Below is my column in the New York Post on the confiscatory fines imposed on former president Donald Trump and his family and corporation. Democrats are thrilled by the over the $450 million bill facing Trump and the possibility that he could be forced to sell off property just to seek an appeal. On ABC, New York Attorney General Letitia James declared “If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets.” She added menacingly “yes, I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day.” It is a curious legal system where defendants can be priced out of appeals. While Trump has ample resources and can do this without a “fire sale,” it suggests that a person could be forced to sell a home to challenge its loss in court.
Here is the column:
Oscar Wilde wrote that “moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.” Justice Arthur Engoron took that line to heart with his absurd imposition of $455 million in fines and interest against Donald Trump and his corporation.
It succeeded wonderfully with New Yorkers, who celebrated the verdict like a popular public execution. It also worked wonderfully to make it difficult to appeal.
Much of the criticism of the decision focused on the unprecedented use of the law and the excessive size of the fine. The New York statute has been on the books for decades and has always been something of an anomaly in not requiring an actual victim or loss to justify disgorgement or fines.
Even the New York Times agreed that it could not find a single case in history where this statute was used against an individual or a company that did not commit a criminal offense, go bankrupt, or leave financial victims.
Engoron then combined that unprecedented application with an equally extraordinary penalty, which is greater than the gross national product of some countries.
He disgorged hundreds of millions in a case where not one dollar was lost by anyone. Indeed, the “victims” wanted to get more business from Trump and are now being prevented from doing so by Engoron.
There is also an added inequity to Engoron’s decision.
Under New York law, Trump cannot appeal this ruling without depositing the full amount, including interest, in a court account. Even for Trump, $455 million is hard to come by. Likewise, a bond would require a company to guarantee payment for a defendant who has been barred from doing business in New York and is facing the need to liquidate much of his portfolio.
Nothing succeeds like excess for judges like Engoron. By imposing this astronomical figure, he can make it difficult or impossible for a defendant to appeal, absent declaring bankruptcy or selling off assets at distress prices.
The excessive fine and its basis raise serious statutory and constitutional questions. Many of us believe it should be substantially reduced or tossed out entirely.
First, however, Trump must come up with almost half a billion dollars to park with the court. Even with a bond, the high costs of securing a guarantor could come at a premium. It would cost a fortune to the bond holder just to carry the risk even if Trump prevails on appeal.
The combination of the draconian fine and the threshold deposit for appeal has produced a shudder throughout the New York business community. The city is already experiencing an exodus of businesses and individuals from the top tax brackets. Rising crime, taxes, and eat-the-rich politics have made New York a hostile environment for businesses. At a time with rising costs from undocumented migrants, even Mayor Eric Adams is alarmed about the loss of his high earners.
The case brought by Attorney General Letitia James was unnerving for many. James previously sought to dissolve the National Rifle Association and campaigned on bagging Trump on some unnamed offense. The ecstasy expressed by many in the city reinforced the image of a thrill-kill chase around the island of Manhattan, like a corporate version of “Lord of the Flies.”
Watching the celebrations probably caused many executives to check time shares in Florida. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has rushed to assure businesses that there is “nothing to worry about” after the corporate public execution of Trump and his company.
But the best that politicians like Hochul and Adams can offer is that you have nothing to fear from confiscatory actions unless you are Trump in New York.
Which is precisely why this decision should be overturned.
What is clear is that this case would never have been brought, let alone result in this massive fine, except for politics.
For example, if you are the NRA, James will seek your destruction for financial irregularities, but if you are Black Lives Matter or Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, there is little real risk in such controversies.
If the only protection in New York is the discretion of figures like James, few businesses would relish the future. The message is that you can expect blind and equal justice so long as you don’t run afoul of the Democrats in power.
If you are unpopular, you could be looking at not only unprecedented actions and fines, but a need to virtually liquidate your assets just to be able to appeal a decision.
This should shock the conscience of anyone concerned about the integrity and fairness of the New York legal system. Confiscatory fines and required deposits leave not just defendants but the entire system bankrupt.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
Everyone is Leaving CA and NY: Stallone makes announcement, moving to Florida as Cali dies
Since Trump has a court ruling that his real estate assets are over valued, would he have a right to go back to both NY and FL to demand a reduction in his property tax assessments? Could he also demand a refund of previous property taxes he paid on properties that are assessed too high? I bet FL is assessing Mar a Lago for property taxes at a much higher amount than $18 million. Likewise, I would assume that the assessment on his six NY properties are also higher than what the judge ruled they are worth.
WRONG he did pay the lower value on his taxes
Apparently the Mafia and other organized crime entities have lost their historic first place standing in Infamy. Nothing then, or now. can compare to the organized crime syndicate of the rabid LEFT that has been able to politically weaponize the legal systems across multiple jurisdictions with one united goal to completely destroy the only truly patriotic President this nation has had over multiple decades. But like he has said many times “They are really after YOU! I’m just standing in their way.” Yes the Obama/Biden cabal is the most devious corrupt and EVIL organization in the history of this nation. I can hear the mobsters bemoaning: ” I cud of been a contender!” No way. You are completely out of their league. You destroy lives. They destroy entire nations!
Jonathan
Elegant wordsmithing. But I wonder why in your comment on the NYTimes, did you forget the Exxon case and the suit brought against Trump himself under the statute which he settled for $25mm?
