Trump fraud trial in NYC live updates: Accountant Donald Bender’s testimony appears to agitate ex-president, who whispers in lawyer’s ear

Breitbart ^ | 10/03/2023 | Kaydi Pelletier and Isabel Keane

[Liz]

The fact that 80% was thrown out by the judge tells us that Lettecia wasn’t doing her job....
she failed to recognize the statues of limitations, so obsessed is she to nail The Donald.

She should be disbarred for that.

Meanwhile, common criminal, dopehead, and whormonger,
Hunter Biden, is hiding beneath daddy’s beach chair.

---

N-i-c-e deconstruction.

[wiseprince]

I doubt 80% is thrown out. They’ll find a way

[DownInFlames]

The house my folks moved into in Santa Ana in 1957 when I was 2 was purchased for $25k, is now worth over 1m. I went by it a few years ago and it looked unkept.

[OttawaFreeper]

Always fun to look up on the web to see how much the Brady house goes for now.

https://www.dwell.com/article/the-brady-bunch-house-is-for-sale-in-los-angeles-real-estate-5e8c6162

[Alas Babylon!]

Yes. He’s 93 and still lives in it. Alone.

Me and my remaining sisters are trying to keep him there, because that’s what he wants. His entire estate (not just the house, but bonds, stocks and savings) is large. He hired an aid to stay with him daily. I tell him to spend as much as he needs to continue.

[gloryblaze]

... Me and my remaining sisters are trying to keep him there, because that’s what he wants. His entire estate (not just the house, but bonds, stocks and savings) is large. He hired an aid to stay with him daily. I tell him to spend as much as he needs to continue.

Bless you and your family.

P.S. And, I'm glad the fish didn't get away.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Donald Bender says he didn’t receive needed docs from Trump. Did he submit the docs he had to appraisers, and did they determine they had enough to appraise the property?

[gloryblaze]

Donald Bender says he didn’t receive needed docs from Trump. Did he submit the docs he had to appraisers, and did they determine they had enough to appraise the property?

Yeah, apparently, work-arounds were just dandy until somebody turned up the heat.

[Sequoyah101]

It is a show trial. The motive is certain and tho outcome is almost the same. At this point and on that basis...

The value of a property is largely conjecture. The banks were satisfied, they got their money back.

Fraud without a victim? Why is this even a trial? How do you prove intent without damages?

Serious attempts at discussion of the charges and scant and fragile "evidence" is not worth the time.

[Eagle Forgotten]

You write: "The State of New York, 1. does not have standing. There is no actionable case or controversy involving the Plaintiff in this suit. There are no allegations that Trump defrauded the State of NY by using inflated valuations...."

A private litigant would need to show such a loss, but the State doesn't. Under New York law, the State (through the Attorney General) has standing even if no one suffered a loss.

This was one of the issues Trump and the other defendants raised in an earlier appeal in this case. The appellate court agreed with the appeal on some issues, such as dismissing all the claims against Ivanka. On the standing issue, however, the court ruled for the Attorney General. The applicable law is Executive Law § 63(12), which gives powers to the AG that aren't available to private litigants. In rejecting Trump's argument about standing, the appellate court said:

The Attorney General is not suing on behalf of a private individual, but is vindicating the state's sovereign interest in enforcing its legal code — including its civil legal code — within its jurisdiction (see Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 US 592, 601 [1982]; see also People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 346 [1st Dept 2008] [finding that claims including a claim under Executive Law § 63(12) "constituted proper exercises of the State's regulation of businesses within its borders in the interest of securing an honest marketplace"], affd 13 NY3d 108 [2009]). We have already held that the failure to allege losses does not require dismissal of a claim for disgorgement under Executive Law § 63(12) (see People v Ernst & Young LLP, 114 AD3d 569, 569-570 [1st Dept 2014]). Finally, in authorizing the Attorney General to sue for any repeated or persistent fraud or illegality, the Legislature necessarily "invested that party with authority to seek relief in court" (Matter of World Trade Ctr. Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litig, 30 NY3d 377, 384 [2017]; see Silver v Pataki, 96 NY2d 532, 537-538 [2001]).

Full decision here (emphasis added): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-first-department/2023/index-no-452564-22-appeal-no-553-case-no-2023-00717.html

You may think this is a bad law. As the citations indicate, though, it's been the law in New York since before Trump came down the escalator.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I wonder if Leticia demanded damages for “pain and suffering” because Dems go nuts when they see the name “Trump.”

[jpp113]

It is a bad law. It is the State giving itself powers in a civil context which citizens do not have in a civil context. This means the State gave itself an unfair advantage to the detriment of its citizens. Violates (on its face and as applied) the 14th amendment of the US Constitution and the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment.

[EQAndyBuzz]

If he overinflated the value of his properties and paid taxes on it, sounds like the government owes him a bunch of money.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

We have already held that the failure to allege losses does not require dismissal of a claim for disgorgement under Executive Law § 63(12)

Sounds like a law that could easily be used for political purposes, especially with morons like Engoron and James in charge. But it's not by any means the only bad law on the books.

[jpp113]

"authorizing the Attorney General to sue for any repeated or persistent fraud or illegality" This absolutely violates Due Process, because it does not require the State to prove the underlying alleged repeated or persistent fraud or illegality as a predicate for the AG to sue under the Statute.

[Eagle Forgotten]

“It is a bad law. It is the State giving itself powers in a civil context which citizens do not have in a civil context. This means the State gave itself an unfair advantage to the detriment of its citizens. Violates (on its face and as applied) the 14th amendment of the US Constitution and the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment.”

Sorry, but I can’t see that. The state and federal governments have lots of powers that private citizens don’t have. Governments can award custody of a child (state) or issue a pilot’s license (federal).

Any particular law can be good or bad. Maybe you shouldn’t need a license to go fishing. But those laws aren’t unconstitutional.

[Eagle Forgotten]

You write that the New York law “absolutely violates Due Process, because it does not require the State to prove the underlying alleged repeated or persistent fraud or illegality as a predicate for the AG to sue under the Statute.”

Proving a claim isn’t a PREDICATE for suing. The AG brings the suit to assert the claims, the defendant denies them, and the case is tried to determine whether the State has proved its allegations. If the State can’t prove the fraud or illegality, then the defendant will win. That’s normal procedure, not a violation of the Due Process Clause.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

If the judge is Lavrentiy Beria, the evidence does not matter.

[jpp113]

"If the State can’t prove the fraud or illegality, then the defendant will win."

The case law you cited says "We have already held that the failure to allege losses does not require dismissal of a claim for disgorgement under Executive Law § 63(12)" (see People v Ernst & Young LLP, 114 AD3d 569, 569-570 [1st Dept 2014])." Therefore, the NY courts have dispensed with the element of damages when a cause of action under Executive Law sec.63(12)is being pled and tried by the State. In essence, the State does not have to show that the civil cause of action for fraud satisfies all of the elements required for a civil action for fraud. Damages is an essential element of a cause of action for fraud. Due process is violated because the State has established a rule of civil procedure that is only available to them, and is different than those that apply to the general public. The general public absolutely has to plead and show that they were damaged by the alleged fraud.