Update on Trump Legal Cases

[jarnon]

Ironic headline:

Judge in New York hush money case places limited gag order on Trump

The gag order follows Trump’s disparaging remarks about Judge Juan Merchan and his daughter.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's another example of lawfare.

It was all a misunderstanding? How is that?

I would suspect the left pulled their money and lawyers from his case for some reason. Maybe they needed them for Fani or Peek-a-Boo's cases. Some bumps in the road on those. Gotta go after the main target.

[silverscreenselect]

Here's another example of lawfare.

It was all a misunderstanding? How is that?

I would suspect the left pulled their money and lawyers from his case for some reason. Maybe they needed them for Fani or Peek-a-Boo's cases. Some bumps in the road on those. Gotta go after the main target.

So, a Republican operative who worked on Herschel Walker's campaign sues then drops a suit against the head of CPAC and that's somehow the Democrats' doing. More likely, he was either bought off or threatened off.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's another example of lawfare.

It was all a misunderstanding? How is that?

I would suspect the left pulled their money and lawyers from his case for some reason. Maybe they needed them for Fani or Peek-a-Boo's cases. Some bumps in the road on those. Gotta go after the main target.

So, a Republican operative who worked on Herschel Walker's campaign sues then drops a suit against the head of CPAC and that's somehow the Democrats' doing. More likely, he was either bought off or threatened off.

As I have said NUMEROUS TIMES, I am not a republican. The republican party is almost as corrupt as the democrat party. You have no retention. I am a conservative who is working towards making the republican party into a party that actually represents conservatives. Like removing RINOs like Liz Cheney, Lisa Murkowski, Ronna Romney and Uncle Mitt, among many others, from power inside the party. There are many swamp creatures that use the republican party to advance the swamp agenda. These are the ones that have to be removed. They need to go to their real home, the democrat/communist party.

[silverscreenselect]

I am a conservative who is working towards making the republican party into a party that actually represents conservatives. Like removing RINOs like Liz Cheney, Lisa Murkowski, Ronna Romney and Uncle Mitt, among many others, from power inside the party.

You aren't a conservative. You're a Trump lackey. Your philosophy is whatever Trump wants. There are a lot of others like you who are doing their best to rid the party of genuine conservatives like Liz Cheney. Lisa Murkowski is a moderate Republican but since she won't worship at the altar of Trump, you're kicking her out too. Matt Gaetz, Josh Hawley, and Marjorie Taylor Greene are not the people to build a majority party around.

[silverscreenselect]

Not Trump but one of his most loyal toadies. Kari Lake has informed an Arizona judge that she will not defend the statements she made in a defamation case filed against her by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, a fellow Republican. Following her loss in the 2022 Arizona governor's race, Lake repeatedly claimed that Richer intentionally misprinted ballots so that 300,000 illegal votes would be counted. In his lawsuit, Richer contended that he and his family had received death threats as a result of Lake's statements. Today, Lake said that she was not admitting she was wrong but, rather, "by participating in this lawsuit, it would only serve to legitimize this perversion of our legal system." The judge is expected to issue a default judgment shortly and the case will proceed to trial on the issue of damages. Lake continues to contend that the election was rigged and stolen.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

[flockofseagulls104]

Not Trump but one of his most loyal toadies. Kari Lake has informed an Arizona judge that she will not defend the statements she made in a defamation case filed against her by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, a fellow Republican. Following her loss in the 2022 Arizona governor's race, Lake repeatedly claimed that Richer intentionally misprinted ballots so that 300,000 illegal votes would be counted. In his lawsuit, Richer contended that he and his family had received death threats as a result of Lake's statements. Today, Lake said that she was not admitting she was wrong but, rather, "by participating in this lawsuit, it would only serve to legitimize this perversion of our legal system." The judge is expected to issue a default judgment shortly and the case will proceed to trial on the issue of damages. Lake continues to contend that the election was rigged and stolen.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

I applaud Kari.

Like Reardon in Atlas Shrugged, she is not going to participate in the obvious lawfare. She is skipping the part where she has to defend herself and pay for lawyers and have the taxpayers pay for the courtroom costs. That is what lawfare is. They don't care if they win or lose. The time and resources she has to spend in order to 'defend' herself against scurrilous and made-up charges is the goal.

Oh, the poor guy has gotten death threats. What does that have to do with Kari Lake? Prosecute the assholes that sent them. You don't think Kari Lake has gotten death threats?

