The Rule of Democrat Law, favored by Letitia James and 100% of FR Democrat Party operatives.
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 ...
I like that Cannon set up two strawman arguments as frameworks that distill the nuggets of the arguments from both sides. I think she did this to give the appellate court a roadmap to go by when the case eventually ends up there.
-PJ
The Eleventh - six to five, in favor of Trump.
I like that Cannon set up two strawman arguments as frameworks that distill the nuggets of the arguments from both sides. I think she did this to give the appellate court a roadmap to go by when the case eventually ends up there.
These are not two strongman arguments. They are real.
Option (a) is in the case where classification of the records as Personal or Presidential is argued to the jury. In that case the jury must be given access to the records — each and every one of them, unredacted. I believe Jack Smith entered the whole load into the case.
Option (b) is in the case where classification may not be argued to the jury. That essentially narrows it down to whatever the President decided.
These are proposed instructions to be given by the judge to the jury. Smith (and Trump's lawyer) need to rephrase each one in a manner they find aceptable to deliver to the jury. No counter-argument is permitted. Assume Smith completes his homework assignment, the judge could adopt his paraphrase as her instruction to the jury and he can't pick nits about the wording. And she gets to recline with a nice cocktail and think about Jack Smith doing his homework.
An Irish society, an unpaid loan and the hypocrisy of Letitia JamesBy Miranda Devine
New York Post
Published March 17, 2024, 1:16 p.m. ETTo celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, here is a tale of financial shenanigans at the American Irish Historical Society, in which Trump-deranged New York Attorney General Letitia James is hoist by her own petard.
It involves a grand old building on Fifth Avenue, an unpaid loan, a fading family dynasty, a James Joyce theatrical production which almost ended in fisticuffs, and hypocrisy from the AG as obvious as a glass of green beer.
It all began when James Doyle, a wealthy Georgia businessman with a love of his Irish roots, joined the board of the nonprofit society, whose crown jewel is a rare Gilded Age mansion at 991 Fifth Ave., right across from Central Park and the Met.
Over the years, financial mismanagement and misfortune had befallen the society, and it was facing foreclosure. So in 2017, the board turned to Doyle for a $3 million loan, structured like a private mortgage. He was told that the Beaux-Arts townhouse was worth $80 million that included valuable air rights.
However, the society only made a few payments and Doyle soon found things weren’t quite as they seemed.
[snip]
Snipped due to word count restriction. It is worth going to the link to read the rest.
So, let me pick your brain on this.
These are proposed instructions to be given by the judge to the jury.
First, and not to quibble (well, maybe just a little), but I say "strawman" and you say "proposed." A difference without a distinction?
Does the judge have final say on what the final jury instructions will be? Is she soliciting input from both sides to help formulate her instructions?
Or is the judge asking each side to submit the language that THEY want to be included in her jury instructions?
Second, didn't I read that Smith thinks this is a premature exercise, and that soliciting jury instructions now is tainting the proceedings since no jury has been selected and no testimony and cross has happened yet? Is this the basis that Smith will use to try to get Cannon removed from the case?
And third, was Cannon's reasoning that the jury hinges on who has the appropriate security level to see the documents in question, so she's proposing "strawman" jury instructions now to make the point that the eventual jury that is selected must be qualified to receive either of these jury instruction templates?
-PJ
New York State Officials using lawfare to establish themselves as multi-million dollar squatters.
Where is the record of transmission of categorization to the Archives?
Bkmk
I hope the Palm Beach jury is not 100% TDS, but who knows.
Trump got 41% of the Palm Beach vote in 2020.
The Rule of Democrat Law, favored by Letitia James and 100% of FR Democrat Party operatives.
You forgot to include the citation to the alleged prior proceeding where the same law was used.
Google, Yahoo, Duck-Duck Go, MSN and Dogpile are your friend. However, when did Trump transmit to the Archives the files he planned to make personal? I’ve searched & searched and just can’t find it.
First, and not to quibble (well, maybe just a little), but I say "strawman" and you say "proposed." A difference without a distinction?
