Donald the Orange and Family Sued in NY

[Ford]

The other issue... this is a CIVIL fraud trial.

I don’t think Deplo can even pronounce “preponderance”.

I don’t think you even know what it means.

But your mental vacancy isn’t the point.

Here is the point. In the civil case, Trump’s appeal is likely to work. Why? Because fraud requires a victim.

I hear that if you say that three times in a row, spin around, and click your heels together it becomes true. Maybe Trump should try that?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The other issue... this is a CIVIL fraud trial.

I don’t think Deplo can even pronounce “preponderance”.

I don’t think you even know what it means.

But your mental vacancy isn’t the point.

Here is the point. In the civil case, Trump’s appeal is likely to work. Why? Because fraud requires a victim. There were no victims.

Good luck to him on appeal with that defense.

If judges bother to adhere to the law, luck won’t be required.

The good ole fashioned, 'if I lose, the system is rigged' excuse. Where have I heard that before?

 

[Elixir]

Speak factually and with proper support, and maybe you can then muddle through.

Take your own advice. Start with some honesty. When you said:

Every single element is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Was that an honest mistake, or more like a “my penthouse is 30,000 square feet” kind of … uh … fabrication?

 

[Elixir]

I hear that if you say that three times in a row, spin around, and click your heels together it becomes true. Maybe Trump should try that?

The spell becomes ineffective when repeated more than three times, and Trump's logorrhea assures that it's never going to work for him.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

The other issue... this is a CIVIL fraud trial.

I don’t think Deplo can even pronounce “preponderance”.

I don’t think you even know what it means.

But your mental vacancy isn’t the point.

Here is the point. In the civil case, Trump’s appeal is likely to work. Why? Because fraud requires a victim.

I hear that if you say that three times in a row, spin around, and click your heels together it becomes true. Maybe Trump should try that?

Maybe you should buy a clue.

The elements of fraud are what they are, regardless of how much you might not like (or even acknowledge) those elements.

New York Civil Common Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation

1. the defendant made an intentional material false representation;
2. the plaintiff reasonably relied upon the defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentation; and
3. the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of their reliance on the fraudulent misrepresentation.

The burden of proving the elements of fraudulent misrepresentations is by “clear and convincing evidence” which is a substantially greater burden of proof than the normal “preponderance of the evidence” standard. This standard, usually, means that a plaintiff needs to establish at trial by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant had actual knowledge of some material fact and then specifically misled the plaintiff with respect thereto.

New York Deceptive Practices Act

Additionally, New York’s Deceptive Practices Act (which is not to be confused with the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act that does not apply in New York) includes NY General Business Law section 349, which prohibits deceptive business practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce. This law is broadly construed and applies to a wide range economic activities and empowers consumers and gives them an even playing field in their disputes with businesses that are generally in a superior position.

According to the Court of Appeals of New York, the highest court in the state, NY GBL 349 has three elements: 1) the act or practice was consumer-oriented; 2) the act or practice was misleading in a material respect; and 3) the plaintiff was injured as a result of the deceptive act or practice.

Proving Civil Fraud In NY | Locally Connected - Globally Experienced Int'l Law Firm

The burden of proving the elements of fraudulent misrepresentations is by "clear and convincing evidence" which is a substantially greater burden of proof than the normal "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

www.thenewyorklawblog.com

As to Executive Law section 63(12), that is an oddity in the law. It got analyzed prior to the Trump case and the applicable statute of limitations got changed from 3 to 6 years. It also doesn’t seem to demand much of anything in terms of its elements. It may have had a beneficial purpose in mind when it was created. But such a low bar to “prove” it makes the law a menace. And, even then, I believe that this case’s “verdict” on that 1st claim is properly subject to being reversed on appeal because the judge clearly didn’t get the legal meaning of fraud. I suspect he didn’t give a damn, either.

 

[Ford]

The other issue... this is a CIVIL fraud trial.

I don’t think Deplo can even pronounce “preponderance”.

I don’t think you even know what it means.

But your mental vacancy isn’t the point.

Here is the point. In the civil case, Trump’s appeal is likely to work. Why? Because fraud requires a victim.

I hear that if you say that three times in a row, spin around, and click your heels together it becomes true. Maybe Trump should try that?

Maybe you should buy a clue.

Perhaps you should read the ruling.

 

[DeplorableInfidel]

The other issue... this is a CIVIL fraud trial.

I don’t think Deplo can even pronounce “preponderance”.

I don’t think you even know what it means.

But your mental vacancy isn’t the point.

Here is the point. In the civil case, Trump’s appeal is likely to work. Why? Because fraud requires a victim.

I hear that if you say that three times in a row, spin around, and click your heels together it becomes true. Maybe Trump should try that?

Maybe you should buy a clue.

Perhaps you should read the ruling.

Maybe you should try to understand it.

 

[ideologyhunter]

So, if a bank gives you a lower interest rate because you've distorted your true worth, you haven't cheated the bank? Just asking.

 

[Elixir]

The other issue... this is a CIVIL fraud trial.

I don’t think Deplo can even pronounce “preponderance”.

I don’t think you even know what it means.

But your mental vacancy isn’t the point.

