sturg33
I
34 of 34
What are you trying to influence with this post
Trump Trials Watch I
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
What are you trying to influence with this post
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
That's not how the legal process works.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Appeals court won't reconsider ruling that Trump must pay E. Jean Carroll $5M in sex abuse case
A federal appeals court won’t reconsider its ruling upholding a $5 million civil judgment against President Donald Trump in a civil lawsuit alleging he sexually abused a writer in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s.
apnews.com
Trumps appeal of defamation case denied. lol
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
DC jury
Appeals court won't reconsider ruling that Trump must pay E. Jean Carroll $5M in sex abuse case
A federal appeals court won’t reconsider its ruling upholding a $5 million civil judgment against President Donald Trump in a civil lawsuit alleging he sexually abused a writer in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s.
Trumps appeal of defamation case denied. lol
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
The second Trump would be assassin has requested the documents Trump had that he claimed to have declassified. The government is saying they can't because they are classified and highly sensitive national security documents. Unfortunately he got Judge Cannon so we know she is going to what she thinks is in Trumps best interests.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
New York appeals court throws out Trump's more than $500 million fraud judgment
The ruling by the state Appellate Division spares the president and his companies from having to pay an award they had warned would severely damage his company.
www.nbcnews.com
In a big win for the felon the appellate court has tossed his civil trial verdict based on the penalty being excessive.
"[W]hile harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the State," two of the judges wrote.
Two of the judges were in favor of upholding the fraud finding but dismissing the financial penalties, two of the judges were in favor of ordering a new trial, and one of the judges would have dismissed the case.
A lot of prosecutors run on a platform of being tough on crime or cleaning up the streets. Do you think such prosecutors might be consistently botching their jobs and over-incarcerating?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I was waiting for the Partisan Poop Patrol to swing by and give us the talking points from the fake news media. 4 of the 5 Judges upheld the finding of fraud and that harm had been done by it. Some of them ruled the fine to be excessive which I dont know how they reach that conclusion. I am going to do a deep dive on the verdict soon. The amount was set at the amount Trump saved by misrepresenting the risk the bank was taking. But here in America when you commit a crime to save 10 million they fine you 500k and threaten to double it if you do it again. So this is on brand for the court. 2 of the Judges thought the fraud verdict should not have been a summary judgement and gone to trial. I dont know why. There wasnt a whole lot in dispute. Trump tards cry about 2 or 3 things out of the 50 fraudulent things they did. For instance his penthouse. Trump claims to have one of the greatest memories of all the times. There is proof knew his penthouse size when he is quoted as saying it when it was being built. Theres evidence he kept increasing the number. Theres evidence he was notified that his number was wrong. Theres evidence they sat on that until they were told there was a story going to be released about it. But we are supposed to believe it was just an error and they fixed it as soon as they realized the mistake.
So anyways, gonna take a deep dive today at some point. As opposed to the Partisan Poop Patrol who will monitor social media for their next set of talking points.
So anyways, gonna take a deep dive today at some point. As opposed to the Partisan Poop Patrol who will monitor social media for their next set of talking points.
None of the judges could agree what to do with the case so the penalty held.
2 judges wanted the penalty eliminated but the charges held.
However, 2 of the judges thought the trial was a sham (which it was) and wanted a retrial.
One other judge wanted to dismiss completely. You should read his opinion. Sounds a lot like what I've written over the past year.
The whole idea of this trial was a farce. The subjective nature of property value makes it so.
The only thing that Trump did wrong was the size of the penthouse. Whether it was a innocent mistake or guilty a fine should have been levied on that and move on.
The liability on this case will not hold either at the Appeals court or SCOTUS.
I'm shocked that Trump actually got a minor win in NY.;
2 judges wanted the penalty eliminated but the charges held.
However, 2 of the judges thought the trial was a sham (which it was) and wanted a retrial.
One other judge wanted to dismiss completely. You should read his opinion. Sounds a lot like what I've written over the past year.
The whole idea of this trial was a farce. The subjective nature of property value makes it so.
The only thing that Trump did wrong was the size of the penthouse. Whether it was a innocent mistake or guilty a fine should have been levied on that and move on.
The liability on this case will not hold either at the Appeals court or SCOTUS.
