Judge Orders New York Courts to Monitor Trump Organization’s Finances for Three Years
Trump also said he has almost $500 million in cash to post the bond in the civil fraud case.
Judge Arthur Engoron ordered New York courts to monitor the Trump Organization’s finances for three years.
Engoron appointed Barbara Jones, a former federal judge, as the monitor.
“During the Term of the monitorship, the Monitor shall review Defendants’ internal accounting controls, governance, record-keeping, and financial reporting policies and procedures,” wrote Engoron.
Engoron continued: “The Monitor shall also review Defendants’ compliance with internal accounting controls, including any recommended and/or ordered financial and accounting procedures. The Monitor shall also establish a protocol to review Defendants’ preparation and presentation of financial disclosures prior to their issuance to third parties.”
Trump also said he has almost $500 million in cash to post the bond in the civil fraud case.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The Fox protecting the hen house.
The defendants recommended Judge Jones for the position of independent monitor.
Heh. I wonder what trick AG James and Judge Engeron have up their sleeves if Trump does manage to put up the bond. You know they won’t accept defeat easily.
he wont put it up
they are making him a martyr and sealing his Nov victory
The more these ridiculous prosecutions go on, the more people are not impressed at all and see it entirely as a political hit job. Polls are showing that. These cases were supposed to decimate Trump and his chance for re-election but in their extreme zeal and hatred the left is making Trump more popular by the day. No amount of attacks can cover for Biden’s incompetency which this is large part about.
They don’t need to use any trucks, it’s up to Trump to prove his appeal which seems unlikely given the facts
This is the wrong forum to parrot Marxist talking points
Appeals typically look for error in law on the record below
This includes violations of excessive fines and the lack of due process or misapplication of the statute(s)
don’t reply to this idiot, just ignore these types of people, they offer nothing to the conversation, they are here to disrupt, nothing more. eventually when they get ignored enough they leave of their own accord because they are not getting the attention they crave.
Clarification The idiot in question is Bart and his alter ego JR
Like most Affirmative types, there is diminished capacity.
You answered your own question “typically” so th4 facts could be relitigiated if there was good cause. But there isn’t. As for the law there isn’t a good basis for amending the judgement especially since Trump has contradicted his own filing on points of fact. The AG response also pointed out that Trumps filing was less than honest. There argument is a shit show it won’t go very far
Just wow. You never fail to disappoint.
@BartE definition of “facts” is whatever asinine delusion his favorite talking head has told him to spew today.
My facts come from the judgement. I’ve repeated this multiple times. Your either lazy incompetent or both. Do better.
What facts? There were no facts permitted. That judge decided that Mar-a-lago was only worth something like $16 million. That might get you a small fixer upper cabana in that neighborhood.
Right there is one of the grounds for appeal.
Facts like Treump pretending Mar a lago can be valued as a residence. It can’t the covenants don’t permit it. Facts like Teump lying that independent valuers provided valuation figures for certain years. Facts like Teump pretending property was 3x it’s size, Facts like the insurers had to visit his property to view copies of the financial statements and weren’t allowed copied.
Your grounds for appeal are built on sand
The Constitution, Article 8, Excessive fines clause.
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”
The Supreme Court has held that the Excessive Fines Clause prohibits fines that are “so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law”.
Hard to argue that is what is going on here and also that E.Jean Carrol thing.
BarkE and many others will gladly destroy our judicial system, electoral system, and our social compact as long as it destroys Trump.
Anyone destroyed beyond that is simply collateral damage.
On the contrary that would be you, since you seem to think that Trump should get a free pass which is entirely contrary to a system of justice. A pretty damning double standard you hold.
They weren’t fines they were disgorgements based the calculated fraudulent sums involved.
There’s no difference. Call it whatever you like, the eighth amendment still applies.
@milhouse
You’ve missed the point. The sums are calculated based on the facts of the case. A sum can’t be excessive if its based on facts in compliance with the law. It doesn’t apply because there is nothing excessive about the disgorgement
Ran across this at a non lawyer site.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 2019
majority opinion in Timbs v. Indiana, a case relevant to Trump’s appeal
of a civil fraud judgment, may be just what Trump needs to overturn his
recent judgement.
“The prohibition embodied in the Excessive Fines Clause carries forward protections found in sources from Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights to state constitutions from the colonial era to the present day,”
Ginsburg stated. “Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties. They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies,” she said.
