State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization

[Volkonski]

Ivanka Trump briefly excused while Trump attorney argues about relevance of testimony
From CNN's Lauren del Valle, Kara Scannell and Jeremy Herb

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

Ivanka Trump was excused from the witness stand briefly while Trump attorney Chris Kise argued over the relevance of evidence and lines of questioning about prospective financing terms that were never completed.

Kise is also arguing about the statute of limitations — much of what has been raised today is prior to 2014.

It's not uncommon for a witness to be excused during lengthy objections about what will be allowed in court, so as not to prejudice the witness' testimony.

Judge Arthur Engoron overruled the Trump team objections. He ruled the New York attorney general's can ask questions and use evidence outside the statute of limitations to establish the original loan for background purposes because the loans at issue required annual certified financial statements be submitted in the years after the loan transactions and those fall within the statute of limitations.

After the discussion, Ivanka Trump returned to the stand.

[bill_g]

The good news is all the loose straw the Trump defense team left scattered about the courtroom today will be recycled at the mounted police barn. No value for this donation has been set yet, but estimates are it will be worth in the millions.

[noblepa]

“ . . . and how there should be a mistrial and a directed verdict.” – Trump lawyer Alina Habba, today on Fox News.

IANAL, and this may be picking fly shit out of pepper, but doesn't the phrase "directed verdict" only apply when there is a jury (which she forgot to ask for)?

I think she probably means "summary judgement". BTW, Judge Engoron has already issued a summary judgement in this case, that Trump is liable for fraud.

Also, if there were a mistrial, there would be no verdict at all, directed or otherwise, would there?

These seem like things that a pre-law undergraduate student would know and would not misuse in this way. Certainly a first year law student would.

I don't think that either one is going to happen.

[NewMexGirl]

Ivanka Trump briefly excused while Trump attorney argues about relevance of testimony
From CNN's Lauren del Valle, Kara Scannell and Jeremy Herb

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

Thanks for the great play-by-play and the link.

[Maybenaut]

“ . . . and how there should be a mistrial and a directed verdict.” – Trump lawyer Alina Habba, today on Fox News.

IANAL, and this may be picking fly shit out of pepper, but doesn't the phrase "directed verdict" only apply when there is a jury (which she forgot to ask for)?

Yes.

I think she probably means "summary judgement". BTW, Judge Engoron has already issued a summary judgement in this case, that Trump is liable for fraud.

Also, if there were a mistrial, there would be no verdict at all, directed or otherwise, would there?

Nope. Mistrial gets you a do-over (and perhaps a superior bargaining position).


These seem like things that a pre-law undergraduate student would know and would not misuse in this way. Certainly a first year law student would.

I don't think that either one is going to happen.

They won’t, and Habba knows it. This is all theatre.

[Kendra]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

The attorney general's office filed a letter with the judge asking to be heard Thursday on motion's to block several of Trump's expert witnesses from testifying.

Lawyers with the attorney general's office said several of the witnesses' testimony relates to issues already resolved by Judge Arthur Engoron, specifically as it relates to how properties were valued and accounting rules associated with that.

Before the trial started the judge found Trump's financial statements to be fraudulent.

"The valuation and accounting issues raised in this case with respect to the preparation of the SFCs have already been resolved in Plaintiff’s favor by the Court on summary judgment," the attorneys wrote.

In addition, they argue that two of the witnesses should precluded from testifying since they were intended to rebut the testimony of experts the attorney general's office did not call.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef ... VEfE6s2g==

[Rolodex]

Since this part of the proceedings is about how much to claw back from Trump, has there been or will there be witnesses from Deutsch Bank? It seems like they are most injured party, having been tricked into offering lower rates based on lies. Maybe I missed if they have provided any info.

[bob]

“ . . . and how there should be a mistrial and a directed verdict.” – Trump lawyer Alina Habba, today on Fox News.

IANAL, and this may be picking fly shit out of pepper, but doesn't the phrase "directed verdict" only apply when there is a jury (which she forgot to ask for)?
Yes.

To be charitable, Habba was trying to say the liability "verdict" should be $0 (or $1).

But there's nothing to "direct" here because the judge is the factfinder. So the defendants' seeking a zero (or nominal) penalty would be a regular part of the proceedings, just as the AGoNY undoubtedly will request the maximum penalty allowed.

I will leave it to local experts to weigh in on whether some sort of directed-verdict motion nonetheless is necessary to preserve the claim for appellate review.

