Trump vows to fight New York AG case 'all the way up to the US Supreme Court'

Poor Richard Saunders said:
You are completely ignorant of what the circumstances are.

If I take out a loan on a building for $15 million, the bank makes sure the building is worth more than that building. If the bank has a codicil that requires my net worth to be $100 million and submit annual Finacial statements attesting to that fact. When I buy the building I have $100 million invested in the market, $5 million equity in the building I just bought and a golf course in Scotland with land worth $15 million. If I lose $50 million in the market but declare that I built 50 houses on the golf course in Scotland even though I built none would my financial statement be accurate if I say I have $50 million in the market, $5 million in the building the bank has a mortgage on and $50 million worth of houses in Scotland. Do I commit fraud when I sign my financial statement that I send to the bank claiming it is true? Is it the responsibility of the bank to go to Scotland and see if the 50 homes really exist? Is there no fraud if the bank doesn't check to see if I built 50 homes? Does the fraud only occur if I don't make the payment on the loan?

The judge makes clear that the fact that the loans were repaid has no bearing on the fraud.
Click to expand...

No fraud.
The banks are responsible for conducting due dilligence on any loan application.
The banks were paid. They made money.
 
T. A. Gardner said:

Timely and total repayment of loans does not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict on
the marketplace. Indeed, the common excuse that “everybody does it” is all the more reason to
strive for honesty and transparency and to be vigilant in enforcing the rules. Here, despite the
false financial statements, it is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments on
time; the next group of lenders to receive bogus statements might not be so lucky. New York
means business in combating business fraud.

So, by your and the judge's own admission, what you are charging Trump with is a Thought crime. In essence, it's Well, next time Trump does this (if there is even a next time) there might be fraud even if this time there really wasn't and everything worked out. Better we punish him for his future, maybe, potential, crimes now than let him go free...

That's what you and the judge are saying. Definitely an 8th Amendment issue there.
Click to expand...

The judge AND the New York AG has also broken New York law (but apparently the government of New York is not going to enforce it!). They also broke federal law. They have no jurisdiction in Florida or Scotland. They have no authority to usurp the authority of any tax assessor.
 
Trump has his own illegitimate SCOTUS in place.
I'm sure that they'll take care of him in the end.

It may take a NATO invasion to liberate America
if America is to survive at all.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. The fact that Trump made the payments doesn't disprove that he filed false financial statements. The state has a vested interest in requiring that all those that do business not file false documents since the next time someone files false documents they might not pay off the loan.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with my argument you tard.

Your argument is that everyone can file false documents and only those people that fail to pay their loans can be charged with a crime. That is recipe for disaster. No bank would loan money under those circumstances which causes the damage you claim didn't occur. Banks make loans with the expectation that the person getting the loan is not committing fraud or filing false documents with them. If they knew everyone could lie, interest rates would skyrocket due to the increased risk.
Click to expand...

No, my argument is that an actual crime has to be committed. Actual harm has to have occurred. You can't charge someone for a "Thought crime." What the court did was extract a penalty for any future occasion where Trump might turn in iffy documents. That is, the court couldn't find him libel for the actual cases the state brought so they found him libel for any potential future cases that might be brought.

That is the very essence of a "Thought crime." The court became mind readers. The judge decided on the basis of his own opinion, and nothing more, that in the future Trump MIGHT, POSSIBLY, could repeat his behavior so on that basis he threw a half-a-billion dollar judgement against him. It wasn't on the basis of anything that has already occurred but rather on the basis of the judge using psychic powers, fortune telling, or some other equally stupid means of telling the future. That's the problem.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That has nothing to do with my argument you tard.



No, my argument is that an actual crime has to be committed. Actual harm has to have occurred. You can't charge someone for a "Thought crime." What the court did was extract a penalty for any future occasion where Trump might turn in iffy documents. That is, the court couldn't find him libel for the actual cases the state brought so they found him libel for any potential future cases that might be brought.

That is the very essence of a "Thought crime." The court became mind readers. The judge decided on the basis of his own opinion, and nothing more, that in the future Trump MIGHT, POSSIBLY, could repeat his behavior so on that basis he threw a half-a-billion dollar judgement against him. It wasn't on the basis of anything that has already occurred but rather on the basis of the judge using psychic powers, fortune telling, or some other equally stupid means of telling the future. That's the problem.
Click to expand...

Why give the founder of Trump University such a strong benefit of the doubt?
 
BartenderElite said:
Nah. I don't want it like that at all.

But, your strong defense of Donald Trump is certainly noted.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending Trump. The danger is that if Lettica James and Judge Engoron get away with this versus Trump, the question becomes Who do they do it to next? If you are a developer in NY, are you going to have to give the likes of those two millions in "campaign contributions" to keep them from doing to you what they did to Trump?

That's the danger here. It opens up the very real potential for an attorney general in NY to simply target whoever they dislike, hate, disagree with, whatever, and take them to court for thought crimes. Their perversion of justice won't end with Trump, you can already see that. James has new targets now that she's going to shakedown in the exact same manner.

If I were a developer in NY, I'd be packing my bags and getting the hell out of that state as fast as I could.
 
Can someone tell our resident dumbfuck nazi that his was a case seeking EQUITABLE RELIEF. Ffs look it up so ypou don’t look so fucking stupid.. And yes it was of course based on past behavior. What a dumb fucker.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I'm not defending Trump. The danger is that if Lettica James and Judge Engoron get away with this versus Trump, the question becomes Who do they do it to next? If you are a developer in NY, are you going to have to give the likes of those two millions in "campaign contributions" to keep them from doing to you what they did to Trump?

That's the danger here. It opens up the very real potential for an attorney general in NY to simply target whoever they dislike, hate, disagree with, whatever, and take them to court for thought crimes. Their perversion of justice won't end with Trump, you can already see that. James has new targets now that she's going to shakedown in the exact same manner.

If I were a developer in NY, I'd be packing my bags and getting the hell out of that state as fast as I could.
Click to expand...

You're not defending Trump?

Sure thing. That's credible.
 
Concart said:
Can someone tell our resident dumbfuck nazi that his was a case seeking EQUITABLE RELIEF. Ffs look it up so ypou don’t look so fucking stupid.. And yes it was of course based on past behavior. What a dumb fucker.
Click to expand...

Maybe YOU should look up what equitable relief is. It isn't taking money for a future, potential crime or happenstance, but used to pay back a party for harm done where monetary value isn't obvious or easily reached such as with intellectual property, copyrights, or other such things.
 
Nordberg said:
He does not decide that. He has to get the case moved up. Then the Supremes have to agree to hear it. Trump has no legal refutation.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has no jurisdiction. There is no question regarding the Constitutionally of the law. Trump is a simpleton. Like ziggy.
 
ziggy said:
Former President Trump said he will fight the ruling out of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ case "all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary,"
Click to expand...
Only because he's stealing from the RNC to pay his legal bills.
 
Althea said:
No.

The question is 'who have they done it to before?'.

Got links?
Click to expand...

They are setting precedent. It appears that James' next target is the Brazilian beef producer JBS Foods. She's suing them for an ad that ran in New York. They have no physical presence in the state. Her claim is the ad is a lie because by 2040 they won't be at zero carbon emissions. Another "thought crime" if there is one.

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/202...-worlds-largest-beef-producer-misrepresenting

James has gotten a swelled head from her win against Trump. Now she's targeting whoever the Left hates for a similar shakedown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top