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

[realist]

Don't come crying to us when you lose, Donald. We told you Habba is a mess and that you needed a real civil rights decedent.



Taitz Habba.JPG

[northland10]

Looks like Endgoron got bulldozed. He asked fucked if he was willing to comply; fuckhead ignored his question and began the rant.

Makes Engoron look like an idiot. I suggest he add another couple hundred thou to the disgorgement.

I mean, whatever the amount is, fuckhead is going to claim Engoron hates him and penalized him because of that.

Disagree, I don't think it makes Engoron look like an idiot. I agree with chancery's thought:

he might have wanted the record also to show that he gave them every opportunity to make their case, including leeway to which they were not entitled

IMO we are so far beyond Engoron -- or any other judge -- being perceived as not prostrating himself to allow fuckhead to walk all over him it isn't funny. This isn't "every opportunity", this is the ongoing disintegration of the judicial system.

How is this a disintegration? I imagine the judge has probably dealt with worse defendants over the years. There was no jury in the room and the purpose of the court is for the parties to make their arguments to one person who will make the decisions, the judge. Despite any Trump BS, the judge is the final arbiter in that room, not the public. The judge is not there to look good for the cameras but run the courtroom as he sees fit.

When this goes to an appeal, the court will see the record and Trump's BS and that the court allowed him way more leeway than normal so any argument of bias is bs.

[northland10]

Even for a "public" look it would not matter much. You have 4 groups.

1. The MAGA who will cheer for anything Trump does,
2. The other side who want him punished.
3. The media who wants to put out sensationalized stories to get hits and more advertising dollars
4. Everybody else who really is not paying very close attention except for the occasional headline.

Only group 4 will impact the election for one side or the other.

[Sam the Centipede]

Off Topic

4. Everybody else who really is not paying very close attention except for the occasional headline.

Only group 4 will impact the election for one side or the other.

That's one of the most frustrating aspects of representative democracy. I don't have a problem with people having reasoned, informed views that differ from mine, perhaps reflecting their differing priorities. Of course they're wrong but …

Those people, like most of us here, know how and why we will vote, and won't flap around being swayed by superficialities or minutiae.

So, as you say, elections are decided by the swing voters, those people who don't care enough or consider enough to hold a settled view.

I don't have the solution, but it seems unfair that an idiot's vote cast on the basis of liking a candidate's hair or their favorite band or team counts the same as that of an engaged voter.

Whether anyone who ever supported Trump is actually fit to vote is a whole different argument. I hope fewer do as their dim brains register that the reason Trump is in court so much is not because he is persecuted but because of his chronic dishonesty and unfitness for a civilized society.

[Chilidog]

Trumlp reminds me of my favorite ee cummings line

"(Trump) is can arse on which everyone has sat, but a man."

[Sam the Centipede]

Trumlp reminds me of my favorite ee cummings line

"(Trump) is can arse on which everyone has sat, but a man."

Ya know, sometimes, just sometimes, I start to think that maybe, just maybe, Donald Trump isn't very popular on Teh Fogbow.

[p0rtia]

Disagree, I don't think it makes Engoron look like an idiot. I agree with chancery's thought:

IMO we are so far beyond Engoron -- or any other judge -- being perceived as not prostrating himself to allow fuckhead to walk all over him it isn't funny. This isn't "every opportunity", this is the ongoing disintegration of the judicial system.

How is this a disintegration? I imagine the judge has probably dealt with worse defendants over the years. There was no jury in the room and the purpose of the court is for the parties to make their arguments to one person who will make the decisions, the judge. Despite any Trump BS, the judge is the final arbiter in that room, not the public. The judge is not there to look good for the cameras but run the courtroom as he sees fit.

When this goes to an appeal, the court will see the record and Trump's BS and that the court allowed him way more leeway than normal so any argument of bias is bs.

There is an ongoing attack on the institutions of our government, including the judiciary, which is going to be the prime target of MAGA this year. Engoron told Kise (who continues to insult Endoron) by email that the discussion was closed, when Kise didn't have the professionalism to reply to his email. Then he backtracked on the day--and worse, allowed the man who is the MAGA leader to say all the things Engoron had told Kise he could not say--is about as rolled as it gets, IMO. Add in that MAGA had swatted Engoron that morning. Two displays of power that are sledge hammer blows to the institution MAGA is trying to destroy.

