Donald the Orange and Family Sued in NY

[Derec]

Stand with Trump; Fund the $355M Unjust Judgment

LMAO

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

Whether it’s civil or criminal, the elements of fraud require not just a “false” statement. It requires also that someone be deceived by the false statement. (And it must be a false statement not just an inaccurate or merely mistaken statement.). In short, there must be a victim.

In this AG Letitia James case against Trump, the plaintiff can point to no victim. There were no victims. The case was decided erroneously by the judge from the outset. Some folks may not like this but I’ll stand by it and await the outcome (not of the “trial”) of appellate process. I predict that the verdict and “judgment” are going to be nullified on appeal.

Lies you are lapping up from your Trumposphere, no surprise there as that is all they have these days:

No. No lies. Elements. And it happens to be true.

Executive Law § 63(12) now reads as follows: Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply… for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term “persistent fraud” or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term “repeated” as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.

Nothing about a "victim". But even then, ex-ante the banks were a defacto victim by agreeing to give a loan at more favorable terms than otherwise but for the fraudulent financial statements they were provided. They were subject to greater risk than they realized and got lower profits than they would've gotten had they had correct, nonfraudulent information. The interest amounts saved on these more favorable loan terms were ill gotten gains that have to be paid back for breaking this law regardless of whether there is a "victim".

Wrong. If you look at the elements you will see that (although it doesn’t use the word “victim”) it absolutely does contemplate that there be a victim.

I will be happy to explain it all in a follow up post.

Does this mean that a higher court will absolutely agree with my view? Of course not. But I tell you this much: there is an excellent chance that somewhere along the line, a court is going to agree.

Put it simply: no victim; no fraud. A mistaken estimate is not the same as a deliberate deception. But even in the darkest light, if there is no victim, there is no fraud.

 

[Axulus]

I already quoted you the law

Whether it’s civil or criminal, the elements of fraud require not just a “false” statement. It requires also that someone be deceived by the false statement. (And it must be a false statement not just an inaccurate or merely mistaken statement.). In short, there must be a victim.

In this AG Letitia James case against Trump, the plaintiff can point to no victim. There were no victims. The case was decided erroneously by the judge from the outset. Some folks may not like this but I’ll stand by it and await the outcome (not of the “trial”) of appellate process. I predict that the verdict and “judgment” are going to be nullified on appeal.

Lies you are lapping up from your Trumposphere, no surprise there as that is all they have these days:

No. No lies. Elements. And it happens to be true.

Executive Law § 63(12) now reads as follows: Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply… for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term “persistent fraud” or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term “repeated” as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.

Nothing about a "victim". But even then, ex-ante the banks were a defacto victim by agreeing to give a loan at more favorable terms than otherwise but for the fraudulent financial statements they were provided. They were subject to greater risk than they realized and got lower profits than they would've gotten had they had correct, nonfraudulent information. The interest amounts saved on these more favorable loan terms were ill gotten gains that have to be paid back for breaking this law regardless of whether there is a "victim".

Wrong. If you look at the elements you will see that (although it doesn’t use the word “victim”) it absolutely does contemplate that there be a victim.

I will be happy to explain it all in a follow up post.

Does this mean that a higher court will absolutely agree with my view? Of course not. But I tell you this much: there is an excellent chance that somewhere along the line, a court is going to agree.

Put it simply: no victim; no fraud. A mistaken estimate is not the same as a deliberate deception. But even in the darkest light, if there is no victim, there is no fraud.

I already quoted you the law. You are just plain wrong. The purpose of this law was to prevent ill gotten gains from "any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.", when done repeatedly. Does not require a victim, as you are falsely asserting.

If you want to provide a legal source that addressing this law directly: Executive Law § 63(12), that claims to require a victim, I will listen, but stick to this specifically as this is the law that holds for this case.

And, as I already pointed out, the banks were victims. They charged him a lower rate than they would have without the fraudulent info. I noticed you didn't even attempt to address that.

 

[Shadowy Man]

WITCH HUNT!

Yeah - GOT 'IM!

Well of course he's going to appeal, but IIRC he still has to come up with the money or secure a bond within 30 days. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say he doesn't have that much cash on hand, so the only route would be to get a bond. Who's gonna float him that bond? Because knowing Fragilego Mussolini, he's NOT good for it.

Trump's immediate problem is he can't mortgage any of his properties, assuming he has one that's not already underwater, without asking the judge for permission.

As I understand it he can barely take a shit without permission.

I thought that when one wears adult diapers they can shit whenever they want. :huh:

 

[blastula]

It's not a mere $355 million, there's also $99 million in interest so far, plus about $90,000 a day going forward.

That's going to take a lot of Cameos to pay off.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Finally, an article that answers all the questions I have. Good read. By the last sentence, I was walking on a cloud.

Trump's legal debts top a half-billion dollars. Will he have to pay?

Donald Trump’s legal debts might now exceed a half-billion dollars. A New York judge ordered Trump and his companies Friday to pay $355 million in fines, plus interest, after ruling that he had manipulated his net worth in financial statements.

apnews.com

 

[TV and credit cards]

355 million added to the tab for fraud in NY + 3year ban on doing business in the state.

