Quote:

---

In this trial, the provable fraud was committed by the State, which stated no less than 10 times in their complaint that Trump's alleged fraudulent documents resulted in the banks providing lower rates. But this claim was directly disproven by actual testimony from multiple witnesses, including the state's own witness from one of the lending banks.

---

No.

A lawyer does not commit "fraud" when he pleads the facts that he (or she) thinks will be established at trial, just because he fails to prevail in proving those facts. Otherwise, every unsuccessful plaintiff's attorney would be liable for fraud.

Quote:

---

Why is this issue so difficult for some to understand??

---

What part of "reliance isn't required" is difficult for some to understand?


Maybe Trump Corp didn't lie about valuations, or maybe Engeron ****ed up the calculations, I don't know and I don't really care, but the reliance argument is a well-beaten dead horse.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

But in your example, the flipper made money that he would not have made without the misrepresentation, because he would not have gotten the loan without the misrepresentation. So it is easy to calculate the (let's use your term) "disgorgement" figure.

In this case, Trump's misrepresentation did NOT induce the loan, and the bank would have loaned the money and charged the same rate of interest, no matter what valuation Trump put on the properties (per their own testimony).

If Trump would have gotten the loan (and the same interest rate) regardless of the alleged misrepresentation, the "disgorgement" math gets a bit fuzzy.

---

You said disgorgement is about what "someone lost."

---

No, I didn't. I said that "restitution and damages" are about what someone lost. "Disgorgement" is a different (if related) concept, which DOES NOT appear in Section 63(12)

Quote:

---

I'm saying no, disgorgement is about what someone gained. The point is to put them back in the position they were in before anything happened. What the other side "lost" is irrelevant to calculating disgorgement.

---

Yes, that is indeed the nature of "disgorgement," which (again) is not a remedy made available under Section 63(12).

Quote:

---

If you don't believe Trump's gains were ill-gotten in the first place because the banks didn't rely on his representations, then that's another argument (that I think is legally irrelevant in New York since reliance isn't an element of the statute as far as I understand.)

---

You are correct. "Reliance" is definitely NOT an element under Section 63(12).

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Why is this issue so difficult for some to understand??

---

What part of "reliance isn't required" is difficult for some to understand?

---

I have been trying to get some of these folks to understand that "reliance is not a Section 63(12) element" for a VERY long time. Some of them are utterly convinced that this case is governed by the elements of common law fraud, rather than by the applicable statute.

I wish you more luck than I have had.

Quote:

---

Did Engoron deliberately scale up the judgment to put Trump in this position? Let's just say that New York's system incentivizes it -- and based on his deportment in the trial, it's a reasonable conclusion.

It's tough to overstate the absurdity of this situation. Appellate courts exist to allow citizens to seek redress for injustices in trials, both criminal and civil, that would result in ruination otherwise. This stands that process on its head. To seek redress for an injustice in a New York courtroom, the citizen must participate in his ruination just to knock on the door -- even if an injustice has truly occurred.

---

Quote:

---

Trump might have a better chance in federal court. This judgment flies in the face of the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution, which explicitly foresaw governments attempting to do what Engoron and Letitia James did in this case. (If Trump didn't waive a jury trial, it violated the Seventh Amendment as well, egregiously so for the scope of the damages involved.) The Eighth Amendment states simply and clearly: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

How else can one view a $355 million judgment for fraud in which no one was defrauded? How else can one view a bond demand for $455 million just to ask the appellate court to address these and other myriad issues from the trial?

---

Assuming there is not a Pennzoil v. Texaco issue? Were the Constitutional violations sufficiently raised with the trial court? Engeron complained and scolded Trump's attorneys for filing too many motions.

Quote:

---

Mark Steyn, another recent victim of a demonstrably unjust verdict, argues today that the US Supreme Court should reach down immediately and take up this case:

Quote:

---

The manifest perversion of justice represented by this New York decision is so brazen that the US Supreme Court really should step in and end it now. But they won't, will they? For the last three decades, the American "right" has abandoned every other societal lever in order to focus on getting one more rock-ribbed "originalist" onto the big bench - to the point where we have a six-three so-called "conservative majority". At which point, we're suddenly assured that Chief Justice John Roberts' priority is to avoid the court being dragged into "controversy".
Which is odd. Because the purpose (indeed, the definition) of a court is to adjudicate "controversies". Look it up: it's in your Constitooti-tootin'-tution.

---

---

SCOTUS won't do squat.

