• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Donald the Orange and Family Sued in NY

Overly partisan hacks abound.
They’re EVERYWHERE!!!
Jack Smith, Letitia James, Fani Willis… all the judges except Trump’s handpicked sycophant whose righteous findings are routinely found to be extrajudicial and overreaching by higher courts (she’s the only righteous one)… they’re ALL overly partisan hacks, if they hold Trump responsible for his actions.

Dep, you just might wasting your time around here, but thanks for the entertainment, and the insight into religious Trump-induced psychosis.
Buh bye now!
Elixir:

Your devoted reliance on the fallacy of ad hominem argument that is noted. But, it’s not even remotely persuasive.

Maybe, someday, if you’re feeling your oats, you can muster up a cogent way to dispute that the legal attacks against Trump are partisan politics rather than valid legal complaints.

Until then, have fun in your fantasy world.
One more time,.Deplo, just so you can repeat your NOPE.


img_1086-jpeg.45421


I'm sure you know WAY more about this kinda stuff than lib'rul shill Jack Smith. Jack was only chosen because of his experience with high profile cases, whereas Trumpsuckers have the benefit of knowing that anything that impugns their orange avatar can't possibly be true. And if Jack is truthin' (NOPE!) then Trump is rightfully on the hotseat of his own making. Oh, and if/when the appeals court agrees with Jack, that's a "NOPE!" as well, correct?

I forgot ...did you ever resolve the 3x sq ft problem or the discrepancies between the valuations that Trump provided the bank and what he told the IRS about the SAME properties? (They were discrepant figures - that's a FACT. Some by an order of magnitude!)

If you choose, you can scream "Ad Hom!" about my raising these facts... it doesn't really bother me. If there are any ad hominems in my posts, I apologize, but I did throw them in for free. :) And you can freely ignore them along with the FACTS.
 
NY law is as I reported it.
Forgive me, but I missed where you posted the text of the law stating that requirement. Can you direct me to it please? At least Axulus did that, and it appears that you’re in error.
No. I cited the elements of fraud.

So you cited elements. Great. The law doesn’t care about elements,

Absolutely wrong. The law cares far more about the elements than you appear willing to comprehend. The elements are the very things which need to be proved in order to support a complaint
it cares about the constraints it is intended to impose on people’s behavior.
It cares about that, of course. But it details how that can be addressed via the elements.
That’s why citing elements isn’t a valid defense against the actual stated law.
Wrong. It is the very heart of the law.
In fact? You should do so.
You are now asserting that 10=30?
Sheesh. I submit that “10=30” is a lie. A material misrepresentation. Prove me wrong.
Nope. I have never asserted that 10 = 30.

I don’t have to prove you wrong, since the claim you attribute to me is not a claim I ever made. I am content to agree that 10 does not equal 30.

That said, a valuation for one purpose doesn’t need to be a valuation for some other purpose. A village tax assessor’s valuation doesn’t need to be very accurate in order to achieve the objective of putting a tax value on a plot of land. By contrast, my own valuation of my plot of land might be very different than yours as a prospective buyer of lender.

Caveat emptor, baby.

Consider a little NY case law (from the highest court in NN State):

[R]equiring a party to act reasonably in relying on allegedly false and fraudulent misrepresentations is a matter of significant “public policy.” Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.2018 NY Slip Op 04686 [31 NY3d 569] (2018). (“Public policy reasons support the justifiable reliance requirement.”).

I quote from: https://nyfraudclaims.com/fraud-claims-

However, the case citation is what matters.

Name a bank that would rely solely on a value claim in an application by Trump (or any prospective borrower for that matter), especially where the applicant includes strong language disclaiming “reliance” as was the case with Trump. You won’t find one. Banks and bank lawyers know the law too. They are familiar with the legal demand that there has to be “justifiable reliance.” That’s why they always engage in due diligence. Or should.
 
NY law is as I reported it.
Forgive me, but I missed where you posted the text of the law stating that requirement. Can you direct me to it please? At least Axulus did that, and it appears that you’re in error.
No. I cited the elements of fraud.

So you cited elements. Great. The law doesn’t care about elements,

Absolutely wrong. The law cares far more about the elements than you appear willing to comprehend.