Does this mean Jared is going to have to dip into The Fund?

Donooold? Donald who? Say that last name again. Trump. Trump. Nope. Not ringing a bell.

 

[TV and credit cards]

He'll use his martyrdom to raise loads more money, but not enough to pay off the full amount. He and his family may need to dip into the offshore accounts. Right now, he is vacuuming up GOP campaign funds for the 2024 election, having managed to get his daughter-in-law put in charge of their money spigot. It's just that the big donors don't seem anxious to waste their money on a sinking ship right now, so Trump will have to fleece the MAGA sheep for all they are worth.

But he dies, right? That's part and parcel of being a martyr. He has to die. From this. Not years months down the road when no one cares anymore.

Beyond big donors, hopefully families and church groups across the nation are meeting to discuss their faith in Orange Jesus, pray and look to God for guidance.

 

[Elixir]

In this AG Letitia James case against Trump, the plaintiff can point to no victim.

Yes, she did (part of why Cheato is nowanother $ 453m in debt). The victim is the public, every one of whom has to pay inflated rates for loans due to cheaters like Trump.

 

[Elixir]

The case was decided erroneously by the judge from the outset.

So you think it’s okay to lie about your assets when applying for loans, dude?

 

[Elixir]

No. No lies. Elements. And it happens to be true.

Reality disagrees, so it’s no surprise that judges do too.

 

[ZiprHead]

Put it simply: no victim; no fraud. A mistaken estimate is not the same as a deliberate deception. But even in the darkest light, if there is no victim, there is no fraud.

Trump over valued for banks and under valued for taxing authorities. The people of New York were certainly victims of his fraud.

 

[ZiprHead]

Michael Cohen says Trump doesn't have the money to pay those fines. He will have to liquidate some properties.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

And reports are that there might be problems with the IRS for Trump and family
resulting from this fraud. Crime does not pay!

 

[Elixir]

And reports are that there might be problems with the IRS for Trump and family
resulting from this fraud. Crime does not pay!

If Trump or one of his supplicants doesn’t win in November, he is SO fucked. He will probably die penniless in prison. He not only owes more than he has, but in order to raise what he needs he has to liquidate some properties, and will owe local State and Federal taxes on anything he sells, adding hundreds of millions more to the bill. His supposed “net worth” is going to plummet precipitously.

OTOH if Trump wins, the rest of us will probably die penniless in the prison of a fascist ‘Murka. So yeah, this is a big deal.

 

[Ford]

Michael Cohen says Trump doesn't have the money to pay those fines. He will have to liquidate some properties.

Or he'll just do like he always does and refuse to pay. Then the court could seize Trump Tower...and low-ball him on the valuation. That would be hilarious.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I already quoted you the law. You are just plain wrong. The purpose of this law was to prevent ill gotten gains from "any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.", when done repeatedly. Does not require a victim, as you are falsely asserting.

If you want to provide a legal source that addressing this law directly: Executive Law § 63(12), that claims to require a victim, I will listen, but stick to this specifically as this is the law that holds for this case.

And, as I already pointed out, the banks were victims. They charged him a lower rate than they would have without the fraudulent info. I noticed you didn't even attempt to address that.

I think this is a smackdown. Thank-you for the thoughtful response. I look forward to a response on this point.

There is a story in the news where police officers were making false claims to 911, reporting things that did not happen. They've all been suspended pending investigation. The point is there were no "victims." The guys were just pranking, who knows why, so I assume such behavior is okay and no one has broken any laws. Correct?

A friend wrecked his car when he was drunk. He got home and the next day reported his car stolen. Was there a victim? Yes. The victim was all the other people who paid for his fraud with their premiums.

 

[laughing dog]

Whether it’s civil or criminal, the elements of fraud require not just a “false” statement. It requires also that someone be deceived by the false statement. (And it must be a false statement not just an inaccurate or merely mistaken statement.). In short, there must be a victim.

In this AG Letitia James case against Trump, the plaintiff can point to no victim. There were no victims. The case was decided erroneously by the judge from the outset. Some folks may not like this but I’ll stand by it and await the outcome (not of the “trial”) of appellate process. I predict that the verdict and “judgment” are going to be nullified on appeal.

The victims were the lenders who woukd have charged a higher interest rate if Trump had presented honest financial information.

 

[Elixir]

WITCH HUNT!

Yeah - GOT 'IM!

Well of course he's going to appeal, but IIRC he still has to come up with the money or secure a bond within 30 days. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say he doesn't have that much cash on hand, so the only route would be to get a bond. Who's gonna float him that bond? Because knowing Fragilego Mussolini, he's NOT good for it.

Trump's immediate problem is he can't mortgage any of his properties, assuming he has one that's not already underwater, without asking the judge for permission.

As I understand it he can barely take a shit without permission.

I thought that when one wears adult diapers they can shit whenever they want. :huh:

Yabut he has to ask the judge for the money to buy diapers.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Put it simply: no victim; no fraud. A mistaken estimate is not the same as a deliberate deception. But even in the darkest light, if there is no victim, there is no fraud.

Trump over valued for banks and under valued for taxing authorities. The people of New York were certainly victims of his fraud.

And this doesn’t happen because of “mistakes”. It happens because of the F word.