Justice [David] Friedman... asked [Judith N. Vale, New York’s deputy solicitor general] to identify any other case in which the attorney general’s office had sued 'to upset a private business transaction that was between equally sophisticated partners.' Before she could respond, Dianne T. Renwick, the court’s presiding justice, who generally seemed supportive of the case, added her own question. 'And little to no impact on the public marketplace?' she asked....
The questioning by the five-judge panel was vigorous.
Justice Friedman asked at one point whether the attorney general’s office had conceded that, although “Trump received a lower interest rate than he might otherwise have received,” he still had sufficient assets to receive a preferential rate.
“Absolutely not your honor,” Ms. Vale replied. “The evidence is to the contrary.”
As she continued, another judge, John R. Higgitt, interjected.
“Sorry,” he said, “but what’s being described sounds an awful lot like a potential commercial dispute by private actors.”
Justice Friedman soon weighed in again, saying the cases that the attorney general’s office had cited involved the Lehman Brothers collapse and a scheme that induced naïve consumers to take out loans they could not afford.
“That hardly seems that it justifies bringing an action to protect Deutsche Bank against President Trump,” he said, adding: “You’ve got two really sophisticated parties in which no one lost any money.”
Justice Higgitt asked what could be done to ensure that Ms. James was acting within her authority.
“How do we draw a line or at least put up some guardrails to know when the A.G. is operating well within her admittedly broad sphere,” or when she was entering “an area that wasn’t intended for her jurisdiction?” he said....
No need to rely on the NYT summary. Watch the entire argument yourself:
Posts
102 comments:
What puzzles me is how this can be a civil case. The "victims" aren't suing the bad guy; they haven't even complained. By making this a civil case, the state gets a lower burden of proof. And an enormous penalty, which I suspect is larger than any that has ever been imposed in a fraud case. Can states make doing anything they disapprove of something they ban sue the bad guy and impose fines, although not jail terms. It seems to me that the substance of this is a crime, without the safeguards the law attaches to criminal cases.
A non-crime with a non-victim.
Welcome to Soviet Democrat America.
And if they can do it to him, they can sure as shit do it to you…
Gadfly most at risk.
"identify any other case in which the attorney general’s office had sued 'to upset a private business transaction that was between equally sophisticated partners.'"
Well, no. But then, Trump. So, QED. Lawfare = justice. It's just a matter of going after the right people.
Yesterday, the Missouri AG filed suit against the Biden/Harris admin and its DOJ for creating and setting in motion the lawfare cases against Trump. This is pretty obvious to me. Also obvious, same characters are responsible for the assassination attempts on Trump.
My understanding of the elements of fraud:
- he lied
- he knew he lied
- other party relied on the lie
- it cost the other party
No loss, no fraud. Right?
Forget
About
Reforming
Colluding
Elites
Is this still being argued? Kind of hoping they'll drag Engoron's ass in there and make him testify about his expertise in appraising real estate.
Everyone knows exactly what this is. And here are these distinguished jurists having to pretend it's something else, having to perform this theater. Unbelievable.
The Corrupt FBI are actively ruining the lives of whistleblowers who report anything that might upset the corrupt mob-democrat leftist Soviet power block.
Appeals court recordings are fascinating. I watch PA versions all the time. Never ceases to amazing what the Q & A format can do to break through the legal jargon (thought there is still plenty) and make the pursuit of justice understandable and real.
The judgement will be reversed, or the penalty will be sharply reduced. But after the election, of course.
I have full confidence that the NY Supreme Court will be brought in line with current Democrat political thinking and needs.
"No loss, no fraud. Right?"
It depends on what's in the statutory text as interpreted by the (and whether there's any state or federal constitutional problem with that interpretation).
From your excerpts, it sounds like the Justices are embarrassed that this case was ever pursued, as they should be.
As a NY lawyer who has argued in that court before, let me just urge everyone to try to visit that courthouse next time you are in NY (I said "try" because I'm not positive it's possible due to a combination of security and other concerns). That courthouse, and especially the courtroom where the argument was held, is one of the most magnificent public spaces I have ever seen. The wood paneling, the carving, the stain glass windows, the stained glass dome - just everything about that room is magnificent.
Is this “Trump troubles“ or “Trump persecutor troubles”?