You're here telling everyone you interact with that they're wrong and simply don't understand the law.

Okay, so present your credentials. Your legal bona fides. Are you an attorney? Where did you go to law school? You're here to educate all us ignorant rubes in the finer points of why Trump is legally free and clear, so let's see your qualifications to educate us.

I'll wait.
 
The elements are the very things which need to be proved in order to support a complaint
"Breaking down the elements" is what got you to hang your hat on the falsehood that massive fraud is a victimless crime. So much for that!
Your elements are real cute Deplo, but they don't feed the donkey. Why don't you address the argument that is actually being made about the "element" you find lacking? Do you only care about Don, but not Bob?
Come on dude - Ford is holding his breath!

Smith knows what he is talking about. Do you? Or is it Caveat criminalis? :hysterical:
 

Now, if you wish to discuss why I happen to maintain that the 4 criminal cases against Trump are all partisan political persecutions disconnected from any actual criminality, that’s a different set of questions.
Yes, that's EXACTLY what I meant. What you have put forth so far has no more substance than Q, which a substantial number of Trumpistas 'believe' in.
Well. Good for you. Of course, you’re also wrong. Lots of discussions start off with an assertion of belief or opinion. And just because that’s true doesn’t mean it is lacking in substance like the Q nonsense. You should simmer down a bit.

Nobody wants to read a time, here. So, in an effort to keep it brief, let’s pick one case to commence. First in time was Bragg’s NY County indictment.



Every single count charges
"FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE , in violation of Penal Law §175.10, …" (page 1)\nRead more:


That particular NY State Penal Law defined felony says:

S 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
Since it demands proof of the commission of the lesser crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, that legal definition is also required:

S 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree
when, with intent to defraud, he:
1. Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an
enterprise; or
2. Alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true
entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
3. Omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise
in violation of a duty to do so which he knows to be imposed upon him by
law or by the nature of his position; or
4. Prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof
in the business records of an enterprise.
Falsifying business records in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

Now that we have that much, as a baseline, let’s examine what a judge will (in general terms) charge the jury. That is found in NY’s Criminal Jury Instructions:


Specifically:

FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS

IN THE FIRST DEGREE

Penal Law § 175.10

(Committed on or after November 1, 1986)

The (specify) count is Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

Under our law, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, that person:

Select appropriate alternative:

makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an

enterprise; or

alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or

omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he or she knows to be imposed upon him or her by law or by the nature of his or her position; or

prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise.1

The following terms used in that definition have a special meaning:

ENTERPRISE means any entity of one or more persons, corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business,

1 Penal Law § 175.10 reads: "A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." The charge substitutes the language of falsifying business records in the second degree in the appropriate place.


commercial, professional, industrial, eleemosynary, social, political or governmental activity. 2
BUSINESS RECORD means any writing or article, including computer data or a computer program, kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity. 3

INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so.4

In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to prove, from all of the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following two elements:

1.That on or about (date) , in the county of (county) ,

the defendant, (defendant's name),

Select appropriate alternative:

made or caused a false entry in the business records

of an enterprise; or

altered, erased, obliterated, deleted, removed or destroyed a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or

omitted to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which the defendant knew to be imposed upon him/her by law or by the nature of his/her position; or

2 Penal Law § 175.00(1).

3 Penal Law § 175.00(2). "Computer data or a computer program" was added effective November 1, 1986.

4 Penal Law § 15.05(1).



prevented the making of a true entry or caused the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise; and,

2.That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that

included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

[Note: If the affirmative defense does not apply, conclude as follows:

If you find the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of those elements, you must find the defendant guilty of this crime.

If you find the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt either one or both of those elements, you must find the defendant not guilty of this crime.

[NOTE: If the affirmative defense does apply, continue as follows:

If you find that the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt either one or both of those elements, you must find the defendant not guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

If you find that the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of the elements, you must consider an affirmative defense the defendant has raised. Remember, if you have already found the defendant not guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, you will not consider the affirmative defense.