That is what Trump is up against order of magnitudes higher.

[flockofseagulls104]

Let's see if James goes after Jon Stewart.
Him and Trump must be the only people in NY that have ever done this. Even though Trump's valuations were valid.

Nah, not in this lifetime. Time to gather your excuses, trollboy.

[jarnon]

In New York City (and most other places) real estate taxes are based on the property’s assessed value, which is the market value multiplied by an assessment ratio. The assessment ratio for most residences in New York City is 6%. This is perfectly legal, and is different from claiming triple the size of a condo or assessing Mar-a-Lago as a private home when it’s a country club. Everyone knows this, including the New York Post writers who are trying to dupe readers like you.

[BackInTex]

In New York City (and most other places) real estate taxes are based on the property’s assessed value, which is the market value multiplied by an assessment ratio. The assessment ratio for most residences in New York City is 6%. This is perfectly legal, and is different from claiming triple the size of a condo or assessing Mar-a-Lago as a private home when it’s a country club. Everyone knows this, including the New York Post writers who are trying to dupe readers like you.

Banks don't give a shit whether you assess something as a hen house, condo, or country club. They only care about how much they could liquidate the asset for should they need to. And, news flash, they don't rely soley on what a loan applicant states. They do their own due dilegence. In the Trump cases, the banks were happy with the valuations, they got their money back, and they'd do it again under the same circumstances. There was no victim and yes, there was no crime.

[silverscreenselect]

Oh, the poor guy has gotten death threats. What does that have to do with Kari Lake? Prosecute the assholes that sent them. You don't think Kari Lake has gotten death threats?

The death threats are a result of Kari Lake's bogus claims about the election. In a defamation suit, a person has to prove damages. Like E. Jean Caroll with Trump, this guy has received death threats because of statements Lake made about him. A jury may well find that to be an element of the damages he has suffered and structure their award accordingly.

[silverscreenselect]

And, news flash, they don't rely soley on what a loan applicant states. They do their own due dilegence.

The next time you or Flock try to borrow money and submit a sworn statement about your assets, try to defend yourselves by claiming it's the bank's responsibility to see if you're lying under oath. See how far that gets you. The banks made a profit. They would have made a greater profit if they had set the terms of the loans based on the actual property valuations. And Trump was in a better position that any potential other buyers of the property who were honest about their finances.

[Weyoun]

Let's see if James goes after Jon Stewart.
Him and Trump must be the only people in NY that have ever done this. Even though Trump's valuations were valid.

Nah, not in this lifetime. Time to gather your excuses, trollboy.

I’m embarrassed for you. You don’t know the difference between a property tax valuation and a bank property value estimate for purposes of securing a loan. Granted, you probably live in the back of a car at this point, but I would’ve figured that you could’ve at least have picked that up with your years of being on this planet.

[silverscreenselect]

Here's another example of lawfare.

It was all a misunderstanding? How is that?

I would suspect the left pulled their money and lawyers from his case for some reason. Maybe they needed them for Fani or Peek-a-Boo's cases. Some bumps in the road on those. Gotta go after the main target.

Conservative bigwig Matt Schlapp agreed to hefty settlement to end sexual assault lawsuit

The Republican operative who accused American Conservative Union chairman Matt Schlapp of sexual assault last year received a significant financial settlement in exchange for dropping his lawsuit against Schlapp, multiple sources familiar with the case told CNN. The $480,000 settlement was paid to Carlton Huffman through an insurance policy, according to a source familiar with the details. Schlapp’s legal team did not respond for comment when asked about the financial settlement, but on Tuesday said that Huffman dropped the lawsuit and Schlapp claimed he had been exonerated.

But multiple sources familiar with the allegations and legal proceedings told CNN that Huffman did, in fact, receive a financial settlement via an insurance company. When reached for comment, Huffman told CNN, “I am only legally allowed to say five words, and that is ‘We have resolved our differences.’ Those are the only five words that I’m legally allowed to say.” His lawyer, Tim Hyland, also declined to comment on any financial settlement terms or other details of the case, saying only, “The parties have resolved their differences.”

The case was scheduled to go to trial in early June. By agreeing to the deal now, Schlapp and his lawyers prevented potentially damaging testimony from becoming public, including a deposition by Charlie Gerow, a former vice chair of CPAC and ACU board member who expressed serious concerns about Schlapp’s behavior in his resignation letter, as well as two witnesses who had previously accused Schlapp of sexual misconduct. Schlapp will also be spared from having to testify in open court.