"I have full confidence that the NY Supreme Court will be brought in line with current Democrat political thinking and needs."
1. The highest court in NY state isn't called "the NY Supreme Court." It's called the Court of Appeals.
2. The court that heard oral argument yesterday was the not highest court in NY state. It was the intermediate court, which is called the Appellate Division. In this case it was the First Department of the Appellate Division, which covers Manhattan.
can equality of sophistication be judicated?
I hope it wasn't off Broadway theater.
even then who can take notice and initiates court action civil or criminal?
This appellate court covering Manhattan is composed of democrats from New York City that attend functions with all their democratical friends in Manhattan.
There is approximately zero chance they will rule in favor of Trump.
But only zero.
The New Soviet Democratical Party will allow no other outcome.
“That case, the attorney general’s case in New York, frankly, should never have been brought,” Cuomo said on Real Time with Bill Maher. “And if his name was not Donald Trump, and if he wasn’t running for president, I’m the former AG of New York, I’m telling you, that case would have never been brought. And that’s what is offensive to people, and it should be! Because if there’s anything left, it’s belief in the justice system.”
When you've lost Cuomo...
What you're seeing is a fuckign kangaroo kourt in a third-world shithole stealing half a billion dollars.
That's it. That's America now.
He went to the bank and asked for a loan.
The bank says sure, but we need collateral. "Here's my $200 million building."
That's good enough for us, says the bank. So they lend him the money.
Then in comes some black chick who doesn't understand how business works to claim there's some sort of crime here because they're trying to rig an election.
If that works, then I'm done with this shithole country.
Our Supreme Courts cannot even define the word "woman." Depends on what the text says is no answer here.
My understanding of the elements of fraud:
- he lied
- he knew he lied
- other party relied on the lie
- it cost the other party
I take exception to point 3. Not likely that the other party relied on the information provided. Had they been in the habit of doing that, I would expect their shareholder to file suit for failure to perform. And as brought up by the panel, both parties were sophisticated. And not to forget, they lending party was eager to lend again. They loved the whale. It's not fraud if the sophisticated lender is seeking to lend to the party that supposedly is defrauding them.
Because Trump.
Anything is excusable as long as it gets Trump. Heck, they're even on record saying that this is an 'Exceptional Case', and other businesses don't have to worry about it.
Never thought I'd see a situation where a loan was asked for, paid back, and then years later the STATE goes after who took out the loan. That really makes no sense to me at all aside from a "We've got to get you any way we can" sort of reasoning.
Nice to know they've got a classy place to work.
I've often thought that our legal system has a lot of trappings of a religious order. Language that's hard to interpret for the layman, a need for intercessors (priests/lawyers) to present your appeals before the court, and 'temples' where those who worship must go to make their prostrations in the hopes of favorable outcomes.
But if the law were easily understandable, what would the lawyers and such do?
Anti-Trump lawfare has been wildly successful not only in rallying support for Trump on the right but also in persuading the left that Trump will be defeated by some weird legal trick rather than the hard work of political organizing.
In other words, anti-Trump lawfare is worse than a crime, it’s a blunder.
any other case in which the attorney general’s office had sued 'to upset a private business transaction that was between equally sophisticated partners.'... 'And little to no impact on the public marketplace?'
Is Trump challenging the constitutionality of the law? Otherwise, the questions are irrelevant. The statute itself provides the justification. The lines and guardrails and jurisdiction are the statute.
It's not like those giving the loan didn't have their own team of appraisers. And if they were happy with both the loan and the payback, what's the problem?
Then:
"Yeah, he says it's worth $200 mil, but looks to us like it's only $150 or so. Still, he's got a good record. What do you think?"
"Meh. Good enough. We'll get the money back, no problem..."
A bit later:
"Welp, he paid us back. Another happy customer, and he'll come to us next time he needs a loan."
"Wish they were all like that."
Now:
"It's clear that Trump took advantage of you. We gonna sue his ass into the ground."
"Wait - what? He didn't take advantage of us. He took out a loan, paid it back, everyone was happy."
"Just shut up. You were taken advantage of, nobody can tell me different."
"We'll testify he didn't, that everything was legal and he paid as he should."
"Don't care. We'll strike that from the record, it was a clear case of fraud."