Under our law, it is an affirmative defense to this charge of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree that the defendant, at the time he/she engaged in the conduct constituting the offense, was a clerk, bookkeeper or other employee who, without personal benefit, merely executed the orders of his/her employer or of a superior officer or employee generally authorized



to direct his/her activities.

Under our law, the defendant has the burden of proving an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

In determining whether the defendant has proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, you may consider evidence introduced by the People or by the defendant.

A preponderance of the evidence means the greater part of the believable and reliable evidence, not in terms of the number of witnesses or the length of time taken to present the evidence, but in terms of its quality and the weight and convincing effect it

has.For the affirmative defense to be proved by a

preponderance of the evidence, the evidence that supports the affirmative defense must be of such convincing quality as to outweigh any evidence to the contrary.

If you find that the defendant has not proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, then, based upon your initial determination that the People had proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of the elements of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, you must find the defendant guilty of that crime.

If you find that the defendant has proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find the defendant not guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

But wait! There’s more!

Bragg appears to have included different “instruments” (ie, different allegedly false business records) — and based on the People’s response to the Trump lawyers’ Request for a Bill of Particulars — the prosecution has different “theories” concerning which other laws Trump supposedly intended to commit.

This particular post is already too lengthy.
Cannot be helped. So, it will have to be continued in one or more additional posts. Sorry. It will have to wait. I’m heading out now. But I will add this much before I return to continue this response:

The DA seems to rely on (among other things) an alleged “intent” to commit or conceal some Federal Election Law offense. Among other objections to the Bragg indictment, it is dubious that NY State even has jurisdiction over a Federal offense.
 
You're here telling everyone you interact with that they're wrong and simply don't understand the law.

Okay, so present your credentials. Your legal bona fides. Are you an attorney? Where did you go to law school? You're here to educate all us ignorant rubes in the finer points of why Trump is legally free and clear, so let's see your qualifications to educate us.

I'll wait.
You better have the patience of an oyster.
 
The elements are the very things which need to be proved in order to support a complaint
"Breaking down the elements" is what got you to hang your hat on the falsehood that massive fraud is a victimless crime. So much for that!

You need to tighten up your use of English. (1) you’re babbling. (2). I never said word one about “victimless” crimes. What I have said is that a victim is required. (3). What massive fraud? I see that you may like assuming your ultimate conclusion as a premise, but you engage in a fallacy when you do so.
Your elements are real cute Deplo, but they don't feed the donkey.
Meaningless nonsense. Try English. The elements are absolutely essential. I’m sorry you don’t know this already. But it’s not even a question; it is a fact.
Why don't you address the argument that is actually being made about the "element" you find lacking?

That’s a work in process. You should consider being patient.
Do you only care about Don, but not Bob?
Come on dude - Ford is holding his breath!
🙄
Smith knows what he is talking about. Do you? Or is it Caveat criminalis?
Smith may know. Or he may not. He has a distinction: Smith has been overturned on appeal by a unanimous Supreme Court. Why? Due to his strained interpretation of law. Offhand, it appears that saying that Smith knows what he is talking about is hardly a well supported claim by you. 🥸
 
You're here telling everyone you interact with that they're wrong and simply don't understand the law.

Okay, so present your credentials. Your legal bona fides. Are you an attorney? Where did you go to law school? You're here to educate all us ignorant rubes in the finer points of why Trump is legally free and clear, so let's see your qualifications to educate us.

I'll wait.
You better have the patience of an oyster.
Apparently the legal expertise of our intrepid deplorable is the ability to use 3 keys on the keyboard...Ctrl, C, and V.

If I'd known law school was so easy...
 

Now, if you wish to discuss why I happen to maintain that the 4 criminal cases against Trump are all partisan political persecutions disconnected from any actual criminality, that’s a different set of questions.
Yes, that's EXACTLY what I meant. What you have put forth so far has no more substance than Q, which a substantial number of Trumpistas 'believe' in.
Well. Good for you. Of course, you’re also wrong. Lots of discussions start off with an assertion of belief or opinion. And just because that’s true doesn’t mean it is lacking in substance like the Q nonsense. You should simmer down a bit.

