Replies

Im totally fine with the disgorgement. Trump improperly benefitted from his Betty Crocker cooked up financial records.

The disgorgement will be overturned on appeal. Trump did not benefit from your imaginary engorgement. After the loan based on the bank's due diligence, Trump had an asset of x amount of cash. Trump had a debit of x plus interest. In case of default, the bank had a claim on Trump's property to a value greater than the amount of the loan with interest. The engorgement was zero. The engorgement with interest was still zero. Betty Crocker is a non-existent fictional character.

Equitable Life & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Virgil N. Lee, 310 F.2d 262, 267 (9th Cir. 1962)

The elements of actionable fraud were concisely set forth by the Oregon court in Conzelmann v. Northwest Poultry & Dairy Products Co., 190 Or. 332, 350, 225 P.2d 757, 764 (1950). They consist of: (1) a representation; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) his intent that it should be acted on by the person and in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the hearer's ignorance of its falsity; (7) his reliance on its truth; (8) his right to rely thereon; (9) and his consequent and proximate injury.In addition, the court observed that the person alleging fraud has the burden of proving it, and it must be established by evidence that is clear, satisfactory, and convincing. Id. at 350, 225 P.2d at 765.

Black's Law Dictionary, 11 Ed. 2019.

consumer fraud. (1959) Any intentional deception, deceptive act, or practice, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation made by a seller or advertiser of goods or services to induce a person or people in general to buy.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consumer_protection_laws

Consumer Protection Laws
Consumer protection laws safeguard purchasers of goods and services against defective products and deceptive, fraudulent business practices. Historically, under the common law doctrine of caveat emptor, consumers had very little protection from misleading sales, requiring consumers to inspect all transactions themselves. As modern economies developed, laws slowly evolved to protect consumers from large corporations and practices like adhesion contracts which common law fraud did not address. Consumer protection law is made up of a large patchwork of Federal and state laws governing everything from products like cosmetics and medicine to services like lending practices. The Federal government oversees antitrust law and consumer protection through the Federal Trade Commission which inspects complaints of scams and fraud against businesses. States use a variety of agencies and statutes to enforce consumer protection, expanding on the Federal law in many areas. Consumers face high cost and time barriers to taking action against a business, resulting in low usage of consumer protections. However, consumer protection laws and actions have steadily increased since the 1970s, and more consumer and lawyer awareness may lead to a more active employment of consumer protection laws.

It looks like consumer protection laws were designed to protect consumers like Trump from the big, bad banks.

No criminal charge of fraud is at issue. The State picked a statute where there is no jury and the judge could hold Trump liable for disgorgement before the trial started to determine what he should pay. The statute required no finding of harm or any victim, and the judge found none. You are fine with the disgorgement, just as you were fine with the non-existent fine as a non-existent penalty.

[joesbucks #253] What was James insinuating? That she would seek assets prior to Trump bankrupting to avoid paying the penalty.

[joesbuckes #313] Wouldn’t the excessive fine have to be an admission that the finding of the court was true but the fine excessive?

[joesbucks #337] Third, while the penalty to us mere mortals seems sky high, to Trump, since he’s a multi-billionaire, it’s just a fraction of his and his businesses worth. Fourth, a large portion of the penalty is ill-gotten gains. The amount estimated Trump received due to the fraud.

Would you support this penalty had this been Hunter or Joe?

It's fine to not know about disgorgement and talk about the non-existent penalty of a fine. However, in that case one really shouldn't be telling people, "If you had bothered to read the decision...."

[joesbucks #237] "If you had bothered to read the decision...."

Had you bothered to read the bit that screamed in underscored caps, you may have gotten a hint about disgorgement and not have prattled on about fines and penalties.

Engoron at 81:

DISGORGEMENT OF ILL-GOTTEN GAINS
[W]here, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution. Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is “immaterial.”

It is amazing that with bank loan transactions, hundreds of millions of dollars are allegedly wrongfully obtained, and with all the paperwork and due diligence by everybody, no victim is identified, and no restitution to any victim is contemplated. More amazing is that nobody claims to be a victim. The New York State government will just have to pocket the dough.

It is self-evident that you did not read the court documents, or did not understand them if you did. In either case, it is more than clear that you lack the legal chops to render an intelligent legal opinion. Indeed, it is apparent that until you receive your talking points, you have no opinion at all.

As the Critical Drinker would say, Ach, go away now.