Rhetoric aside, and of course you are an attorney, the link below takes you to a copy of Engorons ruling with annotations by me. If I’d annotated everything there’d be nothing left. Is there a page, paragraph, line, word, or even a comma you care to dispute? Be happy to hear it. And please focus on what the law is. Not what it should be. You can argue that politically with everyone in line as Javitt’s successors. Please let’s stick to the law as it IS.
Please rebut this also with reference to Trumps claims in the media
1. The Executive Law has never been used before: What about Exxon & Trump himself.
2. I was denied a trial by jury: Blame us brits for this but you can pursue claims against someone for “equitable relief” or “damages”. This action is for equitable relief. There is no constitutional right to a jury trial when seeking equitable relief. Nor are damages claimed
3. No one was harmed or damaged: Equitable relief involves no damages. James instead is seeking disgorgement of excess benefits Trump derived by way of a lower interest rate
4. The $355MM is excessive and constitutionally prohibited: Trump shopped 2 depts in the SAME bank. They spotted this and gave him 2 loan options. One at 3% with his guarantee. One without his guarantee at 10%. He claims everywhere that his financials were “worthless” and the banks knew it. If his financials are worthless so is his guarantee. If so he should have paid 10% rather than 3%. That’s a calculation a 1st yr analyst could do before an Appeals Court Judge
5. The Judge was overturned on Appeal many times: Where?
6. I was charged for things going back beyond the Statute of Limitations: He was not. Bad acts prior to were not charged. But they were used to see any pattern of bad acts.
I could go on but I’m not an attorney so over to you counselor
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/o8cngh3vhwxnffqe3puhz/452564_2022_PEOPLE_OF_THE_STATE_OF_v_PEOPLE_OF_THE_STATE_OF_DECISION_AFTER_TRIAL_1688.pdf?rlkey=dmzg6guo2w0sf82dy1rh9kd8x&dl=0
My mistake. This post was by John Sellers
https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-sellers-84963412/
You sound like you are not an attorney. I am going with Turley.
Turley 1, Anonymous fool 0
Think I’ll listen to the Constitutional Scholar and not some deranged anon lefty
Are you an idiot or do you just play one on the internet?
OK So let’s just call it what it is. Tampering with an election,
This was predatory lending against President Trump, as judge Ergodon noted Mara Lago is worth a mere 18 million, so the banks loaned a much higher figure in an attempt to disgorge tens of millions in extra interest payments on a larger loan size, even when the rate was a few points less.
As in post 2008, the demoncrats told us, this is predatory lending. Lending something that cannot likely be paid back. The hope is one takes everything, all the real estate (homes or office buildings etc) and with real estate prices said to constantly rise forever, it was a good illegal predatory taking by the banks.
In this case, although, as democrats have pointed out, Trumps near endless business bankruptcies means he doesn’t know what he’s doing, he must have had some big luck paying the banks back, losing tens of millions in excessive loans interest.
We should take the evaluation of Ergodon, 18 million for Mara Lago, then calculate the possible loan amount on that, and deduct it from the amount over loaned by the predatory banks. The difference in interest payments is owed to President Trump.
That’s tens of millions of dollars.
The demoncrats in fact just told us this post 2008. We see the banks were doing the same thing to Trump, lending 25 times the value of Mara Lago, and charging the 20X extra interest so they could profit greedily and hope to take over Trump properties with a default.
Because of Ergodons valuation it is clear the predatory banks owe President Trump tens of millions in excessive interest on the predatory loans.
Shakdic,
Do you really understand what you read or write?
“This was predatory lending against President Trump, as judge Ergodon noted Mara Lago is worth a mere 18 million, so the banks loaned a much higher figure in an attempt to disgorge tens of millions in extra interest payments on a larger loan size, even when the rate was a few points less.”
Clearly you use terms that you don’t really understand. This is not predatory lending by any stretch of the word.
Engoron’s estimate of Mar a Lago at $18M USD make’s Trump’s case for him.
Engoron ‘lied’ in court documents when he set the current market value of Mar a Lago to 18M when in fact many industry experts have openly said that the market value far exceeds that.
What Engoron did was to use the tax assessor’s estimate for his valuation. Something that the local (Florida) assessor’s office, responsible for the assessment told Engoron explicitly not to do because the valuation is for tax purposes only and does not reflect the actual market value.
So as Engoron deemed Trump lied because he estimated his property’s worth high, Engoron lied when he willfully assigned a number that was at least an order if not two orders of magnitude low. (Some argue that if they can get the property zoning changed, it could be subdivided into multiple plots for home development making it worth more than a billion dollars …)
So if Trump lied. Engoron lied as well, ignoring the actual valuation and the valuation that the banks made at the time they gave Trump a loan.
-G
“New York Attorney General Letitia James declared . . .”
The first time New York goes to *president* Trump with hat in hand, I hope he tells them:
Oh, you didn’t hear. We just traded you to Cuba for a handful of cigars. You’re a better fit down there.
If America’s enemies will eagerly stoop to lawfare tactics like this is it any longer possible to believe that they would not cheat at an election?
Democrats cheat.
They always cheat. It’s their M.O.
They stole 2020.
They stole 2022.
They will steal the election AGAIN in 2024.
Count on it.
Who is “they”?
Not just Democrat Party and establishment Repubs.
It is the…
CIA
FBI
NSA
DHS
Pentagon
NGOs
Hollywood
Big Tech
The FIX is in. Again.
Believe it.
Swamp the VOTE with MAGA 2024. Swamp it!
yup
Trump should liquidate all his holdings in the State of New York, particularly NYC.
Pay the Court’s Ransom, Then after he become President Make all the Whales subject to what was done to him,
as they ‘should have, would have, could have’ stood together as a CRE Front and tried to stop this railroading.