"Damn. You do that, lots of businesses will go 'Hey, you'll do it to me next.' The optics are going to suck great big donkey dicks."
"Nah, we'll just make sure they know this is a 'special' situation, and they don't have to worry about it..."
I'm glad the Appeals court is pushing back on this. It never seemed like a case that should have gone forward to me, and if it gets tossed that'll signify that at least one section of our legal system puts the law over political gotcha games...
Maybe Mark can tell us if anyone else has been prosecuted for a private loan in which both parties agreed to the value of the collateral, but the government did not.
Let's make it easy. I am referring only to the US, not Soviet Russia, East Germany or North Korea.
The issue is that those Democratic friends are also lawyers, bankers and real estate developers. If Trump can be fined $400 million over his valuation of a property being different from the tax assessor's or appraiser's valuation of the property, all those bankers and developers are in deep crap.
The precedent is terrible and adds a gigantic risk to the entire NYC real estate development market.
It is easy to predict the gadzillion dollar judgment will be reversed. The question is whether the appellate court will explicitly pronounce the political prosecution was a political persecution.
G-Pub
Too much to hope for.
And on when that text was rewritten to get one political enemy.
With a half-billion dollar judgement plus interest. And Trump stripped of any position of authority in the Trump organization. It is insane and if new "guardrails" are indeed imposed on the AG there is only James to blame. She made up new ways to get Trump and like the other crazy cases this is blowing up in her face like she ordered it from Acme.
Trump is selling Bibles, coins, $300 sneakers and $100K watches. Should Harris start selling $800 earrings?
Or if the statute was used contrary to all precedent.
...by the AG?
As Xmas and G Pub stated, if the Trump verdict isn't overruled, NYC and NY State are ruined for investment. It's all or nothing. "Guard rails" will mean nothing. No deal can ever be concluded with permanence.
Civil enforcement actions by state attorneys general have dramatically increased in the last three decades. There are sweeping statutes that empower AGs to go after any "unlawful practice" and that threaten massive civil penalties and damages, often with open ended remedies. In California, the main tools are statutes called the UCL and PAGA. Many other states have similar statutes. The idea is that some laws won't get sufficiently enforced if we rely upon private civil litigation. The reality is that we've created a significant opening for political persecution, especially when the judiciary is politically aligned with the AG. .
The AG used a law written to address consumer fraud to go after a private business transaction that was not fraudulently conducted. The law could be perfectly constitutional and yet improperly applied to this case.
It puzzles me that this could ever have been a case in the first place. It's as if the brute power of the State has been brought to bear on the standard dealings of the marketplace, and an overwhelming force applied to secure a 'Guilty' verdict by all necessary means.
This is like the hall monitor at recess, overseeing a kickball game being played by the rules and arbitrarily singling out a player for punishment because he scored fairly, but against the teacher's pet.
I think it’s a slippery slope to claim you have the ability to charge Trump to prophylactically make sure this transaction couldn’t affect the market. Don’t you have to have some proof of that even being possible in these cases? Millions of real estate transactions happen this way - it’s by definition a negotiation up front, including some haggling, and then an agreed upon contract. Sauer was right - if AG can win this, and is not clearly bounded by evidence wrong doing affecting the marketplace, not just the fear of wrong-doing, the entire RE market is at risk of prosecution.
Hundreds of real estate developers in that city do business exactly like Trump did. The justices are getting at the nut of the question: what was the compelling state interest in this particular set of transactions? It's obvious they are not seeking judgements against other developers, and unlike prior application of this law, no consumers filed complaints or alleged they had been defrauded.
Our drop-in attorney commenters have not offered an explanation for what compelled the state of NY to sue Trump in this manner using the law in a unique way.
Lawfare from the usual suspects. Unprecedented horseschiff perpetrated by people who should be prosecuted for their actions.
“She made up new ways to get Trump and like the other crazy cases this is blowing up in her face like she ordered it from Acme.”
One just knows she has some coyote in what passes for her DNA.
There is truth to what you write, but I'm sure if the legal trick had worked; I don't think you would call it a blunder and have been thrilled with the results. The rest of us are more concerned about the precedent in law and an orderly society.
The lack of harm, and the state’s claim that no harm is necessary per the statute is really telling. The state’s appellate lawyer (her voice is really grating and hard to listen to, by the way) claimed no harm is needed because the state has the right (even duty) to protect the people and the market from the possibility of harm before the harm can occur. That “Prophylactic” approach to the law is like something out of the movie Minority Report. Should scare everyone.