Another Flock "lawfare" conspiracy theory goes up in smoke.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's another example of lawfare.

It was all a misunderstanding? How is that?

I would suspect the left pulled their money and lawyers from his case for some reason. Maybe they needed them for Fani or Peek-a-Boo's cases. Some bumps in the road on those. Gotta go after the main target.

Conservative bigwig Matt Schlapp agreed to hefty settlement to end sexual assault lawsuit

The Republican operative who accused American Conservative Union chairman Matt Schlapp of sexual assault last year received a significant financial settlement in exchange for dropping his lawsuit against Schlapp, multiple sources familiar with the case told CNN. The $480,000 settlement was paid to Carlton Huffman through an insurance policy, according to a source familiar with the details. Schlapp’s legal team did not respond for comment when asked about the financial settlement, but on Tuesday said that Huffman dropped the lawsuit and Schlapp claimed he had been exonerated.

But multiple sources familiar with the allegations and legal proceedings told CNN that Huffman did, in fact, receive a financial settlement via an insurance company. When reached for comment, Huffman told CNN, “I am only legally allowed to say five words, and that is ‘We have resolved our differences.’ Those are the only five words that I’m legally allowed to say.” His lawyer, Tim Hyland, also declined to comment on any financial settlement terms or other details of the case, saying only, “The parties have resolved their differences.”

The case was scheduled to go to trial in early June. By agreeing to the deal now, Schlapp and his lawyers prevented potentially damaging testimony from becoming public, including a deposition by Charlie Gerow, a former vice chair of CPAC and ACU board member who expressed serious concerns about Schlapp’s behavior in his resignation letter, as well as two witnesses who had previously accused Schlapp of sexual misconduct. Schlapp will also be spared from having to testify in open court.

Another Flock "lawfare" conspiracy theory goes up in smoke.

The famous weasel words of the driveby media: "But multiple sources familiar..."

It was another case of he said, he said. With multiple, unprovable allegations from others that all of a sudden, amazingly, have a dog in the hunt.

[Bob78164]

In New York City (and most other places) real estate taxes are based on the property’s assessed value, which is the market value multiplied by an assessment ratio. The assessment ratio for most residences in New York City is 6%. This is perfectly legal, and is different from claiming triple the size of a condo or assessing Mar-a-Lago as a private home when it’s a country club. Everyone knows this, including the New York Post writers who are trying to dupe readers like you.

Banks don't give a shit whether you assess something as a hen house, condo, or country club. They only care about how much they could liquidate the asset for should they need to. And, news flash, they don't rely sole[l]y on what a loan applicant states. They do their own due dilegence. In the Trump cases, the banks were happy with the valuations, they got their money back, and they'd do it again under the same circumstances. There was no victim and yes, there was no crime.

So you're okay with firing a gun at someone, as long as you miss. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

In New York City (and most other places) real estate taxes are based on the property’s assessed value, which is the market value multiplied by an assessment ratio. The assessment ratio for most residences in New York City is 6%. This is perfectly legal, and is different from claiming triple the size of a condo or assessing Mar-a-Lago as a private home when it’s a country club. Everyone knows this, including the New York Post writers who are trying to dupe readers like you.

Banks don't give a shit whether you assess something as a hen house, condo, or country club. They only care about how much they could liquidate the asset for should they need to. And, news flash, they don't rely sole[l]y on what a loan applicant states. They do their own due dilegence. In the Trump cases, the banks were happy with the valuations, they got their money back, and they'd do it again under the same circumstances. There was no victim and yes, there was no crime.

So you're okay with firing a gun at someone, as long as you miss. --Bob

WTF are you talking 'bout, booby?
I think he was pretty clear. Banks are not stupid, or they are not banks for very long. They are not government agencies. "They do their own due diligence." He also said "the banks were happy with the valuations, they got their money back, and they'd do it again under the same circumstances." The banks themselves testified to that. Further, he said "There was no victim and yes, there was no crime"."

I really think that is one of the most clear and concise posts ever made here. And every sentence is TRUE. What in the everloving world does it have to do with firing a gun? Is this how you handle a case when you are on the wrong side of the truth? When you can't argue against the truth, you make up some stupid analogy and hope the jury is stupid enough to buy it? Or in this case a corrupt, biased, partisan, bought and paid for judge?

