Law Appelate Judges decimate Leticia James and Judge Edgeron verdict against Trump

[west42]

Fantasize about plastic nipples all you want, but it happens to be a perfectly valid point to make that a man who is a serial criminal leads a cult that demands for him to be completely above the law. Kind of an important and concerning issue.

I like the cult angle. You should develop that some more

 

[HOLA]

I like the cult angle. You should develop that some more

It's already been developed extensively by psychiatrists and cult experts who have written about it for almost 10 years now.

 

[west42]

It's already been developed extensively by psychiatrists and cult experts who have written about it for almost 10 years now.

I meant Trump supporters. I assume you're talking the never Trumpers like you and dark balls that are at appr 50% of the posts itt

 

[Streeter]

What's next, James for mayor?
Rhetorical question.

Lol. NY a tually has a decent mayor for a Dem. Unlike a sheep he actually thi ks for himself which is why alot of Dems can't stsnd him now. James i am sure they would love tho.

Ask anyone who lived in NYC for last 30 years if it was better then or now. Answer will be a resounding then by all outside. Even libs I know in NYC admit this no hesitation. Granted i dont know any progressives or the like.........

 

[Hugh G Rection]

Stop panicking. It's embarassing.

I don't think it's panicking if the decision has't been rendered yet.

I do agree the judges appear to be leaning towards overturning but I wouldn't break out the bunting just yet.

 

[BFoe]

You’re an idiot

A 10 second internet search suffice

Try it

“Trump felony conviction”

lol dumbass

Bud, what are you talking about? @HOLA is correct.

Trump’s felony case was the NY criminal trial presided over by Judge Juan Merchan.

This thread is about a civil case which was presided over by Judge Arthur Engoron. This judgement is a civil judgment, it has nothing at all to do with Trump’s felony convictions. Those were a totally different case. Holy shit.

 

[HOLA]

You’re an idiot

A 10 second internet search suffice

Try it

“Trump felony conviction”

lol dumbass

I'm actually jealous of your ability (shared by your brethren) to be this confidently incorrect. I think life would be much easier if I could do this.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

"so sayeth the shepherd, so sayeth the flock!"

No collusion! Witch hunt!

 

[AWilder]

Bud, what are you talking about? @HOLA is correct.

Trump’s felony case was the NY criminal trial presided over by Judge Juan Merchan.

This thread is about a civil case which was presided over by Judge Arthur Engoron. This judgement is a civil judgment, it has nothing at all to do with Trump’s felony convictions. Those were a totally different case. Holy shit.

Lmao

 

[Scerpi]

I'm actually jealous of your ability (shared by your brethren) to be this confidently incorrect. I think life would be much easier if I could do this.

Well shit... Congrates. Got me this time.

 

[Darkballs]

I meant Trump supporters. I assume you're talking the never Trumpers like you and dark balls that are at appr 50% of the posts itt

Pretty sure he was talking about the trumpers who never have the courage to tag.

Anyway, you were talking about cult members and how it's normal to tape maxi pads to the side of your head to show support for trump......

 

[jeremyemilio]

Do you ever think it would play better if you just explained how trump's valuations of his property were sound? Like, it could be a very narrow point. For instance: The state argued that valuing your property as something that literally cannot be built on that land (multiple private residences, due to zoning) isn't accurate because, those properties do not exist on your land and can never legally exist on your land.

Just explain to us in your own words, how the state erred here. This should be easy for you, as it would be essential to claiming trump wasn't committing fraud. It would also prove the WR that you weren't just crying without any understanding of the actual case.

Now, lets all sit back and watch you not even try.

I'm not a lawyer, but it feels like the appellant judges are bringing to the fore exactly what a lot of Trump's more knowledgeable defenders have been pointing out. Namely that:

a. The banks who did the deal are not claiming to be defrauded and,
b. Probably more importantly, the banks are "sophisticated" parties who had the power to do their own audit and either agree, or disagree and set their own valuation.

I don't know how they're going to rule, but that does feel like quite sound reasoning to me in reference to a fraud case.

As someone who is much more familiar with the law, are you saying that argument is without any merit? If so, are you stating outright that the appellant judges are asking the questions to round out the argument, but are likely to rule against the appeal? Or are you stating that it's a sound argument but open to interpretation and, so, may go either way (which is an entirely different sentiment, in my estimation).

c. As somewhat of a sidenote, the judges have also brought up one other primary criticism of ruling that has been voiced which is that this sort of thing hasn't been prosecuted in this sort of way in the past (and may even be fairly common practice, if Kevin O'Leary is to be trusted). This rings true, as well, as I certainly know of people who have taken out loans on their homes and have attempted to value their home as high as possible to maximize their loan. All I've ever heard to happen in those cases is that the bank declines and sets it's own value; I've never heard of them being brought up on fraud charges. In fact, I'd never even considered that something like that could be characterized as fraud.