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction in a state-court case -- yet. Presumably they will have jurisdiction shortly when Trump's team sues in federal court to have the bond (at least) quashed on Eighth Amendment grounds, and possibly the judgment as well. They can at least apply for a stay to freeze the situation in place so that time doesn't run out on the 30-day deadline for filing the appeal and bond, not to mention the daily interest on the judgment ticking upward of $90,000 or so. At that point, the Supreme Court will likely have to take it up as Letitia James and Trump push it up the chain quickly.

---

Okay, now that is directly in Pennzoil territory. And a predecessor case, Younger v. Harris.

Quote:

---

What is the Anti Injunction Act in Younger v Harris?


"A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments."

---

Via Hot Air

So if the basis for the fine/judgement was the State's claim of disgorgement/benefit to Trump of hundreds of millions of dollars, and the testimony at trial disproved the State's claim and the actual disgorgement/benefit to Trump was $0, then the actual judgement/fine should have been $0, correct?

Wouldn't this decision open up the possibility of going after people who contest property tax valuations?

It sounds like the crux of the issue isn't what the bank did, but the fact that Trump (and his org) KNOWINGLY lied on the document to obtain the loan. Whether it had any impact on the terms of the loan is irrelevant.

So how would that be any different than someone contesting their property tax valuation when they just bought the house? They KNOW the value of the house since they most likely just got an appraisal as part of the purchase. If you contest it for anything other than what was in the appraisal, you essentially did the same thing Trump was accused of.

Seems like owning real estate in NY just got a lot more expensive...

OK. The penalties in this case were for "disgorgement" and the opinion spends some time discussing the case law about how "disgorgement" is allowed under 63(12).

Antoninus said:

---

Quote:

---

In this trial, the provable fraud was committed by the State, which stated no less than 10 times in their complaint that Trump's alleged fraudulent documents resulted in the banks providing lower rates. But this claim was directly disproven by actual testimony from multiple witnesses, including the state's own witness from one of the lending banks.

---

No.

A lawyer does not commit "fraud" when he pleads the facts that he (or she) thinks will be established at trial, just because he fails to prevail in proving those facts. Otherwise, every unsuccessful plaintiff's attorney would be liable for fraud.

---

IF that lawyer pleaded facts that he KNEW were false, would THAT be fraud?

Where did the state's attorney get the facts that she presented? It wasn't from the banks(since they disputed them)...so where did their numbers come from?

Quote:

---

SCOTUS won't do squat.

Quote:

---

Quote:
The Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction in a state-court case -- yet. Presumably they will have jurisdiction shortly when Trump's team sues in federal court to have the bond (at least) quashed on Eighth Amendment grounds, and possibly the judgment as well. They can at least apply for a stay to freeze the situation in place so that time doesn't run out on the 30-day deadline for filing the appeal and bond, not to mention the daily interest on the judgment ticking upward of $90,000 or so. At that point, the Supreme Court will likely have to take it up as Letitia James and Trump push it up the chain quickly.

---

Okay, now that is directly in Pennzoil territory. And a predecessor case, Younger v. Harris.

---

8th Amendment to quash the judgment and bond? The bond is based on the disgorgement penalty. How does the 8th Amendment conceptually apply to disgorgement?

Disgorgement of profits is a math problem. The profits are the profits. Either the math is right, or the math is wrong. That's not a Constitutional question, just a factual math question.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

SCOTUS won't do squat.

Quote:

---

Quote:
The Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction in a state-court case -- yet. Presumably they will have jurisdiction shortly when Trump's team sues in federal court to have the bond (at least) quashed on Eighth Amendment grounds, and possibly the judgment as well. They can at least apply for a stay to freeze the situation in place so that time doesn't run out on the 30-day deadline for filing the appeal and bond, not to mention the daily interest on the judgment ticking upward of $90,000 or so. At that point, the Supreme Court will likely have to take it up as Letitia James and Trump push it up the chain quickly.

---

Okay, now that is directly in Pennzoil territory. And a predecessor case, Younger v. Harris.

---

8th Amendment to quash the bond? The bond is based on the disgorgement penalty. How does the 8th Amendment conceptually apply to disgorgement?

Disgorgement of profits is a math problem. The profits are the profits. Either the math is right, or the math is wrong. That's not a Constitutional question, just a factual math question.

---

So...what you're saying is:

Trump misrepresented values. Because Trump misrepresented values, he was able to make a profit of $X. Therefore his fine is based on his profits of $X.

Is that correct?

Quote:

---

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

---

LINK

TravelAg2004 said:

---

Wouldn't this decision open up the possibility of going after people who contest property tax valuations?