Just two different things. This was a shot across the bow of Jack Smith. The judge said she was considering using one of the two instructions on the applicable law.
In ordering alternative draft text that assumes each scenario to be a correct formulation of the law to be issued to the jury, the judge directed that be done "while reserving counterarguments." Jack Smith, whatever counterarguments you may have, stick a sock in it, I do not want to hear it right now. Jack Smith was just bluntly reminded that he is not the judge.
The judge is NOT asking Jack Smith anything. She is telling him to sit down, shut up, and create an alternative text that assumes each scenario to be a correct formulation of the law. The court is not interested at this time in hearing his counterargument.
Is this the basis that Smith will use to try to get Cannon removed from the case?
For the time being, Jack Smith will sit down, shutup, and do as he has been told. Writing proposed jury instructions is standard fare.
And third, was Cannon's reasoning that the jury hinges on who has the appropriate security level to see the documents in question, so she's proposing "strawman" jury instructions now to make the point that the eventual jury that is selected must be qualified to receive either of these jury instruction templates?
Either the President's decision that the records are personal prevails, or the jury must find that the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the records are Presidential and not Personal. For the jury to make such a decision, they must be given access to to the records. They can be given the appropriate clearance or the records can be declassified. What cannot be done is enter the records as evidence and tell the jury that they can not see the records. The jury cannot convict Trump based on available evidence it cannot see.
The jury need have no special qualifications. The prosecution must find a way to make documents available for jury review, or they cannot be entered into evidence at trial. That is a Smith problem.
Recall that Jack Smith convened a grand jury in Washington, D.C., called witnesses there for months, and changed the venue at the last minute to Florida where he then quickly convened another grand jury to bring charges. Had Smith successfully litigated the case in D.C., only to have SCOTUS declare it was in the wrong jurisdiction, the case would have been dead.
The files themselves had been delivered to Florida before Trump left office. There could be no charge of unlawful possession while Trump was President in D.C. The case was not brought in D.C. because there was no D.C. connection with any wrongdoing.
There is nothing strawman about Judge Cannon's interpretation of the law. The Judge is the arbiter of the law to be applied in the case.
https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/fact-sheet-jack-smith-a-record-that-speaks-for-itself
Among his more notable corruption cases, Smith prosecuted the former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, a Republican. Although Smith scored a conviction against McDonnell, the case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 decision. The Court observed that “there is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” (Politico, 6/27/16). The High Court also rebuked Smith and warned that “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.”Smith prosecuted and convicted former Democrat vice presidential nominee John Edwards. “By not losing on any of the six felony counts for which he was being tried, John Edwards won the biggest victory of his political and legal life . . . A mistrial on five counts and an acquittal on one resulted in a clear — if not complete — legal vindication and a likely fatal setback for federal prosecutors seeking to convict the former U.S. senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee for allegedly violating the Federal Election Campaign Act.” (U.S. News, June 1, 2012).
Smith prosecuted Democrat Bob Menendez on public corruption charges. The case ended in a mistrial. “The way this case started was wrong, the way it was investigated was wrong, the way it was prosecuted was wrong, and the way it was tried was wrong as well,” Menendez said outside the courtroom at the time.” (Washington Examiner, 6/5/23).
[...]
“House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) launched a probe to conduct oversight over Special Counsel Jack Smith’s probe into former President Donald Trump for the handling of papers at Mar-a-Lago. In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, Jordan requested information about the probe to ensure the investigation is not politicized by the FBI, which suffers from a lack of public trust after improperly involving itself in the 2016 Russia hoax.” (Breitbart, 6/2/23). Prior to the House probe, Jordan asked rhetorically, “guess who was the lead person at the Justice Department looking for ways to target and prosecute the very people looking into who Lois Lerner went after? Jack Smith, the guy Merrick Garland just named as special counsel to go after President Trump.” (Breitbart, 11/21/22).
Smith is not in the D.C. District Court anymore, and there is no Wizard behind the curtain in Florida. He needs to stock up on Prep H.