Instead They were mum. Once the ransom is paid, Trump has the upper hand. He can crush New York (NYC).
There is the implication here, that the ransom can never be paid, because as it is paid the amount will go higher as the amounts extorted are met.
No bondsman will insure the amounts involved when the government is continuing to go after remaining assets. A bondsman that will, may charge a significant portion of the principle.
The ability to recoup is shut down by the prohibition of making any money in NY.
As businesses and resisdents flock to other states, NY says fuk-off we don’t need you anyway, despite lip service to the contrary their actions show otherwise.
It is ideology over substantive due process.
I believe this will be reversed on the basis of excessive fines violation, 8th Amendment U.S. Const.
Very good point about excessive fines. Hope he appeals it on those grounds.
The NYC Landscape is changing direction all ready. Fear is in the Air, Trump will get his revenge.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/cre-investor-4bln-portfolio-tells-team-stop-all-nyc-real-estate-underwriting
President Donald Trump is not only going to Eat New York’s (NYC) Lunch, He’s going to Eat Their Breakfast and Dinner to.
Bailout – No Soup For You NYC !!!
“Under the Trump tax cuts, they got screwed while the richest bracket above them was barely effected.”
Anonymous is lying again.
From the link:
“The drop in New York’s total federal income tax burden runs counter to the Cuomo administration’s repeated claim that New Yorkers would pay an additional $14 billion as a result of the federal cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions, a key element of the tax package crafted by congressional Republicans and signed into law by President Trump.
In fact, given the expanded standard deduction and the distribution of rate cuts in the TCJA, it was always clear that the new tax law would result in tax savings for most New Yorkers—and the new data confirm it, showing that taxes paid by New Yorkers dropped in every income range reported in IRS data, up to $500,000. Tax payments increased by 4.3 percent for New Yorkers earning between $500,000 and $1 million, and by 0.2 percent from those earning $1 million or more, the IRS Statistics of Income showed.”
Would the 8th Amendment not bar excessive fines?
You are obviously confusing the original America, with America 2.0 -In the previous version, then yes. In America 2.0, the correct answer is, “Who knows?” In the original America, the NY Appellate Court would throw this garbage out in a trice. In America 2.0, again, who knows. Plus, New York itself, is now on version, 4.0, so I am not sure that it is compatible with either of the earlier America versions. My guess is that the printer will not work, and I will also be forced to buy an updated word processor.
SCOTUS must step in immediately as this whole case is a violation of President Trump’s US Constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment
.
“The due process right, established by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees that the government cannot take a person’s basic rights to “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The due process right is designed to protect citizens from actions taken by state government, counties, towns, and cities.”
Trump Tax Cut Gouged New York State Revenues.. And Its Upper Middle Class
Federal income taxes paid by New Yorkers decreased by nearly $3.4 billion in 2018, the first year of the new federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), according to newly released Internal Revenue Service data.
Taxes paid by New Yorkers dropped in every income range reported in IRS data, up to $500,000. Tax payments increased by 4.3 percent for New Yorkers earning between $500,000 and $1 million, and by 0.2 percent from those earning $1 million or more, the IRS Statistics of Income showed.
https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/new-yorkers-paid-less-in-federal-taxes-in-first-year-of-new-federal-tax-law/
……………………………………
KEY PASSAGE FROM ABOVE:
“Tax payments increased by 4.3 percent for New Yorkers earning between $500,000 and $1 million”.
***
This group of taxpayers comprises the upper middle class of New York City and surrounding suburbs. They are the white collar professionals who drive the city’s economy. Under the Trump tax cuts, they got screwed while the richest bracket above them was barely effected.
Anyone who was screwed was screwed by the state and the city, not by Trump. State and local taxes should not be deductible at all. That the Trump bill allowed them to be deducted up to 10% was a concession that I would not have made. But he and the Republicans in Congress did make it, so those of moderate income get a free pass for supporting confiscatory and tyrannical taxes. There is no reason their richer neighbors, who can easily afford it, should have the rest of the country subsidize their expensive tastes in government.
I have to ask…
In NY you have Houchul, Bragg and James. (Lets set aside Engoron for a second)
Didn’t Houchul change the law so that Trump could be sued for sexual assault?
Bragg and James going after Trump via lawfare?
One has to wonder if there’s a RICO case somewhere in here?
Didn’t Houchul change the law so that Trump could be sued for sexual assault?
No, she did not. I don’t know where this myth comes from.
NY suspended the statute of limitations for one year on all claims of sexual assault. Nobody had Trump in mind, it was not tailored to Trump, and anyone claiming that Trump is the only person who was sued as a result is just plain outright lying their faces off. Nobody is stupid enough to actually believe it, so they’re deliberately lying.
The law was changed in New York in 2022, well after Trump had become a Bug-a-Boo of the Left and after the issue of sexual assault had been raised against him after the surfacing of the Billie Bush tape in 2016. How do you know that “nobody had Trump in mind”.
HA! Now I remember where I had seen information to inspire my statement yesterday about “no criminal intent needed.”
So I just went back and reread AG James’ Complaint, and sho ‘nuf, there I find the following:
“751. Fraud under Executive Law § 63(12) is broadly defined to include “any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.”
