Posted on 02/18/2024 5:45:14 AM PST by devane617
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) addressed New York business owners in a new interview and told them there was “nothing to worry about” after former President Trump was hit with a $355 million fine and the inability to conduct business in New York for three years.
Hochul joined John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on WABC 770 AM where she was asked if other New York businesspeople should be worried that if “they can do that to the former president, they can do that to anybody.”
“I think that this is really an extraordinary unusual circumstance that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior,” Hochul responded.
A New York judge on Friday ordered Trump to pay the massive sum in penalties in a civil fraud case. The decision came just weeks after closing arguments wrapped up a months-long trial after New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) sued Trump for alleging he falsely altered his net worth to receive tax and insurance benefits.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The Friends of Biden Incorporated were NeverTrump's minions.
The result may have been real, but the request may have been from a diminished man? Or does he have his faculties?
He also said “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” he said.
I thought he appeared to be a sincere traitor when he said that, but I’m not a mind reader. Sometimes he seems to be willfully evil, sometimes disoriented. Don’t know anything about his meds.
Dem/TDS talking point.
Pretty good talking point when it came out of his yap. At the end of his speech.
The time share salesman always appears sincere. So a look of sincerity shows, as you folks say, dementia Joes dementia cleared for the moment?
If you mean “Is Biden forgiven?” Never.
Never expected him to be.
And he had his day in court.
Actually, Trump was found liable before he had his day in court.
And since it can be applied to anyone who abuses truthful documents in business transactions, it wasn’t pointed at only him.
Actually, as used, it has only applied against Donald Trump as part of the coordinated Lawfare campaign to misuse the judicial system to interfere with the 2024 presidential election.
The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power.
The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups.
A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In America Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, where the Court upheld § 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of § 504, the Court erroneously assumed that only a law visiting retribution for past acts could constitute a bill of attainder, and misread the statute involved in United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303, which it sought to distinguish from § 9(h), as being in that category.
The legislative specification of those to whom the enacted sanction is to apply invalidates a provision as a bill of attainder whether the individuals are designated by name, as in Lovett, or by description.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/18/president-trumps-kafkaesque-civil-trial-in-new-york-state/
President Trump's Kafkaesque Civil Trial in New York StateA Stalinist nightmare in New York State
Steven Calabresi | 2.18.2024 3:10 PM
[Clayton J. & Henry R. Barber Professor of Law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.]The bottom line is that a rarely used New York State penalty has been twisted into a tool for a grossly excessive fine to get Donald Trump because of his political views. More seriously, the completely inappropriate appointment of Judge Jones as an "independent monitor" who can micromanage the Trump business, which she is not competent to do, and to even order the dissolution of the Trump Business in New York State. This outcome was pursued by Letitia James, a politically ambition Democrat, who is the Attorney General of New York State, and who hopes to win a future Democratic primary for Governor of or Senator from New York State.
Ms. James and Judge Engeron have essentially turned a vaguely worded New York State law into a modern day Bill of Attainder targeted at Donald Trump both for political gain and because they despise his political views and desperately want to call his truthfulness into question as he runs for President of the United States inn 2024. In doing this, the have violated Trump's First Amendment right to freedom of speech and of the press; his Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law; his Fifth Amendment right not to have property taken away from him except for a public use with just compensation being paid; his Eighth Amendment right not to be made to pay an excessive fine; his Article IV, Section 2 right as a citizen of Florida to do make and enforce contracts in New York on the same terms as are other New Yorkers; and his Fourteenth Amendment right to be free to pursue an occupation without unnecessary and burdensome regulation.
The civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump is a travesty and an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr. If the New York State appellate courts do not reverse this judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST grant cert on this case and reverse Judge Engeron's outrageous decisions. National, presidential politics will be permanently altered if a local State's legal system can be used in this way against candidates for President of the United States. This case raises a national issue of profound importance and if the New York State appellate courts do not address it, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST!