This stuff always brings me down the rabbit hole of being considered a Trump fan or apologist, but I'm honestly just looking at the case as I see it, and it really does feel to me like these criticisms make a lot of sense. But again, not a lawyer. Right now I'm inclined to wait and see what the appeals court rules and to trust that.

 

[Siver!]

Imagine being one of the shertifa bros, endlessly posting for 100s of pages, about "felon Trump".

how embarrassing.....

Trump could sue any media company calling him a felon after

We've all known that these cases were fraudulent since the beginning. They only happened to rile up the lefts room temp IQ voting base so they could have their 'mUh fElOn' talking points. These will all be thrown out on appeal and the left will pretend their attempts at full blown fascism never happened.

 

[Darkballs]

I'm not a lawyer, but it feels like the appellant judges are bringing to the fore exactly what a lot of Trump's more knowledgeable defenders have been pointing out. Namely that:

a. The banks who did the deal are not claiming to be defrauded and,
b. Probably more importantly, the banks are "sophisticated" parties who had the power to do their own audit and either agree, or disagree and set their own valuation.

First off, I should preface this by saying I haven't read the briefs of either party, and don't practice in NY. That being said:

I don't think the appeals court will reverse on an issue of fact. If a judge or jury found fraud as a matter of fact, then that won't get appealed unless it's truly egregious. And by that I mean, no person could reasonably find X because there was truly no evidence of X presented at trial.

These two arguments by trump, don't meet that burden. First off, the bank is most certainly claiming fraud. They refuse to do business or loan any more money to trump. What his defense did, was drag in an employee or two who job at the bank was not to manage risk or approve the terms of loans. They were charged with landing whales. Trump was a whale, they got his business. So they claim they still would go for it, but they don't speak for the bank.

There no reason to apply this logic to the loan department. That's a pure math game where some nerd crunches numbers and then draws up the terms to manage the risk of the loan. In this case, the size of the loan was greater than the value of the asset requesting the loan. No way the terms stay the same if the bank wasn't lied to.

As someone who is much more familiar with the law, are you saying that argument is without any merit? If so, are you stating outright that the appellant judges are asking the questions to round out the argument, but are likely to rule against the appeal? Or are you stating that it's a sound argument but open to interpretation and, so, may go either way (which is an entirely different sentiment, in my estimation).

I'm just saying that, in my experience, it's hard to read which way a judge is leaning just off their line of questioning. Maybe that's the case with some judges, and I'm not familiar with this bunch. But I feel that good judges just use pointed questions to knock out the bullshit and have the parties present a narrow legal argument towards the actual point on appeal.

For example, in a case where the issue on appeal was whether or not the Fed violated the 5th Amendment when seizing property, a judge may ask questions just around the "notice," requirement. I'd say the judge might be tipping his hat by suggesting that this is the singular issue he doesn't feel is adequately defined by the case law the parties are citing. So he's trying to push the sides to sway him on the only point he feels matters.

c. As somewhat of a sidenote, the judges have also brought up one other primary criticism of ruling that has been voiced which is that this sort of thing hasn't been prosecuted in this sort of way in the past (and may even be fairly common practice, if Kevin O'Leary is to be trusted). This rings true, as well, as I certainly know of people who have taken out loans on their homes and have attempted to value their home as high as possible to maximize their loan. All I've ever heard to happen in those cases is that the bank declines and sets it's own value; I've never heard of them being brought up on fraud charges. In fact, I'd never even considered that something like that could be characterized as fraud.

I get that, but feel that trump went quite beyond just an exaggerated valuation. I think they'd let that slide if it was reasonable. But I just can't get there with this.

To take just one example of fraud: The State argued that Mar-a-Lago should be valued as a Golf Course in Florida at such and such acres with such and such property on it. Trump valued the property as if he built several mansions on the property and then proceeded to sell them at the absolute highest value (I think he claimed like $200million per house.)

The problem with that is twofold: 1) The houses don't exist. And 2) they can never exist on that property, because it's not zoned as such. It's zoned as protected land. Trump even signed an agreement that he would not alter the property. It has to stay a golf course/resort. Trump even petitioned them to change the zoning, and it was denied. So there was no chance it was gonna be used as a neighborhood with the uber-rich buying top of the line mansions.
It would be like in your scenario, rather than just exaggerate the size or condition of a single-family residence, your neighbor instead valued his property as if he had a 30-story 200-unit apartment complex, when there's no way he could ever build that on his property.

And to take another example: Trump straight up tripled the size of his penthouse apartment in trump plaza. Said it was 30,000sq ft when it was closer to 10,000. The State pointed out that you have apps you can use on an Iphone that can tell you the square footage of a place just by using the phones camera, and will be like 95% accurate. Hell, just a layman can look at something and tell the difference between 30K and 10k sq. ft.

That's not an honest mistake. That's just straight fraud.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I'm not a lawyer, but it feels like the appellant judges are bringing to the fore exactly what a lot of Trump's more knowledgeable defenders have been pointing out. Namely that:

a. The banks who did the deal are not claiming to be defrauded and,
b. Probably more importantly, the banks are "sophisticated" parties who had the power to do their own audit and either agree, or disagree and set their own valuation.