752. Fraudulent conduct as used in § 63(12) includes acts that have the “capacity or tendency to deceive, or create[ ] an atmosphere conducive to fraud.” People v. Applied Card Sys., Inc., 27 A.D.3d 104, 107 (3d Dep’t 2005), aff’d on other grounds, 11 N.Y.3d 105 (2008); see also People v. Northern Leasing Systems, Inc., 193 A.D.3d 67, 73 (1st Dep’t 2021). The terms “fraud” and “fraudulent” are “given a wide meaning so as to embrace all deceitful practices contrary to the plain rules of common honesty, including all acts, even though not originating in any actual evil design to perpetrate fraud or injury upon others, which do tend to
deceive or mislead.” People ex rel. Cuomo v. Greenberg, 95 A.D.3d 474, 483 (1st Dep’t 2012).”
REPEAT: …”The terms ‘fraud’ and ‘fraudulent’ are ‘given a wide meaning so as to embrace all even though not originating in any actual evil design to perpetrate fraud or injury upon others, which do tend to deceive or mislead.”
I do not rescind my apology yesterday, so that I can invoke it for any potential future equivocacies on my part.
Lin – wait, so “device,” “scheme,” and “artifice” can exist without any scienter? SCOTUS disagrees, at least when interpreting the federal securities acts. See Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 680, 696 (1980). SCOTUS says this language “strongly suggests that Congress contemplated a scienter requirement.” The Court continues: “The language of § 17(a)(1), which makes it unlawful ‘to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,’ plainly evinces an intent on the part of Congress to proscribe only knowing or intentional misconduct. Even if it be assumed that the term ‘defraud’ is ambiguous, given its varied meanings at law and in equity, the terms ‘device,’ ‘scheme,’ and ‘artifice’ all connote knowing or intentional practices.”
Your cites are to intermediate courts of appeal in NY, which no doubt are binding on the trial court (esp. those from 1st Dep’t). But I’d like to see the Court of Appeals (highest court in NY) weigh in on the matter.
Oldman, that language originated in a NY Court of Appeals case from 1926, People v. Federated Radio Corporation:
https://casetext.com/case/people-v-federated-radio-corporation-1#p38
It has been cited many times since.
So, they weighed in on the matter long ago.
I missed the context of this discussion, but I don’t think there was any question that Trump and his henchmen had knowledge of the fraudulent activity.
From the decision, “there is ample evidence that each of the individual defendants, with the intent to defraud, knowingly made or uttered a written instrument which purports to describe the financial condition or ability to pay of some person and which is inaccurate in some material respect.”
Hi there Unca! Au contraire, no no no. I am saying that Exec. Law 63 was invoked because its investigation and remedy (including equitable ones) does not appear to be reliant upon a finding of CRIMINAL intent. ALL acts of volition, conscious actions (as in, not physiologically reflexive) of persons of sound mind, I would think, require some degree of knowledge or intent as to consequence, e.g. scratching your arm to stop an itch. It is my personal opinion that the above is why NY fell back on this provision and did not pursue a criminal case per se. please read my earlier comment today, maybe around noon? I’\’m late, gotta go, thx but I will check your response if any later
p.s. “your cites..” Those citations are not mine, they are James’ citations in the Complaint.
OK…now I had to make a phone call to excuse my tardiness, ha ha. My PERSONAL inference/perception, if I had been a trier of fact, was that these contractual agreements were wink-wink friendly private agreements between VERY savvy parties familiar with one another and one another’s Hxs. (Notwithstanding that the banks were likely backed by FDIC).
I believe, but for the widened applications of above^ they should have been viewed/contemplated within those four corners, as I had said two days ago. AS a fall-back strategy in the event that no criminal intent to defraud is found/supported, AG james could justify that E.LAw did not require a showing of criminal intent, as explained in para 752 of Complaint. I may be all wet, I dunno. OK really gotta go, thanks
pls. read my comment earlier today @ 12:30, when I wiggled my tusche out on a limb…) I am completely open to your criticism as older wiser likely more experienced “you.”
I am not sure I follow the point of that comment.
SCOTUS in Kokesh held that because the primary purpose of disgorgement orders is to deter future violations of federal securities laws, they are fundamentally punitive in nature. Bell v. Wolfish and US v. Bajakajian support the idea that sanctions imposed for deterrence of public laws are inherently punitive.
Ok, so what?
Did Engoron state that the equitable remedies were not punitive? If he did, where in the decision did he make this determination? Why is the fact that this is a punitive equitable remedy relevant?
That is why I said in my comment from a few days ago (here in this blog @12:31, maybe on the second page of comments?)–(on my laptop, I go back two pages of comments) —-that there’s a good chance that NY state case may be subject to some adjustment. If you go back and read what I said three days ago, I mentioned Kokesh and Liu and Bell, -not directly on point, but from which could be extracted some requisite assertions:
from my comment:
“… Moreover, Engoron’s Order included additional sanctions, e.g., injunctive relief. Sanctions acting as ‘deterrent’ remedies for violation of public laws are not ‘”legitimate non-punitive governmental objectives.” Bell, 441 U.S. 520, 539, n.20)
AND, notwithstanding Engoron’s questionable reliance on “certain” witnesses for calculations of “ill-gotten gains” as well as asset valuations, there was no allowance for reduction of expenses incurred by Trump.
All of these factors point to the disgorgement as ipso facto criminal “penalty.” That means it may be subject to appellate reduction/remittitur using a “proportionality in sentencing” standard.”
To answer your last question, if on appeal it is deemed punitive, i.e., operating as a penalty, it is subject to “proportionality in sentencing” standard, which could greatly reduce it.
This is not a criminal case, though? It is a civil case. Do you have a citation to NY law, which requires proportionality for punitive damages?
