New York Attorney General Letitia James Want $37M Fine In Trump Civil Fraud Case.

[MagicMike]

You clipped some lawyers’ ad. And you said nothing about the elements.

That was the question.

You either lack sufficient information to brain the answer or you’re just lying again

Either way, as always, you lose.

You are talking out your ass again.
READ the statute.
Show me where in the statute it says that a person who commits business fraud is not guilty unless someone was harmed.
You will not be able to do that.
PERHAPS what you really mean to say is that even though the law doesn't explicitly say that, there is nevertheless some case precedent where courts have consistently ruled along these lines.
Is that what you're trying to say?
Prove it then.
Send me links to a few of these cases.

I'll wait.

FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS
IN THE FIRST DEGREE
Penal Law § 175.10
(Committed on or after November 1, 1986)
The (specify) count is Falsifying Business Records in the
First Degree.
Under our law, a person is guilty of falsifying business
records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that
includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal
the commission thereof, that person:
Select appropriate alternative:
makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an
enterprise; or
alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a
true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
omits to make a true entry in the business records of an
enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he or she
knows to be imposed upon him or her by law or by the
nature of his or her position; or
prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission
thereof in the business records of an enterprise.1
The following terms used in that definition have a special
meaning:
ENTERPRISE means any entity of one or more persons,
corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business,
1
Penal Law § 175.10 reads: "A person is guilty of falsifying business
records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying
business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud
includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the
commission thereof." The charge substitutes the language of falsifying
business records in the second degree in the appropriate place.

In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the
People are required to prove, from all of the evidence in the case,
beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following two elements:
1. That on or about (date) , in the county of (county) ,
the defendant, (defendant's name),
Select appropriate alternative:
made or caused a false entry in the business records
of an enterprise; or
altered, erased, obliterated, deleted, removed or
destroyed a true entry in the business records of an
enterprise; or
omitted to make a true entry in the business records
of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which
the defendant knew to be imposed upon him/her by
law or by the nature of his/her position; or

Penal Law § 175.00(1).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj91fC9mpOEAxW4kyYFHeSZA9wQFnoECC8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw05hfTTU2eE-o4wE9gFVJ5t

 

[BS Filter]

Rather than take your MAGAt advice she instead used her education and years of legal experience to make a superior argument in court. You and Trump and going to find out in the coming weeks and years what happens when MAGAt ignorance runs into the Civil and Criminal Justice System. Enjoy.

You're gonna be sick when Trump is re-elected.

 

[MagicMike]

You're gonna be sick when Trump is re-elected.

You spelled incarcerated wrong.

 

[BackAgain]

You are talking out your ass again.
READ the statute.
Show me where in the statute it says that a person who commits business fraud is not guilty unless someone was harmed.
You will not be able to do that.
PERHAPS what you really mean to say is that even though the law doesn't explicitly say that, there is nevertheless some case precedent where courts have consistently ruled along these lines.
Is that what you're trying to say?
Prove it then.
Send me links to a few of these cases.

I'll wait.

FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS
IN THE FIRST DEGREE
Penal Law § 175.10
(Committed on or after November 1, 1986)
The (specify) count is Falsifying Business Records in the
First Degree.
Under our law, a person is guilty of falsifying business
records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that
includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal
the commission thereof, that person:
Select appropriate alternative:
makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an
enterprise; or
alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a
true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
omits to make a true entry in the business records of an
enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he or she
knows to be imposed upon him or her by law or by the
nature of his or her position; or
prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission
thereof in the business records of an enterprise.1
The following terms used in that definition have a special
meaning:
ENTERPRISE means any entity of one or more persons,
corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business,
1
Penal Law § 175.10 reads: "A person is guilty of falsifying business
records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying
business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud
includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the
commission thereof." The charge substitutes the language of falsifying
business records in the second degree in the appropriate place.

In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the
People are required to prove, from all of the evidence in the case,
beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following two elements:
1. That on or about (date) , in the county of (county) ,
the defendant, (defendant's name),
Select appropriate alternative:
made or caused a false entry in the business records
of an enterprise; or
altered, erased, obliterated, deleted, removed or
destroyed a true entry in the business records of an
enterprise; or
omitted to make a true entry in the business records
of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which
the defendant knew to be imposed upon him/her by
law or by the nature of his/her position; or

Penal Law § 175.00(1).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj91fC9mpOEAxW4kyYFHeSZA9wQFnoECC8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw05hfTTU2eE-o4wE9gFVJ5t

I’m afraid it’s impossible to educate you.

If anybody, to be guilty of that crime, has to have the intent to defraud, the question is obvious and inescapable.

Defraud who?

If you can’t answer who someone was attempting to defraud, then you obviously can’t tell us how he was trying to perpetrate any fraud at all.

Once again, for you very special morons:

No victim, no fraud.

 

[BS Filter]

You spelled incarcerated wrong.

You can't put a President in jail.

 

[MagicMike]

I’m afraid it’s impossible to educate you.

If anybody, to be guilty of that crime, has to have the intent to defraud, the question is obvious and inescapable.

Defraud who?

If you can’t answer who someone was attempting to defraud, then you obviously can’t tell us how he was trying to perpetrate any fraud at all.

Once again, for you very special morons:

No victim, no fraud.

The banks and insurance companies were defrauded out of millions of dollars in interest payments and premiums when Trump committed fraud in order to qualify for more advantageous loan terms.

Even a dolt like you should be able to understand that.
So your ignorant query "defraud who?" circles right back to the charges Trump is guilty of....
Defrauded banks and insurers.

 

[BackAgain]

The banks and insurance companies were defrauded out of millions of dollars in interest payments and premiums when Trump committed fraud in order to qualify for more advantageous loan terms.