---

No, for about a dozen reasons, some of which are:

First, it only applies in New York.

Second, it only applies to misrepresentations in business transactions, and an ad valorum challenge is not a business transaction.

Third, it only applies to intentional and knowing false representations. Very few property owners attempt to re-value their assessment using number that they KNOW to be false.

Quote:

---

It sounds like the crux of the issue isn't what the bank did, but the fact that Trump (and his org) KNOWINGLY lied on the document to obtain the loan. Whether it had any impact on the terms of the loan is irrelevant.

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

So how would that be any different than someone contesting their property tax valuation when they just bought the house? They KNOW the value of the house since they most likely just got an appraisal as part of the purchase. If you contest it for anything other than what was in the appraisal, you essentially did the same thing Trump was accused of.

Seems like owning real estate in NY just got a lot more expensive...

---

There is a BIG difference between having a different OPINION regarding value and KNOWING LYING regarding value.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

---

LINK

---

I know what the 8th Amendment says but if you made, say, $100 million in profits, how would you argue $100 million is excessive.

Either the judge did the math right or he didn't.

Any thoughts about Trump filing in federal court to stay execution of this judgment in light of the Pennzoil case?

Didn't work out too well when Texaco tried that with an 11 billion dollar judgment and the same amount of bond required to appeal from a state court decision. They got squashed at SCOTUS. But that hinged on a failure to bring up the federal constitution issues in the Texas state court.

Ag with kids said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

SCOTUS won't do squat.

Quote:

---

Quote:
The Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction in a state-court case -- yet. Presumably they will have jurisdiction shortly when Trump's team sues in federal court to have the bond (at least) quashed on Eighth Amendment grounds, and possibly the judgment as well. They can at least apply for a stay to freeze the situation in place so that time doesn't run out on the 30-day deadline for filing the appeal and bond, not to mention the daily interest on the judgment ticking upward of $90,000 or so. At that point, the Supreme Court will likely have to take it up as Letitia James and Trump push it up the chain quickly.

---

Okay, now that is directly in Pennzoil territory. And a predecessor case, Younger v. Harris.

---

8th Amendment to quash the bond? The bond is based on the disgorgement penalty. How does the 8th Amendment conceptually apply to disgorgement?

Disgorgement of profits is a math problem. The profits are the profits. Either the math is right, or the math is wrong. That's not a Constitutional question, just a factual math question.

---

So...what you're saying is:

Trump misrepresented values. Because Trump misrepresented values, he was able to make a profit of $X. Therefore his fine is based on his profits of $X.

Is that correct?

---

Yes, although I know some will want to go in circles over "because" aka "the banks didn't rely!"

What knowledge about the properties did Trump and only Trump know that the banks and insurers did not know nor could easily discover, like say with a google search?

Get elected, sell California to China (hell they own half of it already), take a brokerage fee, pay the fine, and dance a FAFO jig down Broadway.

From Engeron's decision under Conclusions of Law:

Quote:

---

An action brought by the Attorney General seeking equitable relief for repeated or ongoing fraud in conducting business is subject to a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, as is customary in civil litigation. Jarrett v Madifari, 67 AD2d 396, 404 (1st Dept 1979). As noted, supra, this is supported by the legislative history of Executive Law 63(12), wherein the legislators expressly contemplated and intended for a preponderance of the evidence standard to apply. Moreover, defendants have provided no legal authority for their contention that the higher "clear and convincing" standard does, or should, apply. A clear and convincing standard applies only when a case involves the denial of, addresses, or adjudicates fundamental "personal or liberty rights" 52 not at issue in this action. Matter of Capoccia, 59 NY2d 549, 552 (1983).

---

Fundamental "personal or liberty rights" no longer involve property rights? That is subject to discussion.

Quote:

---

Defenses Asserted

Reliance Defendants have argued vociferously throughout the trial that there can be no fraud as, they assert, that none of the banks or insurance companies relied on any of the alleged misrepresentations.

The proponents of this theory posit that lenders demand complex statements of financial condition but then ignore them. Defendants' argument is to no avail, as none of plaintiff's causes of action requires that it demonstrate reliance. Instead, plaintiff must merely show that defendants intended to commit the fraud. Reliance is not a requisite element of either Executive Law 63(12) or of any of the alleged Penal Law violations. See, e.g., People v Essner, 124 Misc 2d 830, 834 (Sup Ct, NY County 1984) ("Reliance then is not an element of [Penal Law 175.45 - Falsifying Business Records], and documents subpoenaed to prove or disprove reliance by the banks are immaterial").