The federal criminal sentencing guidelines are completely irrelevant, no?
One of the elements of fraud is to prove intent. Intent was not proven in this case because the judge had ruled that Trump was guilty even before the trial started and before intent could be established. Therefore, the judge’s ruling will be reversed.
Civil fraud is an intentional tort as opposed to reckless, or negligent torts which are not intentional in nature.
Jonathan: This comment is really directed at the male contingent on your blog–well, the really macho supporters of DJT. For those who can’t afford a pair of DJT’s golden sneakers at $399 a pop here is an alternative. DJT is now grifting (excuse me, “promoting”) a new men’s cologne called “Trump Victory 47” at $99 a bottle. The tall bottle of cologne has DJT’s head on top–in gold. The promo ad describes the cologne as a “crisp opening of citrus blend into a cedar heart underpinned by a rich base of leather and amber”.
The Daily Show female host last night had a great take on DJT’s latest grift–sorry again, “promotion”. She described the shape of the bottle as the “vibrator from hell”. She also had this to say about the promo ad: “The last time Trump was underpinned by a rich base of leather and amber, Amber had to sign an NDA!” So very funny!
But for you male MAGA supporters on this blog $99 is a lot cheaper than the gold sneakers. Besides you can now smell like your leader. There must be another joke here somewhere!
And you wonder why some call you Denise.
We don’t buy gaudy trinkets, that’s for fools.
We buy plata y plombo. We will use both
Saloth Sar
Dude, males in New York only have two choices today – either go full-on manly-man or gurly-girl and sell yourself to a manly man. Because life in NYC isn’t easy, due entirely to the incredible depths of its political corruption. We’d have to travel all the way to Moscow to find anything similar.
Dennis – don’t go into a career in comedy, unless you want to collect rotten fruit from the audience.
This is why lawless Imperial Joe Biden is the POTUS from hell who can GFY….and why Joe Plumber, Truckers, Joe Shmo blue collar worker, and Rico in the Bronx are all voting FOR Donald J. Trump:
________________________________
Eric Schmitt
@Eric_Schmitt
The student loan bullsh*t today is just another example of Imperial Biden doing whatever the hell he wants no matter what the law says.
It’s also an insult to those who never took out student loans or those who paid them back and to taxpayers in general.
When I was Missouri AG I filed the case that beat back Biden’s previous illegal effort at the Supreme Court.
We won but he’s back at it.
The Biden Admission is totally out of control and lawless. There is nothing they won’t do to maintain power. Illegal act after illegal act. That’s your real Threat to Democracy™️
Time to take this country back.
Feb 21, 2024
“What the Left Has Bequeathed Us
The Left has created new rules for national politics. Here are 20 some precedents they now have established for America in the future:
1) When in control of the Senate, demand the end of the filibuster; when not, don’t.
2) Call for the end of the Electoral College–but only if it appears to recently favor the candidate of the opposition.
3) In an election year, change any state balloting laws deemed unhelpful through administrative fiat or court order to favor your political candidate.
4) Seek to flip electors from voting in accordance with the popular vote count in their states; indict as an insurrectionist any of the opposition who dare do the same.
5) Raid the home of any opposition ex-president who removed classified files; exempt any sitting president of your party who did the same.
6) Swarm the private homes of, and then bully and intimidate any, Supreme Court officials, politicians, or citizens you oppose.
7) Appoint two special counsels: one to go after the current chief presidential opponent in an election year; the other to exempt and excuse the sitting president for the very crimes charged against his rival.
8) Lobby to remove any oppositional president through the 25th Amendment; smear any one as ageist who suggests a cognitively challenged sitting resident of your party should be subject to similar invocations of the 25th Amendment.
9) Exempt thousands of arrested rioters from charges of 120 days of arson, looting, injuring 1,500 law enforcement officers, and assault—but only if they are radical supporters of your party.
10) Excuse any demonstrator or rioter for desecrating public monuments and cemeteries or shutting down bridges and freeways, or swarming and disrupting the Capitol Rotunda—but only if they agree with you and/or are pro-Hamas. Otherwise, ensure the charged face lengthy prison sentences.
11) Try to pack the Supreme Court—but only if justices you don’t like are in a majority.
12) Seek in an election year to remove a presidential opponent off state ballots for crimes for which he has never been charged, much less convicted of.
13) First target a presidential opponent, and then change, warp, or redefine laws to convict him. Weaponized prosecutors should always indict their political opponents in jurisdictions where they are guaranteed like-minded justices and jury pools.
14) Violate the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution (the prohibition of “excessive fines”) by having sympathetic judges level multimillion-dollar fines to bankrupt the opposition candidate during a presidential campaign. The more there is no victim of a crime, the higher fines should be leveled for “damages”.
15) Open the border by destroying all the protocols and executive orders of a predecessor president. Then welcome 8-million illegal aliens to “surge” into America on the premise a new constituency might support agendas that American citizens do not. Then call the nonexistent border “secure,” while blaming a predecessor president for having left it secure.
16) Have local prosecutors invent criminal acts of an opposition national presidential candidate in efforts to make it impossible for him to campaign for the presidency.
17) Use the FBI to hire out social media auditors to censor any news deemed problematic for the correct presidential candidate.
18) Hire a foreign national to concoct a smear dossier about one’s opposition political nominee. Ensure the FBI also uses and pays the foreign national to spread untruths among the media and administrative state.
19) On the eve of any major national or midterm election, ensure a president drains the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gasoline prices.
20) On the eve of any major national or midterm election, ensure a president promises to cancel billions of dollars in contracted federal student loans.”
