting those close to him to extreme humiliation.”
36 political kangaroo court filings, two futile impeachments, a “fake” half billion dollar penalty, the ongoing Obama Coup D’etat in America, and a “fake rape” case against former President Donald J. Trump by a woman who was not raped, submitted no rape kit, had no evidence, no surveillance video in Bergdorf Goodman, and had no charges filed by police.
That happens all the time to former American presidents, right, Einstein?
Another matter.
I recall reading that when George Washington was first setting up the federal government he took measures to try to get the most capable and respected people he could to fill offices so that the reputation of the new federal government would would be enhanced and respected. It was shored up and survived.
How is the current DEI checkbox system of hiring and appointing working? Will it survive the maggots and rot within?
Is it even possible for the “good,” “honorable,” and “noble” people, whom the Founders understood would be required to implement and perpetuate the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to survive the overwhelming onslaught of oppressive, tyrannical, subjugating Marxist corruption?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
How does Trump’s loyalty-to-Trump-above-competency system of hiring and appointing work? That’s what he said he’d do if he’s reelected. Let’s hope he loses.
Yeah. Just like our current VP was voted in for her brain.
“I recall reading that when George Washington was first setting up the federal government he took measures to try to get the most capable and respected people he could to fill offices so that the reputation of the new federal government would would be enhanced and respected.”
– Young
__________
George Washington et al. began the process to “fill offices” you referenced with well designed and scrutinized immigration.
To wit,
Naturalization Act of 1790
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
Turley is wrong in his statement that Trump must post a $455M bond as a requirement for him to appeal. This is not the law of NY. The purpose of posting an appeal bond, also called a supersedeas bond, is to prevent the Plaintiff from attempting to collect the judgment while the appeal is pending. It is not a prerequisite to filing of an appeal.
Isn’t that a distinction without a difference? Either way he has to post this excessive bond in order to appeal.
It sounds like you’re familiar with the process in New York. How much money (if any) will Trump need to put up to appeal this?
Turley said posting a bond or cash is required to perfect an appeal from a money judgment in NY State. AG James said that if he doesn’t put up cash or a bond, she will execute on the judgment. If he doesn’t have the cash, she will ask for real estate to be sold.
New Yorkers just don’t understand what a spectacular blow this judgement is to New York City’s reputation as a global financial capital. Can you imagine what a foreign country like China or Saudi Arabia is thinking right now knowing how precarious their positions are with Democratic politicians? This is exactly why Americans don’t invest in places like Russia.
Yeah, how awful it is for NY to prosecute white collar crime. It’s so unfair. Only street crime should be prosecuted.
That’s pretty weak. Your dichotomy is go after one guy because he’s politically unpalatable and put him out of business for a “crime” without a victim OR don’t prosecute white collar crime. Seriously?
@Gary,
What criminal act did Trump commit?
The point was that there was no underlying crime.
Show me where Trump lied and what he lied about.
Show me how his misstatements were material.
And that’s the thing.
They weren’t.
There was no crime and the judge made additional errors.
Here’s one… he never considered that the rates and loan amounts were not based just on Trump’s stated assets, but also on the additional flow of business from unrelated parties who would do business w DB thanks to doing business w Trump. Its an intangible. Not to mention Trump’s past relationship and history with the bank.
Ooops!
Thus their allegations that he profited due to his non-material misstatements is incorrect. (Per the DB bankers testimony.)
But by the time they gave their testimony… Engoron had already ruled his summary judgement against Trump.
This is going to blow up in their faces.
It probably just got Trump elected.
-G
That’s why I used parens for “crime”
Oh the old ‘air quotes’.
As I understand it, street crime ISN’T prosecuted in New York. For example (please correct me) I thought I saw a video of (5) illegal aliens beating the crap out of two New York Police officers. I believe they were held for about two hours before they were given plane tickets (at taxpayer expense) to California.
IOW, we’ve got the opposite situation to the one Anon refers to: street crime isn’t prosecuted, while non-criminal white collar conduct is prosecuted based on novel (and economically illiterate) theories . . . so long as the defendant is sufficiently disliked by the government.