I'm shocked that Trump actually got a minor win in NY.;
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Presiding Justice Renwick and I find that Supreme Court correctly found defendants liable. We agree with Supreme Court that the Attorney General acted well within her lawful power in bringing this action, and that she vindicated a public interest in doing so. We also find that Supreme Court properly ruled only on claims that are timely under the applicable statute of limitations. However, we would modify the remedy ordered by Supreme Court. While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture, the court’s disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Because none of the three decisions garners a majority, Justices Higgitt and Rosado join the decretal of this decision for the sole purpose of ensuring finality, thereby affording the parties a path for appeal to the Court of Appeals. Like Justice Friedman, we commend them for doing so. Unlike Justice Friedman, we do not find that this necessary measure is unfair to defendants.
The loan documents’ insistence on the annual submission of accurate SFCs is definitive objective evidence of the SFCs’ materiality. The quantitative factor (which Justice Higgitt refers to as the “magnitudes of disparity”) is also objectively material to the loans as the disparities ranged between $812 million to $2.2 billion, or 17.27% to 38.51% of President Trump’s net worth, depending on the year. The objective materiality test in securities fraud cases considers both qualitative and quantitative factors (see ECA & Local 134 IBEW Joint Pension Trust of Chicago v JP Morgan Chase Co., 553 F3d 187, 204 [2d Cir 2009]). Supreme Court considered only the quantitative factor. The “context” in ECA, was that an investment bank’s alleged $2 billion mischaracterization in its financial disclosures was not “staggering” (and thus, not quantitatively material) because $2 billion amounted to approximately 0.3% of the bank’s total assets of $715 billion (id.). Indeed, as ECA noted, the federal courts have used a “five percent numerical threshold [as] a good starting place for assessing the materiality” of a misstatement or omission (id.). Here, placed in context, the disparities were quantitatively material as a matter of law as the amounts were significatively over the five percent numerical “starting place.”
The SFCs were similarly objectively material to the Zurich Policy, but for different reasons. Between 2007 and 2021 Zurich North America underwrote a $6 million (single) and $20 million (aggregate) surety bond program for the Trump Organization. Under the surety bond program, President Trump was required to personally indemnify Zurich for any claims paid under the program and to disclose his SFCs to Zurich annually in an “onsite” review, where documents could be reviewed but not copied or taken from the meeting. Zurich underwriter Claudia Mouradian started working on the Trump Organization account in October or November 2017. She testified at her deposition that in reviewing President Trump’s 2018 and 2019 SFCs onsite, she wrote notes on the amount of cash that was reflected in the SFCs. She testified that the amount of available cash was important because Zurich looks to an insured’s cash assets for repayment on claims. She explained that it would have been important for her to have known that President Trump did not control approximately $24 million that the SFCs included as cash because then “the true amount of cash held by the Trump Organization would be less, less than what is stated.” Mouradian further testified that during her review, Weisselberg told her that the real estate valuations in the SFCs were done by professional appraisers, which was important to her because she might not have relied on the valuations in the same way had she known that the statement was not true. Based on her onsite review of the 2018 and 2019 SFCs, Zurich renewed the Trump Organization’s coverage for 2019 and 2020 with the same premium.
Nor is the objective materiality of the estimated current values any less important because, as testified to by defendants’ witnesses, the sophisticated counterparties would have understood that the SFCs were only a “roadmap” or a “starting point” for performing their own analysis and/or because they performed their own due diligence.31 By characterizing the SFCs as a roadmap or a starting point, defendants concede that the sophisticated lenders did rely on SFCs.32 Moreover, that the banks performed due diligence but failed to uncover the fraudulent conduct does not alter the evidence that defendants engaged in repeated or persistent fraudulent acts in violation of Executive Law § 63(12).
For example, Justice Higgitt cites to Mar-a-Lago, adopting defendants’ explanation that many of the assets are “simply too unique” for there to be relevant market data. The problem, however, is not that an attempt to appraise Mar-a-Lago within the meaning ascribed by the Attorney General and Supreme Court would be futile, as Justice Higgitt reasons. Rather, the problem is that the Trump Organization lumped Mar-a-Lago into a group of more than a dozen properties in the SFCs, which hid that they overvalued the property. Mar-a-Lago was overvalued because the Trump Organization ignored the reality that the “Land,” as described in the Deed of Development Rights, was conveyed to the National Trust for perpetual use as a social club. The Trump Organization ignored this reality when they used sales of other Palm Beach residential properties that had no use restrictions to generate a “Value per acre” which they then multiplied by the total acres of Mar-a-Lago even though the Club occupies the “Land.” In addition, Note 3 to the SFCs regarding “Club Facilities and Related Real Estate” valuations provides that in “those cases where a residential component exists, comparable sales were utilized in arriving at their values.” This is another indicia of the SFCs’ fraudulent nature. How can defendants say that Mar-aLago is “simply too unique” for there to be relevant market data but value the property using “comparable sales”?
