4 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Will the Dems be doing this to all future Republican candidates for Presidency, ?

Only those Republican candidates who employ false electors as part of a conspiracy to overturn elections.

7 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Or retired appelate judges, no barrier to doing that.

Sure Engoron can consult with (almost) all the judges he wants even those who handled 63(12) cases. However

 

< An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.>

 

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

 

So no judge has experience with a 63(12) fraud case without 'obvious;' victims. And while Engoron can discuss with and get opinions from other judges about the possible grounds of appeal of his verdict, members of the appellate court have the only opinion that counts and THEY are off limits.
 

Just now, jerrymahoney said:

Sure Engoron can consult with (almost) all the judges he wants even those who handled 63(12) cases. However

 

< An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.>

 

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

 

So no judge has experience with a 63(12) fraud case without 'obvious;' victims. And while Engoron can discuss with and get opinions from other judges about the possible grounds of appeal of his verdict, members of the appellate court have the only opinion that counts and THEY are off limits.
 

The Engoron verdict was based on testimony indicating damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars incurred by banks and insurers.  You are falsely claiming there were no victims, yet the trial determined that there were victims.

 

What has confused you (or rather the people sending you talking points have confused you) is that the State of NY was the plaintiff, and not the victims. Because the state of NY did the investigation to uncover the fraud, whereas the victims didn't have standing to uncover the fraud.

 

Your internet friends are lying to you, about this and many things. That's their job, but its your job to check out what they send you.

6 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

 

So no judge has experience with a 63(12) fraud case without 'obvious;' victims. And while Engoron can discuss with and get opinions from other judges about the possible grounds of appeal of his verdict, members of the appellate court have the only opinion that counts and THEY are off limits.
 

Are you aware of any situations where a judge writing a verdict can consult with appelant judges while doing so?

 

You seem stuck on the concept that a fraud utilizing a novel technique is somehow not a fraud. 

 

But asset valuation fraud still is not acceptable in a court of law. The only question is if the Appeals Court will hold up the verdict amount, or reduce the amount.

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Your internet friends are lying to you, about this and many things. That's their job, but its your job to check out what they send you.

My internet friends: The Associated Press, the NY Times, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Reuters, the Washington Post(my apologies if I left any friends out)

 

And these days I try to limit my posts to verbatim comments from the above suspects just because that that limits the time others expect me to spend on cross-examination

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

My internet friends: The Associated Press, the NY Times, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Reuters, the Washington Post(my apologies if I left any friends out)

Then you are a victim of bad reporting.

 

But you now know that there *were* victims, they just weren't the plaintiffs. I hope you aren't going to pull a @Yellowtailand forget this in 24 hours.

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Then you are a victim of bad reporting

Oh.

6 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Oh.

Got any quotes from The Associated Press, the NY Times, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Reuters, the Washington Post declaring there were no victims of the Trump fraud?

 

I exclude opinion pieces.

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Got any quotes from The Associated Press, the NY Times, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Reuters, the Washington Post declaring there were no victims of the Trump fraud?

 

I exclude opinion pieces.

Yes.

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Yes.

The attorney general's office argued that the law at issue does not require the existence of victims to be enforceable. They also disputed the notion that there were no victims, saying Trump's bankers were harmed because they could have charged higher interest on loans if they knew his true net worth was lower than he claimed.

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The attorney general's office argued that the law at issue does not require the existence of victims to be enforceable. They also disputed the notion that there were no victims, saying Trump's bankers were harmed because they could have charged higher interest on loans if they knew his true net worth was lower than he claimed.

I posted that same Reuters link 5 days ago:

https://aseannow.com/topic/1320175-judge-orders-trump-and-companies-to-pay-nearly-355-million-in-civil-fraud-trial/?do=findComment&comment=18709742

 

Trump threads always get a boatload of responses.

That guy knows how to draw attention to himself.

 

32 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I posted that same Reuters link 5 days ago:

https://aseannow.com/topic/1320175-judge-orders-trump-and-companies-to-pay-nearly-355-million-in-civil-fraud-trial/?do=findComment&comment=18709742

 

But you now know that there *were* victims, they just weren't the plaintiffs. I hope you won't forget again.

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

But you now know that there *were* victims, they just weren't the plaintiffs. I hope you won't forget again.

No obvious victims as in the AP article. The DA in closing only described hypothetical victims.

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

No obvious victims as in the AP article. The DA in closing only described hypothetical victims.

The DA's witness pointed out real victims who lost money via the Trump fraud.

 

Enough to quash that avenue of appeal.

 

Your defense of Trump is based on the State of NY serving as the plaintiff, in lieu of the victims, so the victims aren't "obvious". You can do better than that.

25 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The DA's witness pointed out real victims who lost money via the Trump fraud.

 

Enough to quash that avenue of appeal.

 

Your defense of Trump is based on the State of NY serving as the plaintiff, in lieu of the victims, so the victims aren't "obvious". You can do better than that.

I don't defend Trump. I am just highlighting arguments as to what basis Trump might have an appeal and quoting from the same (lying) Reuters article you did.