Victor Davis Hanson @VDHanson Feb 21, 2024
“1984” is alive and well in 2024, sadly.
Yo Dennis — In case you do not understand: “turns out there’s an entire political movement that is 100% above the law and they regularly brag about it” —->
Biden on student loan cancellation: “The Supreme Court blocked it. But that didn’t stop me.”
____________________________
Did ya get that Denny? The Supreme Court won’t STOP Joe Biden. Lawless? You betcha.
DJT sold all those gold sneakers out within minutes of putting them up for sale and as for his cologne, nobody’s forcing you to buy it. Last I checked this was still a free country (for now) and he’s free to sell whatever he wants within the legal bounds of the law.
“STOP SUCCUMBING”
These communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) are the direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Americans, and America.
______________________________________
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
– Sun Tzu, The Art of War
For everyone (including Professor Turley) repeating right wing talking points, this was NOT a “victimless” offense.
From the decision:
“Michiel McCarty conducted an analysis of the risk differentials of various loans and loan proposals at issue in this action. In so doing, he “looked at the internal documents by Deutsche Bank of analyzing first the credit level of the guarantor versus the credit level of the collateral, then the project itself without a guarantee for the Doral, Old Post Office and Trump Chicago loans. In calculating the interest rate differentials for the perceived credit risks with and without a personal guarantee on the Doral loan, McCarty took the competing loan proposal terms that Deutsche Bank’s commercial real estate group had offered (which was LIBOR + 8% with a floor of LIBOR + 2% or 10%) and compared them to the terms extended by Deutsche Bank’s Private Wealth Management Division that were contingent upon a personal guarantee from Donald Trump (which was between 1.8% and 4.1%, depending on whether it was pre- or post-renovation). He also analyzed the Old Post Office and Trump Chicago Loan using the same method, comparing the terms offered by the Private Wealth Management Division, which were contingent on a personal guarantee and relied on his SFCs, with those offered by the commercial real estate group for a non-recourse loan.”
“McCarty also testified that defendants profited by paying a lower interest rate on the 40 Wall Street Ladder Capital loan based on a fraudulent SFC than the interest rate with a non-recourse loan, and he compared the terms of the then-existing Capital One non-recourse loan that 40 Wall Street was subject to before refinancing, with the terms extended by Ladder Capital.
“McCarty’s calculations determined that Donald Trump improperly saved the following amounts on interest as a result of the banks relying on Donald Trump’s fraudulent SFCs and personal guarantee: (1) $72,908,308 from 2014-2022 on the Doral loan; (2) $53,423,209 from 2015-2022 on the Old Post Office loan; (3) $17,443,359 from 2014-2022 on the Chicago loan; and (4) $24,265,291 from 2015-2022 on the 40 Wall Street loan.”
Grand total: $168,040,167
This is just the lost interest calculation, which is only part of the damages. Please read the decision before parroting the talking heads.
Who lost this interest?
Deutsche Bank lost the interest.
Where fraudulent activity leads to ill-gotten gains (such as this interest amount), disgorgement is an equitable remedy that does not require an allegation of direct losses from the bank.
This is not a novel usage of the law either. In just the last few months, for example, opinions include People by James v. Richmond Capital Group LLC, 80 Misc.3d 1213(A) (N.Y. 2023) (enforcement action against loan sharks, ordering a long list of equitable remedies including canceling contracts); People by James v. Mashinsky, 79 Misc.3d 1237(A) (N.Y. 2023) (refusing to dismiss action brought by James against CEO of crypto company based on alleged scheme to defraud investors by inducing them, through false and misleading statements, to deposit their digital assets with his now-bankrupt company); James v. Scores, 79 Misc.3d 1118 (N.Y. 2023) (enjoining towing company from engaging in predatory towing practices).
These are all equitable enforcement actions taken by AG Letitia James against people not named Trump.
This analysis implies that the bank could have sued Trump for fraud and recovered the amount of lost interest. That is absurd.
That is not true. The state has the right to certain equitable remedies that are not afforded to private parties. I thought you were a lawyer?
Calling something an “equitable remedy” does not change its character. The essence of this argument is that DB was defrauded out of a huge amount of interest. They could have deployed their capital at a proper rate but were fooled into a lower one in making this loan. They never said that, and could not.
Moreover, I read somewhere that DB testified it took a 50% haircut on the valuations. That would more than compensate for any excess valuation by Trump. The interest rate theory is abstract, divorced from commercial reality.
Again, even if a haircut was applied, that does not solve the problem because the fraudulent activity by Trump did not just extend to valuations.
If you read the decision, the basis for the interest rate differential was because the falsehoods affected the TYPE of loan (i.e., the department within the bank) that Trump was entitled to receive.
A haircut is a way the bank reduces the stated value of an asset in order to form an assessment of what it might be worth. Trump not only inflated value, he also lied about what the asset is (i.e., lying about MAL because it is prohibited by deed restriction from being a single-family residence). Even if it had been a single family residence, Trump’s valuation put it at 400% of the most expensive private residence listed in America. That is of course one example, but hopefully you get my point.
The bank loaned too much money according to your lengthy BS. So the bank was predatory. Just like you fools whined post 2008.
Now after the fact, when Mara Lago is worth one twentieth of what Trump claimed, 95% of the loan, and it’s interest WAS PREDATORY, and the excessive interest is owed to President Trump.
If Trump’s properties and earnings were not enough, then the bank was making predatory loans, as they did which caused the 2008 collapse and home confiscations, the demoncrats have told us this now nearly 2 decades.