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=CJKA2EOIiTRatUAYz6FyeA==
Engoron at 3:
Executive Law § 63(12) now reads as follows:
Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply… for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages
Of course, the question in the Trump NY fraud case is what damages? The banks were all paid on time, all profited handsomely, and all would be willing to do business with Trump again. How were the damages calculated?
DA Letitia James ran for office on a promiose to get Trump. Misusing a law to get Trump, and nobody but Trump, is persecution, not justice.
With businesses moving, or considering moving, their operations out of state to escape the possibility of a fate similar to that visited on Trump, Governor Kathy Hochul publicly proclaimed, "that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior."
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4218225/posts?page=175#175
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) addressed New York business owners in a new interview and told them there was “nothing to worry about” after former President Trump was hit with a $355 million fine and the inability to conduct business in New York for three years.Hochul joined John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on WABC 770 AM where she was asked if other New York businesspeople should be worried that if “they can do that to the former president, they can do that to anybody.”
“I think that this is really an extraordinary unusual circumstance that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior,” Hochul responded.
However, Engoron at 4:
Timely and total repayment of loans does not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict on the marketplace. Indeed, the common excuse that “everybody does it” is all the more reason to strive for honesty and transparency and to be vigilant in enforcing the rules.
How can "everybody does it" be dismissed as an excuse by the judge, while the Governor proclaims nobody but Trump does it, so rest assured that you need not leave the State to avoid this happening to you.
In before Democrat Party operative “joesbucks” can have the Last Word.
He compared it to an OSHA finding, FCC fine , even a traffic fine or other infraction where money is paid to the government entity.
There is no comparison to a fine or any criminal penalty. The amount is assessed as a disgorgement of ill-gotten gain. Diisgorgement is an equitable remedy in which "the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct."
Engoron at 5:
In a 35-page Decision and Order, dated September 26, 2023, this Court granted plaintiff summary judgment only on liability and only on the first cause of action. Simply put, the Court found that plaintiff had capacity and standing to sue; that non-party disclaimers and party “worthless clauses” do not insulate defendants’ material misrepresentations; that intent, scienter, and reliance are not elements of a stand-alone § 63(12) claim; that disgorgement of profits is an available remedy; and that the subject financial statements materially misrepresented the value of the Trump Tower Triplex, The Seven Springs Estate, certain apartments in Trump Park Avenue, 40 Wall Street, Mar-a-Lago, and a golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland. NYSCEF Doc. 1531.
Engoron at 6:
Plaintiff is seeking “disgorgement” of “ill-gotten gains,” and to limit defendants’ abilities to conduct business in New York.Constitutional provisions guaranteeing a jury trial, such as the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, apply only to cases “at common law,” so-called “legal” cases. The phrase “at common law” is used in contradistinction to cases that are “equitable” in nature. Whether a case is “legal” or “equitable” depends on the relief that plaintiff sought. Here, plaintiff seeks disgorgement and injunctions, each of which are forms of equitable relief. Thus, there was no right to a jury,3 and the case was “tried to the Court;” the Court being the sole factfinder and the sole “judge of credibility.”
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.”
People v Ernst & Young, LLP, 114 AD3d 569 (1st Dept 2014) (disgorgement is not impermissible penalty “since the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct”) (internal citations omitted); see also People v Amazon.com, Inc., 550 F Supp 3d 122, 130 (SDNY 2021) (“Executive Law § 63(12) authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctive and other relief,” and finding “the Attorney General can seek disgorgement of profits on the State’s behalf”). Indeed, the last sentence of Executive Law § 63(12) clearly contemplates disgorgement (“all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision”).
Engoron at 82:
The Personal Guarantee Interest Rate DifferentialHaving prevailed on its causes of action demonstrating intentional, repeated, and persistent fraud by defendants, plaintiff is entitled to disgorgement of defendants’ “ill-gotten gains.” Disgorgement is “the equitable remedy that deprives wrongdoers of their net profits from unlawful activity.” Liu v Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 140 S Ct 1936, 1937 (2020) (further stating that “it would be inequitable that a wrongdoer should make a profit out of his own wrong”).
I thought you guys said he had dementia.
In other postings, I've shown joebucks to be a manipulative liar with a singular goal - to trash effective conservatives and Republicans, and be an apologist for the likes of Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.
Ding ding ding! Spot on!
And ADMISSION by the highest level government official in NYS that the prosecution (or, persecution) was only to get at President Trump and no other business should be afraid to apply for loans. This whole debacle is wrong on so many levels, equal protection under the law, for one. Civil wars have been started for less.
If you say I’m a democratic party operative I must be effectively hitting a nerve. 90,000 Georgian’s who vote Republican cast their votes in the primary for people who no longer are candidates is a lie? Not going to visit nearby tornado victims last night is a smear? You must have a dictionary with odd definitions. Delusional sycophant.
The victim was the marketplace. It prices out honest borrowers. Mr. Trump avoid paying $168 million in interest by lying in his loan documents. To add insult to injury, Trump lied when he said the law in question was seldom used. It has. Even against Trump in a prior proceeding.
James and Engeron said that the crime was the inflation of value of collateral in a loan. Do you agree with that?
Furthermore, James and Engeron said that based on the inflated collateral, President Trump received an interest rate that the ordinary person could not receive. Is that a correct recollection?
Based on that, I have to ask when was the last time you were denied a loan on billion-dollar real-estate financing? I can tell you that I have no experience in mega-project financing, so I don't understand the comparison to an "ordinary person" in this case. Even the banks (IIRC) didn't blink at the presentation of collateral for the loans in question. It appears to me that the banks didn't think the rate they gave was special to Trump; again IIRC they said the rate was tiered and that even if Trump had reduced his collateral value by some amount he still would have gotten that same rate. I also don't recall other business saying that they were denied the same rates that Trump got (but I haven't read all the press on this story), so maybe you can find examples where business were denied similar rates.
If you agree that the alleged crime was inflation of collateral value, don't most negotiations start with high/low estimates and then the parties meet in the middle? Isn't that the basis of game theory, that the sides will come to a mutually-satisfying middle where everyone walks away with something they can claim as a "win?" Did James and Engoron just criminalize negotiations?
You were pretty clear in describing what Engoron used to justify the engorgement; what can you say about the crime itself? Do you think President Trump committed a crime? Do you think 63(12) was the appropriate law to be used? Do you think President Trump committed repeated fraud "schemes" in the context of 63(12)? If the penalty defined in 63(12) specifically mentions "...an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages..." shouldn't this provide context for the interpretation of 63(12) to crimes where individuals who were damaged can be made restitute?
If 63(12) specifically says "Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law," then how can Engoron create an engorgement contrary to a laws that says specifically "Nothwithstanding any law to the contrary...?" This restriction on the penalty specifically says that the money must be used to repay the victims. Did Engoron have the authority to ignore this constraint on his ruling create by the New York state legislature when they crafted this law?
-PJ
When I wrote: "Even the banks (IIRC) didn't blink at the presentation of collateral for the loans in question," I meant that it was within the realm of the usual negotiations for such a loan request. Certainly, they may have thought the valuation was high, which is why they do their own due diligence (and President Trump knew that they would). I only said "didn't blink" in that it wasn't a deal-breaker at the start; they didn't walk away from the negotiation table because of an outrageous opening offer.
This is a very rarified class of people making very specialized deals that no "ordinary person" would ever find themselves engaged in. I don't understand James' and Engoron's application of an "ordinary person" test on such an exclusive population of business entities.
To apply laws intended to protect consumers from phone-bank and Nigerian Prince scams to such high-capital development and construction projects is beyond my understanding.
Maybe you can explain to me why this was an appropriate use of the law, and why it was appropriate to ignore the legislative constraints on the penalties?
-PJ
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.