[Kendra]

During cross-examination, Ivanka Trump says banks were eager to have Trump's business
From CNN's Lauren del Valle, Kara Scannell and Jeremy Herb

Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers began their cross-examination of Ivanka Trump by walking through how the banks were happy loaning money to the Trump Organization.

The line of questioning signals how Trump’s team plans to take on its defense against the attorney general’s allegations – arguing there were no victims in this case and the banks were repaid.

Trump lawyer Jesus Suarez reviewed exchanges between Ivanka Trump and Rosemary Vrablic, a former managing director in Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management division, asking Ivanka Trump about how Vrablic and Deutsche Bank were excited to have Trump Org. as a client.

"Yes, she expressed tremendous excitement to have our account," Ivanka Trump said of Vrablic, the main banker on their account. "I was constantly being told by Rosemary and members of the team how much they appreciated our account."

Ivanka Trump recalled a 2013 meeting she attended with her father and the co-chair of Deutsche Bank, Anshu Jain. Ivanka Trump said it was like a sales meeting, with the co-chairman of the global German bank encouraging the Trumps to do more business with them.

Ivanka Trump testified about the positive relationship she cultivated with the private wealth management group at Deutsche Bank, and how the bank expressed its desire to do more business with Trump Org.

Ivanka Trump said her family's vision for the renovation of the Doral golf resort in Florida was shared with Deutsche Bank in the negotiations process for the funding.

“They were quite excited about it,” she said of Deutsche Bank. “They sent teams of people down to tour the property to visit the property and to experience it in advance of our purchase.”

Donald Trump had a “sentimental affection” for the Doral property in Florida, his daughter said. He would tell her stories about going there as a child with his father and later with her mother, Ivana.

He had "a strong feeling that it was not being -- living up to its potential in terms of what the asset had become," Ivanka Trump said.

Trump lawyer Jesus Suarez showed the court an email Rosemary Vrablic, a former managing director in Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management division, sent to Ivanka Trump in March 2013 after renovations to the Doral property.

“I am so glad we got to see you and have you show us the new rooms. They look amazing! I have had a wonderful time here and it is really impressive to see what you have accomplished so quickly," Vrablic wrote.

After the renovations, Deutsche Bank agreed to a step down in the guaranty Donald Trump secured on the loan.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

[neonzx]

► Show Spoiler

[chancery]

“ . . . and how there should be a mistrial and a directed verdict.” – Trump lawyer Alina Habba, today on Fox News.

IANAL, and this may be picking fly shit out of pepper, but doesn't the phrase "directed verdict" only apply when there is a jury (which she forgot to ask for)?

Yes.

I think she probably means "summary judgement". BTW, Judge Engoron has already issued a summary judgement in this case, that Trump is liable for fraud.

Also, if there were a mistrial, there would be no verdict at all, directed or otherwise, would there?

Nope. Mistrial gets you a do-over (and perhaps a superior bargaining position).


These seem like things that a pre-law undergraduate student would know and would not misuse in this way. Certainly a first year law student would.

I don't think that either one is going to happen.

They won’t, and Habba knows it. This is all theatre.

I demur in part.

It's true that "verdict" refers to the decision of a jury after the conclusion of a trial. It would be a kind of malapropism for Habba to refer after the trial to Judge Engoron's "decision" as a "verdict." See CPLR 4213 "Decision of the court."

However, the motion that Habba was discussing is known formally as a "Motion for judgment during trial" or "judgment as a matter of law" under CPLR 4401, which applies both to bench trials and jury trials. It's different from a motion for summary judgment before trial under CPLR 3212.

CPLR 4401 motions are almost invariably referred to as "directed verdict motions," even in the relatively formal context of appellate decisions.* See Siegel** Practice Commentaries C4401:4 ("The meatiest motion of CPLR 4401 is the one that bench and bar will probably always call the motion for a directed verdict.").

So I'll give her a pass on this usage, although not on her notion that Trump's threatened CPLR 4401 motion has a prayer of success.

_________
* In fact New York State appellate decisions are frequently not particularly formal, as they are usually short, and sometimes so laconic as to be obscure, the result of a big busy court system with virtually unlimited interlocutory appeals.

** David D. Siegel (1931-2014), a professor at Albany Law School, was for generations the undisputed leading authority on New York civil procedure. His definitive treatise, New York Civil Practice, is a delight to read for its clear, shrewd, and witty prose.

