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

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

DENINED!!!!!!

[raison de arizona]

https://x.com/PalmerReport/status/17074 ... 16417?s=20

NY AG Letitia James has listed Ivanka Trump as a witness for the state in next week’s civil fraud trial. Doesn’t mean Ivanka has “flipped.” But she will be required to testify against her family members in any matters that don’t implicate her.

[bob]

NY AG LetiArizonaes has listed Ivanka Trump as a witness for the state in next week’s civil fraud trial. Doesn’t mean Ivanka has “flipped.” But she will be required to testify against her family members in any matters that don’t implicate her.

And, "for completeness," the courts already dismissed her from this suit because her (alleged) actions were beyond the statute of limitations.

In other words, for her to invoke the Fifth, she'll have to explain what she could possibly be prosecuted for.

[NewMexGirl]

NY AG LetiArizonaes has listed Ivanka Trump as a witness for the state in next week’s civil fraud trial. Doesn’t mean Ivanka has “flipped.” But she will be required to testify against her family members in any matters that don’t implicate her.

And, "for completeness," the courts already dismissed her from this suit because her (alleged) actions were beyond the statute of limitations.

In other words, for her to invoke the Fifth, she'll have to explain what she could possibly be prosecuted for.

Thanks for the info on 5A. Yum!

Will anybody be live blogging the trial?

[realist]

NY AG LetiArizonaes has listed Ivanka Trump as a witness for the state in next week’s civil fraud trial. Doesn’t mean Ivanka has “flipped.” But she will be required to testify against her family members in any matters that don’t implicate her.

And, "for completeness," the courts already dismissed her from this suit because her (alleged) actions were beyond the statute of limitations.

In other words, for her to invoke the Fifth, she'll have to explain what she could possibly be prosecuted for.

Indeed.

Bet she tries anyway.

[noblepa]

NY AG LetiArizonaes has listed Ivanka Trump as a witness for the state in next week’s civil fraud trial. Doesn’t mean Ivanka has “flipped.” But she will be required to testify against her family members in any matters that don’t implicate her.

And, "for completeness," the courts already dismissed her from this suit because her (alleged) actions were beyond the statute of limitations.

In other words, for her to invoke the Fifth, she'll have to explain what she could possibly be prosecuted for.

Is that really true? We've had this discussion before, when TFG and others invoked the 5A. It was said then that it is almost exclusively the right of the witness to decide whether or not their testimony might incriminate them.

Also, too, it seems to this IANAL, that if she were to explain what crimes she thought she might have committed, that statement could itself be incriminating. If she were to explain that her answers might incriminate her in the commission of crime X, someone at DOJ or other LEO might think "gee, we never thought of that. Let's go investigate". Wouldn't that constitute self-incrimination?

[bob]

Is that really true? We've had this discussion before, when TFG and others invoked the 5A. It was said then that it is almost exclusively the right of the witness to decide whether or not their testimony might incriminate them.

I have no idea who might have said that.

But letting witnesses decided whether they can invoke the Fifth would be ... interesting.

Also, too, it seems to this IANAL, that if she were to explain what crimes she thought she might have committed, that statement could itself be incriminating. If she were to explain that her answers might incriminate her in the commission of crime X, someone at DOJ or other LEO might think "gee, we never thought of that. Let's go investigate". Wouldn't that constitute self-incrimination?

There are methods to prevent a prosecutor from learning about such statements.

[raison de arizona]

Witness list.

► Show Spoiler

[much ado]

Is that really true? We've had this discussion before, when TFG and others invoked the 5A. It was said then that it is almost exclusively the right of the witness to decide whether or not their testimony might incriminate them.

I have no idea who might have said that.

But letting witnesses decided whether they can invoke the Fifth would be ... interesting.

So who decides for a witness whether they can invoke the Fifth during a court proceeding? By what mechanism is this done?

[bob]

So who decides for a witness whether they can invoke the Fifth during a court proceeding? By what mechanism is this done?

Like many things: the judge.

Opposing counsel (or the court on its own initiative) may express doubt about the witness' invocation. The court may inquire further, and use protective measures (e.g., sealing, exclusion) to prevent law enforcement from learning about the witness' bases for invoking.

[NewMexGirl]

Witness list.

Lots of familiar names. I was hoping former Justice Kennedy’s son would be called, but no.

Thanks for providing the list.

[Kendra]

Reports on MSNBC that tfg is or will be in New York and may be attending a couple of days of next week's trial.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Well, he does need to move out of his 30,000 11,000 sq ft apartment soon.

Start spreading the news

[bill_g]

He prolly couldn't pass a credit check now to rent an apartment. He might have to live on his plane.

(visions of a blue Boeing plastered with grafitti leaning on a stack of pallets in an abandoned light industrial area, tarps flapping on the wings, with planks and milk crates for a makeshift ramp, a small fire in a barrel towards the tail)

[jemcanada2]

Is that really true? We've had this discussion before, when TFG and others invoked the 5A. It was said then that it is almost exclusively the right of the witness to decide whether or not their testimony might incriminate them.

I have no idea who might have said that.

Maybe the same person who keeps insisting that the PRA says it’s completely up to the president to decide which documents are his.