In that case a $40k vehicle was seized to cover a $10k fine. This case is disgorgement based and the amount was calculated on the difference in interest rates offered between a loan without recourse and a loan with a person guarantee backed by the fraudulent SOFCs.
Is the money to go to the bank or the government? If it’s going to the government, which didn’t even arguably lose it, then it’s a fine, no matter what you call it.
“…which didn’t even arguably lose it…”
Herein lies the rub. The point of bond is to assure the injured party is made whole by preventing respondent from absconding with or hiding his assets. In this case, the state can’t be made whole because it wasn’t injured. Some one suggested that Trump’s “fraud” could hurt the market in NY, but that’s why civil cases are brought when there are real injuries, to discourage and prevent additional injury. But when the injury is imagined by the State, other businesses will worry about what the State might imagine about their activity. This fear will almost surely cost NY and NYC far more in lost revenues due to the damage it’s doing to the State’s and the city’s business environment than it will ever “recover” from DJT. If the State is collecting the money in the name of the people, how is the net loss (that will certainly occur) justified? My mother used to call this “cutting your nose off to spite your face.”
The purpose of a fine is punishment.
The purpose of restitution is to restore the victim to his original condition.
The purpose of disgorgement is to restore the fraudster to his original condition.
They are three different things and there’s not a thing wrong with doing all three. The victims are still able to sue for restitution and disgorgement will not trigger Eighth Amendment protections.
DaveGinOly,
The point of bond is to prevent the defendant from absconding with assets DURING APPEALS.
Instead of posting a bond the defendant is always able to simply pay the judgement on time.
Trump did cause real harm to others.
Any harm to the market as a result of this suit is due to lies told about it and not from the truth of the matter.
Well, when you’re three-hop e-surveillance of “associates” has been squelched, you gotta get your campaign monitoring intel somehow.
E. E. Cummings’s wheel mine stock might come in and supply the funds.
This is most extraordinary – a massive financial penalty and a minder all for arguably high real estate valuations (which are by nature debatable) that it is not clear were wholly relied on by lenders that lost no money and are not dissuaded to do future business with the Trump organization. Although I am not a big fan of Trump, I do hope that this egregious injustice is righted.
It wasn’t for high valuations it was for fraudulent valuations. You should note that Barbara Jones own report to the court is pretty scathing on the way it works at Trumps business, she practically spelled out fraud in her report.
The lenders could have charged a higher rate of interest or not provided a loan at all, had they been given the honest information
Those motherfuckers got what they wanted. Money, money, money!!
No one was lied to, scammed, or injured by these transactions.
Piss off.
This is just objectively wrong. The banks, insurers were lied too. They based there loan and insurance agreements on Trumps financial statements and valuations which have been demonstrated to be utterly fraudulent. If they had been given the honest info they could have offered loan agreements with far higher rates or even might have said no.
No, they did not. How many times do you have to have it explained to you that banks never rely on the customer’s evaluation. They do their own due diligence and rely on that.
@milhouse
I suggest you read the judgement. You clearly haven’t. It’s embarrassing that you keep making the same factually incorrect statements.
“In deciding to a pprove the credit facility, Haigh relied on Donald Trump’s2011 SFC andassumed that the representations of value of the assets and liabilities were “broadly accurate.”TT 1009-1010; PX 330.The Deutsche Bank Credit Report’s “Financial Analysis” is based onnumbers provided by the“family office” (here, the Trump Organization) and contains the samenumbers represented in the SFC. PX 293; TT 1010-1013”
There are many such quotes to choose from in the judgement. Do better
Yea funny thing about that, it wasn’t and isn’t Trump’s responsibility to provide valuations it is the responsibility of the financial institution. Also, every contract that Trump signed, and fulfilled, stated plainly that the lender should not use the valuation provided by Trump, but should make their own valuation. So Barbra Jones is a Corrupt Liar, which is why the corrupt lying judge chose her. Barbara Jones doesn’t get to decide if the lender made enough money that is purely the preview of the business. You know the lenders that testified that they hadn’t been defrauded and were perfectly happy with the deals.
Not that this insanely unconstitutional law will survive federal constitutional review in the first place.