---

Wait, that is all of the authority he had to make that conclusion of law? That's a freakin' trial court decision from 40 years ago, not an appellate decision. Not remotely binding as precedent, not even on the same statute. Talk about weak sauce.

Quote:

---

However, the Court notes that, although not required, there is ample documentary and testimonial evidence that the banks, insurance companies, and the City of New York did, in fact, rely on defendants to be truthful and accurate in their financial submissions. The testimony in this case makes abundantly clear that most, if not all, loans began life based on numbers on an SFC, which the lenders interpreted in their own unique way. The testimony confirmed, rather than refuted, the overriding importance of SFCs in lending decisions.53

---

Interpreted in their own unique way? What a load of crap.

ETA: Decision is HERE

Antoninus said:

---

TravelAg2004 said:

---

Wouldn't this decision open up the possibility of going after people who contest property tax valuations?

---

No, for about a dozen reasons, some of which are:

First, it only applies in New York.

Second, it only applies to misrepresentations in business transactions, and an ad valorum challenge is not a business transaction.

Third, it only applies to intentional and knowing false representations. Very few property owners attempt to re-value their assessment using number that they KNOW to be false.

Quote:

---

It sounds like the crux of the issue isn't what the bank did, but the fact that Trump (and his org) KNOWINGLY lied on the document to obtain the loan. Whether it had any impact on the terms of the loan is irrelevant.

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

So how would that be any different than someone contesting their property tax valuation when they just bought the house? They KNOW the value of the house since they most likely just got an appraisal as part of the purchase. If you contest it for anything other than what was in the appraisal, you essentially did the same thing Trump was accused of.

Seems like owning real estate in NY just got a lot more expensive...

---

There is a BIG difference between having a different OPINION regarding value and KNOWING LYING regarding value.

---

That is a fine line. Who doesn't manipulate numbers? Buyers, sellers, banks, insurance companies and dang sure the gov. In texas, a third party/ independent is responsible for property appraisals when they want to buy land. No doubt the sellor and the town or at different points. They negotiate and agrrement and process the sell. Should someone be held for fraud? This is a scam job to crush a particular person and might crushe the NY real eatate market.

aggiehawg said:

---

Any thoughts about Trump filing in federal court to stay execution of this judgment in light of the Pennzoil case?

---

I've not given it any thought. Sorry.

Quote:

---

This is a scam job to crush a particular person and might crushe the NY real eatate market.

---

There is no "might" about it. There are already some major players cancelling plans for development in NY. And developers are a hardy breed when it comes to risk taking. But this adds a whole new level of risk and it is not worth it to them now.

Antoninus said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Any thoughts about Trump filing in federal court to stay execution of this judgment in light of the Pennzoil case?

---

I've not given it any thought. Sorry.

---

I was still a young lawyer when that case first was filed and followed it. But did not see SCOTUS squashing Texaco like a bug the way they did. There were no completely clean characters in that situation. Not Pennzoil, not the Getty Oil people nor the Texaco people. But that jury verdict was eye popping. Something the Texaco lawyers never saw coming. Wild case.

Have to give Jamail credit. He played that one quite well for being late to the party.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

SCOTUS won't do squat.

Quote:

---

Quote:
The Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction in a state-court case -- yet. Presumably they will have jurisdiction shortly when Trump's team sues in federal court to have the bond (at least) quashed on Eighth Amendment grounds, and possibly the judgment as well. They can at least apply for a stay to freeze the situation in place so that time doesn't run out on the 30-day deadline for filing the appeal and bond, not to mention the daily interest on the judgment ticking upward of $90,000 or so. At that point, the Supreme Court will likely have to take it up as Letitia James and Trump push it up the chain quickly.

---

Okay, now that is directly in Pennzoil territory. And a predecessor case, Younger v. Harris.

---

8th Amendment to quash the bond? The bond is based on the disgorgement penalty. How does the 8th Amendment conceptually apply to disgorgement?

Disgorgement of profits is a math problem. The profits are the profits. Either the math is right, or the math is wrong. That's not a Constitutional question, just a factual math question.

---

So...what you're saying is:

Trump misrepresented values. Because Trump misrepresented values, he was able to make a profit of $X. Therefore his fine is based on his profits of $X.

Is that correct?

---

Yes, although I know some will want to go in circles over "because" aka "the banks didn't rely!"

---

Well, sure...and I can understand why. If he didn't make those profits BECAUSE he lied...then he didn't make any profits due to anything he did in the transaction other than apply and accept the loan.