Your theory is laughable. The banks made NO such complaint. In fact, not one bank complained at all.

Even a dolt like you should be able to understand that.

Nah. You’re the dolt. Obviously. You look at the absence of support for your bullshit claims, and just tell yourself to go ahead and spread your crap anyway. You took.

So your ignorant query "defraud who?" circles right back to the charges Trump is guilty of....
Defrauded banks and insurers.

Not one shred of evidence supports your bullshit claim.

As usual.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No, the money grab happened when the orange pile of shit committed criminal fraud to obtain ill gotten gains.

Where is the victim?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The banks and insurance companies were defrauded out of millions of dollars in interest payments and premiums when Trump committed fraud in order to qualify for more advantageous loan terms.

Even a dolt like you should be able to understand that.
So your ignorant query "defraud who?" circles right back to the charges Trump is guilty of....
Defrauded banks and insurers.

Yet not a single one complained they were defrauded.

 

[MagicMike]

Your theory is laughable. The banks made NO such complaint. In fact, not one bank complained at all.


Nah. You’re the dolt. Obviously. You look at the absence of support for your bullshit claims, and just tell yourself to go ahead and spread your crap anyway. You took.

Not one shred of evidence supports your bullshit claim.

As usual.

Still waiting for that specific wording in the actual statute that says what you claim it does
OR case precedent that confirms your little whiny nattering bullshit here.
Go ahead.
Use that law degree from Trump University to do a Google search you twit.
I'll be anticipating another one of your epic fails.
When are you going to learn to just keep your mouth shut about things you really have no understanding of?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The banks and insurance companies were defrauded out of millions of dollars in interest payments and premiums when Trump committed fraud in order to qualify for more advantageous loan terms.

Even a dolt like you should be able to understand that.
So your ignorant query "defraud who?" circles right back to the charges Trump is guilty of....
Defrauded banks and insurers.

Not only were they not defrauded, but they will not see a single dime of "restitution".

 

[MagicMike]

Where is the victim?

Read the statute.
No victim is required to be found guilty of this type of fraud.

 

[BackAgain]

Still waiting for that specific wording in the actual statute that says what you claim it does
OR case precedent that confirms your little whiny nattering bullshit here.
Go ahead.
Use that law degree from Trump University to do a Google search you twit.
I'll be anticipating another one of your epic fails.
When are you going to learn to just keep your mouth shut about things you really have no understanding of?

I cannot educate a rock. You’re a rock.

Answer the question, you filthy stupid enema nozzle:

How on Earth can you have an intent to defraud anyone if you can’t identify that individual?

You’re a tool.

But I enjoy your lack of intelligence.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Read the statute.
No victim is required to be found guilty of this type of fraud.

Did you see the line Intent to defraud? Intent to defraud who? What was the amount of the fraud to any bank or insurer? Will any bank or insurer be made whole from this fraud?

I note that Leticia James does no claim fraud in any amount due to any entity at all. She alleges only the savings made. Now we not only have no victim, but no amount of money resulting from the alleged fraud. Only some specious savings.

This is a huge claptrap. I hope the judge is a jurist. I doubt it but I hope that he is.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Technically James destroyed her own case. I hope Trump’s lawyers pick up on it. According to Leticia James the amount she is trying to get represents the savings between the stated amounts and the amounts she says are actual amounts. There was nothing obtained by fraud. She's trying to prosecute intent to save.

The cited statutes are the ones used against employees fiddling the company books.

 

[MagicMike]

I cannot educate a rock. You’re a rock.

Answer the question, you filthy stupid enema nozzle:

How on Earth can you have an intent to defraud anyone if you can’t identify that individual?

You’re a tool.

But I enjoy your lack of intelligence.

Still waiting for you to justify your ridiculous claim that someone who has engaged in business fraud is innocent if no one complains.
All you are doing is mistaking your opinion for a fact.
They aren't the same things dumbass.
The entities that he defrauded weren't suing him for damages. That would have been a Civil Court matter, where it would have been necessary for the plaintiff show harm done.
These were criminal charges filed by the state of New York.
What was the crime?
Business fraud.
Who was the victim?
The state of New York, whose responsibility it is to ensure that businesses abide by certain laws. The Trump Organization failed to do that.
GUILTY!

Besides, your factually innacurate opinion is worthless and moot at this point anyway.
Trump's guilt has already been established by the court.
Now the only question is how much is he going to have to pay.
An appellate court will look at it the same way....
"Did he violate the statutes?"
Yes.
"Guilty."
B-but....some armchair lawyers out there think that ruling is unjust and erroneous because Trump told them that he can't be guilty b-because he paid the loans he procured by fraudulent statements back.

"Next!"

 

[BackAgain]

Still waiting for you to justify your ridiculous claim that someone who has engaged in business fraud is innocent if no one complains.

Stop lying. You’re very bad at it.

That’s not remotely what I said.

What I did say was that there is no fraud (civil or criminal) if there is no “victim.” Here there is no victim.

Besides, your factually innacurate opinion is worthless and moot at this point anyway.
Trump's guilt has already been established by the court.

Wrong. A stupid judge misruled on a matter of law. It is going to get reversed on that basis. It was only the whole point of the trial. Judge Engoron is an empty-headed hack.

 

[MagicMike]

That’s not remotely what I said.

What I did say was that there is no fraud (civil or criminal)

Wrong.
Read the statute.

Wrong. A stupid judge misruled on a matter of law. It is going to get reversed on that basis

Wrong.
Read the statute.

 

[surada]

He did no such thing.

Trump has been a cheat his whole life. You usually cheer for criminals?

 

[SeaMajor7]

Trump has been a cheat his whole life. You usually cheer for criminals?

There's no proof of your accusations.
Check your FEELZ, and grow up.