If you have any conscience, which is doubtful based on the career you've chosen, how could you live with yourself?

[silverscreenselect]

I really think that is one of the most clear and concise posts ever made here.

Here's something clear and concise. It was fraud. If you, I, or BiT had done it, we'd be in jail right now. The question isn't whether the banks were happy; they would have been happier had Trump been honest. And the reason that banks charge a higher rate for subprime loans is that they know statistically that more of them will default, and that loan premium gives them a buffer against those defaults. If everyone who borrowed money had done the same thing Trump did, the banks would have collected significantly less money and would have been in worse shape when some of those loans defaulted.

It's exactly the same thing that Bob said. Suppose you drive while significantly intoxicated. You might make it home safely. In fact, you probably will make it home safely. But if enough people drive while intoxicated, some of them will be involved in accidents as a result and people will be hurt. So we punish all DUIs, not just those that result in accidents. The idea is to get people to stop driving while intoxicated. The idea behind requiring a sworn financial statement is to get an accurate picture of the borrower's financial situation so that the bank can set a fair interest rate that will allow it to make a profit over its entire book of business.

[flockofseagulls104]

I really think that is one of the most clear and concise posts ever made here.

Here's something clear and concise. It was fraud. If you, I, or BiT had done it, we'd be in jail right now. The question isn't whether the banks were happy; they would have been happier had Trump been honest. And the reason that banks charge a higher rate for subprime loans is that they know statistically that more of them will default, and that loan premium gives them a buffer against those defaults. If everyone who borrowed money had done the same thing Trump did, the banks would have collected significantly less money and would have been in worse shape when some of those loans defaulted.

It's exactly the same thing that Bob said. Suppose you drive while significantly intoxicated. You might make it home safely. In fact, you probably will make it home safely. But if enough people drive while intoxicated, some of them will be involved in accidents as a result and people will be hurt. So we punish all DUIs, not just those that result in accidents. The idea is to get people to stop driving while intoxicated. The idea behind requiring a sworn financial statement is to get an accurate picture of the borrower's financial situation so that the bank can set a fair interest rate that will allow it to make a profit over its entire book of business.

No, you target a specific individual, find him guilty, unilaterally, of a crime you chose for him, using made-up evidence and ignoring all evidence that could exonerate him. And then punish him with an ultra-exorbitant penalty, just because of who he is, because you can and because he is a threat to your power. And he was mean to you.

You don't even care whether you win or lose the case, The goal is to tie him up with legal rigamorale, bleed his finances as much as possible and keep him off the campaign trail as much as possible, all while using your allies that control the media to tar and feather him, like they've been doing for 7 years now.

That's what the democrats are doing to our justice system. And, what's more, you know it.

[silverscreenselect]

No, you target a specific individual, find him guilty, unilaterally, of a crime you chose for him, using made-up evidence and ignoring all evidence that could exonerate him.

The evidence wasn't "made up." It was the financial statements that Trump submitted that were false. Trump did not ask for a jury in this case, so the judge was the fact finder. That's how our legal system works in every single criminal and civil case. The judge spent several dozen pages in his opinion discussing the testimony of every single witness at the trial and why he chose to believe them. His decision was in keeping with what virtually all the independent accounting experts who reviewed the evidence said.

From the Volokh Conspiracy, a right-wing libertarian blog, a law professor writes:

I don't have a particular view of whether it was wise for the New York Attorney General to bring the case. But I'm also not sure of what specifically is legally reversible about Judge Engoron's ruling.

I want to start with a big-picture idea, which I have seen widely repeated, that the case against Trump is illegitimate because Trump's actions were (as Steve puts it) "a victimless crime." On this thinking, the banks that lent money to Trump weren't harmed by Trump's lies. Maybe lies are just how rough-and-tumble New Yorkers do business. As Steve claims, "is apparently standard practice in the New York State real estate market where borrowers often overstate the value of their assets." And if the banks that gave him loans had their loans repaid, what is the harm?

In thinking about this question, I think it helps to say a bit about the New York law at issue. Here's my understanding (and I hope readers will correct me if I'm wrong). Under New York law, you need to register businesses with the state. The registration is effectively a license to do business. And one of the state Attorney General's 16 statutory duties is to bring an action in equity against businesses that "engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business." The action in equity asks for injunctive relief, "enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any [business] certificate filed[.]"

