Judge Engeron should be disbarred for judicial misconduct.

[para bellum]

An investigation of the Trump Organization.

The Trump Organization wasn't a federal officer.

You rally are grasping at straws aren't you? Of course the target was Trump, and James' and Bragg's cases today are just the spin-offs of Vance's investigations.

In one breath you guys say Trump is guilty of tax fraud because there was a case where his executives didn't properly report their executive perks as income, and in the next breath you say Vance wasn't investigating Trump, he was just investigating the Trump organization...

 

[para bellum]

No need to put the money in trust.
Whatever the appeal comes up with as a final figure goes straight to the treasury of New York State.

It was never requested. It is part of Provisional Process.

It never a consideration because there was no conversion.

 

[para bellum]

You mean like this?

A Manhattan jury has found two Trump Organization companies guilty on multiple charges of criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records
Dec 7, 2022

And how is that case the same as your example of someone who gambled with stolen money?

And why are you trying to make such a stupid comparison again?

 

[meaner gene]

You rally are grasping at straws aren't you? Of course the target was Trump, and James' and Bragg's cases today are just the spin-offs of Vance's investigations.

In one breath you guys say Trump is guilty of tax fraud because there was a case where his executives didn't properly report their percs as income, and in the next breath you say Vance wasn't investigating Trump, he was just investigating the Trump organization...

Trump was never named in any of Vance's indictments.
Trump was never a subject, or he would have gotten a target letter.

 

[meaner gene]

It was never requested. It is part of Provisional Process.

It never a consideration because there was no conversion.

Nobody was going to restrain any of Trumps assets before judgment.

 

[meaner gene]

And how is that case the same as your example of someone who gambled with stolen money?

And why are you trying to make such a stupid comparison again?

Both would be cases of equity.

 

[para bellum]

Trump was never named in any of Vance's indictments.
Trump was never a subject, or he would have gotten a target letter.

So you admit there was no evidence against Trump for tax fraud, thanks.

 

[para bellum]

Nobody was going to restrain any of Trumps assets before judgment.

There was never any conversion alleged. Trump didn't take anyone's property.

You google things that you think might apply, and you try to fit them into the case, but you don't have any understanding what they are about.

You should stop, it makes you look really stupid.

 

[meaner gene]

So you admit there was no evidence against Trump for tax fraud, thanks.

I'm saying Vance was following the spirit of the DOJ OLC letter, giving a sitting president immunity.
As Robert Mueller explained, that also meant not even allege possible charges against a sitting president, since he wouldn't be able to defend against the allegation.

 

[meaner gene]

There was never any conversion alleged. Trump didn't take anyone's property.

You google things that you think might apply, and you try to fit them into the case, but you don't have any understanding what they are about.

You should stop, it makes you look really stupid.

As I said, this was a case of equity. Which means there need not be a "victim" or a jury.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You rally are grasping at straws aren't you? Of course the target was Trump, and James' and Bragg's cases today are just the spin-offs of Vance's investigations.

Excellent. Now onto the next criminal billionaire conman.

 

[para bellum]

As I said, this was a case of equity. Which means there need not be a "victim" or a jury.

Suits in equity still need to prove that a harm was committed, and that the alleged misconduct resulted in the harm. There has to be an inequity to resolve.

And there are restrictions on the way you can do disgorgements that were not adhered to.

Since the alleged "fraud" was that Trump used false financial statements to cheat the banks and insurers on their interest rates, they should receive restitution. And it is very easy to find them and pay that restitution, but there is no effort to do that. The State is just appropriating Trump's property for it own use, there is nothing equitable about any of it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Since the alleged "fraud" was that Trump used false financial statements to cheat the banks and insurers on their interest rates, they should receive restitution

They can get that from their own lawsuits. Or a criminal trial, at sentencing.

 

[para bellum]

They can get that from their own lawsuits. Or a criminal trial, at sentencing.

And the State of New York can charge Trump with the business practice violations and fine him for the misdemeanors.

And leave it up to the banks to seek equitable relief if they think they are entitled to it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And the State of New York can charge Trump with the business practice violations and fine him for the misdemeanors.

Correct. And they still may.

And the banks still may sue. But they won't.

But it seems pretty clear now why James brilliantly chose the civil route instead. Look at Trump's other cases, and what is happening, with their delays. But James has Trump by the short hairs.

 

[meaner gene]

Since the alleged "fraud" was that Trump used false financial statements to cheat the banks and insurers on their interest rates, they should receive restitution. And it is very easy to find them and pay that restitution, but there is no effort to do that. The State is just appropriating Trump's property for it own use, there is nothing equitable about any of it.

Actually the alleged "fraud" (since proven) was that Trump enriched himself by defrauding the banks. The banks don't seek anything, but the law under equity has criminals disgorge their ill gotten gains, even if the victim doesn't make a claim.

 

[para bellum]

The banks don't seek anything, but the law under equity has criminals disgorge their ill gotten gains, even if the victim doesn't make a claim.

Yes but they are still supposed to get restitution, and the statute of limitations applies.

 

[para bellum]

Actually the alleged "fraud" (since proven) was that Trump enriched himself by defrauding the banks.

Actually, no. Fraud was never alleged and never proven. Fraud has elements that have to be shown, this "civil fraud" does not.

They couldn't even charge him with the misdemeanor. That would have ruined their case because they would have been forced to give him a trial to determine his guilt, and they would have had to show his intent was to defraud.

This offense should be renamed to "liar, liar, pants on fire", that's what they found him guilty of. Then they just took a half billion dollars because they are fascists, and that's what fascists do with their political enemies.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually, no. Fraud was never alleged and never proven.

It was alleged repeatedly by the State of New York in its original filing and verified as true by a New York judge on the preponderance of the evidence. As such, Trump and his eldest two sons were found liable for that fraud to the tune of $355 million, plus interest.

That they are liable for fraud is now a fact in the public record, in the State of New York.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Read the judgement, for both the about and an explanation of how the amount was determined.

They squatted and bore down.

Like you do when polluting the board.