Darn! I posted this comment in the wrong place. Sorry for the repeat:
Daniel asked me a question whether Trump can sue Engeron and/or James under 14 USC 1983.
I have never sued a judge or prosecutor, so there is that. BUT, the way I read the statute, it does not say that no judge or prosecutor, can be sued. It simply says that injunctive relief can not be granted against them. That does not mean that an action can not be commenced against them. Plus, I do not think that a prosecutor is a judicial officer in the legal sense.
The way I read the statute, it clearly contemplates an “action brought against a judicial officer”, i.e. a judge.
Here is the statute:
42 USC 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
————-
However, I am retired, and I do not have access to all the research materials that I once did. And, I always preferred the written digests to computer searches, at least for the initial research, because I could scan multiple fine points quicker and easier than on the computer. Then, once I had the basic cases I wanted, I would sort of shep them in the computer search.
So, with that in mind, does anyone here have a better informed decision?
I’m not sure about the prosecuting attorney, but I would think the judge’s actions are protected from civil liability under the concept of judicial immunity. See, e.g., Alvarez v. Snyder, 264 A.D.2d 27, 702 N.Y.S.2d 5 (First Dep’t 2000).
You are probably right. There are a couple of exceptions, but it does not look, at first glance, that Engeron falls within them.
I hate not being able to do proper research. I found this, on the Kids for Cash scandal:
In the ‘kids for cash’ civil lawsuit, the court found that certain of Ciavarella’s actions were not protected under the judicial immunity doctrine, including Ciavarella’s participation in a conspiracy to enact zero tolerance policies. The court specifically found that while Ciavarella served as judge of the juvenile court, he enacted an administrative policy that dictated instances in which probation officers had to file charges against and detain juveniles in Luzerne County. In his order, Judge Caputo states, “Ciavarella’s enactment and expansion of a zero-tolerance policy dictating how probation officers were to handle violations of probation and other charging decisions fall outside the scope of judicial action … Because Ciavarella’s enactment and expansion of the zero tolerance policy were non-judicial acts, judicial immunity does not shield this conduct.”
Interesting. I’m not so sure that’s correct, but it does show that if a judge acts in a sufficiently egregious fashion, a reviewing court is more likely to conclude that the actions are not protected by judicial immunity. With that said, it would be harder to say that a judge’s orders or other rulings in a specific case are outside the scope of judicial action. Here the judge’s rulings may have been egregious but to me they seem to fall within the very core of what is described by the phrase “judicial action.”
I wonder if he could sue in Federal Court under 1983 on the basis that his 8th and 14th amendment rights were violated. He would be seeking to have the judgment reversed. He would also seek a TRO and Preliminary Injunction to avoid irreparable harm, under standard principles rather than under 1983 itself.
Didn’t this so-called ‘trial’ begin with the Judge declaring Trump guilty of a crime? You know, without the time consuming, boring, expense of a trial or witnesses? Then the show trial began to give the farce of justice to the predetermined penalty. This is lawless corruption and what you get with criminals in charge of our “justice” system. If you applaud Trump being treated this way, way until it happens to you.
Anonymous: this civil case began with a motion for summary judgment. The AG filed a motion arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact that Trump engaged in fraud, and that the state was entitled to a judgment on liability as a matter of law, leaving only the question of damages. Trump was represented by counsel, who apparently was unable to establish any genuine issue of material fact, so judgment on liability was rendered. At that point, if Trump were a reasonable person, he should have seriously considered settling the case. He would have come out better if he had done so–cut his losses. He wouldn’t do so for 2 reasons: 1. the ego–the Donald can never be wrong; and 2. to stir up the disciples, like you, into believing he’s a victim, that the legal system is corrupt and asking you for YOUR money to pay off the judgment resulting from his lies. You should be outraged at his arrogance.