Who cares?? As long as she uses her OWN money.
I guess it depends: Would anybody buy them? Do they feature grab handles?
These F-ing jokers…
Total of 425,431 Non-detained Noncitizen convicted criminals currently being tracked per ICE Deputy Director Patrick Lechleitner:
Convicted of Homicide: 13,099
Convicted of Sexual Assault: 15,811
A Democrat Criminal Conspiracy to be sure.
Is this illegal. should he be thrown in a Soviet Dungeon -to make a-holes like you happy?
eat el gato, cabron.
Anyone who has ever sold a house or even taken a home equity loan could be sued under this interpretation of the law. There are a lot of elements that go into valuing a property. Not all of them are completely quantifiable.
"Should Harris start selling $800 earrings?"
Why not?
The state’s appellate lawyer (her voice is really grating and hard to listen to, by the way) claimed no harm is needed because the state has the right (even duty) to protect the people and the market from the possibility of harm before the harm can occur.
OK, now outlaw (not restrict, not limit, but outlaw) cigarettes, liquor, scratch-offs, OTB, nicotine gum, chew, cars, nuts, glutton, etc. as ALL of these can and do cause some harm. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Running loose, roaming the countryside
Ann Althouse said...
"It depends on what's in the statutory text as interpreted by the <[Court] (and whether there's any state or federal constitutional problem with that interpretation)."
I'm not sure where to look for the applicable statute(s), though I'll grant it's possible that a case could be made for a loss of interest earned if the lender could have justified a higher interest rate. But $450M?
In any case, a contract was signed, both parties agreeing to it, and with a legal purpose. IANAL, but it's hard to argue fraud here, in the face of what looks like a valid contract.
Rich, in the half-life of his wake n bake, imagines his own topic.
Sadly, a fair number of people have learned this lesson now: keep your head down and your opinions to yourself, passively smile and gently nod along with the AWFLs.
Excess murder, rape-rape, probably rape, and other criminal actions in the pursuit of social justice, Diversity (e.g. IED), GDP enhancements, and Democratic gerrymandering is no ethical vice. American Civil Liberties Unburdened
Property value assessment is more art than science. Trump assessing his property at a different value than a lender doesn't sound like fraud or a "lie", and both parties to the eventual contract are sophisticated in such business. I assume they had considerable negotiations as well. Being that there wasn't an actual complaint filed by one party against the other party of the final contract is curious as to who suffered damages?
Is the motivation to bring this case based on the State not getting the taxes they think they are owed? Or is it just a political vendetta that the voters desired? Because they knew the main reason James ran, it was to "get Trump". We are gaslighted about the virtue of our judicial system. It's just less corrupt than most. At least I know some people care to keep it "honest", but they are definitely in the minority. And their voices grow more silent.
Liberal fiscal policies (e.g. capital extraction) and redistributive change (e.g. inflationary practices) take their toll. A class-action lawsuit is a viable Choice... uh, choice.
The case all makes sense, as long as we agree that Deutsche Bank is not as good at evaluating risk as a NY AG office.
Most of these responses say, basically, "because Trump." I agree. but the statute they're using was enacted before Trump became a thing. As Ampersand said, statutes like this are becoming common. That seems wrong to me, though neither criminal law nor constitutional law is my field. It seems to me that if no one who could sue for damages or equitable relief has been damaged but the state wants to punish the action, the punishment should have to be by means with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof and other protections that defendants in criminal trials get. Otherwise, the state can try people and punish them severely just by calling what they did a civil violation instead of (or in addition to) a crime. Trump's case should certainly be tossed out, but the problem isn't just that case. I suppose traffic laws and such are an exception, but this goes way beyond that.
Good point, Alan. Traffic laws aren't similar, however: they maintain civil order and safety. Just look at the behavior and human toll in countries that do not enforce them.
MadTownGuy: according to wikipedia, the statute that James used was New York Executive Law § 63(12).
That's what happens when politics take over - the law means nothing as long as it can be used to get a political opponent. The long-term ramifications are irrelevant, all that matters is the now.
Again, it's all about Trump. He HAD to be taken down, however they could manage. The long-term ramifications simply didn't matter in their myopia.