I am just waiting for Trump to drop the 8th amendment violation suit on these pond scum. Not to mention the massive amount of case law that support no harm no penalty.
They just want to take away Trump’s campaign funds away, to bad they are practically ensuring that he will be elected in November.
“it wasn’t and isn’t Trump’s responsibility to provide valuations it is the responsibility of the financial institution”
He runs the company of course it’s his responsibility to provide valuations and financial statements with respect to his company
“Also, every contract that Trump signed, and fulfilled, stated plainly that the lender should not use the valuation provided by Trump”
Err no, this is just plain false. The witness testimony clearly indicate that no such caveat was provided and even if that’s the case outright lying is still fraud. There is a distinct difference between caveats that allow a statement to be considered an estimate or range of figures vs pretending a property is much larger and thus more valuable than it really is.
“So Barbra Jones is a Corrupt Liar, which is why the corrupt lying judge chose her. Barbara Jones doesn’t get to decide if the lender made enough money that is purely the preview of the business.”
You don’t seem to have a clue who Barbara Jones is neither with respect to who or what her role is. Her job was to monitor Trumps company to ensure compliance with the court, she never commented on whether lenders made money or not. Your just talking rubbish.
The 8th amendment doesn’t apply, there is nothing unreasonable about the calculated disgorgement which would be clear to you if you’d actually read the judgement. Your ignorance is quite amazing.
Are you really that freaking stupid? The the banks said that not only were they more than happy to make the deals that they made and that they were satisfied with the outcome that is every payment on time with all interest and everything but that they would do it again. That is not the statement of a victim.
Yes he is that stupid. Or he’s just another liberal troll.
Not “stupid.” Apparatchiks gonna — er — apparat.
Lols, you are too funny. Fraud is fraud whether or not there is a complaint by the victim. Besides which the witness statements contradict your statement. They clearly weren’t happy since deutsch bank chopped some of the loan funds because of breaches to the loan arrangements. The statements were that they relied on the financial statements provided. It’s entertaining when you call other people stupid when the facts contradict your own position so badly. Do better
Just today CNN valued Mar-A-Lago at 240 million – 10x what the “judge” claimed – when they were discussing which assets the govt might sell. Oopsie
No need to sell Mar-A-Lago.
https://www.alperlaw.com/florida-asset-protection/florida-homestead-law/
Mar-A-Lago is too large to qualify as a homestead, as that is limited to half an acre.
That’s still far below the claimed valuations from Trump and negates to mention the fraudulent element which is Trumps claim it should be valued as a residence which it legally can’t be. The highest market valuation I’ve seen is $100m be interesting to see the cnn link, haven’t found a reference to that figure
Have you ever heard of licensed real estate appraisers? Every state has them. They are required to perform valuations using a defined process. Anyone who wants to obtain a most probable real estate value uses licensed appraisers. All banks require 3 or more appraisals that are averaged. A lay person, such as Trump, is not accountable for determining value. The only way he could be liable would be to change an signed appraisal. Trumps attorneys were not allowed to speak in court because he was railroaded by an out of control legal system. Your okay with this because its Trump. If the out of control system would attack you, your view would change.
Trump isn’t a lay person, if you’d actually read the judgement you’d know that the banks relied on Trumps own financial statements and valuations. Your just objectively wrong
You mean the licensed real estate appraisers that the defendants falsely attributed numbers to?
You mean the appraisals that the defendants denied existing to their accountants?
You mean the appraisals that the defendants claimed existed to their insurance agent, but didn’t actually exist?
You mean when the defendants, despite knowing they had a recent appraisal for $5.5 million, certified that the current market value was $161 million?
You don’t think each lender has an armada of appraisers that go over the property prior to offering the loan?
Christ… the lenders all considered Trump a great client and were all happy to work with him again.
Were you born stupid, or do you have to work at it?
Again the witness testimony was very clear that the banks etc relied on Trumps own financial statements and valuations. Actually only Deutsche bank did many lenders consider him too risky, and indeed Deutsche bank have had increasing issues with him given his multiple breaches of loan coverage agreements. Your objectively wrong on the facts. Helps if you read the judgement
It doesn’t matter what I think or you think. Employees for the victim companies testified that they relied on Trump’s SOFCs.
If you lie to someone and they believe you then they’re going to think you’re great.