The trial was concerned only with the question of damages, so arguments that “everyone does it” and “the loans were paid off” and “lenders didn’t lose money” were irrelevant. This was a CIVIL case, NOT a criminal case, so there’s no “guilt or innocence” involved. The penalty was not predetermined–the state had to show the extent of his misrepresentations and the proper penalty. And, Judge Engoron could have issued a larger penalty, and he could have permanently dissolved the Trump Organization or forbade it from ever doing business in NY again, but he showed restraint. Anyone who told you that this was a criminal case, that the penalty was predetermined or that either the AG or the Judge did anything wrong is lying to you. They followed NY law.
Glad to see you finally arrived at the real point: “They followed NY law.”
ny has no law. glad to see that. the point has been made that there is only one way forward.
Poor giggly,
James asserted that at the start of the trial.
Trump’s lawyers could assert the facts are in question.
The summary judgement will get overturned.
You’re a gullible tool of fascist propaganda. Your hypocrisy is disgusting.
Gigi, you state that the case BEGAN with a MSJ. So, on what basis did the judge grant it? The notion that DJT should then simply knuckle under grants the govt immense power to declare guilt w/o evidence (which I believe would essentially be judgment on the pleadings) and force a defendant into submission. If you want to talk ego, how much ego does a judge have to have to do this? Do we really want defendants under this sort of tyranny? Now, answer the question w/o the defendant being named Trump.
Why don’t you get online and read the MSJ briefs and evidence and then the judge’s Opinion? It’s not a matter of “knuckling under “—it’s a matter of establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact after being served with a motion for summary judgment—and Trump failed to meet his burden of proof. You don’t seem to understand the difference between judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment practice. No one “forced” Trump to do anything other than respond with evidence showing that there was a genuine issue of material fact—he failed to do this.
BTW: a “judgment on the pleadings” is a tool used by the defense, and it goes something like this: even assuming the facts laid out in the complaint are completely true, they still do not constitute a cause of action for which relief can be granted. Such a motion is a DEFENSE tactic, not a plaintiff tactic.
Let me give you an example. Once, I represented a client with HIV/AIDS. When his employer discovered he had HIV/AIDS, because the supervisor, an ex-pharmacist, recognized the pills my client was taking, the employee began getting bad work reviews and was basically isolated in a work dungeon. They thought he had cancer prior to that. He was given all sorts of vague goals to meet, which I argued that he did meet. My client was subsequently fired. Whether there was discrimination or not, as a final decision, was, of course, debatable.
However, we never got the chance to find out, because we lost at the summary judgment level. Because there were no genuine issues of material fact, according to the judge. Hogwash. In my response brief, I enumerated well over 20 genuine issues of material fact, all of which could only be determined by trial. (25 or so, IIRC.) You know why I lost? Because my client looked the part of a sickly, degenerate, scummy person. He looked like something that, in medieval days, the enemy besieging your castle would catapult over the wall to make everybody sick. He wasn’t. He just looked that way, due to his illness. Those people did not want him working in their office, sitting at the same table in the break room, drinking out of the same coffee pot, sharing the same refrigerator, sharing the same bathroom and breathing the same air as them. And the way he looked, I would not either. It was the same way in court, and you could see it in the judge’s eyes. And his court reporter and his staff. I would not be surprised if they disinfected the courtroom when it was over, or if they all went home to take Betadine baths in hot water. But it was still nothing but discrimination. Pure and simple. I was not client blind. I could most definitely see things from their side, so when I say there were genuine issues of material fact, there were. But we still lost. He could not afford an appeal, but I was able to win him a stupidly small award on an administrative level.
There are probably a gazillion lawyers here, who could tell you the same sort of story. Where they lost on summary judgment, for all sorts of ridiculous reasons, often enough, because the Court simply did not want to screw with it. That is the reality of summary judgment.
@Floyd,
There are a lot of ways to set an employee up so that you have grounds to fire them or to force them to resign.
EEOC and wrongful termination lawsuits are never easy or fun. Even if you win, you still lose.
Giggly and her sock puppet do not have an appreciation for the law.