Nobody wants to read a time, here. So, in an effort to keep it brief, let’s pick one case to commence. First in time was Bragg’s NY County indictment.



Every single count charges
"FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE , in violation of Penal Law §175.10, …" (page 1)\nRead more:


That particular NY State Penal Law defined felony says:

S 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
Since it demands proof of the commission of the lesser crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, that legal definition is also required:

S 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree
when, with intent to defraud, he:
1. Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an
enterprise; or
2. Alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true
entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
3. Omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise
in violation of a duty to do so which he knows to be imposed upon him by
law or by the nature of his position; or
4. Prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof
in the business records of an enterprise.
Falsifying business records in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

Now that we have that much, as a baseline, let’s examine what a judge will (in general terms) charge the jury. That is found in NY’s Criminal Jury Instructions:


Specifically:

FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS

IN THE FIRST DEGREE

Penal Law § 175.10

(Committed on or after November 1, 1986)

The (specify) count is Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

Under our law, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, that person:

Select appropriate alternative:

makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an

enterprise; or

alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or

omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he or she knows to be imposed upon him or her by law or by the nature of his or her position; or

prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise.1

The following terms used in that definition have a special meaning:

ENTERPRISE means any entity of one or more persons, corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business,

1 Penal Law § 175.10 reads: "A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." The charge substitutes the language of falsifying business records in the second degree in the appropriate place.


commercial, professional, industrial, eleemosynary, social, political or governmental activity. 2
BUSINESS RECORD means any writing or article, including computer data or a computer program, kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity. 3

INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so.4

In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to prove, from all of the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following two elements:

1.That on or about (date) , in the county of (county) ,

the defendant, (defendant's name),

Select appropriate alternative:

made or caused a false entry in the business records

of an enterprise; or

altered, erased, obliterated, deleted, removed or destroyed a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or

omitted to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which the defendant knew to be imposed upon him/her by law or by the nature of his/her position; or

2 Penal Law § 175.00(1).

3 Penal Law § 175.00(2). "Computer data or a computer program" was added effective November 1, 1986.

4 Penal Law § 15.05(1).



prevented the making of a true entry or caused the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise; and,

2.That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that

included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

[Note: If the affirmative defense does not apply, conclude as follows:

If you find the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of those elements, you must find the defendant guilty of this crime.

If you find the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt either one or both of those elements, you must find the defendant not guilty of this crime.

[NOTE: If the affirmative defense does apply, continue as follows:

If you find that the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt either one or both of those elements, you must find the defendant not guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

If you find that the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of the elements, you must consider an affirmative defense the defendant has raised. Remember, if you have already found the defendant not guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, you will not consider the affirmative defense.

Under our law, it is an affirmative defense to this charge of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree that the defendant, at the time he/she engaged in the conduct constituting the offense, was a clerk, bookkeeper or other employee who, without personal benefit, merely executed the orders of his/her employer or of a superior officer or employee generally authorized



to direct his/her activities.

Under our law, the defendant has the burden of proving an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

In determining whether the defendant has proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, you may consider evidence introduced by the People or by the defendant.

A preponderance of the evidence means the greater part of the believable and reliable evidence, not in terms of the number of witnesses or the length of time taken to present the evidence, but in terms of its quality and the weight and convincing effect it

has.For the affirmative defense to be proved by a

preponderance of the evidence, the evidence that supports the affirmative defense must be of such convincing quality as to outweigh any evidence to the contrary.

If you find that the defendant has not proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, then, based upon your initial determination that the People had proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of the elements of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, you must find the defendant guilty of that crime.

If you find that the defendant has proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find the defendant not guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

But wait! There’s more!

Bragg appears to have included different “instruments” (ie, different allegedly false business records) — and based on the People’s response to the Trump lawyers’ Request for a Bill of Particulars — the prosecution has different “theories” concerning which other laws Trump supposedly intended to commit.

This particular post is already too lengthy.
Cannot be helped. So, it will have to be continued in one or more additional posts. Sorry. It will have to wait. I’m heading out now. But I will add this much before I return to continue this response:

The DA seems to rely on (among other things) an alleged “intent” to commit or conceal some Federal Election Law offense. Among other objections to the Bragg indictment, it is dubious that NY State even has jurisdiction over a Federal offense.