We're watching in real time as the institution is attacked, blow by blow (cf the hundred times TFG has gotten away with behavior that would normally be swiftly smacked down). Without confidence in our government institutions, it's that much easier to bring down the system.

For me, this part of the Big Play, which will be to refuse to deny the results and refuse to certify the election in Jan 2025. If they even need to.

[Slim Cognito]

I just threw my vintage copy of It Can’t Happen Here into my carry-on bag. Seems like a good day to start rereading that while I wait to see if my flight to KC is canceled.

[Kendra]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... a89c&ei=13

Former President Donald Trump fumed on Truth Social after the judge overseeing his New York fraud trial shut down his courtroom rant. Trump launched into a lengthy tirade in court on Thursday, attacking Judge Arthur Engoron and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Engoron allowed Trump to rant for several minutes before finally cutting him off. “Control your client,” he pleaded with Trump’s attorney.

“The Judge cut me off in Court and would not let me explain that I was worth much more than the 4 plus $Billion (years ago) I show in the Financial Statements, which are conservatively done,” Trump complained on Truth Social after the hearing. “Judge Engoron, curiously, cut Mar-a-Lago’s VALUE by a Billion Dollars, all the way down to $18,000,000 (and other assets as well!) to try and save the A.G.’s case. What is going on here? WITCH HUNT! ELECTION INTERFERENCE!”
Trump continued his complaints on Friday morning. “Why didn’t Judge Engoron announce his decision yesterday after we proved conclusively that I DID NOTHING WRONG!!!” the former president wrote, repeating his argument that he didn’t commit fraud because there are no “victims.” Engoron ruled before the trial began that Trump, his company and top executives are liable for persistent fraud. He is expected to issue his decision on the remaining issues in James’ lawsuit by Jan. 31.

[raison de arizona]

Poor Donald, all that work.

Trump spent weeks 'rehearsing' his courtroom rant that judge quickly shut down: insiders

Donald Trump's closing argument rant at his fraud trial Thursday that was abruptly cut off by Judge Arthur Engoron was weeks in the making, according to close associates of the former president.

According to a report from Rolling Stone, while the former president's legal team was wrangling with Judge Engoron over what he would be allowed to say as the $370 million financial fraud trial wrapped up, Trump was testing out soundbites on friends and associates.

On Thursday, the former president was asked by the judge if he would confine his comments to the facts and not turn it into a campaign speech or a full-fledged attack on courtroom employees and prosecutors — and Trump answered by launching his rant.

As Rolling Stone reported, it should have come as no surprise due to the time the embattled ex-president spent working on the speech.

The report noted, "According to two people familiar with the matter who spoke to Rolling Stone, in recent weeks Trump had told several close allies of his intention to personally deliver a closing argument, and at times previewed some of the things he wanted to say before the judge.

"One of the sources describes it as the ex-president informally “rehearsing” his spite-filled court monologue for his friends," adding, "Engoron had no reason to think Trump would tone it down in court on Thursday. In one of the most chaotic moments of the trial, Engoron beseeched Trump’s attorneys to “control” the former president during his witness testimony before the court."

Trump did get in a slew of accusations and grievances on Thursday before Engoron admonished his lawyers to "control your client," before breaking for lunch with Trump not returning for a repeat performance afterward, choosing to leave the courthouse instead.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-closing-argument/

[raison de arizona]

XPOST

Note that included as an attachment is the transcript of Trump's closing testimony in the fraud trial.

Yes, easter egg!

► Show Spoiler

MR. KISE: Again, they just put all the weight on
12 my shoulders and then decided to travel on.
13 I would ask Your Honor, I think I would ask you
14 reconsider, allow President Trump to address the Court for
15 two or three minutes. The reason that I didn't feel that
16 your restrictions were appropriate because, frankly, your
17 restrictions stated in the email went beyond what was
18 required under the law. They do have ambiguities. None of
19 us today have commented on anything outside the appropriate
20 bounds of closing argument. I don't believe President
21 Trump will either. I think, under the circumstances you
22 should hear from him.
23 All these people back here certainly want to hear
24 from him, and I think as you say in your own email, you
25 would benefit from hearing everything. There is no one
1 person more impacted by the decision you're going to make
2 than President Trump here. So I would ask that the Court
3 allow him to speak now briefly now and address the Court
4 and present his views to you.