It’s about ignorance not intelligence. Reading a whole 92 pages is less work than forcing yourself to remain ignorant.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/f203be39-020c-4f82-a423-96aa20c08e3a.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_3
The ignorant ones here are you and your asshole buddy BarkE. The “judgement” is a purely political document designed solely to punish one man.
There was no fraud, there are no victims, and lenders were more than happy to do business with Trump, repeatedly.
You two clowns should probably just fuck off and leave.
@steve59
The judgement states the facts of the case upon which the judgement then derives it’s conclusion. This is you admitting that you have no factual basis for your argument. Your basically throwing a tantrum at this point.
“Fraudulent valuations”? Are you really that stupid? What we’re talking about here is a difference of opinion between Trump and his lenders on one side, and the politically motivated court and state AG. The state of NY decided to put the screws to Trump and you know it. Engoron and James have absolutly no idea how to appraise properties of such dimensions, so they substitute their subjective judgment and call it “fraud”. Meanwhile, the lenders holding the mortgages on the property were repaid in full. And they did have “honest information”. Do you think they would advance such large sums without due diligence. You obviously know nothing about real estate.
Are you really that gullible lol. The facts underlying the financial statements were fraulent and indeed in some cases were just made up numbers. Tell me how donyou not consider pretending a property being 3x the size not fraud.
The lenders lost out on making an informed choice on the correct rates and whether to loan at all. Do better.
It’s funny you claim I know nothing about real estate you clearly haven’t read the judgement 😂😂😂
The case did not involve good faith differences or honest errors. It involved straight up lying.
In one case a professional appraisal company estimated a value of $5.5 million and Eric Trump presenting a value of $161 million on the SOFC.
The banks didn’t use Trumps valuations for the loans and admitted as much during the trial. They used their own. That’s why they considered themselves made whole and on top of that, profitable and eager to do business with him again and also why there is considered to be no victim in the case. It’s also one of the three reasons the case will be overturned on appeal.
Most people seem to be missing the larger point: The fine amount/ridiculous case was specifically chosen to overturned on appeal. They want to inconvenience Trump for as long as they can to interfere in the election and then attack the SCOUTS when it’s correctly overturned to try and get disillusioned past Biden voters to the polls and stack the court in a second term. It will also set a precedent so that if Trump does win the election, Republicans won’t be able to use the same tactics against their political enemies.
The testimony says the exact opposite if what you state. The explicitly relied on the statements if you’d read the judgement you’d know that.
The chance of the case being overturned on appeal is extremely low. The case for fraud is obvious. Stop making excuses for a multiple fraudster and rapist
Rapist? When was Trump convicted of that?
Oh yeah… he wasn’t.
Your whole screed here is bullshit.
@steve59
He was found to be a rapist in the Carroll trial. Do try to keep up.
It wasn’t just banks the defendants defrauded. They also defrauded insurance companies and the NYC Parks Department. All of the above testified under oath that they relied on the information provided on Trump’s SOFCs.
If there’s an election conspiracy then it was to limit the fine so Trump wouldn’t be forced out of the campaign and replaced with someone that’s actually a threat to the left.
You should note that Trumps valuations sheet of the properties he was borrowing for clearly included a “use your own property estimates and valuations”. The banks, when dealing with any type of loan on real estate, always require their own assessment of value and certainly for commercial real estate. It’s interesting that the AG is not going after the banks for loaning the money, just Trump. That Trump put out a figure, the banks did their own appraisal and came up with a figure, the lawyers on both sides came to an agreement and loaned the money which was paid back. Nothing much to see here. The AG’s novel use of a law not intended to be used like she has, in fact has never before been used like this should be a giant flag much like Fani’s use of RICO which has never been used in such a manner as she is trying to use it to go after Trump and that foolish guy up in NY with those charges. That these people have to novel legal theories should prove what a farce this entire thing is.
What that stupid AG and out of control Judge have done is thrown a giant wrench into the commercial real estate market in NYC. Developers now know that if they fall out of political favor they can have their property seized with little recourse. Who wants to commit millions of dollars in that environment? I sure wouldn’t.
This just isn’t true, it’s in the judgement testimony that the lenders clearly relied on Trumps financial statements etc. And no there was no such small print, the arrangement was extremely odd with insurers not even being allowed copies rather having to go to Trumps property to view. You clearly haven’t read the judgement.
