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

[MN-Skeptic]

That safe harbor rules appears to apply to forward-looking statements, which I would assume to be projections of net income. It sounds like Trump wildly over-estimated both projected net income plus the fair market value of his current assets.

[p0rtia]

Moreover, "meaningful" is a key word. Fuckhead is saying that the worthless clause covers him for lying through his teeth on any and all numbers given. That's what makes it great.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Yeah, that was more of an example of how the safe harbor provision works (must be a good faith effort at valuation, with clearly stated assumptions including how conditions could alter the anticipated outcome), rather than the specific law in question.

[much ado]

Trump is so stupid.

[Sam the Centipede]

A more plausible defense from Trump would be "anybody doing business with me knows that I am a liar, a cheat, a fraud, so it is completely unreasonable to treat about figures I produce as nonsensical fairy stories."

However, I think the law doesn't value "I'm a criminal so my driving shouldn't count" arguments.

[Maybenaut]

A more plausible defense from Trump would be "anybody doing business with me knows that I am a liar, a cheat, a fraud, so it is completely unreasonable to treat about figures I produce as nonsensical fairy stories."

However, I think the law doesn't value "I'm a criminal so my driving shouldn't count" arguments.

That’s essentially the same argument Sydney Powell made, “No reasonable person could believe my lying lies, so I’m off the hook for having made them.”

[Sam the Centipede]

Thx, mayb, yes, I guess it was Squidney's approach.

There is some jolly in seeing Trumpists wriggle and squirm when they're attempting to avoid law enforcement's interest in their criming!

[Suranis]

A more plausible defense from Trump would be "anybody doing business with me knows that I am a liar, a cheat, a fraud, so it is completely unreasonable to treat about figures I produce as nonsensical fairy stories."

However, I think the law doesn't value "I'm a criminal so my driving shouldn't count" arguments.

That’s essentially the same argument Sydney Powell made, “No reasonable person could believe my lying lies, so I’m off the hook for having made them.”

It's also the defense FOX News made to win a case of Defamation involving Tuckums Carlson in 2020 - No reasonable person believes a word he says.

https://www.businessinsider.nl/fox-news ... seriously/

Fox News won a court case by ‘persuasively’ arguing that no ‘reasonable viewer’ takes Tucker Carlson seriously

[Slim Cognito]

you cheated.jpg (37.42 KiB) Viewed 1272 times

[bill_g]

I think Fox's characterization of Carlson applies to their entire news "product". It's not even infotainment. It's improv.

[raison de arizona]

New York AG asks judge to sanction Trump for rehashing failed legal arguments

• New York Attorney General Letitia James asked a judge Tuesday to sanction Donald Trump, other defendants and their lawyers for rehashing the same legal arguments in James’ big civil fraud lawsuit against the former president.
• James asked that all the defendants be fined $10,000 collectively, and that another fine of $10,000 be imposed on their lawyers collectively.
• James’ request came four weeks before trial in the lawsuit is set to begin in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan. The attorney general in that suit is seeking $250 million in damages from Trump and the other defendants for what she alleges is widespread fraud related to a decade of financial statements.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/05/new-yor ... ments.html

[Gregg]

So he puts out financial statements with a clause in them saying "Oh never mind, this is all bullshit" basically? Yeesh.

The amazing thing is banks took them with a straight face.

[much ado]

So he puts out financial statements with a clause in them saying "Oh never mind, this is all bullshit" basically? Yeesh.

The amazing thing is banks took them with a straight face.

I wonder whether some bank officials were being paid off. Hmmm...

[Gregg]

In some respects it's boiler plate you add to fin statements, but it is not the get out jail free card he thinks it is. Honest people will state we may have made a math mistake, and if you point it out, we will correct it. He believes his disclaimers cover his practice of selective inflation or deflation where it suits him.

It's what you put in front of numbers so faked that you can't even get a very compliant accounting firm to put an attestation in front of them instead. And getting a GAAP Attestation is not really a hard thing to do for some pretty hinky numbers, especially if the company trying to play fast and easy is not publicly traded.

But Trump is telling one truth here, no one who saw those books thought they had any connection to reality. The problem isn't just that he was a crook when he had them made, the problem is (often Federally Insured) banks accepted them when they had a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, depositors and the aforementioned FDIC etc... to not let crooks like Trump get away with trying to pull shit like that.

[Volkonski]

Manhattan judge rejects Trump effort to delay October business-fraud trial as 'completely without merit'.

[Gregg]

It doesn't get much attention but that case could really destroy Trump as a going business concern. It kicks him out of New York, will make it nigh impossible for him to have a relationship with any FDIC insured bank and just for a bonus could cost him a quarter of a billion dollars. Which he can't even get a PAC to pay for him.

[RTH10260]

I've read that it's not yet clear whether this will be a jury trial, a bench trial, or a bifurcated trial with only some issues decided by a jury.

Thanks so much for the info on all the possibilities of how this case might be handled. I really appreciate it.