5 THE COURT: Well, this is not how it should have
6 been done.
7 Mr. Trump, let me address you directly and
8 Mr. Kise at the same time. If I let you speak for five
9 minutes, I think that's what I will do, if you promise to
10 just comment on the law and facts, application of one to
11 the other and not go outside of that?
12 Mr. Kise, is that reasonable?

13 PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I think, your Honor, that
14 this case goes outside of just the facts.
15 The facts are that the financial statements were
16 perfect. That there was no witnesses against us. The
17 banks got all their money paid back. They were great
18 loans. The banks are happy as can be.
19 I mentioned the name Zurich, and Zurich, one of
20 the most prestigious property and most prestigious
21 insurance company in the world. They represent us right
22 now. Supposed somebody said we defrauded them? I spoke to
23 an executive at Zurich and they said: You didn't defraud
24 us. If you defrauded us, we wouldn't be representing --
25 they represent us right now. They weren't defrauded.
1 There wasn't one witness against us, and this
2 does go outside of the bounds of what we're talking about.
3 This is a political witch hunt that was set aside by --
4 should be set aside. We should receive damages for what
5 we've gone through, for what they've taken this company
6 through. We have millions pages of documents and they
7 don't have one document. They have nothing. They do have
8 a triplex where they made a mistake and they corrected it
9 immediately when it was made, and it was di-minimus,
10 because the amount of the money they're talking about
11 compared to the billions of dollars of net worth is
12 irrelevant. It's virtually irrelevant. It's a very small
13 number. It was a mistake that was corrected. That's the
14 only thing I ever read in the papers, their triplex. They
15 made a mistake, it was an honest mistake, some broker told
16 them 30 because he took -- the floors are approximately
17 10,000 feet, they heard, as you say, triplex, and they
18 multiplied times three.
19 Something like that can happen. When they found
20 it was the mistake, they immediately corrected it. I'm not
21 so sure that the dollar amount would have been so far off,
22 frankly, if you want to know, whatever the amount was. It
23 was around the 250 number. But it's a -- it's a very
24 small, it's a very small number.
25 But when you say don't go outside of these
1 things, we have a situation where I'm an innocent man.
2 I've been persecuted by somebody running for office, and I
3 think you have to go outside the bounds, because people,
4 and you could read all the articles you want to read, but
5 you look at the legal prognosticators, the legal scholars
6 talking about this case, they find it disgraceful. The
7 first time for a reason like this where there's -- you've
8 ever used this statute. This statute is viscous. It
9 doesn't give me a jury. It takes away all my rights. And
10 it is, in fact, a statute used for consumer fraud. This is
11 not consumer fraud. This is no fraud. This is a fraud on
12 me.
13 What's happened here, sir, is a fraud on me. You
14 know, other companies leave, they did it with Exxon. Exxon
15 pays billions of dollars in taxes and they're now paying to
16 Texas, and I went out and forced them that they want to
17 make sure I'm never --
18 I just added up the other day the amount of taxes
19 I've paid over the amount of the period that these people
20 say, which, by the way, is absolutely limited by the
21 Statute of Limitations. We won that case in the Court of
22 Appeals. But I said how much tax have I paid over this?
23 It's close the $300 million in tax. They don't want me
24 anymore. They don't want me here. I have done a lot of
25 great things. I have built buildings all over the City.
1 I've never had a problem. All of a sudden I have a
2 problem. I guess because I ran for office I have a problem
3 because they want to make sure that I don't win again, that
4 this is partially election interference. But, in
5 particular, the person in the room right now hates Trump
6 and uses Trump to get elected. And if I'm not allowed to
7 talk about that, I think it really is a disservice because
8 that is a very big part of this case. I would say that's
9 100 percent.
10 Without all of that, Your Honor, with all of
11 these days and months and years and millions and millions
12 pages, big company, they found nothing. And now she comes
13 in and says, we want to make a $250 million fine, $370
14 million. For what? I borrowed money from the bank, much
15 smaller than the number you are talking about, much smaller
16 than 370. One of the reasons I borrowed money is the bank
17 wanted me to. That's how they make money. The bank said
18 you should actually have -- the head of Deutsche Bank came
19 to see me -- I know this is boring for you.