A disclaimer cannot prevent liability from fraudulent statements. The court rightfully rejected that vacuous argument.
The defendants used the fraudulent documents to defraud insurance companies and secure other contracts they would not have gotten otherwise.
The loans were not based on the property as collateral. They were based on the property PLUS a personal guarantee based on Trump’s net worth. Without doing a forensic accounting of the entire Trump Organization they can only rely on Trump’s SOFCs which are required to be honest and complete.
The bank said they were eager to make the loans, and are still eager to make more such loans. Thus they would not have refused the loans, and wouldn’t have charged more than he was willing to pay.
I know that makes me think “eager to make more loans”.
“They wouldn’t have charged more than he was willing to pay”
This is pure nonsense, they were deprived of the true and honest fanancial statements. I’m glad you think your mystic Meg here milhouse you have as much credibility 😂😂
Are you so ignorant to believe the banks lend this kind of money without exercising due diligence? Trump’s documentation accompanying every loan has boilerplate warning potential lenders to make their own valuations. How stupid do you think the banks are? If they thought what Trump did was attempted fraud, why didn’t they file complaints with state regulatory agencies? Why didn’t they sue?
Boiler plate caveats doesn’t allow to commit fraud. If you think a contract type caveat somehow makes you immune to the criminal law you really shouldn’t quit your day job.
There are quite a few reasons, not least of which is the trial has brought all the evidence to light. It may be that they do sue him although I think if they do it’ll be after the election and assuming he isn’t president.
I love the “I’m not a fan of Trump BS”
He’s taking these abuses for us
Three years of monitoring? GTFOH.
That’s what happens when your business commits persistent fraud.
The fraud was sooooooo bad, it took ignoring of the statute of limitations to go after Trump.
BartE has problems even drugs and psychoanalysis can’t help. There is no cure for blind hate and delusion. Or… it’s the only way he (it) can make a living.
I love to troll him, hoping to cause anxiety or a stroke.
Lol, my problem seems to be that I ca actually read. The ignorance on display in the comments is hilarious. Read the judgement maybe then you you’d actually have some facts. 😂😂😂
You may be mistaking this for the E. Jean Carroll sex abuse case against Trump, which was only allowed because of the extension of the statute of limitations. I don’t blame you, thought, since there are over 90 felony cases pending against Trump. It’s hard to keep track of all of them.
The other phallus shows up. BarkE must have purchased another computer so he can log in under both names: JR and BarfE
One thing multiplied over and over to make it look like a giant bout of lawbreaking? Do try harder. I think the facts of all the cases are out there for anyone who cares to read beyond the headlines. You obviously do not.
No, the statute of limitations wasn’t ignored your conflating committing the crime with evidence from prior to the period when fraudulent statements were made. The appellate Court considered the issues hence why ivanka trump was dismissed as a dependent helps if you actually know what happened in the case
Which counter party suffered losses under this persistent fraud? Is there a victim we can point to?
The lenders etc could have charged a higher rate or indeed denied the loans. This meant there is a distinct gain from the fraud which is why there is a disgorgement here these are the proceeds of crime
Then why didn’t the lenders complain to regulatory agencies? Why didn’t they sue Trump? If the lenders could have charged a higher rate or denied the loans, then why didn’t they challenge Trump’s assertions about the value of his properties knowing that negotiations might permit them to charge higher rates, or that investigation might reveal that they might not want to expose themselves at all? Jeez, everything you’re saying about how this works, although true, is, in this situation, presumes stupidity and dereliction of duty on the part of the banks, and that after being swindled by Trump, they didn’t have the spine to sue him. This is simply not credible.
@daveginoly
I’ve answered this in a different thread above. I consider this one redundant.
The insurers who under-priced their premiums and unknowingly accepted excessive risk due to relying on fraudulent documents.
The NYC Parks Department who offered a contract based on fraudulent documents.
Appraiser Larson’s reputation due to estimates being falsely attributed to him.
“Bart, it’s time for dinner. Come upstairs from the basement,” said Bart’s mother. “Are you on your damn computer again? Get up off your lazy ass and get a job you slob”
Where was the fraud? Who was the victim? What was the financial impact?
Please be SPECIFIC, dingus.
This is you admitting you know nothing about the case. There was multiple fraudulent statements over a long time including for example claiming property was 3x the size it actually was.