They created a false entry for inflated size of property which was then used to inflate its valuation. Are you saying that is only a 2nd degree felony, not a 1st?
 

Now, if you wish to discuss why I happen to maintain that the 4 criminal cases against Trump are all partisan political persecutions disconnected from any actual criminality, that’s a different set of questions.
Yes, that's EXACTLY what I meant. What you have put forth so far has no more substance than Q, which a substantial number of Trumpistas 'believe' in.
Well. Good for you. Of course, you’re also wrong. Lots of discussions start off with an assertion of belief or opinion. And just because that’s true doesn’t mean it is lacking in substance like the Q nonsense. You should simmer down a bit.

Nobody wants to read a time, here. So, in an effort to keep it brief, let’s pick one case to commence. First in time was Bragg’s NY County indictment.



Every single count charges
"FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE , in violation of Penal Law §175.10, …" (page 1)\nRead more:


That particular NY State Penal Law defined felony says:

S 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
Since it demands proof of the commission of the lesser crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, that legal definition is also required:

S 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree
when, with intent to defraud, he:
1. Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an
enterprise; or
2. Alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true
entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
3. Omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise
in violation of a duty to do so which he knows to be imposed upon him by
law or by the nature of his position; or
4. Prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof
in the business records of an enterprise.
Falsifying business records in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

Now that we have that much, as a baseline, let’s examine what a judge will (in general terms) charge the jury. That is found in NY’s Criminal Jury Instructions:


Specifically:

FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS

IN THE FIRST DEGREE

Penal Law § 175.10

(Committed on or after November 1, 1986)

The (specify) count is Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

Under our law, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, that person:

Select appropriate alternative:

makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an

enterprise; or

alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or

omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he or she knows to be imposed upon him or her by law or by the nature of his or her position; or

prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise.1

The following terms used in that definition have a special meaning:

ENTERPRISE means any entity of one or more persons, corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business,

1 Penal Law § 175.10 reads: "A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." The charge substitutes the language of falsifying business records in the second degree in the appropriate place.


commercial, professional, industrial, eleemosynary, social, political or governmental activity. 2
BUSINESS RECORD means any writing or article, including computer data or a computer program, kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity. 3

INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so.4

In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to prove, from all of the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following two elements:

1.That on or about (date) , in the county of (county) ,

the defendant, (defendant's name),

Select appropriate alternative:

made or caused a false entry in the business records

of an enterprise; or

altered, erased, obliterated, deleted, removed or destroyed a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or

omitted to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which the defendant knew to be imposed upon him/her by law or by the nature of his/her position; or

2 Penal Law § 175.00(1).

3 Penal Law § 175.00(2). "Computer data or a computer program" was added effective November 1, 1986.

4 Penal Law § 15.05(1).



prevented the making of a true entry or caused the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise; and,

2.That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that

included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

[Note: If the affirmative defense does not apply, conclude as follows:

If you find the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of those elements, you must find the defendant guilty of this crime.

If you find the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt either one or both of those elements, you must find the defendant not guilty of this crime.

[NOTE: If the affirmative defense does apply, continue as follows:

If you find that the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt either one or both of those elements, you must find the defendant not guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

If you find that the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of the elements, you must consider an affirmative defense the defendant has raised. Remember, if you have already found the defendant not guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, you will not consider the affirmative defense.

Under our law, it is an affirmative defense to this charge of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree that the defendant, at the time he/she engaged in the conduct constituting the offense, was a clerk, bookkeeper or other employee who, without personal benefit, merely executed the orders of his/her employer or of a superior officer or employee generally authorized



to direct his/her activities.

Under our law, the defendant has the burden of proving an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

In determining whether the defendant has proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, you may consider evidence introduced by the People or by the defendant.

A preponderance of the evidence means the greater part of the believable and reliable evidence, not in terms of the number of witnesses or the length of time taken to present the evidence, but in terms of its quality and the weight and convincing effect it

has.For the affirmative defense to be proved by a

preponderance of the evidence, the evidence that supports the affirmative defense must be of such convincing quality as to outweigh any evidence to the contrary.