[Chilidog]

Since when is "Our marks were quite eager to be scammed by us" a valid fraud defense?

[raison de arizona]

During cross-examination, Ivanka Trump says banks were eager to have Trump's business

Who cares? That has nothing to do with the purported fraud. Of course they were eager, they thought they were getting something that they weren't actually getting. Because fraudy fraud mcfraud pants.

[New Turtle]

Banks in general are eager to have your business, all the way up to the point where they call in your loans.

[Dave from down under]

Then they get nasty if the value of your security was fraudulently inflated to get the loan…

[Sam the Centipede]

I demur in part.

If ever there were any residual doubt that you are a very experienced lawyer, that dispels it!

Excellent clear explanation, thanks.

[Suranis]

If "the Banks" were eager for Trump business, how come the only one willing to do business with the Trumps was a German bank?

Oh ya, there was that 10 year period where the US took over the Trump org, ran it properly so it was profitable ensuring they actually got paid, then cut hom loose, so that the only thing he could build were shitty golf courses paid for by Foreign banks.

It's almost like they had to squeese the money out of him by strangling his ass out of the company, and then were happy to stay the fuck away from his business.

And even Duchebank wasn't paid back. They just kept handing him money for no good reason. Article from May 2019

Why Did Deutsche Bank Keep Lending to Donald Trump? — “Trump, Inc.” Podcast

The bank kept writing checks even after Trump defaulted on loans worth hundreds of millions and sued it. Now Congressional investigators are going to court to uncover the financial records behind their relationship.

by Heather Vogell, ProPublica, and Andrea Bernstein, WNYC May 22, 2019, 7:30 p.m. EDT

Whispers of money laundering have swirled around Donald Trump’s businesses for years. One of his casinos, for example, was fined $10 million for not trying hard enough to prevent such machinations. Investors with shady financial histories sometimes popped up in his foreign ventures. And on Sunday, The New York Times reported that anti-money-laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank internally flagged multiple transactions by Trump companies as suspicious. (A spokesperson for the Trump Organization called the article “absolute nonsense.”)

The remarkably troubled recent history of Deutsche Bank, its past money-laundering woes — and the bank’s striking relationship with Trump — are the subjects of this week’s episode of the “Trump, Inc.” podcast. The German bank loaned a cumulative total of around $2.5 billion to Trump projects over the past two decades, and the bank continued writing him nine-figure checks even after he defaulted on a $640 million obligation and sued the bank, blaming it for his failure to pay back the debt.

“Trump, Inc.” isn’t the only one examining the president’s relationship with the bank. Congressional investigators have gone to court seeking the kind of detailed — and usually secret — banking records that could reveal potential misdeeds related to the president’s businesses, according to recent filings by two congressional committees. The filings were made in response to a highly unusual move by lawyers for Trump, his family and his company seeking to quash congressional subpoenas issued to Deutsche Bank and Capital One, a second institution he banked with. Trump’s lawyers have contended that the congressional subpoenas “were issued to harass” Trump and damage him politically.

Earlier today, a federal judge in New York declined to issue a preliminary injunction to block the subpoenas. During the hearing in which he delivered that ruling, U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos said Congress is within its rights to require the banks to turn over Trump’s financial information, even if the disclosure is harmful to him.

For their part, the filings for the House Financial Services and Intelligence committees say they are “investigating serious and urgent questions concerning the safety of banking practices, money laundering in the financial sector, foreign influence in the U.S. political process, and the threat of foreign financial leverage, including over the President.” The inquiry includes investigating whether Trump’s accounts were involved in two large schemes involving Deutsche Bank and Russian clients.

The committees want to determine “the volume of illicit funds that may have flowed through the bank, and whether any touched the accounts held there by Mr. Trump, his family, or business.” Links to Russia will get a particularly close look. “The Committee is examining whether Mr. Trump’s foreign business deals and financial ties were part of the Russian government’s efforts to entangle business and political leaders in corrupt activity or otherwise obtain leverage over them,” the filing stated.

The podcast explores some eyebrow-raising Trump-related moves by the bank:

Deutsche Bank’s private wealth unit loaned Trump $48 million — after he had defaulted on his $640 million loan and the bank’s commercial unit didn’t want to lend him any further funds — so that Trump could pay back another unit of Deutsche Bank. “No one has ever seen anything like it,” said David Enrich, finance editor of The New York Times, who is writing a book about the bank and spoke to “Trump, Inc.”