 

And while you quoted above from the non-lying part of the Reuters article, from the lying part there was this:

 

<Trump's claim that there were no obvious victims, while not helpful for him when presented to Justice Arthur Engoron during the trial, could be a matter of concern for appellate judges.>

10 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I don't defend Trump. I am just highlighting arguments as to what basis Trump might have an appeal and quoting from the same (lying) Reuters article you did.

Trump is going to raise all sorts of issues in his appeal. Fortunately, Trump has crappy attorneys, and the State has good attorneys. So, I expect that the Appeals Court won't shut out Trump's team completely, and give them some small reductions. But nothing significant.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

So, I expect that

And as they used to say when I lived in NY City about 50 years ago:

 

Your opinion and a subway token gets you a ride.

6 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Will the Dems be doing this to all future Republican candidates for Presidency, ?

If they break the law, yes. Sadly, Republicans go after dems even if they didn't break the law.

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Sure Engoron can consult with (almost) all the judges he wants even those who handled 63(12) cases. However

 

< An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.>

 

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

 

So no judge has experience with a 63(12) fraud case without 'obvious;' victims. And while Engoron can discuss with and get opinions from other judges about the possible grounds of appeal of his verdict, members of the appellate court have the only opinion that counts and THEY are off limits.
 

From your article. You seem to be only looking for articles that claim these were no victims.

 

Quote

 

Notably, New York’s anti-fraud statute, known as Executive Law 63(12), is clear that a finding of fraud does not require intent to deceive or that anyone actually gets duped or loses money. The attorney general must only show “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.”

..............

When big loans are issued with an inaccurate picture of risk, said state lawyer Kevin Wallace, it damages the public and business community, “distorts the market” and “prices out honest borrowers.” 

 

Plus, Wallace suggested, letting such lies to banks slide if those banks don’t take legal action on their own would amount to saying, “if you are rich enough, you are going to be allowed to do it.”

 

 

4 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

From your article. You seem to be only looking for articles that claim these were no victims.

Sure. It's easy to root against Trump. Just like rooting for the Dallas Cowboys or Manchester United in their heydays.

 

Whether Trump has any grounds for appeal or not, I do not offer my opinion -- only quotes from 'experts' in articles from my 'internet friends.'

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/s-going-trump-faces-hurdles-securing-appeal-bond-fraud-case-rcna139861

 

Trump on Friday was ordered to pay about $355 million in penalties, plus more than $98 million in interest after a judge found the former president liable for fraud for manipulating financial statements given to lenders. Every day, the accruing interest adds $87,502 to Trump’s bill. 

 

Unless he wants to pay the entire penalty while his expected appeal is considered, Trump will need to post an appeal bond. This is typically up to 120% of the judgment plus the current interest. 

 

At that rate, Trump’s original ruling with interest would indicate he will need to secure a bond worth more than $540 million. But it’s unlikely that the real estate baron will be able to use his properties as collateral.

9 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Sure. It's easy to root against Trump. Just like rooting for the Dallas Cowboys or Manchester United in their heydays.

 

Whether Trump has any grounds for appeal or not, I do not offer my opinion -- only quotes from 'experts' in articles from my 'internet friends.'

Easy to root against criminals and liars like Trump. Can't comprehend why anyone would root for him. Sadly, some fall for the misinformation and do root for him.

 

Read this. Absolutely amazing.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_and_business_legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

Saudi holdings of US Treasuries surge to $131.9B in December 2023
18/02/2024

 

Saudi Arabia’s holdings of US Treasuries reached $131.9 billion in December 2023, up $3.8 billion month-on-month, new data released by the US Treasury showed.

 

Accordingly, Saudi Arabia's holdings hit their peak level since February 2021, when they reached nearly $132.9 billion. 

 

https://www.argaam.com/en/article/articledetail/id/1706091

 

 

9 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

Read this.

Or not. I lived in NY City in the 1970's and saw it first hand.

52 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

And as they used to say when I lived in NY City about 50 years ago:

 

Your opinion and a subway token gets you a ride.

And your opinion on the success of the appeal?

5 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Saudi holdings of US Treasuries surge to $131.9B in December 2023
18/02/2024

 

Saudi Arabia’s holdings of US Treasuries reached $131.9 billion in December 2023, up $3.8 billion month-on-month, new data released by the US Treasury showed.

 

Accordingly, Saudi Arabia's holdings hit their peak level since February 2021, when they reached nearly $132.9 billion. 

 

https://www.argaam.com/en/article/articledetail/id/1706091

 

 

Or not. I lived in NY City in the 1970's and saw it first hand.

That article isn't just about NYC, where I also use to live and saw firsthand Trump's bs. He has more lawsuits than his 4 closest real estate peers combined! A true criminal.

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

And your opinion on the success of the appeal?

I think a lot will become clear if and when he secures the bond. If he can do that, he'll drag the case out for years. His typical tactic. Amazing how he clogs up the legal system.

9 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I am amazed at the number of foreigners here who want to see America weakened from its pre-eminent position in the world, and who support Trump.

Even worse, many Americans want to see America weakened.

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Even worse, many Americans want to see America weakened.

It's like those Trump voters on Obamacare who don't care that Trump will eliminate their health insurance.

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

It's like those Trump voters on Obamacare who don't care that Trump will eliminate their health insurance.

He said he would replace it with something better...never did.