If you find that the defendant has not proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, then, based upon your initial determination that the People had proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of the elements of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, you must find the defendant guilty of that crime.

If you find that the defendant has proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find the defendant not guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

But wait! There’s more!

Bragg appears to have included different “instruments” (ie, different allegedly false business records) — and based on the People’s response to the Trump lawyers’ Request for a Bill of Particulars — the prosecution has different “theories” concerning which other laws Trump supposedly intended to commit.

This particular post is already too lengthy.
Cannot be helped. So, it will have to be continued in one or more additional posts. Sorry. It will have to wait. I’m heading out now. But I will add this much before I return to continue this response:

The DA seems to rely on (among other things) an alleged “intent” to commit or conceal some Federal Election Law offense. Among other objections to the Bragg indictment, it is dubious that NY State even has jurisdiction over a Federal offense.

Trump did not contest the charges, that is why he was found guilty so quickly... like before the trial started. So enough of this shit.
 
NY law is as I reported it.
Forgive me, but I missed where you posted the text of the law stating that requirement. Can you direct me to it please? At least Axulus did that, and it appears that you’re in error.
No. I cited the elements of fraud.

So you cited elements. Great. The law doesn’t care about elements,

Absolutely wrong. The law cares far more about the elements than you appear willing to comprehend.


You're here telling everyone you interact with that they're wrong and simply don't understand the law.

Okay, so present your credentials. Your legal bona fides. Are you an attorney? Where did you go to law school? You're here to educate all us ignorant rubes in the finer points of why Trump is legally free and clear, so let's see your qualifications to educate us.

I'll wait.
Good. It takes time, if you want to carefully address the subject as opposed to just making vacant claims like most of the Trump haters are so prone to.

You may be impatient. That’s ok. Frankly, i don’t much care about your impatience.

I have already commenced this journey (beginning with the first part of an analysis about the Manhattan case brought by DA Bragg). But, I’m heading out tonight. So, I’ll get back to that case maybe sometime tomorrow.

Analysis of the politically partisan persecutions in Ga and the two in Federal Courts
You're here telling everyone you interact with that they're wrong and simply don't understand the law.

False. I am making my own arguments. You now that me agreeing with others isn’t required just as I’m aware that others aren’t obliged to agree with me.
Okay, so present your credentials. Your legal bona fides. Are you an attorney? Where did you go to law school?

None of your business
You're here to educate all us ignorant rubes in the finer points of why Trump is legally free and clear, so let's see your qualifications to educate us.

You do need to be better educated because you’re badly misinformed.


I'll wait.
You better have the patience of an oyster.
Another pointless comment.
 
NY law is as I reported it.
Forgive me, but I missed where you posted the text of the law stating that requirement. Can you direct me to it please? At least Axulus did that, and it appears that you’re in error.
No. I cited the elements of fraud.

So you cited elements. Great. The law doesn’t care about elements,

Absolutely wrong. The law cares far more about the elements than you appear willing to comprehend.


You're here telling everyone you interact with that they're wrong and simply don't understand the law.

Okay, so present your credentials. Your legal bona fides. Are you an attorney? Where did you go to law school? You're here to educate all us ignorant rubes in the finer points of why Trump is legally free and clear, so let's see your qualifications to educate us.

I'll wait.
Good. It takes time, if you want to carefully address the subject as opposed to just making vacant claims like most of the Trump haters are so prone to.

You may be impatient. That’s ok. Frankly, i don’t much care about your impatience.

I have already commenced this journey (beginning with the first part of an analysis about the Manhattan case brought by DA Bragg). But, I’m heading out tonight. So, I’ll get back to that case maybe sometime tomorrow.
. Don’t hurry on our account because, as we don’t need
Another pointless comment.
 

Now, if you wish to discuss why I happen to maintain that the 4 criminal cases against Trump are all partisan political persecutions disconnected from any actual criminality, that’s a different set of questions.
Yes, that's EXACTLY what I meant. What you have put forth so far has no more substance than Q, which a substantial number of Trumpistas 'believe' in.
Well. Good for you. Of course, you’re also wrong. Lots of discussions start off with an assertion of belief or opinion. And just because that’s true doesn’t mean it is lacking in substance like the Q nonsense. You should simmer down a bit.