If you have time, google my comments here about the Trump-Russia conspiracy hoax. If you don’t, you probably should hold off on comments that presume knowledge of what I think.
MadTownGuy said...
My understanding of the elements of fraud:
- he lied
- he knew he lied
- other party relied on the lie
- it cost the other party
No loss, no fraud. Right?
9/27/24, 9:32 AM
...
It seems to me - not a lawyer - that if you and I are going to make a deal and the standard is we each exaggerate our side and it is our responsibility to verify what the other says, and the other party is not actively hiding or actively obfuscating and preventing me from getting the truth, well it's my responsibility to confirm the facts and if I don't, that's on me.
IIRC in purchasing a house, the documents says it's say 3000 SF but it's still my job to verify. If it turns out to be 2800 and I didn't follow up, that's on my not you.
This should never have come to court.
Not to worry, the Governor of New York State assured us that this interpretation of the law would only be used against one, Donald John Trump, so any concerns about overreach by the prosecutor are just lily livered pearl clutching by people who aren't up to what has to be done to protect democracy and the rule of law.
How about a country where people drive by the traffic radar at some amount over the speed limit for 100 years, and then the law picks out, for the first time, a man who is political unpopular in the jurisdiction and fines him his entire liquid net worth?
I am still waiting for my chance to buy Mar a Lago at $16 million, I promise you I will jump on it, except that I probably wouldn't have the juice to keep off the sharks who would use their political power to snap up such a bargain, and you know why? Because a private residence in Palm Beach on that road, Yoko Ono used to live a block away, for instance, well, private residences with less land go for ten times that.
" the state has the right (even duty) to protect the people and the market from the possibility of harm before the harm can occur."
So in the past 100 years, Donald Trump is the only one to have done anything like this? Or is the prosecutor living up to her duty, and combing the books of every billionaire who ever did a real estate deal in New York State searching for similar crimes against humanity, err, I mean against huge investment banks who employ their own sophisticated experts on the other side of the deal?
If it's a law that is 100 years old, and this is the first time that it has been used in this way, then I think that we can probably safely infer that the law was never intended to be used in this manner.
The point is not to address effective counterarguments for the likes of Mark, that's a fool's game, the point is to repeat the charge often enough that it sticks in people's mind and seems to make sense. It's your basic textbook Goebbels.
Come on man. The Judgement is totally illegal. Th only reason this shit show was
Produce by Biden’s DOJ and friendswas to scare Trump’s supporters that the legal system itself is an assassin. That and run up ten million in Attys Fees for DJT..
Yikes! LLR-democratical Rich, the even more pathetic than usual Harry Sisson of Althouse blog, is really struggling here with his deflection comments.
It seems like only yesterday LLR-democratical Chuck and the run of the LLR-democratical Brigade members LLR-democratical lonejustice, were happy to have Chuck go on Leftist NPC-Troll sabbatical while Rich stepped up as lead moron.
And from that point on, perhaps the pressure got to Rich who had to make up for the lack of Chuck's stupid and inane and leftist supporting commentary which forced Rich to push the limits of his now quite clear lack of intellect and ability to troll effectively.
What a sad day this must be at House LLR-democratical. lonejustice is probably curled up in a corner and weeping like a small child.
I understand what you are saying and I agree with everything you wrote....but I don't believe that any of them truly believe this sovietized bastardization of the law will actually be applied to anyone except Trump.
And I believe this aggressive questioning by the Appellate court members is simply designed to reassure other New Yorkers that the Appellate court will frown upon this type of action taken against anyone other than Trump.
But Trump will get no comfort from this court. These Appellate court members are New Soviet Democraticals. The fix is already in.
I find the lack of a ‘lawsuits I hope will lose’ tag very unsettling…but not at all surprising
Virginia Lawyer Mark was a lunatic DeSantis supporter and now a New Soviet Democratical aligned Never Trumper who is clearly ecstatic to see lawfare being deployed to stop the Bad Orange Man, even if it means the total destruction of entire judicial branch.
We see this syndrome with a smallish subset of DeSantis republican primary supporters who simply couldn't emotionally (there was nothing intellectual about it) transition from republican primary intra-party conflict mode to general election inter-party conflict mode because of some mental defect in their psyche.