The lenders could have charged a higher rate or indeed denied the loans. They lost money and were denied the opportunity to realistically asses whether they should have taken the risk on Trump.
Then why are banks happy to do business with Trump? I mean, if you were swindled once, you’d have sense enough to not let the same person do it again, right? Then how do you think the banks would react if Trump actually had swindled them? Are they stupid and, like the readers here at Legal Insurrection, they don’t understand what happened or they don’t know fraud when they see it? What you’re asking us to believe about banks is not credible. They were not swindled and they know they weren’t swindled. Otherwise they would have gone after Trump for the award, rather than the state. Wouldn’t you? Bankers are less intelligent than you? A potential judgement of more than half a billion dollars was possible for the banks, and they didn’t jump on it? Were they not able to do the math?
@daveginoly
Again a repeated comment, redundant
The insurers who under-priced their premiums and unknowingly accepted excessive risk due to relying on fraudulent documents.
The NYC Parks Department who offered a contract based on fraudulent documents.
Appraiser Larson’s reputation due to estimates being falsely attributed to him.
As competent on the law of “fraud” as AOC on RICO.
Lol I seem to have judgements on my side dimwit.
Also AOC wasn’t wrong , RICO is a law which requires predicate crimes none of which could be demonstrated. Instead the witness vaguely asserted corruption. Your just gullible
Whatever you say. Of course you know it all, which is why things are such a mess. Thank you so much for your knowledge and extertise, oh brightwit!
BartE.Do something useful and brush your tooth.
How many posts are you going to put up to display your total ignorance of how real estate works?
My posts have the benefit of being factual and based on the judgement. Unlike the ignorant comments here.
>>Three years of monitoring? GTFOH.
And according to clause B(4) Trump is also responsible for all costs incurred by the Independent Monitor without limit in regards to the amount invoiced by the Independent Monitor and those employed by her.
The Independent Monitor was recommended for the position by the defendants.
The IM is limited to “as reasonably necessary”.
What does that exactly have to do with what I posted. Please explain.
“Reasonably necessary” as defined by a lunatic judge out to bankrupt Trump by any means within in his powers. So I’m, sure those multi-million dollar invoices submitted by the IM will be handily approved by his Honor Arthur F Engoron without comment when Trump complains of excessive spending by the IM. Guaranteed.
Seems entirely relevant. If the defendants agreed to the monitor in question they naturally means that the resultant bill isn’t exactly unexpected .
The judge quite reasonably found that Trunpbis a fraud and given the facts of the case only a insane or ignorant person would think otherwise.
It is relevant because, presumably, the defendants chose someone they trust to not abuse their position.
Or Trump did his normal process of choosing the worst candidate possible in which case the outcome is still on his head.
This is another bad chapter for the NY Judiciary. It’s supposed to be a court of law and equity, but it is actually a court of politics operating in a woke bubble. The judge must be a real celebrity at his local Planet Fitness.
Dude, Trump obviously committed fraud. Just stop making excuses
I’ve yet to see you explain how the banks missed this “obvious” fraud, or why, if they knew it was fraud, they didn’t sue Trump themselves. Maybe the fraud wasn’t as obvious as you believe and maybe James and Engoron have been more “creative” than any attorney for a bank would dare to be for fear of a potential counter-suit, or maybe for fear of merely being laughed out of court.
So, I’m waiting. Why didn’t the banks react adversely to this “obvious” fraud? How was Trump able to defraud the banks when he made the banks responsible for their own valuations? Were the banks embarrassed they got snookered? So embarrassed they left more than half a billion dollars on the table?
You seem to think this line of argument has value. It’s obvious fraud because the AG investigated and found evidence. Evidence the banks wouldn’t have known. Evidence like Trump pretending his property was 3x the size.
Oh and the banks relied on Trumps valuations which is clearly indicated in the judgement. If you actually read it , it might help you argue a tad better
I have to say that even if you dislike Trump or even have TDS this is bullshit. Bankrupting someone for their politics is beyond what should be tolerated in a democratic republic. Biden and his sycophant’s are so scared of the fly over smellies that they will do anything to stop Trump from running for office. Sound like a Democracy to you?
He is being bankrupted for committing fraud lol
This idiot isn’t thinking up this crap all by himself
I am glad to hear Trump had a windfall gain of $3.5 Billion from Truth Social today – more than covers all this BS
Amazing that anyone can defend this assault on the rule of law.