Nobody wants to read a time, here. So, in an effort to keep it brief, let’s pick one case to commence. First in time was Bragg’s NY County indictment.



Every single count charges
"FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE , in violation of Penal Law §175.10, …" (page 1)\nRead more:


That particular NY State Penal Law defined felony says:

S 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
Since it demands proof of the commission of the lesser crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, that legal definition is also required:

S 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree
when, with intent to defraud, he:
1. Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an
enterprise; or
2. Alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true
entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
3. Omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise
in violation of a duty to do so which he knows to be imposed upon him by
law or by the nature of his position; or
4. Prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof
in the business records of an enterprise.
Falsifying business records in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

Now that we have that much, as a baseline, let’s examine what a judge will (in general terms) charge the jury. That is found in NY’s Criminal Jury Instructions:


Specifically:

FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS

IN THE FIRST DEGREE

Penal Law § 175.10

(Committed on or after November 1, 1986)

The (specify) count is Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

Under our law, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, that person:

Select appropriate alternative:

makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an

enterprise; or

alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or

omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he or she knows to be imposed upon him or her by law or by the nature of his or her position; or

prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise.1

The following terms used in that definition have a special meaning:

ENTERPRISE means any entity of one or more persons, corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business,

1 Penal Law § 175.10 reads: "A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." The charge substitutes the language of falsifying business records in the second degree in the appropriate place.


commercial, professional, industrial, eleemosynary, social, political or governmental activity. 2
BUSINESS RECORD means any writing or article, including computer data or a computer program, kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity. 3

INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so.4

In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to prove, from all of the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following two elements:

1.That on or about (date) , in the county of (county) ,

the defendant, (defendant's name),

Select appropriate alternative:

made or caused a false entry in the business records

of an enterprise; or

altered, erased, obliterated, deleted, removed or destroyed a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or

omitted to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which the defendant knew to be imposed upon him/her by law or by the nature of his/her position; or

2 Penal Law § 175.00(1).

3 Penal Law § 175.00(2). "Computer data or a computer program" was added effective November 1, 1986.

4 Penal Law § 15.05(1).



prevented the making of a true entry or caused the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise; and,

2.That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that

included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

[Note: If the affirmative defense does not apply, conclude as follows:

If you find the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of those elements, you must find the defendant guilty of this crime.

If you find the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt either one or both of those elements, you must find the defendant not guilty of this crime.

[NOTE: If the affirmative defense does apply, continue as follows:

If you find that the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt either one or both of those elements, you must find the defendant not guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

If you find that the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of the elements, you must consider an affirmative defense the defendant has raised. Remember, if you have already found the defendant not guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, you will not consider the affirmative defense.

Under our law, it is an affirmative defense to this charge of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree that the defendant, at the time he/she engaged in the conduct constituting the offense, was a clerk, bookkeeper or other employee who, without personal benefit, merely executed the orders of his/her employer or of a superior officer or employee generally authorized



to direct his/her activities.

Under our law, the defendant has the burden of proving an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

In determining whether the defendant has proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, you may consider evidence introduced by the People or by the defendant.

A preponderance of the evidence means the greater part of the believable and reliable evidence, not in terms of the number of witnesses or the length of time taken to present the evidence, but in terms of its quality and the weight and convincing effect it

has.For the affirmative defense to be proved by a

preponderance of the evidence, the evidence that supports the affirmative defense must be of such convincing quality as to outweigh any evidence to the contrary.

If you find that the defendant has not proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, then, based upon your initial determination that the People had proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of the elements of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, you must find the defendant guilty of that crime.

If you find that the defendant has proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find the defendant not guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

But wait! There’s more!

Bragg appears to have included different “instruments” (ie, different allegedly false business records) — and based on the People’s response to the Trump lawyers’ Request for a Bill of Particulars — the prosecution has different “theories” concerning which other laws Trump supposedly intended to commit.

