Good day all. Last winter, the crooked New York Attorney General, Latitia James decided to try and ruin the Greatest President of the 21st Century, Donald Trump and his family financially. To do this, she brought a civil case against President Trump claiming fraud in one of his business deals.
The case was heard in front of one of the more corrupt judges in New York who had already decided the case within seconds of finding out it was landing in his court. I’ve covered the case and how the judge Arthur Engoron, decided that President Trump’s home, Mar-a-lago was only worth about $18 million dollars and not the $300-$500 million both President Trump and the bank, (along with every Realtor in Palm Beach), that it was estimated. Engoron then decided that President Trump should be fined $450 million.
This was a blatant political case and a miscarriage of justice. It was a forgone conclusion that President Trump’s team was going to appeal. Now the appeal had been heard in the New York Appellate court and it looks like the judges weren’t to happy with Engoron and James. Here are the details from the Federalist:
Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron ordered in February former President Donald Trump to pay an approximate $450 million penalty in a civil fraud case in which there were no victims. Now, a New York appellate court is raising questions regarding the “troubling” penalty and Attorney General Letitia James’ justification for bringing the case in the first place.
James accused Trump of inflating his personal wealth to get better loan terms. Trump, for example, valued his Mar-a-Lago estate at between $427 million and $612 million, Forbes reported. Engoron, however, cited a one-off local Palm Beach County appraiser who valued the property as low as $18 million. Some experts have reportedly valued the sprawling property in the hundreds of millions.
As I recall, That perv Engoron, found one low ball estimate on Mar-a-lago and ignored all the other estimates that were closer to the actual value of the complex. At the time people who were following this case were asking one thing.
Enogoron ultimately ordered Trump to pay $354 million plus an additional $100 million in interest. Trump posted a $175 million bond in April and appealed the ruling.
The way Engoron structured this was to force President Trump to sell properties. In fact, James was salivating at seizing some of the Trump flagship properties. Trump’s legal team appealed the judgment’s terms and were able to get relief. President Trump then raised the cash for the bond, much to Letitia James’s disgust. (That cow really wanted to take Trump’s property)
Trump’s team argued on Thursday before the New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department that the case was a “clear-cut violation of the statute of limitations,” and that the statute used to bring charges against the former president ultimately did not justify the action taken.
The recent cases, both civil and criminal, were all politically motivated. The first one was a set up from day one by the Democrats, (Which is being appealed I understand), this one was even more egregious in it’s political motivation. James actually stated that she was going to “Get Trump!” during her election. (That should have disqualified her right there) The criminal case was a joke from day one and will also be tossed, either by that clown of a judge or the appeals court.
Throughout the hearing, some of the justices appeared receptive to Trump’s team’s claims regarding the case.
Justice Llinét Rosado questioned how the penalty was calculated. Justice Peter Moulton also asked Vale about the “troubling” penalty.
“The immense penalty in this case is troubling,” Moulton said. “How do you tether the amount that was assessed by the Supreme Court to the harm that was caused here where parties left these transactions happy … ?”
And there is the rub. None of the people involved in the business deal had any issues with the deal. They all made money. No one was harmed at all. In fact, all the people and businesses involved in the original deal flat out opposed the case.
Vale acknowledged the penalty was large but argued “it’s a large number,” in part, “because there was a lot of fraud and illegality.”
No there wasn’t, except on the part of Letitia James and Arthur Engoron. Part of their fraud on the courts was claiming that the bank that loaned the money needed to protected from President Trump.
Justice David Friedman earlier in the hearing asked Vale whether James had brought any other cases under the same law and circumstances as she brought charges against Trump.
The answer to that is, no. How can it be no? Because no one was harmed, Any other similar cases had actual fraud and people were hurt.
He also later contended to Vale that the cited precedence “hardly seems [to] justif[y] bringing an action to protect Deutsche Bank against President Trump, which is what you have here.”
“You’ve got two really sophisticated parties in which no one lost any money, and that was the point of my initial question,” he continued, before claiming “every case” cited as justification instead involved “damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace, [or] a scheme to get unsophisticated consumers to take out home loans.”
That was the major difference between the so called “Case” against President Trump and the others and the ones cited by Judith Vale. (I looked up her name) It’s nice to see the appellate judges asking about all this. Vale then said it didn’t matter for “Reasons.”
Vale argued state statute does not require this, and that “the statute is written broadly because the legislature wants the Attorney General to go in and stop fraud and illegality.”
Judge Moulton was having none of that.
Moulton jumped in, eventually saying Vale “must address” the underlying question of “mission creep as [the law James used to prosecute Trump] morphed into something that it was not meant to do.”
“[T]here has to be some limitation in what the attorney general can do in interfering in these private transactions … where people don’t claim harm,” he said, asking: “So what is the limiting principle?” (Notably, James campaigned on using lawfare to target Trump, calling him an “illegitimate president.”)
When it comes to the Greatest President of the 21st Century, Donald Trump, for Democrats, there are no limits.
“[T]here are still limits. It is not falsity in the wind,” Vale said. “It has to be related and relevant to the business at hand, and it does have to have a capacity or tendency to deceive.”
Vale continued arguing that the Trump case “does have harm to the public and to the markets.”
I really wonder if that lawyer, Judith Vale, actually believes what she’s saying. I also wonder if she understands the damage to New York’s economy that the Democrat’s vendetta against President Trump is doing? Right now, if this appeal fails, you are going to see a mass out rush of business from New York. Why? Because they will no longer be able to trust the New York Court system.
However, from the questions, and considering that I am in no way, shape or form a lawyer, it sounds to me that they see this case against President Trump and his business for what it was. Politically motivated to keep President Trump from having the resources to campaign for reelection as President of the United States. (Remember, this judgment came out last February at the start of campaign season)
From what I’ve been reading and the comments from people far more knowledgeable then I am, it looks like that the judgment against President Trump is going to be vacated. What happens then, I don’t know. I can’t see that corrupt cow, Letitia James giving up. Of course, if the appellate court really slams James and Engoron, it’s possible she may have no choice but to give up. As I understand how things work in New York, the actual ruling will be handed down in about a month. Stay tuned!
Thatisall
(4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
~The Angry Webmaster~
If the written law (statute of limitations) can be ignored at whim, the no law is legitimate or binding. It’s rule of the largest fighting force. Is that why NYC is trying so hard to accept as many foot soldiers (illegals) as possible?