What I find interesting is that there’s a bit of nuance in the law that was never raised. I suspect that Trump and his lawyers knew the deck was stacked and focused on getting thru this and on to the appeal. I could be wrong, but assuming the ruling is overturned, there is some things that one could argue in front of a real judge if this went back to trial if not dismissed outright.
Here, while the law doesn’t require a ‘victim’ per se, the law dealt w material misstatements.
If all they have is Trump’s estimates as his misstatements… they would lose.
Estimates are just that. Estimates. A miss by feet or a miss by a mile is still a miss.
Engoron proved that himself.
I’ve seen some good judges, and I’ve seen some petty dictators who should have been disbarred.
Engoron is one of the worst.
-G
So true, and my client was badly set up by them, and even then, he met what the poorly written goals were. Which, at any rate, would have been a genuine issue of material fact. They said he did not meet them, and we said that he did, with evidence.
This was so bad, that I wanted to pull something that I had long been thinking about. Summary judgment used to be disfavored, and then it became a common tool. Somewhere after that, a Motion For Summary Judgment became almost obligatory. You file one no matter what. But one also has an obligation not to file frivolous motions with the court. There is no “Motion for Summary Judgment” exception to that rule. So, when I got that motion, it was so outlandish, that I seriously thought about warning up the other side that it was frivolous, and they should “take it back”, or I would file a Rule 11 on them for sanctions. But my client was in a bad way, so I did not.
Floyd, frankly my experience in just short of 20 years of practicing in Nevada was that we could get judges to grant an MSJ in only the most egregious circumstances. Judges would deny MSJ over the lightest possibility that they could be reversed.
I am glad that you had those good experiences. Kudos to the Nevada courts!
I actually wasn’t lauding the Nevada courts. I had clients forced into settlement rather than invest funds in experts etc and spend two more years in litigation that they were sure they would win but couldn’t afford to. Refusal to use a tool like MSJ is just as bad as using it indicriminately.
Floyd – thanks for your input, and I’m sorry to hear justice wasn’t served in your clients case. As a non-lawyer I have a question, though. Can Trump appeal that this was heard in the wrong court from the get-go? In other words, I understand that this was argued as a consumer fraud case, thus bypassing the need for a jury. From my understanding their was no CONSUMER fraud, and I’d argue that since there were legal disclaimers that his valuations should not be relied upon, there was no fraud at all.
Anonymous – I think people will recognize the source of the following quote. It turns out to be prophetic.
“The stupid birds and animals in the jury box are called upon by the Royal Judge to consider their verdict as soon as the White Rabbit reads the accusation. But he is persuaded to wait until the witnesses are called: the Mad Hatter, still clutching a cup of tea and a sandwich, the Duchess’ cook, and finally small Alice, who has been regaining her original size as the trial progresses. After the introduction of a particularly incomprehensible poem supposedly written by the prisoner, the chapter continues:
. . . “Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first–verdict afterward.”
“Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!”
“Hold your tongue!” said the Queen, turning purple.
“I won’t!” said Alice.
“Off with her head!” the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
“Who cares for you?” said Alice. (She had grown to her full size by this time.) “You’re nothing but a pack of cards!”
Unfortunately, Arthur Engoron, Letitia James, Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg and Jack Smith may be a pack of fools, but they are not a pack of cards.
Fascinating analysis:
Love it… but only tangential to this case because of the one reference.
Willis and Wade are toast. They are expendable.
-G
Professor Turley, in my professional capacity, I want to sincerely thank you for your writings. I think it was extraordinarily important for someone in legal academia to prove that if you stick to principles and tell it like it is, apolitically, while you will make enemies among the small-minded, you will also vastly increase your credibility. You have done that, and I wish more professors would learn from your example.
Being a lawyer, you have probably already guessed from the above that I must be about to say, “But..,” and offer some criticism. If so, well, you are right.
Your column seems almost spot-on: since law school, I have concluded that appellate bond requirement are fundamentally unjust, especially when a defendant appeals to challenge the alleged excessiveness of the trial court’s award of damages. (And that goes for Oberlin, as well as Trump). But don’t we also have the U.S. Supreme Court to blame on this issue? It might be worth calling out the SC precedent as one that ought to be reviewed and reversed.
Moreover, it seems as if Trump’s case also raises special issues. The raft of civil-and-criminal “lawfare” cases against him seem to be designed to mislead voters during the 2024 election by getting trial-court or jury verdicts against him BEFORE the election that he will not have time to address by getting them reversed, vacated or modified via a complete appellate process.
That certainly seems to be Jack Smith’s plan….
In any case, thank you for your fine work, and I look forward to reading more.
–Tom
PS: Since, I’ve critiqued you, let me do the same for myself. After 30-some years of working on complex, unresolved questions of law and policy here in D.C., I have a positive being-right/being-wrong ratio. That said, for several years, while I share the First-Amendment views of persons like yourself and Mr. Corn-Revere, I thought that academia was causing you to exaggerate the extent of recent threats to free-speech rights.
Suffice it to say that, thanks to those who rooted out government censorship, I now realize that, while have been wrong before, never have I been AS PROFOUNDLY WRONG as I was on this issue. So I preordered your book….
As one pundit pointed out last night, it wouldn’t have mattered WHEN the indictments or lawsuits were filed because the issue of Trump’s claim of presidential immunity had to be resolved first–and it was–he lost. Second, DA Willis and Bragg first took their cases to the grand jury–which takes time– beginning with assembling evidence, presenting the case and getting either a “true bill” or “no true bill”, and then filing charges. And Trump’s lawyers have done everything humanly possible to delay, delay, delay, filing interlocutory appeals, dilatory motions, challenging everything including subject-matter and personal jurisdiction….etc.. So, even if any of these criminal cases had already proceeded to trial and went against Trump, the delay, delay, delay, appeal humdrum would have gone on while they drug out the appeal process to prevent final resolution, all of which is calculated for Trump to be in a position to pardon himself if he can cheat his way back into office–don’t you disciples realize that this is really what’s at stake? So, there’s no “calculation” to “mislead voters” by bringing these matters at this point in time to derail Trump’s campaign. Even if the cases had gone to trial sooner, Trump’s only been out of office 3 years–so there would not have been final appellate resolution, including all the way to the SCOTUS, of any of these cases before now in any event. A clever lawyer can really drag things out by multiple interlocutory appeals, as we have all seen. It takes time to get a certified transcript, clerk’s assembly of the record, briefing, reply briefing–takes months if not a year or more. Fani Willis started her investigation shortly after Biden’s inauguration. And, that’s why your argument, which is a frequent Trump-defense theme on alt-right media, falls flat. There is no proof of any “coordinated effort” to mislead voters or derail Trump’s campaign. Bringing complex criminal and civil cases takes time, and none of these cases would have been finalized before now.
And, another inconvenient truth is that Trump keeps trying to get his faithful followers convinced that “if they get away with coming after me, they’ll come after you”, implying that he’s done nothing wrong–which ignores the reality that: 1. he really did try to rig the GA election by pressuring the SOS to “find” votes, and getting fake electors to falsify documents based on the Big Lie, not only in GA, but other states; 2. he really did steal classified documents, hide them from the FBI, stored them in unsecure locations, returned some, lied about retaining some, lied about declassifying them and forced the FBI to seize them; 3. he really did falsify election finance reports by claiming the pay off to Stormy Daniels as a legitimate campaign expense; 4. he really did grossly overstate the value of collateral for loans in New York. There’s no threat to “free speech rights” or any other rights involved here. It’s just Trump, who has a well-earned reputation for cheating and lying going back decades. The prosecutors who are bringng Trump to justice are fulfilling their oath of office. Trump has done outrageously bad things, and the citizens of America have a right to bring him to account for his conduct. He’s NO victim here–other than victim to his own ego.
And as for the requirement for a supersedeas bond or posting cash, at the post-judgment point in time, the defendant has had multiple opportunities for due process–beginning with moving for summary judgment, defending themselves by offering contrary evidence and filing a motion to correct error–all before appeal. Why shouldn’t the winning party have the assurance that the judgment is secured? It’s the law everywhere.