This particular post is already too lengthy.
Cannot be helped. So, it will have to be continued in one or more additional posts. Sorry. It will have to wait. I’m heading out now. But I will add this much before I return to continue this response:

The DA seems to rely on (among other things) an alleged “intent” to commit or conceal some Federal Election Law offense. Among other objections to the Bragg indictment, it is dubious that NY State even has jurisdiction over a Federal offense.


They created a false entry for inflated size of property which was then used to inflate its valuation. Are you saying that is only a 2nd degree felony, not a 1st?

I’m saying that there’s not a scintilla of evidence that they made any false entry of any kind at all.
 
NY law is as I reported it.
Forgive me, but I missed where you posted the text of the law stating that requirement. Can you direct me to it please? At least Axulus did that, and it appears that you’re in error.
No. I cited the elements of fraud.

So you cited elements. Great. The law doesn’t care about elements,

Absolutely wrong. The law cares far more about the elements than you appear willing to comprehend.


You're here telling everyone you interact with that they're wrong and simply don't understand the law.

Okay, so present your credentials. Your legal bona fides. Are you an attorney? Where did you go to law school? You're here to educate all us ignorant rubes in the finer points of why Trump is legally free and clear, so let's see your qualifications to educate us.

I'll wait.
Good. It takes time, if you want to carefully address the subject as opposed to just making vacant claims like most of the Trump haters are so prone to.

You may be impatient. That’s ok. Frankly, i don’t much care about your impatience.

I have already commenced this journey (beginning with the first part of an analysis about the Manhattan case brought by DA Bragg). But, I’m heading out tonight. So, I’ll get back to that case maybe sometime tomorrow.
. Don’t hurry on our account because, as we don’t need
Another pointless comment.
You apparently dispense with reality all together. So fear not. I wouldn’t bother hurrying for you.
 
I’m saying that there’s not a scintilla of evidence that they made any false entry of any kind at all.

So the size of the property is correct?


The evidence appeared in an email attachment shown as Allen Weisselberg, the former finance chief of Trump's company, testified in New York Attorney General Letitia James' fraud lawsuit against Trump and his Trump Organization. Trump denies any wrongdoing.

The attachment was a 1994 document, signed by Trump, that pegged his Trump Tower triplex at 10,996 square feet — not the 30,000 square feet later claimed for years on financial statements that were given to banks, insurers and others to make deals and secure loans.
 
This is the thing with Trump apologists. They're a lot like creationists trying to sound sciency.
This week they're trying to sound lawyerly.
The bottom line is that the truth doesn't matter to them. If Trump had the truth on his side he wouldn't need so many misinformed, propaganda-soaked minions trying to excuse him, he'd get to court, prove his innocence and get exonerated. Today.
Why can't Trumpers figure that out? I think THEY DON'T CARE.
Trump knows he's guilty, and that's why delay is his ONLY tactic.
It's his good fortune that time didn't run out on one of the four criminal cases first.

Juries are not political. Juries have the last word and they're made up of people, regular people, including trumpers.

If Cheato thought even ONE out of TWELVE jurors could withstand being exposed to the evidence and still vote to acquit, he'd be begging for a speedy trial.

Could you fucking imagine the crowing if he were to prevail?

If he were to prevail on even one out of 91 felony counts for which juries have already found him likely guilty?
One acquitted or dismissed charge and it would become his new campaign platform, nft trading card, sneaker logo and Truth Social trademark. And it would seal the election for him.

But he knows how long those odds are: he is guilty as sin on ALL those counts on which juries have already found him likely guilty. He knows it, and his biggest fear is losing the election because winning or stealing it are his only hopes for staying out of prison. Abolishing the government that threatens to hold him accountable is the only plan he has left. So he is on an insane slash and burn campaign, and as several of us have been saying for years, he will burn this country down before he gives up power.
Very unAmerican.

And guess what, @DeplorableInfidel ?
That asshole doesn't care two shits about you or me or anyone else but Donald J Trump.
There is not one person who knows him who likes him.
Not even his wife.
Not even his daughter.
Not even a dog.

Why people demean themselves by flaunting their ignorance in defense of that piece of human detritus, is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom