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 ...
Biden, who was never in legal jeopardy in the District of Selective Prosecution of The Republican Enemy, cooperated fully.
fixed it again.
I noticed that more stuff fell out of your Democrat Party operative "explanation"...
Translation: Get out of NY as fast as you can.
You forget that President Trump was cooperative the FIRST TWO times the FBI came to Mar-a-lago, even improving the security of the storage room of his documents as the FBI recommended. He became suspicious of their motives the third time the FBI came knocking.
Biden, on the other hand, was allowed to have his lawyers cleanse his homes before the FBI was permitted to enter. That's what he called being cooperative.
-PJ
““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.”
Translation: Yeah, we Marxists will come after you next if you dare, like Trump, to thwart our agenda. DeBank on it!
Every one of your posts serve as a clear link between the Democrat Party and you.
Amazing all the stuff that joesbucks "forgot" when he was vomiting out the Democrat Narrative on "Cooperatin' Joe" Biden...
Am I wrong to sense from your post that you disagree with this use of the law and its application to President Trump?
You are not wrong. This may be described as a lawfare collective misuse and abuse of the legal system to interfere with the 2024 presidential election. I should think some of them should be disbarred and never permitted to practice law again. The NY civil fraud case appears to be an effort to tie up Trump's liquid assets, and to prevent him from selling anything to raise liquid assets. With his assets all tied up, he cannot raise the bond of ~$500M. James threatening to sell his assets should divert his attention from the 2024 political campaign. That is the stuff of banana republics. This is not so much the law, but the weaponization of the law for it to be used for political purposes. They have made a laughing stock of the FBI, now they are making a laughing stock of the judicial system.
Can they use a civil statute that requires multiple victims to disgorge profits that do not require any victims?
As phrased in the abstract, no. However, the question rather indicates that something has been misapprehended. Below is Judge Engoron's rebuttal to claims made against the disgorgement.
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=CJKA2EOIiTRatUAYz6FyeA==
Engoron at 7-8:
Disgorgement of ProfitsIn flagrant disregard of prior orders of this Court and the First Department, defendants repeat the untenable notion that "disgorgement is unavailable as a matter of law" in Executive Law § 63(12) actions. NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 70. This is patently false, as defendants are, or certainly should be, aware that the Appellate Division, First Department made it clear in this very case that "[w]e have already held that the failure to allege losses does not require dismissal of a claim for disgorgement under Executive Law § 63(12)." Trump. 217 AD3d at 610.
Defendants nonetheless rely on the trial court decision in People v Direct Revenue, LLC, 19 Misc 3d I I 24(A) (Sup Ct, NY County 2008), for the proposition that Executive Law § 63(12) "do[es] no[t] authorize the general disgorgement of profits received from sources other than the public." NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 71-72. However, defendants' neglect to mention that Direct Revenue was superseded, and essentially overruled, in 2016 by the New York Court of Appeals in People v Greenberg, which unequivocally held that "disgorgement is an available remedy under the Martin Act and the Executive Law." People v Greenberg, 27 NY3d 490, 497 (2016).
Also fatally flawed is defendants' reliance on People v Frink Am., Inc., 2 AD 3d 1379, 1380 (4th Dept 2003), as it relies on the outdated proposition that Executive Law § 63(12) "does not create any new causes of action" and thus, the remedy of disgorgement is unavailable. NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 73-74. However, in Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, in which at least three of the instant defendants were parties, the First Department unambiguously declared that "the Attorney General is, in fact, authorized to bring a cause of action for fraud under Executive Law § 63(12)." Trump Entrepreneur Initiative at 418; see also People v Pharmacia Corp., 27 Misc 3d 368, 373 (Sup Ct, NY County 2010) (holding "Executive Law § 63(12) applies to fraudulent conduct actionable at common law, as well as to conduct for which liability arises solely from the statute").
Defendants incorrectly posit that, under People v Ernst & Young, LLP, 114 AD3d 569 (1st Dept 2014), disgorgement is available under the Martin Act but not under Executive Law § 63(12). NYSCEF Doc. No. 836 at 73. This is simply untrue. In Ernst & Young, the First Department specifically held that disgorgement was an available and potentially "crucial" remedy in an Executive Law § 63(12) action. Ernst & Young at 570.
Defendants correctly assert that "the record is devoid of any evidence of default, breach, late payment, or any complaint of harm" and argue that as none of the recipients of the subject SFCs ever lodged a complaint with OAG or otherwise claimed damages, disgorgement of profits would be inappropriate. NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 40.
However, that is completely irrelevant. As the Ernst & Young Court noted:
[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."Id. (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 Amazon.com at 130 ("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).
- - - - -
The term "persistent fraud" or "illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term "repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person.From my reading of 63(12), a fraudulent "scheme" must be perpetrated on at least two victims in order for this statute to apply. Was that the case with Trump? Trump was engaging in a "persistent... scheme" to defraud multiple banks?
From my reading, the wrongful act must be committed two distinct times affecting a single party, or once affecting multiple parties. Five banks would suffice.
Third, regarding the SEC securities fraud cases (and others), were these criminal cases or also civil cases? Is disgorgement only used in criminal cases or can they be used in civil cases, too? It seems to me that a disgorgement in a civil case is an illegal civil forfeiture in that the person is not found guilty of a crime. I would think that proper criminal due process should be afforded to President Trump before half a billion dollars can be confiscated from him.
Civil cases.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/890/1185/1410913/
SEC v. First Jersey Securities, Inc. at the District Court was case No. 85 Civ. 8585 (RO). Initiated in 1985, Civil case 8585, and RO is the initials of the writing judge.
Disgorgement is mostly used in civil cases. Criminal cases citation will normally list the Plaintiff as The State of (whatever), The People or the People of (whatever), or the United States. The government is the Plaintiff in a criminal case, seeking to imprison or fine someone for violation of a criminal act.
Disgorgement is an equitable remedy and perfectly lawful.
In a civil asset forfeiture case, you might attempt to board a flight with a suitcase of money. Your million dollars is seized. You can get your money back in a procedure where you claim it and provide a reasonable explanation of the lawful origin of the money. A lawsuit caption might read Somebody v. $1,000,000. It is a lawful procedure where the money is seized as the fruit of a crime until proven otherwise. Many such seizures go uncontested and the individual chooses not to claim whatever was seized. If you claim it and they can prove it was the fruit of a crime, you essentially convict yourself. The procedure is controversial but legal.
Were it the suitcase of Donald Trump, the procedure could be applied to him. Due process is whatever process the law says is required.
Finally, regarding your discussion on valuation and appraisal, did you see my prior posts in other threads with the John Lennon example? Let me repost it here for discussion:
I had not seen prior discussion referring to John Lennon. If Jimi Hendrix bought a guitar for $200, took it on stage and played it one recorded night, and signed it and gave it to a fan, there would be a whole lot of value added to that guitar. People license the name Trump because it adds to the value of their property.
- - - - -
Correcting/clarifying the applicable assessment of Palm Beach property value, the cap is different for homestead and non-homestead property.
Palm Beach County Assessor FAQ:
What is the difference between market value, assessed value, and taxable value?Every parcel of real property has a just value, an assessed value, and a taxable value.
The just value is the property’s market value.
The assessed value is the just value minus assessment limitations like the 3% or 10% Save Our Homes cap.
The taxable value is the assessed value minus exemptions and is the value the tax collector uses to calculate the taxes due.
https://pbcpao.gov/assessment-caps.htm
The Homestead Exemption
The 3% Save Our Homes Cap (SOH) cap limits any increase to the assessed value of a homestead-exempt property for tax purposes to a maximum of 3% each year or the amount of the change in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is lower.Properties are assessed at market value in the first year they receive the homestead exemption. Once the exemption is applied for, the cap or base year is established. Each year thereafter, the SOH cap applies. The 3% cap remains in effect as long as the property is homestead exempt or until the property is sold.
When the market value of a property subject to the 3% SOH cap drops below the 3% value, the property is assessed at the lower of the two.
The taxable value for a homestead-exempt property is the assessed value minus the amount of the exemption or exemptions granted to the property owner.
- - - - -
The 10% cap is only for “non-homestead” properties, that is all properties that do not have a homestead exemption. This could include second homes, rental properties, vacation homes, vacant land or commercial property.
The 10% cap applies to all taxing authority millage rates except the school board millage.
The cap ensures that your assessed value will not increase more than 10% from the previous year’s assessed value. Depending on market factors, your assessed value could increase less than 10% or could decrease.
The cap will remain year over year, providing ownership does not change, homestead exemption is not applied for, there was no split or combination of the property during the previous year, and no new construction has occurred.
There’s no need to apply to receive this cap, as it will automatically be applied to your property.
This does not mean that your taxes may never increase more than 10%. Many other factors affect an individual tax bill, including tax rates or millages, and non-ad valorem assessments, neither of which is determined by the Property Appraiser’s Office.
If you purchase a non-homesteaded property, any 10% assessment cap remains for the balance of the tax year in which the property was purchased. But, Florida law provides that the property must be reassessed at full market value in the year following the sale.
