Posted on 04/22/2024 3:55:23 PM PDT by CFW
Jury selection has begun in the New York City “hush money” trial of Donald Trump, who is charged in a 34-count indictment with falsifying business records of the Trump Organization. This case is part of a Democrat-led effort to engage in lawfare on various Progressive battlefields.
To date, Trump’s legal team has done a masterful job in fighting these politicized prosecutions with a variety of clever legal arguments and maneuvers. Yet even the best attorneys can overlook a compelling weakness in the prosecution’s case. Trump’s legal team has, without success, made dozens of strong arguments for dismissing his New York case. In my judgment, however, Trump’s team has yet to make the most compelling argument on behalf of their client.
Below is the argument that Trump’s team should strongly consider making in his “hush money” trial.
[snip]
Trump faces 11 counts alone based upon Cohen emailing invoices to the TO on various dates in 2017. These counts allege that Trump “made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen . . . marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.” Notably, the “to wit” language in the indictment serves to limit the prosecution’s allegations, i.e., that the “false entry” in the TO’s records was Cohen’s invoice itself.
Ironically, the very wording of the Cohen-related counts proves that Trump did not violate Art. 175.10.
(Excerpt) Read more at declassified.live ...
We should just presume that the American legal system no longer exists as conceived, and is merely a tool to target enemies of those in power.
“Six Ways To Sunday!”
“We should just presume that the American legal system no longer exists as conceived, and is merely a tool to target enemies of those in power.”
That is true. Even now when I see someone arrested or indicted by the federal government, I automatically wonder if they are being set-up or framed.
Also, here is an article from Just the News on the start of today’s trial.
“Prosecution, defense deliver opening statements in Trump hush money trial in Manhattan”
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/court-session-manhattan-trump-trial
FTA——Bragg’s argument for Trump’s guilt is that Trump caused records pertaining to the “hush money” payment, e.g., invoices, checks, ledgers, etc., which were falsely marked “legal payment,” to be maintained in the Trump Organization’s (“TO”) business records, thus he made false entries in the TO’s business records.
Trump’s defense argues that the records at issue were not “business records” of the TO because: 1) Trump’s payments to Cohen were made from personal or trust accounts and, hence, involved private records; and 2) the records were, unlike accounting books, not held to reflect the TO’s “condition or activity” and, accordingly, did not constitute “business records” under the statute.
Judge Juan Merchan, the presiding judge, has sided with Bragg. According to Merchan, the fact that Trump’s checking records were “personal . . . and not the books and records of a business entity is of no legal consequence.” Merchan reasoned that “[Trump] and the Trump Organization are intertwined to such a degree that it is of no legal relevance” that Trump made payments from personal funds. Merchan suggested that Trump’s personal and trust records “became” TO records once they were scanned into the corporate records system.
Whether Cohen’s invoices and Trump’s checking documents “became” TO records, in my judgment, is of little significance as to whether Trump violated Art. 175.10. There is a much clearer answer as to why Trump is innocent of the charges against him. Let me explain.
The Words of the Statute
Let’s return to the statutory language: “A person is guilty of falsifying business records . . . when . . . he . . . [m]akes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.” I have emphasized two words in the statute— “entry” and “the”—because Trump’s team has yet to raise the exculpatory impact of these words. The word “entry” is a noun that means, per the Oxford Dictionary, “an item written or printed in a diary, list, ledger or reference book.”
In accounting parlance, an “entry” is “the record of any transaction found in a bookkeeper’s journal.” The statute at issue, notably, penalizes a false “entry” made “in” a “business record,” which is defined as “any writing or article [or computerized data] . . . kept . . . for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting [a business’s] condition or activity.” In short, as used in Art. 175.10, the term “entry” literally means a written or typed-in item added to paper or computer records. An obvious example of “making” a “false entry” is where an accountant inputs phony deductions in a corporation’s QuickBooks account.
snip
False entry? What a joke.
I once accidentally posted a food invoice to electricity. First four account numbers were similar and I typo’d.
Corrected it by that months closing.
Guess I should be on trial.
Here is a couple of X threads (on threadreader) by Julie Kelly regarding the Florida case.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1782486128915857520.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1782508081642926144.html
Also, one of the “classified” documents the DOJ wanted so bad (national security info indeed!), was the Hurricane map that Donald Trump drew on with a sharpie.
Another was the letter Obama left for him.
Jack Smith had all that info redacted which allowed the media to pretend that they were looking for deep nuclear secrets.
The threads by Julie Kelly are worth the read.
That the quack “judge” in this case just made a pronouncement there was “...no legal distinction between Trump’s personal account(s) and his business...” Illustrates just how corrupt he is. He cites no evidence to support his pronouncement. I have been involved in debt collection for many years and often had to attach assets not held in the name of the creditor. These were assets fraudulently transferred from the creditor to another person, usually a relative or close associate. The legal theory is called nominee/alter-ego. Before I could attach those assets I had to submit EVIDENCE the assets transfered were not an arms-length transaction, or were transferred for less than adequate consideration. There is a legal distinction between one’s personal activities and one’s business activities. No quack judge—democrat or not—can simply waive a magic wand to make the distinction go away. If there was no difference between personal and business why do we allow the existence of corporations, LLC’s, or partnerships?
In order to hold someone personally liable for corporate misdeeds, you have to “pierce the corporate veil” first. I have seen nothing in these NY cases that signifies that any veil piercing was done.
Unfortunately, this solid argument will fly over the head of the jury.
It's worse than that.
This retard just undermined any sound, rational decision to register a company in the State of New York. He's basically stripped every corporate officer and executive in New York of the legal protection afforded to them personally through certificates of incorporation, etc. He's issued a total and complete piercing of every shield of legal protection that is given through the establishment of all corporations in the state.
Yes, piercing the veil is part of the alter-ego doctrine. A creditor would have to show co-mingling of business and personal funds and a blurring of distinction between personal and business activities. It’s more common than you would think, but nevertheless a creditor would have to submit EVIDENCE of such things. Something this quack judge has not done.
As i read it, Trump used the TO to scan his persona trust checks paid to Cohen. Anyone who knows what happens in corps. They scan everything and looks like trump was using the TO to scan his Trust stuff. Good practice as maybe later could reclass to a TO account or not. In this case it looks like the checks were not entered into the TO’s books just scanned into the system. Clearly dumb lawyers who never ran a business would know what constitutes a GL entry to the books as opposed to scanning docs. Companies scan everything, just to have a record of comms from clients, members, bills, unidentified cash receipts,
I once accidentally posted a food invoice to electricity. First four account numbers were similar and I typo’d.>>> In Trumnp’s case it’s even worse. There is no accounting entry just a doc scan.
How is it election fraud when Trump was already in the White House when he paid Cohen?
In order to hold someone personally liable for corporate misdeeds, you have to “pierce the corporate veil” first. I have seen nothing in these NY cases that signifies that any veil piercing was done.>>> They are assuming that the mere scanning of the docs makes it an accounting entry. which only a dumb lawyer would assume.
. Merchan suggested that Trump’s personal and trust records “became” TO records once they were scanned into the corporate records system.>>> yes they are saying the mere scanning of Trumps checks are automatically business records not just communication. Businesses scan everything and not all scans are GL entries.
If I'm not mistaken, Merchan has yet to rule in favor of anything Trump's lawyers have set forth.
The ends (getting Trump) justifies the means (completely destroying the business environment in the state). Trump must be destroyed, no matter what it may cost!
Stop that logic right now, you fascist!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.