Neither the Attorney General, nor Supreme Court, ever valued Mar-a-Lago at precisely $18 million at the low end or $27 million at the high end. Rather, the record demonstrates that Mar-a-Lago’s valuations were fraudulently inflated by material amounts based on the substantial discrepancy between the County’s tax valuation (valuations to which defendants agreed) and defendants’ valuations, which failed to account for the property’s restrictions.
Because none of the three decisions garners a majority, Justices Higgitt and Rosado join the decretal of this decision for the sole purpose of ensuring finality, thereby affording the parties a path for appeal to the Court of Appeals. Like Justice Friedman, we commend them for doing so. Unlike Justice Friedman, we do not find that this necessary measure is unfair to defendants.
The loan documents’ insistence on the annual submission of accurate SFCs is definitive objective evidence of the SFCs’ materiality. The quantitative factor (which Justice Higgitt refers to as the “magnitudes of disparity”) is also objectively material to the loans as the disparities ranged between $812 million to $2.2 billion, or 17.27% to 38.51% of President Trump’s net worth, depending on the year. The objective materiality test in securities fraud cases considers both qualitative and quantitative factors (see ECA & Local 134 IBEW Joint Pension Trust of Chicago v JP Morgan Chase Co., 553 F3d 187, 204 [2d Cir 2009]). Supreme Court considered only the quantitative factor. The “context” in ECA, was that an investment bank’s alleged $2 billion mischaracterization in its financial disclosures was not “staggering” (and thus, not quantitatively material) because $2 billion amounted to approximately 0.3% of the bank’s total assets of $715 billion (id.). Indeed, as ECA noted, the federal courts have used a “five percent numerical threshold [as] a good starting place for assessing the materiality” of a misstatement or omission (id.). Here, placed in context, the disparities were quantitatively material as a matter of law as the amounts were significatively over the five percent numerical “starting place.”
The SFCs were similarly objectively material to the Zurich Policy, but for different reasons. Between 2007 and 2021 Zurich North America underwrote a $6 million (single) and $20 million (aggregate) surety bond program for the Trump Organization. Under the surety bond program, President Trump was required to personally indemnify Zurich for any claims paid under the program and to disclose his SFCs to Zurich annually in an “onsite” review, where documents could be reviewed but not copied or taken from the meeting. Zurich underwriter Claudia Mouradian started working on the Trump Organization account in October or November 2017. She testified at her deposition that in reviewing President Trump’s 2018 and 2019 SFCs onsite, she wrote notes on the amount of cash that was reflected in the SFCs. She testified that the amount of available cash was important because Zurich looks to an insured’s cash assets for repayment on claims. She explained that it would have been important for her to have known that President Trump did not control approximately $24 million that the SFCs included as cash because then “the true amount of cash held by the Trump Organization would be less, less than what is stated.” Mouradian further testified that during her review, Weisselberg told her that the real estate valuations in the SFCs were done by professional appraisers, which was important to her because she might not have relied on the valuations in the same way had she known that the statement was not true. Based on her onsite review of the 2018 and 2019 SFCs, Zurich renewed the Trump Organization’s coverage for 2019 and 2020 with the same premium.
Nor is the objective materiality of the estimated current values any less important because, as testified to by defendants’ witnesses, the sophisticated counterparties would have understood that the SFCs were only a “roadmap” or a “starting point” for performing their own analysis and/or because they performed their own due diligence.31 By characterizing the SFCs as a roadmap or a starting point, defendants concede that the sophisticated lenders did rely on SFCs.32 Moreover, that the banks performed due diligence but failed to uncover the fraudulent conduct does not alter the evidence that defendants engaged in repeated or persistent fraudulent acts in violation of Executive Law § 63(12).