If there is a change of ownership or control not recorded on a deed, it will trigger a reassessment. Per Florida Statute 193.1556, any person or entity owning property under the 10% cap provision must notify the property appraiser promptly of any change of ownership or control. Failure to do so may subject the property owner to a lien of back taxes plus interest of 15% per annum and a penalty of 50% of the taxes avoided.
The basis of 63(12) is that there is a consumer and there is a fraudulent actor scheming to steal from the consumer by fraudulent activity. Furthermore, the fraudulent actor must repeat the fraudulent activity multiple times against multiple consumers to establish a pattern of repeated or persistent fraud. Is that a fair characterization of the statute and its actors?
Is it fair to conclude that the state of New York has put the international banks into the role of the consumer? In that role, what is it that the international banks are being lured into consuming?
If the international banker testified that "It’s not unusual or atypical for any client’s provide[d] financial statements to be adjusted to this level to this extent," then the bank clearly did not consider Trump's financial statements to be fraudulent. In this case, the banker considered Trump's actions to be within the normal realm of banking experience.
How is the consumer (in this case international banks) being protected by this disgorgement ruling? One would think that President Trump was the consumer in this transaction, not the international bank.
I just don't understand how the state of New York can step into a transaction 10 years after it occurred and then declare it to have been a fraudulent scheme requiring disgorgement 10 years later in the name of "protecting" the consumer who didn't then and doesn't now need protection.
My brain hurts just thinking about it.
-PJ
The Maurnice DeClue Cure for these hyper-partisan politicos in New Jerk state may be the only solution.
Delusional. An operative has a link. Not just thoughts. Like the link you provided the other day. Remember you said only operatives use the word disinformation when the quote came from the source link in the link you provided me? https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4224988/posts You’re an operative. And by logic so must the Gateway Pundit. That’s what you get when you get sloppy with your accusations. You provided a link for yourself.
Forgot to say welcome back. Good to see you again.
What’s this first 2 times? There should have been only one. Even had his lawyer represent he had been fully cooperative.
I believe he was wrong to do so. I would say however that it was noted he was deemed cooperative during the collection process. Trump’s problem was his files were subpoenaed and he withheld and defied the subpoena. Biden cooperated fully.
So you believe Joe Biden was "wrong" to unlawfully collect classified material, and to fail to safeguard the highly classified material he collected, and that he unlawfully divulged said highly classified material to someone not cleared to receive it. Sort of cooperating in cleaning up his mess is an adequate resolution for decades of mishandling and compromising classified material?
The difference between Trump's files and Biden's files was that Trump's files were Trump's files. The content of Trump's files were not unlawfully obtained. Each and every classified document purloined by Senator or Vice President Joe Biden for his own persnal use was obtained and retained unlawfully. Unlike President Trump, Biden had no authority to declassify or possess the classified material which he left unsecured for decades.
As for Biden cooperating fully, when being questioned he presented as a senile old man with such a poor memory that the prosecutor found him unprosecutable. Your #498 is demonstrative of what you mean by fully cooperative.
When Biden presented as senile and unprosecutable, he presented as one incapable of cooperating fully because of mental deficiency.
Trump's personal files were delivered by the government to his residence. The law gives to the President the power to declare what is a Presidential record and what is a personal record. The law further establishes that all classification authority within an administration is vested in the President, authority which he may delegate. Additionally, the law provides that the President may declassify anything and everything and needs nobody's approval to do it.
In Trump's case, the lawfulness of his possession was questioned by the National Archivist. The Archivist is without authority to classify any records as Personal or Presidential. Trump sought to have a court decide. The Biden administration decided to authorize and execute a general search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, to include riffling through Melania's panties.
[joesbucks #472] The victim was the marketplace. It prices out honest borrowers. Mr. Trump avoid paying $168 million in interest by lying in his loan documents.[joesbucks #498] An awful lot of assumption.
When all else fails, read the Court Opinions.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991862/engoron-decision-and-order-september-26.pdf
Engoron at 7-8 (September 26, 2023):
Disgorgement of Profits"[w]e have already held that the failure to allege losses does not require dismissal of a claim for disgorgement under Executive Law § 63(12)." Trump. 217 AD3d at 610.
[...]
Defendants correctly assert that "the record is devoid of any evidence of default, breach, late payment, or any complaint of harm" and argue that as none of the recipients of the subject SFCs ever lodged a complaint with OAG or otherwise claimed damages, disgorgement of profits would be inappropriate. NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 40.
[...]
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."
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=CJKA2EOIiTRatUAYz6FyeA==
Engoron at 81-82 (February 16, 2024):
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.”