Here is the point. In the civil case, Trump’s appeal is likely to work. Why? Because fraud requires a victim.

I hear that if you say that three times in a row, spin around, and click your heels together it becomes true. Maybe Trump should try that?

Maybe you should buy a clue.

Perhaps you should read the ruling.

Maybe get someone to read it to him?
There seems to be a comprehension problem. In fact I’d say BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

 

[Ford]

The other issue... this is a CIVIL fraud trial.

I don’t think Deplo can even pronounce “preponderance”.

I don’t think you even know what it means.

But your mental vacancy isn’t the point.

Here is the point. In the civil case, Trump’s appeal is likely to work. Why? Because fraud requires a victim.

I hear that if you say that three times in a row, spin around, and click your heels together it becomes true. Maybe Trump should try that?

Maybe you should buy a clue.

Perhaps you should read the ruling.

Maybe you should try to understand it.

And you do? So far you've demonstrated absolutely zero understanding of the case and the law, simply repeating the talking points your Dear Leader keeps pushing out to you.

You've also proudly refused to present your qualifications to speak to the law or the case, so again, given that Trump's actual attorneys failed to exonerate him nor did they manage to mitigate the damages, it is pretty obvious that your armchair legal analysis is dead wrong. Your orange god was given his day in court, and lost in spectacular fashion.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Speak factually and with proper support, and maybe you can then muddle through.

Take your own advice. Start with some honesty. When you said:

Every single element is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Was that an honest mistake, or more like a “my penthouse is 30,000 square feet” kind of … uh … fabrication?

It's kind of like a guy that says he wasn't having sex with a prostitute. He just happened to trip and fell on her while he had a $50 bill in his hand and he happened to be naked at the time. It happens to innocent Republicans all the time. This is a witch hunt!

 

[Elixir]

Speak factually and with proper support, and maybe you can then muddle through.

Take your own advice. Start with some honesty. When you said:

Every single element is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Was that an honest mistake, or more like a “my penthouse is 30,000 square feet” kind of … uh … fabrication?

It's kind of like a guy that says he wasn't having sex with a prostitute. He just happened to trip and fell on her while he had a $50 bill in his hand and he happened to be naked at the time. It happens to innocent Republicans all the time. This is a witch hunt!

“NEVER admit you were wrong. Never admit that you lost. EVER.”
-Donald J Trump

 

[Ford]

It's kind of like a guy that says he wasn't having sex with a prostitute. He just happened to trip and fell on her while he had a $50 bill in his hand and he happened to be naked at the time. It happens to innocent Republicans all the time. This is a witch hunt!

You forgot about the "pay her a six figure sum to never talk about it to anyone" part.

 

[Elixir]

It's kind of like a guy that says he wasn't having sex with a prostitute. He just happened to trip and fell on her while he had a $50 bill in his hand and he happened to be naked at the time. It happens to innocent Republicans all the time. This is a witch hunt!

You forgot about the "pay her a six figure sum to never talk about it to anyone" part.

Fake News! Donald said so!

 

[ideologyhunter]

In the 1990s, Spy Magazine sent 13 cent checks to various famous affluent folks, to see who would take the time to sign and cash them. Trump did. (I think only one other check came back endorsed by the payee.)
But he paid $130K to a woman he didn't actually rail, because he didn't want to upset his family? Right. If you believe that, you should get your Trump Bobble Head at 50% off (plus $89.99 for shipping/handling.)

 

[Ford]

It's kind of like a guy that says he wasn't having sex with a prostitute. He just happened to trip and fell on her while he had a $50 bill in his hand and he happened to be naked at the time. It happens to innocent Republicans all the time. This is a witch hunt!

You forgot about the "pay her a six figure sum to never talk about it to anyone" part.

Fake News! Donald said so!

Stormy: "Trump raw-dogged me, it was awkward."

Trump: "I never even met her."

Trump's personal attorney: "I have the cancelled check with the date of the 'transaction' and I personally handled the deal."

Trump: "I have no idea who this guy is."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Trump Tower wasn't even his type. He never even heard of it before these allegations!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Perhaps you should read the ruling.

No. It wouldn't be funny anymore if he actually informed himself.

 

[TomC]

It's kind of like a guy that says he wasn't having sex with a prostitute. He just happened to trip and fell on her while he had a $50 bill in his hand and he happened to be naked at the time. It happens to innocent Republicans all the time. This is a witch hunt!

You forgot about the "pay her a six figure sum to never talk about it to anyone" part.

Fake News! Donald said so!

Stormy: "Trump raw-dogged me, it was awkward."

Trump: "I never even met her."

Trump's personal attorney: "I have the cancelled check with the date of the 'transaction' and I personally handled the deal."

Trump: "I have no idea who this guy is."

I realize that you're being facetious here.
But Trump really does say and do things like that.

Somehow, his supporters think it makes him smart. A brilliant strategist, totally good to lead the USA.
But when Biden says something incorrect it's solid evidence that he is too old and suffering from dementia.
What's with that?
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

SCOTUS just told all those Trump lawyers who tried to overturn the election and brought frivolous suits in Michigan to go pound salt. Sweet. They needed Deplorables lawyerly expertise I guess. Now they just have to cough up about 150K.