Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
https://thefogbow.com/forum/
Fucking with Trump, made him come to NYC which I think he hates now.Dave from down under wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2023 5:23 pm What’s the odds of true?
Vs
Messing with Donnie’s timetable
And/or
More media coverage as the Israeli Hamas conflict drops down in the US media attention
Donald Trump's civil fraud lawsuit erupted into chaos on Wednesday when one of the former president's attorneys accused witness Doug Larson of lying.
The $250 million trial stems from a lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James in 2022 alleging that Trump and other executives at the Trump Organization conspired to inflate the former president's net worth by billions of dollars on financial statements provided to banks and insurers in order to make deals and secure loans. Trump, who is dominating the GOP polls in his third presidential campaign, continues to deny any wrongdoing.
Larson, an appraiser whose name appears multiple times over years' worth of Trump's financial documents, began his testimony on Tuesday. The documents allege that building valuations were determined through multiple phone conversations with Larson for Trump properties like 40 Wall Street, Trump Tower and a retail area named Niketown.
When Larson was pressed by the state about the phone conversations on Tuesday, he said he didn't remember them. The state then suggested that the valuation numbers were calculated after using metrics sourced from a generic email Larson sent to his clients. Larson maintained that official appraisals should've been carried out on the buildings.
On Wednesday, Trump attorney Lazaro Fields cross-examined Larson about an email he received from Trump Organization controller Jeff McConney on August 5, 2013. McConney asked Larson to provide a report similar to one he had attached to the email. Larson previously denied having conversation with McConney regarding the 40 Wall Street property in 2016.
"You lied yesterday, didn't you?" Fields said to Larson.
Woman arrested after trying to get close to Trump at New York trial; she says she’s a supporter
BY JENNIFER PELTZ AND MICHAEL R. SISAK
Updated 12:30 AM CEST, October 19, 2023
NEW YORK (AP) — A spectator at Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial was arrested Wednesday after standing up in the middle of testimony and walking toward the front of the courtroom where the former president sat.
The woman expressed a desire to aid Trump, and the court system said that neither he nor anyone else at the trial was ever in danger. The ex-president and 2024 GOP front-runner showed no reaction in court and later told reporters he wasn’t aware of the episode that had unfolded behind him.
“Who got arrested?” Trump asked. “We didn’t know anything about it.”
The woman, later identified as a court system employee, retreated after a court officer told her to return to her seat. A short time later, officers escorted her out and arrested her on a contempt charge for disrupting a court proceeding, court spokesperson Lucian Chalfen said.
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump ... cc4f40ce9b
Stewart Bishop
@stewartbishop
Today for the first time, we're seeing reaction by AG Letitia James' office to explosive allegations from Forbes'
@DanAlexander21 that former Trump Org. CFO Allen Weisselberg lied on the witness stand during his testimony last week.
The AG’s office filed a letter to the court saying that the defendants have apparently failed to turn over a set of emails surrounding inquiries by Forbes in 2016 about Trump’s net worth, between Weisselberg and someone from a commercial real estate investment firm.
Forbes claims that Weisselberg lied under oath about his involvement in the valuation of Trump's penthouse apartment at Trump Tower. Forbes said they had regular contact with him for their annual list of wealthiest people.
The Forbes piece, titled "Trump's Longtime CFO Lied, Under Oath, About Trump Tower Penthouse,” centered on Weisselberg’s testimony in which he agreed that Trump's pad was 10,996 sq. feet, not 30,000 sq. feet as Trump had claimed, but said he had little to do with the valuation.
Forbes says old emails and notes, some of which the attorney general's office doesn't have, show otherwise, and Weisselberg spent years trying to convince Forbes reporters that the penthouse was worth more than the publication believed.
You might be thinking, "So what? Is it really a big problem that the attorney general is missing certain emails from the Trump Org if it received them from the other party?"
Yes and no.
The attorney general's letter attaches a single example of an email produced by Marcus & Millichap that wasn't found in the Trump Org's own documents. That document, of course, is just an example, and one that is relatively costless for the attorney general's team to highlight. (Significantly, it has already been used as a trial exhibit.)
What that example might illustrate, on the other hand, is a potentially big problem, or as the attorney general describes it, "a breakdown somewhere in the process of preserving, collecting, reviewing and producing documents" despite years of work by the attorney general to "ensure a complete response to [the attorney general's] subpoenas."
More ominously, the attorney general's office observes that in light of "multiple affidavits on behalf of the Trump Org attesting to the completion of their production obligations," the fact that it can still point to missing documents is "also suggestive of potentially broader issues in the production process."