According to a interview / discussion between Ben Meiselas and Michael Cohen this will be a bench trial cause the former guy's attorneys (Alina Habba?) did not mark the checkbox requesting a jury trial.

► Show Spoiler

[chancery]

Meh.

It's true that the Attorney General did not demand a trial by jury in its note of issue, which is a filing in which a party contends that a case is ready for trial.

Under NY CPLR 4102(a), after the note of issue was served, Trump and the other defendants had 15 days to file a demand for trial by jury, failing which "the right to trial by jury shall be deemed waived by all parties." That's what Michael Cohen was relying on in arguing that Alina Habba had screwed the pooch big time by not filing a jury demand within 15 days.

But there is a big escape route for Habba. CPLR 4102(e) provides: "The court may relieve a party from the effect of failing to comply with this section if no undue prejudice to the rights of another party would result."

There is case law holding that where a party's counsel demonstrates that "his failure to demand a jury trial was an oversight that was promptly the subject of a motion to correct his error once he was made aware of it," it is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny a motion for permission to make a late-filed demand for a jury trial. Leone v Greek Peak Inc., 81 AD2d 751, 752 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dept. 1981). But cf. Ramirez-Hernandez v. Bloomingdale, 75 Misc. 3d 249, 253 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Erie Cty. 2002) ("persistent acknowledgment by all counsel that the court was to conduct a nonjury trial, coupled with a two-year delay, violates those principles and is not due the relief otherwise appropriate for the inadvertent failure to timely demand a jury trial"). See also Bove v. World Life Entertainment Co., Index No. 0139660-00, Slip Op. at 2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty. July 24, 2002) ("In the absence of undue prejudice, it is well settled under New York law that a request to file a late demand for a trial by jury should be granted if failure to file within the statutory time frame was inadvertent, without any intention to waive the right to a jury trial.") https://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/10 ... 966-00.pdf

So while Habba might have screwed up, her failure to move for relief from her mistake suggests that Trump's trial team (including the anonymous lawyers who are probably doing most of the work in the background) wasn't serious about trying this case to a Manhattan jury, for the reasons discussed upthread. viewtopic.php?t=1663&start=225#p213946

Disclaimer: this post is based on some quick internet research. I'm retired, and "I really don't care, do you?"

[somerset]

And honestly, does it really matter in this case? Yes, jurors can be bamboozled by clever lawyering (see: Cochran, Johnnie). But this is in NYC, where tfg is mostly hated, and tfg's lawyers ain't no Johnnie Cochrans.

[NewMexGirl]

Meh.

It's true that the Attorney General did not demand a trial by jury in its note of issue, which is a filing in which a party contends that a case is ready for trial.

Thank you so much for all the info. I love, love, love the legal stuff, can’t get enough of it.

[RTH10260]

Judge temporarily halts New York fraud trial against Trump, pending appeal

Reuters
September 15, 20232:10 AM GMT+2Updated 4 hours ago


NEW YORK, Sept 14 (Reuters) - A New York state appeals court judge on Thursday temporarily halted the scheduled Oct. 2 trial in New York Attorney General Letitia James' fraud lawsuit against Donald Trump and his family business, a spokesman for the court said.

The order came after the former U.S. president sued Justice Arthur Engoron, the trial judge overseeing the case, accusing him and James of defying a court order that could narrow the lawsuit, according to a report in the Daily Beast.

According to the court spokesman, appeals court Justice David Friedman granted an interim stay of the trial, and referred the matter to a five-judge panel, which expects to rule in the last week of September.

The trial could still begin on Oct. 2 depending on how the appeals court, known as the First Department, rules.

Friedman's stay does not apply to a scheduled Sept. 22 hearing before Engoron on both sides' motions for summary judgment, which can proceed as planned, the court spokesman said.



https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge- ... 023-09-14/

[RTH10260]

Michael Popok comments on above on MTN

► Show Spoiler

?

[chancery]

Doesn't make sense to me. If the judge has erred, Trump can raise the error on appeals. Bringing a separate lawsuit is whacko, and don't know why the Appellate Division would play along.

[chancery]

From the Reuters article:

Trump holds a dominant lead in the 2024 race for the Republican presidential nomination.

He has denied wrongdoing, and called James' case part of a Democratic "witch hunt."

This is completely irrelevant bullshit bothsidesism. Even a relatively decent new organization such as Reuters suffers from a deep structural presumption that Republican positions and talking points are worthwhile arguments presented in good faith.

[chancery]

Doesn't make sense to me. If the judge has erred, Trump can raise the error on appeals. Bringing a separate lawsuit is whacko, and don't know why the Appellate Division would play along.

Maybe it's an Article 78 proceeding, the NYS version of a petition for mandamus, which would not be whacko as in "that's not a thing," although it would rarely be appropriate. I must have known once (bar exam preparation) whether an Article 78 proceeding can be brought against a judge to correct activity without jurisdiction in a pending proceeding -- and it's starting to come to me that I might have briefed it once or twice while in practice -- but I don't remember much.

Does anyone have a link to the papers?