I don't know how they're going to rule, but that does feel like quite sound reasoning to me in reference to a fraud case.

As someone who is much more familiar with the law, are you saying that argument is without any merit? If so, are you stating outright that the appellant judges are asking the questions to round out the argument, but are likely to rule against the appeal? Or are you stating that it's a sound argument but open to interpretation and, so, may go either way (which is an entirely different sentiment, in my estimation).

c. As somewhat of a sidenote, the judges have also brought up one other primary criticism of ruling that has been voiced which is that this sort of thing hasn't been prosecuted in this sort of way in the past (and may even be fairly common practice, if Kevin O'Leary is to be trusted). This rings true, as well, as I certainly know of people who have taken out loans on their homes and have attempted to value their home as high as possible to maximize their loan. All I've ever heard to happen in those cases is that the bank declines and sets it's own value; I've never heard of them being brought up on fraud charges. In fact, I'd never even considered that something like that could be characterized as fraud.

This stuff always brings me down the rabbit hole of being considered a Trump fan or apologist, but I'm honestly just looking at the case as I see it, and it really does feel to me like these criticisms make a lot of sense. But again, not a lawyer. Right now I'm inclined to wait and see what the appeals court rules and to trust that.

In the end when dealing with Trump isn't it the SCOTUS that will have to make the final ruling?

 

[idrankyourbeer]

First off, I should preface this by saying I haven't read the briefs of either party, and don't practice in NY. That being said:

I don't think the appeals court will reverse on an issue of fact. If a judge or jury found fraud as a matter of fact, then that won't get appealed unless it's truly egregious. And by that I mean, no person could reasonably find X because there was truly no evidence of X presented at trial.

These two arguments by trump, don't meet that burden. First off, the bank is most certainly claiming fraud. They refuse to do business or loan any more money to trump. What his defense did, was drag in an employee or two who job at the bank was not to manage risk or approve the terms of loans. They were charged with landing whales. Trump was a whale, they got his business. So they claim they still would go for it, but they don't speak for the bank.

There no reason to apply this logic to the loan department. That's a pure math game where some nerd crunches numbers and then draws up the terms to manage the risk of the loan. In this case, the size of the loan was greater than the value of the asset requesting the loan. No way the terms stay the same if the bank wasn't lied to.






I'm just saying that, in my experience, it's hard to read which way a judge is leaning just off their line of questioning. Maybe that's the case with some judges, and I'm not familiar with this bunch. But I feel that good judges just use pointed questions to knock out the bullshit and have the parties present a narrow legal argument towards the actual point on appeal.

For example, in a case where the issue on appeal was whether or not the Fed violated the 5th Amendment when seizing property, a judge may ask questions just around the "notice," requirement. I'd say the judge might be tipping his hat by suggesting that this is the singular issue he doesn't feel is adequately defined by the case law the parties are citing. So he's trying to push the sides to sway him on the only point he feels matters.




I get that, but feel that trump went quite beyond just an exaggerated valuation. I think they'd let that slide if it was reasonable. But I just can't get there with this.

To take just one example of fraud: The State argued that Mar-a-Lago should be valued as a Golf Course in Florida at such and such acres with such and such property on it. Trump valued the property as if he built several mansions on the property and then proceeded to sell them at the absolute highest value (I think he claimed like $200million per house.)

The problem with that is twofold: 1) The houses don't exist. And 2) they can never exist on that property, because it's not zoned as such. It's zoned as protected land. Trump even signed an agreement that he would not alter the property. It has to stay a golf course/resort. Trump even petitioned them to change the zoning, and it was denied. So there was no chance it was gonna be used as a neighborhood with the uber-rich buying top of the line mansions.
It would be like in your scenario, rather than just exaggerate the size or condition of a single-family residence, your neighbor instead valued his property as if he had a 30-story 200-unit apartment complex, when there's no way he could ever build that on his property.

And to take another example: Trump straight up tripled the size of his penthouse apartment in trump plaza. Said it was 30,000sq ft when it was closer to 10,000. The State pointed out that you have apps you can use on an Iphone that can tell you the square footage of a place just by using the phones camera, and will be like 95% accurate. Hell, just a layman can look at something and tell the difference between 30K and 10k sq. ft.

That's not an honest mistake. That's just straight fraud.

yeah they won't be touching the ruling. at most they'll just knock a few bucks off his penalties and then fraudy von schitzenpantz will go crying to the supreme court.

it's so unfair that i can commit acts of fraud and not get away with it! lying about my property sizes and value from decades ago just to get a bigger loan that i wasn't entitled to is part of my presidential duties! hey ya'll want to donate me some of your money so that i can send clarence thomas on a cruise?

 

[High Test With da Best]

Don't forget he puts ketchup on steak

War room thread destined for the Mayberry... refreshing!