Just as it has not accused Weisselberg of false testimony, the attorney general's office also has not alleged that anyone associated with the Trump Org, from individual defendants to its outside counsel, has willfully or recklessly contributed to the destruction of evidence. But in asking that retired federal judge Barbara Jones, the current monitor overseeing limited financial reporting and other Trump Org obligations, not only "undertake a forensic examination" of the Trump Org's electronic data for August to September 2016, but also diagnose what happened and "propose remedies," the attorney general is arming itself for a larger battle over truth, consequences and the future of the Trump Org before it or anyone else even determines what recourse, if any, Weisselberg warrants.
The document preservation and production issues the attorney general raised Thursday are considerably less sexy than accusations of false testimony. But could they be part and parcel of the same spectrum of misconduct among those who believe the rules do not apply and that malfeasance doesn't count unless you're caught? You bet.
But the order wasn't "don't leave anything nasty posted after someone asks for it to be taken down", it was to not propagate the nastiness.
Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 10:49 am [Next time it should be prison, no excuses. Trump has FAed, he should FO.
True, but he was ordered to refrain from such attacks and to remove any that had previously been posted. He failed to comply. A little coercion would seem to be in order.chancery wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 12:13 pmSam the Centipede wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 10:49 am [Next time it should be prison, no excuses. Trump has FAed, he should FO.
In a civil case, incarceration should only be used to coerce compliance with an order, not as a punishment for past misdeeds. At least that's the general rule.
Of course you're the lawyer, I know nothing, but isn't there a contempt issue? I guess that still hits your criterion of not being about past action but about controling future behavior.chancery wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 12:13 pmSam the Centipede wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 10:49 am [Next time it should be prison, no excuses. Trump has FAed, he should FO.
In a civil case, incarceration should only be used to coerce compliance with an order, not as a punishment for past misdeeds. At least that's the general rule.
We are all so grateful for all the IAALs on the Fogbow!chancery wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:34 pm It's dimly coming back to me that even in a civil case there can sometimes be criminal contempt proceedings to punish past disobedience. Although also ISTR that criminal contempt is usually (but not always) restricted to disruptive behavior that occurs in the court's presence. Criminal contempt proceedings trigger Constitutional rights that require more process, which is one among many reasons why they are rare.
I thought I'd done a deep dive comparing and contrasting civil with criminal contempt at the old Fogbow, possibly in relation to one of the King v. Whitmer proceedings in Michigan, but I can't find it. And I know I've briefed it once or twice in real life, but the issue never went anywhere, so it remains a subject area that I can't keep straight in my head for more than a day or two after I've studied it.
NewMexGirl wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 3:17 pmWe are all so grateful for all the IAALs on the Fogbow!chancery wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:34 pm It's dimly coming back to me that even in a civil case there can sometimes be criminal contempt proceedings to punish past disobedience. Although also ISTR that criminal contempt is usually (but not always) restricted to disruptive behavior that occurs in the court's presence. Criminal contempt proceedings trigger Constitutional rights that require more process, which is one among many reasons why they are rare.
I thought I'd done a deep dive comparing and contrasting civil with criminal contempt at the old Fogbow, possibly in relation to one of the King v. Whitmer proceedings in Michigan, but I can't find it. And I know I've briefed it once or twice in real life, but the issue never went anywhere, so it remains a subject area that I can't keep straight in my head for more than a day or two after I've studied it.
I just want to go on the record as registering my surprise that Kise is a lying liar that lies obvious lies.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 3:46 pmHe also initially denied saying "no" when half the reporters present heard him say it.bob wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 12:11 pm https://twitter.com/frankrunyeon/status ... 9495658807
While this dovetails in with other issues, many attorneys (especially male attorneys) are like this.
[A} defendant may not evade liability for violating a court order by asserting that the violation was a result of the actions of one or more of the defendant's employees or agents.
Donald Trump has received ample warning from this Court as to the possible repercussions of violating the gag order. He specifically acknowledged that he understood and would abide by it. Accordingly, issuing yet another warning is no longer appropriate; this Court is way beyond the "Warning" stage.
Given defendant's position that the violation was inadvertent, and given that it is a first time violation, this Court will impose a nominal fine, $5,000 ...
Make no mistake: future violations, whether intentional or unintentional, will subject the violator to far more severe sanctions, which may include, but are not limited to, steeper financial penalties, holding Donald Trump in contempt of court, and possibly imprisoning him pursuant to New York Judiciary Law § 753.
He probably won't pay the $5,000 either.Dave from down under wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 5:00 pm He won’t believe there will be sterner sanctions..
He doesn’t want to stop being what he is.