Deutsche Bank loaned Trump’s company $125 million as part of the overall $150 million purchase of the ailing Doral golf resort in Miami in 2012. The loans’ primary collateral was land and buildings that he paid only $105 million for, county land records show. The apparent favorable terms raise questions about whether the bank’s loan was unusually risky.

To widespread alarm, and at least one protest that Trump would not be able to pay his lease obligations, Deutsche Bank’s private wealth group loaned the Trump Organization an additional $175 million to renovate the Old Post Office Building in Washington and turn it into a luxury hotel.

Like Trump, Deutsche Bank has been scrutinized for its dealings in Russia. The bank paid more than $600 million to regulators in 2017 and agreed to a consent order that cited “serious compliance deficiencies” that “spanned Deutsche Bank’s global empire.” The case focused on “mirror trades,” which Deutsche Bank facilitated between 2011 and 2015. The trades were sham transactions whose sole purpose appeared to be to illicitly convert rubles into pounds and dollars — some $10 billion worth.

A spokesperson said Deutsche Bank has increased its anti-financial-crime staff in recent years and is “committed to cooperating with authorized investigations.” The bank said it has policies in place to address the potential for conflicts of interest, including “special measures with respect to clients that hold public office or perform public functions in the U.S.”

In 2019, ProPublica revealed stark inconsistencies between what the Trump Organization had reported to tax authorities and what it told lenders about the finances of one of its towers. A judge this week ruled the company had committed fraud.

The bank was “laundering money for wealthy Russians and people connected to Putin and the Kremlin in a variety of ways for almost the exact time period that they were doing business with Donald Trump,” Enrich said. “And all of that money through Deutsche Bank was being channeled through the same exact legal entity in the U.S. that was handling the Donald Trump relationship in the U.S. And so there are a lot of coincidences here.”

[bill_g]

Let me sum it up: Trump made money off the Russians.

[Dave from down under]

Let me sum it up: Trump made money off the Russians.

And they aided and continue to aid Trumps political efforts to destroy NATO and the US.

[Kendra]

FYI, heard on the teevee. Thursday will be housekeeping and motions and stuff. Court will be dark on Friday due to holiday.

[NewMexGirl]

I demur in part.

If ever there were any residual doubt that you are a very experienced lawyer, that dispels it!

Excellent clear explanation, thanks.

Thanks to chancery from me, too. I can’t believe how generous all the Fogbow IAALs are in sharing their knowledge and experience with us.

[chancery]

https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/ ... 5526662553

Harry Litman
@harrylitman
Yes, this was the fishiest answer of her entire testimony, far more so than the stream of “I don’t recall”s. That’s especially so because when they got the lower rate (thru her efforts) she exulted and told the banker “you’re the best!“

Quote
Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby

“Did you understand that the Trump Org by dealing with the private wealth management group at Deutsche Bank was able to obtain a lower interest rate and origination fees than if they had dealt with the commercial real estate group?” Ivanka: “No.”

[chancery]

A pretty good summary of the consequences of Trump's day in court by Harry Litman:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... ur-engoron

Nothing really new if you've been following the reporters who covered the trial, but he ties up the loose ends nicely. (Although I think Litman is exaggerating somewhat when he writes that the case "threatens to impoverish his family and decimate their brand.")

Exasperated by Donald Trump’s nonresponsive monologues during testimony in his New York fraud trial this week, state Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron finally told the former president’s lawyer to rein him in. “This is not a political rally,” the judge said. “This is a courtroom.”

Engoron, however, was mistaken. It was a courtroom and a political rally.

Trump turned his time on the stand into a tub-thumping recitation of the themes he hopes will carry him into a second term: that the deep state is persecuting him for his popularity and his election would constitute retribution for him and his supporters.

Trump’s testimony was first and foremost a high-stakes legal showdown in a civil case that threatens to impoverish his family and decimate their brand. And from a legal vantage point, he was routed.

The judge has already found in favor of New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James that Trump and his company committed fraud. The fight now centers on the extent of the Trumps’ liability for a series of comically inflated valuations of their properties, chiefly to secure loans.

Trump’s testimony included a series of damaging admissions within a dust cloud of attacks on the judge, the attorney general and the entire process. It scored many important legal points for James and none for Trump.

Wednesday’s appearance by his daughter Ivanka was by contrast largely polite and professional. She did help set up James’ claim that her father misrepresented his personal wealth to secure lower interest rates, but her testimony might have seemed uneventful to someone wandering into the courtroom.