20 THE COURT: One minute, Mr. Trump.

21 PRESIDENT TRUMP: You have your own agenda, I can
22 certainly understand that. You can't listen for more than
23 one minute. This has been a persecution of somebody that's
24 done a good job in New York.

25 THE COURT: Mr. Kise, please control your client.
1 By the way, you said you never had a problem;
2 haven't you been sued before?

3 PRESIDENT TRUMP: I have been sued. Sure, I've
4 been sued.

5 THE COURT: Isn't that a problem?

6 PRESIDENT TRUMP: Most suits, but this is a suit
7 that it seems I should have won many times. We've asked
8 for directed verdict almost every time a witness took the
9 stand. We've asked for a directed verdict and we were
10 immediately shut down.
11 Your Honor, look, I did nothing wrong. They
12 should pay me for what we had to go through, what they have
13 done to me reputationally and everything else. We have a
14 great company. It's a successful company, a liquid
15 company, like a lot of real estate companies are.
16 We sell the best assets in the world, and she
17 sued me to try to get publicity to run for office, and that
18 includes running for governor, where she failed.

19 THE COURT: It's 1:00 o'clock. Mr. Kise, we have
20 to go anyway, the court officers are looking at me.
21 Thank you, Mr. Trump.

22 PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you.

23 THE COURT: See you all at 2:15.

[Dave from down under]

[Rolodex]

He practiced that word salad?

[raison de arizona]

He practiced that word salad?

INORITE?!

That's the icing on the excrement cake!

[Suranis]

Poor Donald, all that work.

Trump spent weeks 'rehearsing' his courtroom rant that judge quickly shut down: insiders

I would not surprise me if he leaked that he spent time rehearsing that. Either to show how unfair it was that the Judge shut it down because it was so brilliant and he worked so hard, or to manipulate the media into talking about him and the speech and the trial some more.

[Sam the Centipede]

Not worth starting a new thread yet, but two bits of news relating to the Shitgibbon's courting, partially related to meeting the same judge again soon.

Apparently a federal judge recently dismissed the remnants of an ailing cease against Trump and previously his kids for pumping a shitty (pre-smartphone) videophone dishonestly. CNN's words: Fraudulent marketing lawsuit against Trump is dismissed

I didn't know about that. But confusingly Mary Trump gleefully suggests today in her newsletter that her Uncle Donald is about to face a new trial on the same issue scheduled to start at the end of January in Judge Engoron's court. Mary Trump inks to the Independent: Trump to face new civil trial for duping investors with failed video phone.

Hmm. It's a class action suit by anonymous plaintiffs. The federal judge in the dismissed case (was it just federal die to diversity?) ruled no to a class action. Based on my complete lack of legal expertise, it sounds dead in the water, but more knowledgeable minds can evaluate.

[RTH10260]

Off Topic

Trump Wins Dismissal of 2018 Lawsuit Over Video Phone Promotions

Erik Larson, Bloomberg News
17h ago

Former US President Donald Trump during a trial at New York State Supreme Court in New York, US, on Thursday, Jan. 11, 2024. Donald Trump and his company should be ordered to pay $370 million, up from $250 million, for inflating the value of his assets in financial records for more than a decade, New York state told a judge who will eventually issue a verdict in the civil fraud trial.

Former US President Donald Trump during a trial at New York State Supreme Court in New York, US, on Thursday, Jan. 11, 2024. Donald Trump and his company should be ordered to pay $370 million, up from $250 million, for inflating the value of his assets in financial records for more than a decade, New York state told a judge who will eventually issue a verdict in the civil fraud trial. , Bloomberg

(Bloomberg) -- With one trial down and another starting next week, former President Donald Trump quietly eked out a courtroom victory in a low-profile lawsuit that’s been grinding away for more than five years.

A New York judge on Thursday dismissed a federal suit in which a group of former Trump fans accused him of ripping off viewers of his Celebrity Apprentice TV show for years by pitching investments in a company that sold bulky desktop videophones, which he insisted were the next big thing.

The dismissal by US District Judge Lorna Schofield is a setback for plaintiffs’ attorney Roberta Kaplan, who also represents New York writer E. Jean Carroll in a defamation suit against Trump that’s going to trial next week. And it comes just after closing arguments in New York state’s civil fraud trial against Trump, the Republican front runner in the race for the White House.