[p0rtia]

Reports on MSNBC that tfg is or will be in New York and may be attending a couple of days of next week's trial.

So, the backstory is that fuckhead was due to sit for a depo in FL on Tues. Oct. 3 in his suite against Michael Cohen. A depo he had already delayed for a month using the "new lawyer" gambit. The Oct 3 date was set by the judge even though the Oct 2 OAG NY date was welll known, and I believe the reason fuckhead gave six weeks ago for agreeing to it was because he wasn't going to attend the OAG trial.

So on Thursday, fuckhead's lawyers submitted a filing to the judge in the Cohen case saying that FH could not attend the Oct 3 depo because he planned to attend _every day_ of the first week of the OAG trial (!). And they said that they wouldn't be available for the depot till whenever the OAG trial ended.

Cohen's lawyers said, "Fine, we'll do it in NYC, but on Oct 10, you little squirming shits (Narrator: they didn't actually say that last part). The judge agreed. "Fine, we'll do it in NYC on Oct 10."

So the only reason Fuckhead is planning on being at the OAG trial is to avoid the Cohen depo. I'm still not sure Fuckhead will show up for ten minutes of the OAG trial--and I would bet a lot of money that he will not be there every day next week, all day. Which the judge in the Cohen case is not gonna like.

ETA1: Judge in Fuckhead v Cohen is Edwin Torres, Miami.

ETA2: Fuckhead has been fighting doing this depo for months. My previous favorite excuse was that he couldn't do the depo till after the 2024 election because it might be prejudicial in his other cases. Keeping in mind that this is Fuckhead suing Cohen--and uet it's Fuckhead seeking the delays and avoidance. It's not gonna end well.

[bob]

"I'm trying to delay the lawsuit I filed!" is vintage Klayman. Who lives in Florida and has an open schedule now that his sports-related lawsuits are donezo.

[chancery]

Well, he does need to move out of his 30,000 11,000 sq ft apartment soon.

Why do you say that? The partial summary judgment order prevents Trump's companies from conducting business; it doesn't take any property away from its owners.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

I'm being funny, not a serious comment.

[chancery]

[much ado]

Well, he does need to move out of his 30,000 11,000 sq ft apartment soon.

Why do you say that? The partial summary judgment order prevents Trump's companies from conducting business; it doesn't take any property away from its owners.

According to this reporting in the New York Times, that is not entirely clear...

NY Times gift: Will a Judge’s Fraud Ruling Dismantle Trump’s New York Empire?

The strictest possible reading of Justice Engoron’s order could spell the end of the Trump Organization as we know it, forcing a sell-off of several properties and imposing a death sentence on its New York operations.

More likely, legal experts said, is a period in which Mr. Trump would be unable to operate his properties, which would be handed to a court-appointed chief executive, potentially Ms. Jones. Such an arrangement would preserve Mr. Trump’s ownership while preventing him and his two adult sons, Donald Jr. and Eric Trump, who are also defendants, from running the machinery of their empire without permission from the court.

It would be as though the court revoked Mr. Trump’s driver’s license: He would still own a fleet of vehicles and could be driven around, but would be barred from getting behind the wheel himself.

[chancery]

Sure. In some instances the only practicable way to prevent Trump from conducting business with some of his assets will be to force a sale of the asset. Doesn't seem likely in the case of the temple of bad taste that is his NYC residence.

The more I think about the conceptual and practical difficulties in implementing the partial summary judgment order, the more I worry that application of the statute to the Trump Organization has serious vagueness issues under the Constitution.

Edit: fixed bad spell-correct typo, thanks to Chilidog

[Ben-Prime]

Sure. In some instances the only practicable way to prevent Trump from conducting business with some of his assets will be to force a sale of the asset. Doesn't seem likely in the case of the temple of bad taste that is his NYC residence.

But if he owns the building and rents units in it to other people, isn't that doing business? Wouldn't that mean a sale? Or am I confusing the properties he owns?

[RTH10260]

Sure. In some instances the only practicable way to prevent Trump from conducting business with some of his assets will be to force a sale of the asset. Doesn't seem likely in the case of the temple of bad taste that is his NYC residence.

But if he owns the building and rents units in it to other people, isn't that doing business? Wouldn't that mean a sale? Or am I confusing the properties he owns?

I understand that procedures compare to bancruptcy proceedings: a court apoointed manager runs the daily buisness and the owners have no say in it. I understand that this manager acts in a fiduciary manner, assets are not disposed in a fire yard sale. Assets may get sold off at good market price if such offers were to exist.

[Ben-Prime]

Sure. In some instances the only practicable way to prevent Trump from conducting business with some of his assets will be to force a sale of the asset. Doesn't seem likely in the case of the temple of bad taste that is his NYC residence.

But if he owns the building and rents units in it to other people, isn't that doing business? Wouldn't that mean a sale? Or am I confusing the properties he owns?

I understand that procedures compare to bancruptcy proceedings: a court apoointed manager runs the daily buisness and the owners have no say in it. I understand that this manager acts in a fiduciary manner, assets are not disposed in a fire yard sale. Assets may get sold off at good market price if such offers were to exist.

So at the very least, the business will need to start paying taxes on a less-gamed market value of the properties. Well, that's something.