New York’s Trump Fraud Findings Refute Judge’s Conclusions: And the entire New York real estate market is noticing with justifiable alarm.

American Thinker ^ | 02/22/2024 | Jay Tucker

[joesbucks]

I would suggest you read it. You would see exactly what was stated and not through someone else’s filters.

[Chgogal]

If this ruling is not overturned in a timely manner (before the election) New York City is and should be doomed. They say “money talks”, “money” should be screaming bloody murder.

[Texas Fossil]

I would never invest in New York now: Kevin O’Leary (Feb 19, 2024)
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6347228127112

---

‘Shark Tank’ star Kevin O’Leary says he won’t invest in ‘loser’ New York after $355M judgment against Trump
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/shark-tank-star-kevin-o-leary-says-he-won-t-invest-in-loser-new-york-after-355m-judgment-against-trump/ar-BB1iAuZ7

[DiogenesLamp]

I would suggest you read it. You would see exactly what was stated and not through someone else’s filters.

I have a predisposition to believe that it is nonsense, and that I will be furious with myself if I go to the trouble of reading it, and then find out it *IS* nonsense.

You could help a brother out by telling me that it makes some sort of rational, and by that I mean moral and just, point.

Without some sort of assurance, I will dismiss it out of hand.

[DiogenesLamp]

I reiterate my oft stated point. Our judicial system is a clown show.

It would be a comedy were it not such a tragedy.

[Fledermaus]

Trump then should hire a firm that implodes buildings. Give her a giant pile of rubble.

[Fledermaus]

That was funny.

[Political Junkie Too]

I'm trying to piece together the various positions on this case so that I can understand the issues being debated.

I'll start by posting the exact law in question:

SECTION 63 General duties

12. 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, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. 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. 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.

In connection with any such application, the attorney general is authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and rules. Such authorization shall not abate or terminate by reason of any action or proceeding brought by the attorney general under this section.

I bolded what I believe is the relevant phrases to this debate around this case.

1. As I understand it, this law is a consumer protection law intended to protect the people from predatory scammers (e.g., phone scams, "found money" scams, IRS scams, computer lockout scams, false warranty scams, false billings scams, etc.). It was never intended to be interpreted to apply to negotiations between two business entities.

   That is why there is language about "in the name of the people," "restitution and damages," "award the relief," "schemes, deceptions, false representations," and most importantly " repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person." This would clearly indicate that the law was targeted to phone bank operations, door-to-door scammers, etc., who run the same scheme on person after person after person.

   We used to call them "flimflam artists."

2. Regarding its application to the Trump businesses and his bankers, the law refers to "restitution and damages." Obviously, one would have to identify the damages, and determine who are the damaged parties to get restitution.

   For this law to apply to Trump, the meaning of the law would have to be turned upside-down: Trump becomes the predator, the banks become the scammed, and there has to be a pattern of repeated schemes to damage multiple banks via fraudulent misrepresentations. In order to accomplish this, it would have to be proven that:

   1. Trump was performing a "scheme" on the banks and was not following accepted business practices relevant to the industry or business sector.

   2. The banks were, in fact, scammed into losing money.

   3. The banks can identify the amount of damage and can be made whole via restitution.

3. Regarding "directing restitution and damages," the law references all monies "shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law." Let's take a look at the referenced section.

   11. (a) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary and except as provided by paragraph (b) of this subdivision, no state agency or a state official or employee acting in their official capacity, may pay out or otherwise disburse funds obtained as the result of a judgment, stipulation, decree, agreement to settle, assurance of discontinuance, or other legal instrument resolving any claim or cause of action, whether filed or unfiled, actual or potential, and whether arising under common law, equity, or any provision of law, except pursuant to an appropriation. Such funds shall not be retained by any state official, employee, or agency in any fund held in the sole custody of a state agency for a period of more than thirty days but shall, consistent with section seven of article seven of the state constitution be deposited in the state treasury, or fund under its management as may be directed by statute or as otherwise directed by the comptroller with the concurrence of the director of the budget.

   (b) Paragraph (a) of this subdivision shall not apply to (1) moneys to be distributed to the federal government, to a local government, or to any holder of a bond or other debt instrument issued by the state, any public authority, or any public benefit corporation; (2) moneys to be distributed solely or exclusively as a payment of damages or restitution to individuals or entities that were specifically injured or harmed by the defendant's or settling party's conduct and that are identified in, or can be identified by the terms of, the relevant judgment, agreement to settle, assurance of discontinuance, or relevant instrument resolving the claim or cause of action;

   [skip]

   As a consumer protection law, paragraph (b) of subdivision eleven of section four requires that the judgement against Trump must be distributed as "payment of damages or restitution to individuals or entities that were specifically injured or harmed" as stated in 63(12) above. Who are these people? Has Letitia James identified who receives the restitution from the $350 million judgement?

   If James cannot identify the recipients of the judgement, it is because the law was misapplied and twisted into unrecognizability. I would argue that the fine of $350 million violates New York state law because subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law prohibits the Attorney General from using this money for any other purpose than as restitution as a result of this judgement.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

See my post #68.

-PJ

[Fledermaus]

Very good

[DiogenesLamp]

:)

[himno hero]

Once the banks agree it’s a fair valuation. They’re out there to minimize risk exposure to protect their capital in the loan.

[enumerated]

Not so.

I’ve already heard at least 5 real estate magnates publicly express alarm and disgust over this ruling - saying they will not invest one red cent in NY.

They know this particular ruling was politically motivated and is directed solely at Trump, but the the idea that a judge can arbitrarily turn contract law on its head has them all completely turned off. There is a ton of careful risk analysis done before these huge investors will make a deal - and favorable political and regulatory risks are a huge part of it.

These big investors are considering developments so huge that they literally won’t invest without first talking to the Governor of the state and getting some promises regarding power grids, tax deals, and other regulatory considerations.

This one mega investor was talking about how he and his peer investors divide the states into “winner states” and “loser states”. He said NY was already a “loser state” but as of last week it became 100% untouchable.