Not so the elder Trump. In response to questioning by state attorney Kevin Wallace earlier this week, he acknowledged more than once that he had reduced the valuation of assets such as his Westchester County, N.Y., estate that he considered “too high.” He also conceded that he tended to look at valuations more broadly: “I would see them, and I would maybe on occasion have some suggestions.”

And he copped to inaccuracies in the statements, for example the ridiculous valuation of his Trump Tower apartment, which was based on square footage nearly three times its actual size.

Trump also acknowledged understanding that the financial valuations he signed were meant to secure loans.

You can bet that Engoron will highlight these admissions as demonstrating that Trump knew the valuations he signed were false.

Trump did interject a few homegrown supposed defenses, either unaware of or indifferent to their legal irrelevance.

He insisted, for example, that because the Trump Organization repaid the loans, “there was no victim.” That’s a nonstarter as a defense because the charge of knowingly submitting false valuations doesn’t require the banks to have lost money. The important point is that the false statements enabled Trump to get better terms.

Expert testimony earlier in the trial suggested the company’s lies saved it $168 million in interest. Look for Engoron to order Trump’s company to disgorge that and more.

Trump’s second ace, or so he thought, was a fine-print disclaimer that banks should not rely on the company’s estimates. Trump even had a copy of the clause in his vest pocket that he tried to pull out on the stand. But the argument misses the mark for the same reason: It’s not relevant to the charge of knowingly submitting false valuations.

The judge sharply dismissed it: “No, no, no. We are not going to hear about the disclaimer clause. If you want to know about the disclaimer clause, read my opinion again — or for the first time, perhaps.”

“Well, you are wrong on the opinion,” Trump replied with characteristic arrogance. It was one of a series of insults of a judge who is authorized to make determinations about Trump’s credibility. That makes the former president’s puerile attacks on Engoron a kamikaze mission.

Legally, Trump began in a hole and proceed to dig straight downward. Almost every observer of the trial anticipates a verdict that will be devastating to Trump and very possibly eviscerate what remains of his business empire.

And yet there’s no getting around the sense that not only did Trump bring this legal harm on himself, he did so on purpose.

Consider the bitter diatribes he spewed at various targets at spontaneous intervals. He told Wallace, the state attorney, that he should be ashamed of himself; he pointed to James and screamed, “The fraud is her!”; he proclaimed, “This is a very unfair trial. Very, very.”

He ranted and raved in a way that would have landed many other witnesses in handcuffs. But Engoron by and large let it go, cautious not to take the bait and create an issue on appeal. And Wallace was content to let Trump rail away for the nuggets of damning testimony embedded in his raging.

I am not one of those who believe in Trump’s secret strategic genius, and I don’t see his unhinged fulminations as a calculated political masterstroke. But the whole spectacle was the clearest illustration to date of the most bizarre feature of Trump’s legal troubles: Every motion, every testimony, every legal theory is wholly political — a political rally in a courtroom.

Trump is a one-trick pony whose approach to every situation is the same toxic brew of grievance, vanity and hate. His legal strategy is identical to his political strategy.

We can expect him to have even worse legal days as he confronts ever more serious threats to his fortune and liberty. We can count on him to continue to respond in ways that harm his legal prospects but delight his followers as he seeks to make a joke of the legal system. We can only hope that the system has the last laugh.

[Kendra]

https://news.yahoo.com/rep-elise-stefan ... 10845.html

Rep. Elise Stefanik, the House GOP conference chair, has filed a judicial ethics complaint against the judge presiding over the New York civil fraud case against Donald Trump, accusing Judge Arthur Engoron of “weaponized law fare” against the former president, and calling on the judge to recuse himself.

Engoron had exhibited “clear judicial bias” against Trump, including by telling Trump’s attorney that the former president is “just a bad guy” whom New York Attorney General Letitia James “should go after,” Stefanik, R-N.Y., said in a letter to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. She said the judge had failed to honor Trump’s due process rights, concerns that she said are exacerbated by the former president’s position as the frontrunner for the presidential nomination.

Engoron is presiding over the bench trial of a $250 million lawsuit, meaning the judge will also determine guilt and sentencing in the case. Stemming from a lawsuit James filed last year, it charges Trump with inflating asset values for financial gain. Trump testified angrily on Monday in the high-stakes case and has complained and clashed with the judge for weeks.

[chancery]