In April 2022, the DOJ opened a criminal investigation and initiated a grand jury process and instructed NARA not to share further details about the materials recovered from Mar-a-Lago with the House Oversight Committee. The FBI interviewed Trump administration officials and aides at Mar-a-Lago about the handling of presidential records, including former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his former deputy Patrick Philbin...
On June 3, Nauta asked Brian Butler, a 20-year-employee of Mar-a-Lago who ran the car service, for an Escalade so he could help load Trump's luggage onto a plane as Trump and his family departed for New Jersey. Butler lent him the car. Nauta and de Oliveira loaded boxes onto the plane. Butler assisted them, as handling Trump's luggage was normally part of his job; he did not know the boxes contained anything unusual.Later that day, investigators from the DOJ and the FBI came to Mar-a-Lago to retrieve the subpoenaed material. They met with Trump's attorneys, one of whom gave the agents 38 classified documents with HCS, SI and FISA markings in "a single Redweld envelope, double-wrapped in tape". Trump's custodian of records, Christina Bobb, gave the DOJ a signed declaration that had been drafted by Corcoran, attesting that all classified material had been returned (though Trump's team may have been aware this was not true).
During this visit, FBI agents noticed over 50 boxes in the storage room, but Trump's lawyers said they couldn't look inside. With the help of an informant, the DOJ came to believe that more classified documents remained on the premises.
On June 8, the FBI told Trump's team to better secure the storage area, so Trump aides added a padlock to the room.
These are the two prior visits by the FBI.
-PJ
I guess the tide has gone out in him. His attorney said they were prepared to post the bond. Did he deceive her too?
On or about May 6, 2021: Realizing that some documents from Trump’s presidency may be missing, the National Archives asks that he turn over any presidential records he may have kept upon leaving the White House. The agency makes subsequent, repeated demands.
June 2021: The National Archives warns Trump through his representatives that it will refer the matter to the Justice Department if he does not comply.
Late December 2021: The National Archives continues to demand that Trump turn over missing records from his presidency. In late December 2021, a Trump representative tells the agency that 12 boxes of records have been found and are ready to be retrieved.
January 17, 2022: Trump turns over 15 boxes to the National Archives. According to the indictment, Nauta and another Trump employee load them into Nauta’s car and take them to a commercial truck for delivery to the agency. (7 months)
Feb. 10, 2022: Trump’s Save America PAC releases a statement insisting the return of the documents had been “routine” and “no big deal.” Trump insists the “papers were given easily and without conflict and on a very friendly basis,” and adds, “It was a great honor to work with” the National Archives “to help formally preserve the Trump Legacy.”
Feb. 18, 2022: In a letter to a congressional oversight committee, the National Archives reveals the boxes contained classified information and confirms the Justice Department referral. Trump’s Save America PAC releases another statement insisting, “The National Archives did not ‘find’ anything,” but “were given, upon request, Presidential Records in an ordinary and routine process to ensure the preservation of my legacy and in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.” March 30, 2022: The FBI opens its investigation.
April 29, 2022: The Justice Department asks Trump’s lawyers for immediate access to the 15 boxes, citing national security interests and the need for “an assessment of the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported.” Trump’s lawyers again ask for an extension, saying they need to review the material to “ascertain whether any specific document is subject to privilege.” May 10, 2022: The National Archives informs Trump’s lawyers that it will provide the FBI access to the boxes as soon as May 12. May 11, 2022: A grand jury issues a subpoena to Trump and his office requiring that they turn over all classified materials in their possession.
May 23, 2022: Trump’s lawyers advise him to comply with the subpoena, but Trump balks, telling them, “I don’t want anybody looking through my boxes.” Prosecutors, citing notes from one of the lawyers, say Trump wondered aloud about dodging the subpoena, asking his counsel, “Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” and ”isn’t it better if there are no documents?”
Looks fully cooperative to me. /sarcasm
You are a subset of the Democrats that are fine with it.
The FR Democrat operative subset.
You are a subset of the Democrats that are fine with it.
The FR Democrat operative subset.
A New York judge on Friday ordered Trump to pay the massive sum in penalties in a civil fraud case.
There were no penalties assessed.
Law Dictionary, Second Edition, Steven H. Gifis
CIVIL PENALTIES generally fines or money damages impoosed by a regulatory scheme. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C.A. §45(1). Civil Penalties, however, have been distinguished from civil remedies in that civil penalties are imposed as a punishment for certain activity and have the character of a criminal sanction, while civil remedies seek to redress wrongs or compensate for injuries suffered.
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=CJKA2EOIiTRatUAYz6FyeA==
Engoron at 81 (February 16, 2024):
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.
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.