If Trump wins the appeal (you never know in NY) the state will owe him a lot of money. And then the judge and quack James should be sanctioned.
Sanctioned? They should be imprisoned for their actions.
There is a spectrum of sanctions, yes?
It’s quite easy to defend there are these things called facts.
And then there are facts of persecution and abuse of power. Quaint.
What facts are those ?*gets popcorn
There are actually reasons conservatives have to stay in New York (Such as my family is there, I built my life there, my job and the home I built up over time is there etc) but if you don’t have a compelling life reason to be in New York don’t be there and don’t invest your money there.
He can smile all he wants… One day he’ll die and go to Hell.
Too bad Carville only advocates “wet work” against conservatives.
Roland Freisler would be proud of Engorod
Mary Chastain/LI,
There are several facts that should have been included in this article as background information.
– A monitorship by Judge Jones has already been in place for over a year.
– Judge Jones was named by both the plaintiff and the defense as an acceptable monitor.
– The defendants violated monitorship requirements.
– The defendants flip-flopped on their opinion of Judge Jones after she reported their failures to the court.
Most importantly:
– Today’s order is not a new judgement. The continued monitorship was ordered last month. This just ironed out some of the details.
Just another day, just another news cycle about yet another Trump case.
Boring.
Until what has happened hits home to people. You take out a mortgage in January and are now a happy home owner in NYS. In June you donate $1,000 to the campaign of the NYAG’s opponent. In August you are indicted for fraud on your mortgage application. You ask the bank what happened. They say nothing, we cool. In September you go to trial in front of an administrative judge (no jury). You are found guilty and the State takes deed to your home. They add it to the pile of other “fraudsters”. They look around and see too many homeless migrants. Why look, we just happen to have “found” all these houses says the State… and someone else pays the mortgage. How bueno is that!
The law used here requires a pattern of behavior. Unless you habitually lie on mortgage applications you’re safe.
NY State limits some kinds of investment to only “accredited investors”, arguing these deals are too arcane for “regular people” to parse.
Is the state arguing that banks making 7, 8, 9-figure real estate investments are so ignorant and naive they need to be protected from themselves by consumer “fraud” laws?
Executive law 63(12) is not a consumer protection law.
It wasn’t just banks that were the recipient of Trump’s fraudulent SOFCs.
So Trump has a knack for dealing with stupid, but wealthy, people who have small armies of attorneys and accountants, and runs rings around them so successfully, they not only don’t know he’s scamming them, but after the scams are pointed out to them, they still want to do business with him? Because you and Bart keep saying the same things about the “facts” in this case. If anyone was harmed, or was exposed to the potential for harm, it was the lenders. They must be as stupid as the readers of LI to not understand how Trump played them. But Letitia James and Judge Engoron understand it. Is that how it is? Only James, Engoron, and those who agree with them understand the “facts.” Everyone else, including the lenders who left more than a half-billion dollars on the table for failing to sue Trump for fraud themselves, are stupid and don’t understand how these things work.
This is your position? Because if it isn’t, please explain why the banks neither complained to regulators nor sued Trump themselves.
Why exactly did you put quotation marks around the word facts. They aren’t really debatable and no one here has made any attempt to even respond in a meaningful way.
Your question with respect to the banks is silly, Trump is a known figure he wasn’t Joe blogs, many banks won’t do business with him this one did and took some level of risk with the known facts. That doesn’t give Teump a free pass from fraud. You seem to be trying to indicate that if a victim is stupid that means that the perpetrator gets a free pass. The law doesn’t work like that, stop pretending it does.
“It’s okay to swindle rich people and businesses.”
No, it’s not okay to defraud anyone.
The victims did not report the fraud because they did not discover it.
BTW The assistant commissioner for NYC Parks Department testified under oath that if they had discovered false or fraudulent information in the SOFCs or No MAC letters they would have referred it to NYC Department of Investigations.
Everyone who cares to look understands the facts. Everyone else, like the victims were, appear to have been fed lies. You can read the actual 9/26 and 2/16 decisions here:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=tTcU_PLUS_uJJ8i5XjrCTSNk2eA==&system=prod
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=CJKA2EOIiTRatUAYz6FyeA==&system=prod