You appear to have conflated the Georgia case with the NY case
gary: I’m speaking generally of Trump’s tactic of trying to enrage his followers over the legal troubles he brought on himself, and the delay tactics he’s using in all of his cases.
Right, and the slaves brought slavery on themselves.
Gigi – three long paragraphs to prove your biased ass is full of shit.
Alas, the veritable definition of NUTCHACHACHA, who worships “free stuff” and “free status” at the alter of the parasitism and dependence of communism.
No freedom and self-reliance for that double dipping affirmative action case, no siree!
It’s Trump, so trolls aplenty. Nobody is listening to you. But thank you for showing so brazenly that you do not believe in the fairness of law and have no qualms about lying through your teeth. We know what we are up against, thanks for revealing yourselves even more.
at least you can spell Trump with a capital T. like it should be. and if nobody is listening to us, why are you here? and, yeah. i know what i face, and thats not much from the likes of you. thanks for the reveal. tsk tsk tsk jimmey.
So, Turley’s assignment today is to reinforce the same lame arguments that there’s no victim here, except Trump, that everybody lies on loan applications, so Letitia James is being unfair and is targeting poor widdle Trumpy Bear, and that businesses are going to flee New York because it’s just so unfair that they can’t count on lying on loan applications and getting away with it. Trump is the master of his own destiny, but that ego refuses to acknowledge failures that are of his own making. He didn’t have to lie to get higher loans at better interest rates, and he could have negotiated with the AG in lieu of a trial. He could have agreed to a settlement on better terms than the judgment that was rendered against him, but to do so would require admitting he was wrong and vulnerable to an adverse trial result–that ego forbids admitting these things because Trump can never be wrong and no one can make him do anything he doesn’t want to do. So, after getting caught, he decided to roll the dice and take his chances at trial, and he lost–his choice. His lying on loan applications was egregious, and I’ve yet to see anything other than argument to support the claim that “everyone” cheats on loan applications, much less to the extreme degree that Trump did, so this is just more purchased argument that lacks any factual foundation. I very seriously doubt that it is a regular business practice to exponentially inflate the value of collateral. Just like Trump, Jr.’s claim that The Donald “built the New York City skyline” and now, they’re crapping all over him. No, he didn’t. And, it’s not the bank’s fault that Trump got caught cheating–that does not excuse lying under oath by wildly inflating the value of collateral. And, under NY law, it doesn’t matter whether lending institutions did or didn’t actually lose money–they very well COULD HAVE because they made loans based on wildly inflated claims of value for the collateral. In fact, lenders, material suppliers and craftsmen who built the Trump casinos lost bigly when Trump took his 6 bankruptcies, so there was a definite risk of loss because Trump is a lousy businessman. There simply is NO defense for Trump here. I’m sure that even with her limited skills, Habba was able to explain the risks involved with proceeding to trial in lieu of trying to work out a settlement. But, just like when he lost the election in 2020, Trump’s ego simply won’t allow him to give up. That ego has already cost him plenty, and will continue to do so. If he really is a financial genius like he claims, he would listen to those voices of reason who are no doubt telling him to cut his losses. I am by no means an expert in NY appellate law, but I’ve seen interviews with people who are and they say that Engoron’s opinion is well-reasoned and well-supported factually. Trump is likely to lose. How many millions more will that cost? No matter–he’ll just get the MAGA disciples to pay it for him. So, what they’re really paying for is Trump’s ego–not some vaunted position of law or justice. The issue is not a corrupt legal system–it’s a corrupt Trump.
If Trump and/or Turley don’t like the 9% interest rate on judgments, or the New York State law that provides for civil liability for lying on loan applications without the necessity of proving that the loan defaulted or that lenders lost money, then their beef with with the State Legislature, not Judge Engoron or AG James, both of whom swore to uphold NY law and the NY Constitution. Every state of which I am aware requires putting up the cash for a money judgment or a supersedias bond for an appeal. Trump could, and IMHO, should, cut his losses right now–pay the judgment–pay E. Jean Carroll, stop defaming her and move on with his life. He was on tape boasting last fall that he had $400 million in liquid cash. Unless that was also a lie, putting up a bond or cash shouldn’t really be that difficult.