The banks owe President Trump. Luckily, by Trumps skills in the art of business deals, he was able to pay back the predatory lending the banks engaged in. That does not absolve them from their guilt in valuing Mara Lago way too high, and loaning way too much, knowing that real estate prices always rise, and hoping to steal all the properties on a default.
Hey there Daniel: Did you see my response to your comment about 42 USC 1983? I answered it but now, when I follow up, was the whole thread deleted for some reason?
If so, a quick sum of my comment:
(1) my experience is narrowed to defense of police officers, and mostly dealt with qualified immunity.
(2) we know that 1983 generally affords legislators, judges, and prosecutors “absolute immunity.”
(3) Notwithstanding, I asked what civil right you felt could be cited?
(4) I mentioned the possibility of 1983 being used for “Class of One” claims against state action that was motivated by spite, or prejudice, passion, intolerance, etc., as used in the original race-based cases?
(5) I remember a case, Olech, but don’t remember if it was couched in 1983, and still, as of this quick response, have not looked it up, though I may later.
(“class of one”claims being grounded as violating Equal Protection clauses)
8th amendment excessive fines and 14th amendment due process (arbitrary and capricious).
“I answered it but now, when I follow up, was the whole thread deleted for some reason?”
Lin, I am sure you know the answer, but just in case, it appears that the anonymous persons who are banned are removed after they post. Unfortunately, all replies that follow are likewise removed. If you get emails and are curious, you can frequently trace the removed post back to Bug or Anonymous. This creates all sorts of problems.
Bug, who now posts anonymously, can be recognized by his statements that contain no basis for his opinions and no links to back up his facts. His happiness seems to depend on his being able to act like a two-year-old.
Not all of Bug’s comments disappear, and sometimes ATS chimes in. He has a history of getting excited when he posts, and others follow, only to have their postings deleted.
I am not sure I follow. If, due to my reckless driving, I crash into your car, the state has a right to take away my license, even if you do not bring a claim against me for damages. And further, whether the state could enforce an equitable remedy against me has no bearing on whether you have a valid claim for damages. In a contributory negligence state like NC, if you were partially responsible, precluding you from any damages, the state still has a right to take away my license, among other remedies.
There are probably better examples, but the point is — the state is entitled to certain remedies, regardless of whether another private party can bring a claim. And those remedies may differ from those available to the private party. Disgorgement is routinely brought by the SEC, if you are not familiar with securities law actions. The concept is not a unique one.
And I am not following what you mean by the first sentence. The equitable remedy of equitable disgorgement is, of course, a different “character” of remedy than the legal remedy of lost profits or the equitable remedy of restitution.
Daniel: p.s. please read my comment from earlier today, @12:31, regarding characterizing “equitable remedy of disgorgement.” gotta go now, thx
So the fine–Is the state going to turn over to the banks, who wrote the loans, the millions of dollars of lost interest + interest on the lost money so that they can recoup their so-called losses? Or is the state going to use it to balance their books? I know it is a dumb question; but the banks wrote the loans. Just be careful, it could have a trickle down effect. What could happen if I accept a payment that is more than my asking price? I would assume a bank won’t give a loan for more than the value of the property, but what if they do?
The key here was repeated fraudulent activity. Did you submit Statements of Financial Condition regarding your real property, that suggested a lucrative use for the property that would not be possible given deed restrictions?
Let’s say you bought property in flood zone, and then lied to the bank and on your financial statements regarding the value of the property by omitting this detail intentionally. Let’s say the value of your property would be $100 but for the flood zone, but flood zone makes it $50. Then you obtain a $75 loan secured by the property, in which you submit falsified records to the bank for it to conduct due diligence in determining your borrowing base for the loan. You are able to get a low interest rate on your loan because the $100 alleged value makes the bank overcollateralized.
However, you routinely pay low taxes based on a flood zone -limited property. That is basically what Trump did, except he did routinely, over and over again.
It goes far beyond a single clerical documentation error.
“Let’s say you bought property in flood zone”
No property was bought in a flood zone. You are making things up. The banks had more than enough information and did their own due diligence.
This is so stupid it has to be Bug or ATS.
If you believe Trump lied, state the lie. You can’t.
@Seth,
Take his argument at face value.
Ok Anon, I’ll bite.
You bought a property w an impairment and then got a loan where you make a material misrepresentation and defraud the bank.
That’s illegal.
But what did Trump do?
Did he misrepresent the income generated from the property?
Did he misrepresent ownership of the property?
Did he hide any material events.
No.
The allegation of fraud is that he misrepresented the values of the properties which is an estimate. (You don’t know the actual value until you sell it. )
I agree w Seth. The only lie here was by James and then by Engoron.
-G
Yes he did. Read the decision
Wasn’t the bank supposed to do their due diligence on the value? I think it was wrote in the agreement.
That being said, my understanding is that the bank was largely unaware of the extent of Trump’s lies until the state brought the enforcement action.
My legal experience working with loan documents of this sort would suggest that Trump violated representations, warranties, and covenants on each of these documents, which would have put Trump in default of his loans and entitled the bank to certain remedies. Depending on the nature of the loan (and especially with real property), the borrower covenants may have included borrower affidavits under penalty of perjury, but again, that was beyond the scope of the decision and would be speculation. Additionally, whether the bank even requires such documentation is a business decision after conducting due diligence largely based on the SFCs, which were fraudulent in the first place.
@Anon,
And you would be wrong.
The banks did their own due diligence.