So, what you're ACTUALLY saying is that:

Trump misrepresented values. Trump later made a profit of $X. Therefore his fine is based on his profits of $X.

I'm wondering, if there was no actaul victim in this case, who is getting the money?

TequilaMockingbird said:

---

I'm wondering, if there was no actaul victim in this case, who is getting the money?

---

State Treasury if it is upheld on appeal.

What I read/heard

The fine is based on the "assumed* interest rate would have been "X" had Trump not gotten a rate of "y"

So the penalty was like 8 or 10 times the difference in borrowing cost

The state brought in one "expert" at compensation of 400k for his testimony vs all the banking officials that testified for Trump

So Trump got y= 2 or sub 2 percent and the "expert" put X at 10 percentish

Something like that

pacecar02 said:

---

What I read/heard

The fine is based on the "assumed* interest rate would have been "X" had Trump not gotten a rate of "y"

So the penalty was like 8 or 10 times the difference in borrowing cost

The state brought in one "expert" at compensation of 400k for his testimony vs all the banking officials that testified for Trump

So Trump got y= 2 or sub 2 percent and the "expert" put X at 10 percentish

Something like that

---

I don't know how that was calculated. I agree, a different of half of point on interest over the entire life of the loan would still be sizeable, not that obscene number by the judge.

aggiehawg said:

---

TequilaMockingbird said:

---

I'm wondering, if there was no actaul victim in this case, who is getting the money?

---

State Treasury if it is upheld on appeal.

---

So theoretically if this ruling stands, any state that needed a quick infusion of funds to the treasury could go after a wealthy person/company in their state without any actual crime or victim?

This case aside

In a case of conflicting experts what is a judge supposed to do?

1) find one more favorable/believable than the other

2) split the difference between the two if credibility seems equal

3) some other ratio or split based on some criteria

I suspected they have wide range to do whatever, but was wondering if they might be bound by some legal logic or principle

In the Trump case I find is strange that all the Banker testimony was essentially discarded .. apparently

aggiehawg said:

---

TequilaMockingbird said:

---

I'm wondering, if there was no actaul victim in this case, who is getting the money?

---

State Treasury if it is upheld on appeal.

---

pacecar02 said:

---

This case aside

In a case of conflicting experts what is a judge supposed to do?

1) find one more favorable/believable than the other

2) split the difference between the two if credibility seems equal

3) some other ratio or split based on some criteria

I suspected they have wide range to do whatever, but was wondering if they might be bound by some legal logic or principle

In the Trump case I find is strange that all the Banker testimony was essentially discarded .. apparently

---

Bench trial. Judge is both trier of fact and the law. He can completely discard any opinion by any expert, who is not first qualified as an expert by foundational testimony, which he did not allow during the summary judgment phase. Then he had the nerve to say Trump never offered expert testimony...because the judge disallowed it, during a summary judgment motion.

And one more bad faith action by this judge. He issued his completely inappropriate ruling on the summary judgment only a few days before the real trial was to begin. Meaning Trump had no chance to appeal before the already kangaroo trial was to start. Egregious behavior by the judge.

Quote:

---

I suspected they have wide range to do whatever, but was wondering if they might be bound by some legal logic or principle

---

Coming back to this.

Under his conclusions of law, Engeron cited ONE CASE. from 40 years ago and it was dicta in a district court opinion, having ZERO weight. Not precedent, not an appleate decision applicable to his court in any shape, manner or form. Wasn't even on the same stattute.

Using some rando trial court judge from 40 years ago to justify the "relevnace is not an element" was extremely sus. That's bad.

aggiehawg said:

---

And one more bad faith action by this judge. He issued his completely inappropriate ruling on the summary judgment only a few days before the real trial was to begin. Meaning Trump had no chance to appeal before the already kangaroo trial was to start. Egregious behavior by the judge.

---

In what universe can a litigant appeal an interlocutory summary judgment ruling?

Antoninus said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

And one more bad faith action by this judge. He issued his completely inappropriate ruling on the summary judgment only a few days before the real trial was to begin. Meaning Trump had no chance to appeal before the already kangaroo trial was to start. Egregious behavior by the judge.

---

In what universe can a litigant appeal an interlocutory summary judgment ruling?

---

In every one when a trial is set days later. A full trial. Not one where evidence is excluded because the judge "ruled' a few days earlier be fore the start os trial.
Easy to appeal false summary judgmemnt rulings. That is why few litigants follow that course unless they have no facts in dispute. Facts were in dispute here. That the judge didn't accept evidence in contravention of his predetermined finding, in your non legal world makes that correct?


LOL. You are funny.