@Gigi
I used to think you were a regular cantankerous troll, now I see that you are a pop-up troll; you only appear when certain subjects are presented (read: Trump, or SCOTUS, or, or or). Your credibility is in the negatives. You may be a hero on Vice; here, nobody cares. There’s this thing called The Constitution, it rules our country, and it will never be compatible with communism. You may be too young or too paid or too pampered to understand the contextual importance. Your petty hatred and vitriol and utter lack of objectivity or salient points only make things worse. Grow up. If you are an old hippy that still thinks you are fighting ‘the man’, double grow up and realize ‘the man’ are the ‘liberal’ globalists doing their damndest to circumvent the constitutions of every country they attach a name to, to seize power. Why you think you would be spared unless you are one of the elites is pretty much the limit. Otherwise: STFU already. I would prefer not to believe that a person could be this irretrievably stupid.
In WWII, Jews were not allowed to own anything. By the globalist agenda, no one but the globalists will be allowed to own anything, anywhere on earth, and the wealth disparity (millionaires or billionaires enjoying inherited wealth that has only grown exponentially vs. people earning a salary or working for a wage) – no one could possibly hope to catch up in a lifetime. They are the modern left. Period. Again, grow up and stop the pretense of caring about anyone but your own miserable self. JFK is dead, and so is his party. Very ironically, the mentality of the person that murdered him is now representative of the left in total. Due to comfort, most modern dems are too stupid/comfortable to see it while everyone else suffers terribly. Party of compassion my a**. This is unsustainable, and the check is going to come due.
Heaven help us when it does.
Wow! This sets a record for name-calling and verbal abuse. Everything I said was true, and there was no vitriol involved at all. It’s Trump’s fault that he’s in this mess–no one else’s–not the Judge, not the AG, not lending institutions, not NY State–no one other than Trump, who is ego-driven to get his way. In this instance, getting larger loans at lower interest rates by lying about the value of his collateral. That was proven, and even if others also do, that’s still no defense or excuse. He got caught, and he could have cut his losses and worked out a settlement, but his ego won’t allow this–plus it allows him to play the victim, and people like you believe that he’s just a victim. This entire case is about Trump’s EGO–and you are blind if you can’t see it. There are NO “globalists”, “hippies”, or anything else involved here other than Trump’s ego.
“It was proven”? Proven by who? The banks didn’t complain during trial. The only valuation that came out in trial was that the judge valued Mar-a-Lago at $18m. It doesn’t matter, though. You’re just a troll. Hopefully you’re not opining while at “work” at some government job.
From “Newsweek:
WHY DOES TRUMP OWE SO MUCH?
Engoron found that Trump’s phony wealth claims were critical to his success, affording him lower loan interest rates and allowing him to build projects he wouldn’t have otherwise been able to finish. The judge determined that those savings and windfall profits were “ill-gotten gains” and ordered him and his co-defendants to cough them up to the state, with interest.
Trump, both individually and as the owner of various corporate entities, must pay:
— $168 million, plus interest, in savings on loans he obtained using his inflated financial statements for a golf resort near Miami, a Chicago hotel and condominium tower, a Washington, D.C. hotel and a Manhattan office building. Trump obtained three of the loans through Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management unit, which offered lower interest rates than its commercial real estate division, and used his financial statements to show the bank he was wealthy and a good credit risk.
— $126.8 million, plus interest, in profit from selling the Trump International Hotel in Washington in May 2022 to a company that now operates it as a Waldorf Astoria. Trump used $170 million of the $375 million to pay off a loan on the property. Other proceeds went to his children.
— $60 million, plus interest, from selling the rights to manage a New York City golf course in June 2023. Engoron noted in his ruling that the buyer, Bally’s Corporation, stands to pay Trump an additional $115 million if it obtains a casino license for the property. However, he did not say if he would require Trump to give up that money, too.