The decision in the videophone case, which had been set for trial later this month, follows earlier rulings that narrowed the case in Trump’s favor. The judge said the plaintiffs can take their claims to state courts in California, Maryland and Pennsylvania, where they live. They can also appeal the dismissal to the Second Circuit in Manhattan and seek to revive the case in federal court.

“Today’s decision addresses only where – not if – plaintiffs’ claims should be brought to trial,” Kaplan said in a statement. “We intend to continue the fight, and our brave clients look forward to their day in court.”

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/trump-wins- ... -1.2021453

The investors’ lawyers have said they planned to grill Trump about why he started pitching the company to his viewers around 2008, assuring his fans that they could make easy money selling the videophones “without any of the risks most entrepreneurs have to take.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... e-pitches/

[chancery]

https://twitter.com/frankrunyeon/status ... 6640678920

Frank G. Runyeon
@frankrunyeon
New: NY high court rejects Trump's gag order challenge, saying "no substantial constitutional question is directly involved."

Trump had argued his free speech rights were trampled by limiting his ability to talk about alleged bias by court staff. Mid-level appeals had rejected

The court's curt order is in the twitter link.

It's not so easy to get an appeal accepted by the NY Court of Appeals. The court staff acts as though there's a bonus for smoking out grounds for a sua sponte dismissal.

The jurisdictional requirements for taking an appeal to the Court of Appeals are sufficiently obscure (and unfamiliar to all but a handful of practitioners) that the court has issued a document called "Civil Jurisdiction and Practice Outline." https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/forms/civiloutline.pdf It's a primer, resembling a CLE outline, that discusses many of the issues. It's actually quite good, and very helpful, but if you think you've grokked the whole thing on a single reading you might not be correct.

There are two prongs to getting a constitutional question accepted, "substantiality" and "direct involvement." See the Civil Outline at p. 2, ¶ 2(a)(ii). Here there was an obvious problem with "direct involvement.

The Appellate Division must have taken a view of the case that necessarily required it to pass upon the constitutional issue raised. Thus, an appeal will be dismissed where the Appellate Division's decision rests on an independent nonconstitutional ground.

Since the First Department dismissed on the grounds that Trump should have brought an interlocutory appeal instead of going through the cumbersome process of starting an Article 78 special proceeding, it's pretty clear that it did not pass on the constitutional issue. So, no soup for Trump.

[Rolodex]

Oh lordt. I'd forgotten about the video phone case. I think he lost a MLM-type thing case involving urine tests and "supplements." He just doesn't stop.

It sounds like the video phone case isn't dead if the plaintiffs decide to file in their states. After 5 years, are they still interested/mad? That could go either way.

[chancery]

More from Ryneon about the gag order appeal dismissal.

https://twitter.com/frankrunyeon/status ... 0128627901

Frank G. Runyeon
@frankrunyeon

Important: The court rejected Trump's appeal "as of right" (ie. automatic right to appeal) and he *could* still seek leave to appeal the high court via regular path...

But, a ruling that "no substantial constitutional question" is raised strikes at the heart of his arguments.

As I said upthread, I think the basis was "direct involvement," but it's hard to be sure with such a short order (completely normal in the NYS court system). But in any event, the same considerations will likely doom an alternative request for discretionary review to a quick flusheroo.

[Rolodex]

This case is all over except for the findings/ruling of the judge. He's got plenty of other court cases with folks he can attack. We knew this appeal would be ruled on after the end of the case. He wastes so many resources (as well as oxygen).

[Flatpoint High]

just heard that Tish is releasing the transcript & Video of donnie dookiepants' April 20223 deposition

[Reality Check]

just heard that Tish is releasing the transcript & Video of donnie dookiepants' April 20223 deposition

[p0rtia]

I thought we had that? The one with the "Historically speaking, stars have been allowed to do that..." exchange? No?

[Rolodex]

I thought we had that? The one with the "Historically speaking, stars have been allowed to do that..." exchange? No?

I think that's the depo from the Carroll 2 case. I haven't heard much about the hush money case (Stormy Daniels), but it's on the docket for March. I guess it's federal (fed election law?).