Justice Friedman asked at one point whether the attorney general’s office had conceded that, although “Trump received a lower interest rate than he might otherwise have received,” he still had sufficient assets to receive a preferential rate.
“Absolutely not your honor,” Ms. Vale replied. “The evidence is to the contrary.”
This gets to the heart of the matter. Trump and the various banks were negotiating. Everyone did their own valuation of the properties. And then they used those valuations as part of the negotiations, "If we allow this higher valuation, that lowers the interest rate".
Only a complete economic ignoramus is unaware that interest rates can be negotiated. Adjusting the valuation was how they did that here.
It's a non-case. I don't know if there are enough honest judges on this case at this level to toss it, but at some point it's going to get tossed
Good point. Since the Merchan trial I have quit believing there is an honest NY lawyer. Two were on that jury and agreed with the fake verdict.
how would scenario be different - is there any indication of Deutsche Bank writing ?Credit Default Swap? to protect itself with 3rd party?
Politicians are not known for the ability to see the future.
"...the entire RE market is at risk of prosecution. ". Oh, but it's worse than that for the RE market. It's not just prosecution that the RE market fears. It's also the RISKS of politicized prosecution that make you look over your shoulder for every RE transaction if you don't follow the Democratic Machine Part Line and especially if you don't grease their palms when they come asking. "Say, that's a nice commercial line of credit ya got there. It'd be a real shame if sumthin' were to happen to it..." I'm sorry, but as Breezy and others are saying here, every hard-assed RE or banking professional in NY State knows they're on the menu now. Kevin O'Leary just said aloud what everyone was thinking.
fun question ?for extra credit? == does party B to Trump's party A have cause of action againt NY for defamation for claiming they were duped [finamcially raped] by Trump? and use Jean Carrolllll for precedent - this instance we have full details too!
Alan: When I first heard that this case was brought forward, I was puzzled. Was the bank pushing it, because Trump defrauded them? No. Would they go with the loan again? Yes, because Trump had a record of paying back his loans. So the state brought the case because THEY decided Trump was doing something wrong. No complaint from the bank.
To me, that indicated that the prosecutors didn't care about anything regarding this case but getting Trump any way they could.
And if they had to ignore the law, twist the law, 're-interpret' the law, ignore protestations from the supposed victim that they were fine with everything and would even give him more loans - that didn't matter. You had an up-and-coming dictator - a Hitler, a Mao, an Idi Amin - and if you could STOP them before they went full murder-hobo, shouldn't you by any means necessary?
And if it requires ignoring or nuking the intent of the law to do so, that's a cost they're willing to make the rest of us pay. But once you start with something like this for one hated political celebrity - where do you stop?
“Absolutely not your honor,” Ms. Vale replied. “The evidence is to the contrary.”
The evidence as far as the DA's office was concerned - not the bank. And when did the law change so the DA got to decide what the bank would consider acceptable?
"But once you start with something like this for one hated political celebrity - where do you stop?"
When the political celebrity is a Democrat, of course.
9/27/24, 8:27 PM
There have absolutely been civil fraud penalties comparable to this in other cases brought by, e.g., the SEC. But what's rare, and probably unprecedented, is to have this kind of penalty on a completely standalone basis with no real injury shown. Usually you'd have disgorgement of ill-gotten gains in the billions (to be distributed to defrauded investors), or a parallel criminal proceeding (e.g. for bribery or money-laundering, where the "injury" is amorphous and theoretical, or just plain wire fraud). Here, they're imposing an immense penalty as though there were a criminal proceeding, but they deliberately decided to circumvent the procedural protections that would apply in a criminal prosecution by bringing the case civilly only.
This is why every party involved does their own appraisal. The seller places their property in the best light possible. The buyer has their inspector inspect the property for flaws. The seller admits the flaws and either adjusts the price or fixes the flaws. Due dilligence requires that the seller make sure the buyer has the collateral. The buyer makes sure that there are no leins against the property. The bank does the same as both buyer and seller.
We all look at each others appraisal and come up with a price we can all live with.
I appraised residential for a couple of years and belive me comps don't lie.
“ Usually you'd have disgorgement of ill-gotten gains in the billions (to be distributed to defrauded investors)”
Or, more accurate, in many cases, the attorneys.
Post a Comment