For example, Justice Higgitt cites to Mar-a-Lago, adopting defendants’ explanation that many of the assets are “simply too unique” for there to be relevant market data. The problem, however, is not that an attempt to appraise Mar-a-Lago within the meaning ascribed by the Attorney General and Supreme Court would be futile, as Justice Higgitt reasons. Rather, the problem is that the Trump Organization lumped Mar-a-Lago into a group of more than a dozen properties in the SFCs, which hid that they overvalued the property. Mar-a-Lago was overvalued because the Trump Organization ignored the reality that the “Land,” as described in the Deed of Development Rights, was conveyed to the National Trust for perpetual use as a social club. The Trump Organization ignored this reality when they used sales of other Palm Beach residential properties that had no use restrictions to generate a “Value per acre” which they then multiplied by the total acres of Mar-a-Lago even though the Club occupies the “Land.” In addition, Note 3 to the SFCs regarding “Club Facilities and Related Real Estate” valuations provides that in “those cases where a residential component exists, comparable sales were utilized in arriving at their values.” This is another indicia of the SFCs’ fraudulent nature. How can defendants say that Mar-aLago is “simply too unique” for there to be relevant market data but value the property using “comparable sales”?
Neither the Attorney General, nor Supreme Court, ever valued Mar-a-Lago at precisely $18 million at the low end or $27 million at the high end. Rather, the record demonstrates that Mar-a-Lago’s valuations were fraudulently inflated by material amounts based on the substantial discrepancy between the County’s tax valuation (valuations to which defendants agreed) and defendants’ valuations, which failed to account for the property’s restrictions.
Last edited:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
2 of the Judges said the fines were excessive not that there shouldnt be any fine
2 of the Judges said the fraud determination should have went to trial and not be summary judgement. Not that he was innocent of those charges
Judge Friedman makes a stunning case for Trumps next Supreme Court nomination. I will be shocked if he isnt nominated. Holy shit his opinion is just wrecked by the other justices. Justice Friedman literally said he doesnt think such a big smart manly man like Trump would agree to such a restrictive deal for his Maralago property. Wtf is that about. Justice Friedman uses media articles from after the trial submitted by the defendant when no new evidence is allowed. Justice Friedman said that Trumps "undisputed billionaire status" and "undisputed extraordinary wealth" meant his SFCS meant nothing. Is this a Justice or Trumps defense lawyer here.
Tapate50
Well-known member
If he personally indemnified the bonds what are we talking about ? He would have had to repay the bond amounts personally.
If the insurance carrier Zurich wanted independent numbers done- they have the power to do so- and did not.
I’m still not sure who has been wronged here.
If the insurance carrier Zurich wanted independent numbers done- they have the power to do so- and did not.
I’m still not sure who has been wronged here.
"This is another indicia of the SFCs’ fraudulent nature. How can defendants say that Mar-aLago is “simply too unique” for there to be relevant market data but value the property using “comparable sales”?
Neither the Attorney General, nor Supreme Court, ever valued Mar-a-Lago at precisely $18 million at the low end or $27 million at the high end. Rather, the record demonstrates that Mar-a-Lago’s valuations were fraudulently inflated by material amounts based on the substantial discrepancy between the County’s tax valuation (valuations to which defendants agreed) and defendants’ valuations, which failed to account for the property’s restrictions."
This is a farce. The AG and SCOTUS might not have but the judge did so. Read his judgment.
Their assessment here is 100% wrong. Even with the restrictions the property is worth what Trump said it was.
In fact a realtor went on the stand and said that the property is worth twice what Trump said it was.
How can he have committed fraud when his assessment is in the ballpark?
As I said they are trying to get him on subjective bullshit.
Neither the Attorney General, nor Supreme Court, ever valued Mar-a-Lago at precisely $18 million at the low end or $27 million at the high end. Rather, the record demonstrates that Mar-a-Lago’s valuations were fraudulently inflated by material amounts based on the substantial discrepancy between the County’s tax valuation (valuations to which defendants agreed) and defendants’ valuations, which failed to account for the property’s restrictions."
This is a farce. The AG and SCOTUS might not have but the judge did so. Read his judgment.
Their assessment here is 100% wrong. Even with the restrictions the property is worth what Trump said it was.
In fact a realtor went on the stand and said that the property is worth twice what Trump said it was.
How can he have committed fraud when his assessment is in the ballpark?
As I said they are trying to get him on subjective bullshit.