Think of how few people, in a major case, have seized the brass ring of a unanimous rejection by SCOTUS. It is not easy to get your argument to that level only to have them unanimously say you are full of crap. Smith earned that distinction with an admonishment to go with it. Smith summons the image of a goon on a hockey team.
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 LawsConsumer 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.
From the text: an outgoing president’s decision to exclude what he/she considers to be personal records from presidential records transmitted to the National Archives and Records Administration constitutes a president’s categorization of those records as personal under the PRA.Where is the record of transmission of categorization to the Archives?
Judge Cannon stated that what records Trump excluded from presidential records transmitted to NARA constitutes a president's categorization of those records as personal under the PRA.
The records that the Archivist did not get tells the Archivist that those records were classified as personal by the President. Records are categorized upon their creation by filing personal records separately from presidential records.
44 U.S.C. § 2203 (2021)
§2203. Management and custody of Presidential records
[excerpt]
(b) Documentary materials produced or received by the President, the President's staff, or units or individuals in the Executive Office of the President the function of which is to advise or assist the President, shall, to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.
The Trump personal records were filed separately. The personal records were delivered to the Trump residence while he was President.
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, which had no authority to categorize Trump records as Presidential or Personal, recklessly decided to authorize and execute an unconstitutional general search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, to include riffling through Melania's panties. The unlawful search and seizure is coming home to roost.
JOE IN MARGERITAVILLE
My beanie is stellar
It has a propeller
It fits right in with my role
I lit up a doobie
It made a whole new me
Now I'm a freepin' liberal troll
Wastin' away again in Margeritaville
Searchin' for my lost cranial vault
Some people claim there's a substance to blame
But I know, it's society's fault
I don't know the reason
I stayed high all season
Nothin' to show but this Zig Zag tattoo
But it's a real pleasure
A liberal treasure
How it got here I haven't a clue
Wastin' away again in Margeritaville
Searchin' for my lost cranial vault
Some people claim there's a substance to blame
But I know, it's society's fault
I stepped on my roach clip
Threw out my left hip
Had to crawl all the way home
My brain's in a blender
It signalled surrender
To that concoction that helps me hang on
The brownies are baking
And soon they'll be taking
All of my mind and my soul
My brain's in a blender
It signalled surrender
And now I'm a freepin' liberal troll
Wastin' away again in Margeritaville
Searchin' for my lost cranial vault
Some people claim there's a substance to blame
But I know, it's my own damn fault
Yes, some people claim there's a substance to blame
But I know, it's my own damn fault fault.
Judge Cannon STUNS Jack Smith with Brutal Ultimatum and Left RAGES
Judge Cannon stunned Jack Smith and lefty lawyers by ordering the parties to agree on jury instructions that seem to seal the prosecution's fate before the trial even begins.
Robert Gouveia, Esq.
11m:15s
Regarding the Biden administration, which had no authority to categorize Trump records as Presidential or Personal, recklessly decided to authorize and execute an unconstitutional general search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, to include riffling through Melania's panties , if there was a ruling it was unconstitutional then we wouldn’t be here today. It’s only been claimed by some to be unconstitutional.
As you noted yesterday, Judge Cannon has laid the foundation on proceeding. Missing is Trump’s transmission to the Archives as to what was to be personal and presidential. Additionally In a prosecution of a former president (1) for allegedly retaining documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), a jury is permitted to examine a record retained by a former president in his/her personal possession at the end of his/her presidency and make a factual finding as to whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is personal or presidential using the definitions set forth in the Presidential Records Act.
Interesting that this refers to the prosecution of a former president. I thought prosecuting a former president for an official act was unconstitutional. Yet Cannon cited it.
You have to remember that our resident FR Democrat operative disappeared from Free Republic for two weeks after the decisive victory in November 2016 [presumably to sulk after voting for himself instead of President Trump, only to see the Hated Orange One slap down Cankles] - only to re-emerge on the attack against Kellyanne Conway and Ben Carson...
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.