Trump’s sons, Eric and Donald Jr., must each pay a little over $4 million, plus interest, to the state for their shares of the Washington hotel sales. Weisselberg, the former Trump Organization finance chief, was ordered to pay $1 million — half of the $2 million severance he’s receiving.
A New York judge ruled Friday, Feb. 16, 2024, against Donald Trump, imposing a $364 million penalty over what the judge ruled was a yearslong scheme to dupe banks and others with financial statements that inflated the former president’s wealth.”
NUTCHACHACHA is a programmable ad hoc DNC UtitlityBot, she/it/her goes anywhere.
Just as a courtesy to save you some time, once I see a phrase like “poor widdle Trumpy bear” I am done reading as the writer is clearly not serious. I’m sure I’m not alone. Perhaps “I hate Trump so I applaud anything bad that happens to him” on a macro would work better for you.
No, Gary: I’m sick of an egomaniac who literally sells stuffed Trumpy Bears to his gullible followers who believe his lies and attacks on our legal system and judges because he’s in trouble over his own conduct. He’s inducing them to send money to pay his legal bills and now, a judgment, all of which are the result of his lying and, IMHO, refusal to settle the NY civil case because he believed he could benefit by milking it for donations, attention, free publicity and poliltical support because of his “victimhood”. Every one of his civil and criminal cases are HIS fault. He is NOT a victim.
Jonathan: You seem to think businesses and the wealthy are going to leave NY because of Judge Engoron’s judgment against DJT. Not going to happen. Real estate investors in Manhattan will stream to pick up DJT’s condos because–well, it will be a “fire sale”. The NY Times is reporting today that among the gainers on the S&P 500 are Discover Financial Services–up 14.6%. Bath & Body Works up 4.6%, giant Conagra up 4.1%. You’re whistling past the graveyard if you think Tesla, Intel, Ford Motor Co., et.al., are all going to abandon the NY financial markets because they may not like Engoron’s decision.
But the MAGA crowd are definitely outraged. Trucker “Chicago Ray” (no full name) is one. He went on “X” and called on his fellow truckers to “start denying loads going to New York City”. That effort was short lived. The next day “Chicago Ray” took down the post. It appears family members were not happy with his post. So now he says: “I ain’t no leader of any movement” but “God bless Trump…”.
Another DJT supporter who is also outraged by Judge Engoron’s decision is Elena Cardone. She is the wife of wealthy real estate investor Grant Cardone. Elena just launched a GoFundMe page to help pay for DJT’s judgment. She says: “This is more than a legal fund; it’s a call to all business owners and entrepreneurs to rally in defense of all businesses and for [a] man who has never hesitated to defend us”. By “us” Elena is referring wealthy people like her! So far Elena has raised $600,000–a drop in the bucket compared to what DJT needs. That amount won’t come close to even paying the interest on the judgment. Oh well, it’s the thought that counts.
As an aside, Elena and Grant live in a $40 million mansion in Malibu. If Elena was really serious about helping DJT why doesn’t she get her husband to agree to sell the Malibu property and donate the proceeds to help pay off the judgment? Now that would show a real commitment. But I doubt Grant would agree. In spite of all the rain Grant loves Malibu. So Elena relies on the DJT grift. Get working stiffs in the MAGA crowd to pay the bill. By the way, how many of you suckers on this blog have ponied up and bought a pair of DJT’s “golden sneakers”? I know at $399 a pair that’s quite a price tag. But, hey, it’s time to show your real commitment to the cause. Twenty-five or $50 bucks is not going to do it!
Discover is up because it is being acquired. It has nothing to do with this court case.
I didn’t see anything anywhere about “NY financial markets” but of course the money in NY financial market is not NY money, it’s simply that one exchange is historically based there (and I think its computers are all over in Jersey now)
Dennis,
Not sure why you mentioned Discover. Neither Capital One or Discover are based in NY.
Discover is in Deerfield IL, Cap One is in VA.
And if memory servers… isnt NYSE owned by ICE?
-G