Should it matter that the particular lies that were the premise for the Attorney General's action involved lies in obtaining loans that were successfully repaid? The basic idea, I take it, is akin to when a state suspends a driver's license for drunk driving. The state has granted the person a driver's license, premised on the idea that the person will drive reasonably safely. But when a person has been shown to drive dangerously, the state will come in and revoke the license. Critically, that's true even if the person who drove drunk made it home safely on that particular trip. We can imagine a person who drove drunk but didn't crash might think it unfair to revoke their license. It's a victimless crime, they might say; no one was hurt that night. But I gather we are accustomed to the idea that it's the established risk of harm, not actual harm, that is the plausible reason to withdraw the license. A person might have somehow made it home safely last night, but perhaps it's not a bad idea to take away the keys for a bit so they don't engage in that same risky conduct again tomorrow night.

The case against Trump and his business entities, I take it, was sort of a business equivalent of that. Trump and his business associates were engaged in so much lying, and so much fraud, the Judge concludes. And their credibility on the stand was, as the Judge puts it, severely compromised. They were able to repay the loans, true, but they wouldn't have gotten the loans without the lies. And they reaped massive profits from lying, Judge Engoron concludes, as they were able to make deals they wouldn't have been able to make, and at rates they wouldn't have been able to get, had they been truthful. Acting as chancellor in equity, Judge Engeron requires Trump and the businesses to give up their ill-gotten gains, says Trump can't run a New York business for three years, and imposes other equitable remedies.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/19/th ... calabresi/

By the way, I wrote my earlier post with the drunk driver analogy before reading this article.

[flockofseagulls104]

Thank you for your "expert's" opinion, which is just as valid as yours.

I can quote just as many if not more "experts" whose opinion is that this case is completely bogus and never should have been brought up. Let's see, I guess we'll settle this by how many "experts" we can find. You'll probably win in that case. It is a good measure of how threatened the left is on any subject by the quantity and the shrillness of their internet postings on the subject.

I also would point out that even if you arrested a drunk driver, I have yet to see any case that the drunk driver was given the death penalty.

[silverscreenselect]

I can quote just as many if not more "experts" whose opinion is that this case is completely bogus and never should have been brought up. Let's see, I guess we'll settle this by how many "experts" we can find.

No, we settle this by what the finder of fact says, in this case the trial judge, since Trump did not request a jury trial. That's how we settle facts in every single civil and criminal case in our judicial system. Of course, you dodn't like that because your side has a funny habit of never being able to convince a fact finder that they're right, whether it's Trump's fraud trial or the 60 court cases that didn't find any election fraud. Rational people might conclude that their side is wrong in the the face of such an overwhelmingly poor track record. But, then again, rational thought is in short supply among Trump supporters like you.

[flockofseagulls104]

If you want to talk about court cases that failed, I might remind you that one court case on election fraud: the attempt by corrupt local and state 'officials' trying another of their myriad tactics to derail the majority of voters in this county, kinda failed by a vote of 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

If ANY of these lawfare cases were to go the distance in front of a truly non partisan judge or panel that was actually willing to hear and examine the other side's evidence, I think the scorecard you cling to would change dramatically.

[silverscreenselect]

The good news for Donald Trump was that he found someone willing to put up his appeals bond in his $450+ million fraud case. So, the appeal proceeds on an expedited basis, which in New York means that a decision will probably come sometime this fall. Until then, the state can't levy on his assets.

The bad news is that Judge Juan Merchan, who will preside over the upcoming hush money trial starting April 15, has expanded his gag order against Trump to include prohibit him from making comments about the judge's family and the prosecutor's family. Trump is still free to criticize the judge and DA Alvin Bragg, but he can't go after Merchan's daughter as he has been for the last several days, including posting her picture. The DA's office also announced that they intend to call former Trump adviser Hope Hicks to testify during the trial. Hicks was present during some of Trump's conversations with Michael Cohen and can presumably corroborate Cohen's version of events.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's someone WITH EVIDENCE explaining how the court system doesn't work in examining evidence of election fraud.

He has been at it for 3 years, up against the brick walls built by the conflicted, corrupt and clueless politicians every step of the way. Our elections are supposed to be transparent, but in actuality, they are not even close to being transparent. And, surprise, at the end even the attorney representing the state admits Raffensperger is corrupt.

This is an example of the 60 ubiquitous court cases trollboy loves to cite. They do NOT WANT to examine evidence. The powers that be block it at every turn.