The banks set their rates within reason.
There are internal checks and balances that would have flagged any loan/mortgage that violated the bank’s risk assessments and policies.
So the banks made a conscious decision when approving the loan.
They knew what they were doing.
Trump’s alleged fraud was the valuation of his properties.
That said. Engoron’s estimate on Mar a Lago’s valuation proved Trump’s case.
Trump broke no laws.
-G
What internal checks and balances are in place to verify the truth of SFCs?
Ya know that’s really quite interesting. But why pray tell are New York politicians using New York taxpayer dollars to sue Trump and not Deutsche Bank? Who is the New York AG defending here with our tax dollars? The banks? And yet ultimately New York could confiscate his property. I ask, again, for who, the banks? The New York AG is an agent for the banks? With our tax dollars? Are you serious?!
What was the bank’s alleged wrongdoing? This is a tremendous payout to benefit NY’s taxpayers. I am not sure what you mean.
In some respects it seems as if McCarty (and you) are comparing apples to oranges. In this case comparing one division of Deutsche Bank with another. It is not uncommon in investment banking circles to offer ‘preferred rates’ to clients that they have a satisfactory history with and banks will compete with both other banks and another division within their own banking organization to cement the relationship. The credit terms with the Deutsche Commercial Division was without personal guarantee, the terms with the Private Wealth Management Division was with a personal guarantee (which would encompass other properties not noted). Basically what this ruling is saying is that if a company is applying for a loan and receives an offer of favorable terms because of a long standing, PROFITABLE, relationship with an person or company, that person or company is then at risk of receiving the same treatment as Trump. Given that who in their right mind would want to do business in NY? (Irrespective of the not-so-good Governor’s assurances that only Trump would ever be affected by this I have read of at least one large capital investment company who was looking to enter the NY real estate commercial market who instructed the staff to look elsewhere.)
Car companies offer interest rates based on an applicants credit, does this mean that someone with a score of 800 who gets better terms than someone with a score of 600, is at risk of being made to pay a penalty at some point in the future because of the interest they saved on their loan? A simplistic example but within the scope of your analysis. It has the potential to open a can of worms that few can anticipate, especially if the government views this as a good way of filling the depleted coffers.
The fact of the matter is that an application was made, terms were offered, the offer was accepted, a contract was signed, and everyone was happy except for James and Engoron and the democrat establishment…and those who hate Trump, of course)
This is not ahG the ruling is saying. Did you read it?
There must be fraudulent activity to mislead the bank into giving preferential rates. You missed the whole point of the case?
This appears to be saying that the interest rate on the actual loan which had a Trump personal guarantee is a lot lower than the hypothetical interest rate on a hypothetical loan without a Trump personal guarantee. So what? Where is the link to the information Trump provided?
In the decision… They go through in detail the issues with each of Trumps “experts”
Trump’s “experts”? Do you mean Eli Bartov, who is a Professor of Accounting at New York University’s Leonard N. Stern School of Business? (His bio says: “He is an award-winning researcher and teacher, and an internationally recognized scholar.”) Or, Frederick Chin, who was qualified as an expert on real estate valuations. Why are these people “experts” instead of experts? Is it possible that they know more than Judge Engoron?
You state: “Donald Trump improperly saved the following amounts on interest as a result of the banks relying on Donald Trump’s fraudulent SFCs and personal guarantee[.]” Which banks testified that they relied upon the Trump organization’s property valuations, rather than conductiong their own due diligence?
Why is that necessary for equitable disgorgement?
“Michiel McCarty conducted an analysis . . .”
Don’t you just love how the Left usurps independent judgment.
Its “experts,” the Philosopher Kings, are somehow omniscient and know better what’s good for a company. Meanwhile, the company’s actual experts — the ones with real knowledge and experience of its business– are too ignorant to know what’s good for them.
Fauci, Biden, and now McCarty. They give megalomania a bad name.
This differential in interest rates appears to arise from the difference between loans with a Tump personal guarantee and loans without one. What does that have to do with the information Trump provided to the lender?
“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
– Alexis deTocqueville
If I understand this correctly, JPMorgan Chase & Co could be charged with a crime where there were no victims, and tried by a piss ant little judge, fined 445 trillion dollars, and couldn’t appeal, just because they didn’t have the money. Am I correct?
A dependent and parasitic, affirmative action showcase, little piss ant, anti-American non-judge.
Professor Turley continues to mislead people on NY law. Trump does not need to file a bond to perfect his appeal. The bond is needed to stay collection in the judgment.
If he cannot afford a bond, then he could ask for an expedited scheduling of his appeal.
Dennis, it is you who continue to mislead. This is legalized extortion and the distinction between posting an absurdly high bond to appeal an absurdly large fine is a practical bar to appeal.
But doesn’t the bond have to be posted in 30 days (or the fine paid with the chance of recouping it if successfully appealed)? What court(s) are going to expedite scheduling that fast?
And why would a defendant place at risk a judgement so large in expediting an appeal? How is “either pay up or press your appeal immediately” constitutional?
Dennis,
Lets use round numbers.
Interest on the fine is 90K a day.
How long does the appeal take?
Lets say 1 yr. now you could use 30/360 (BB)
That’s 2.7M a month , 32.4 M a year on the interest alone. (Not using compounded interest.)
So if Trump fights and loses. That over 30M in additional cash he would have to cough up.
And if he doesn’t pay during the appeal. James could take legal action against him to seize the property.
So he can fight, State of NY seizes and liquidates his property pennies on the dollar and takes more to settle the debt.
-G