In normal world, this is known as "fraud".

[WEATHER53]

Yes. It does. Judgment summaries don’t constitute the actual law. They sometimes purport to do so. In this case, however, like you do, it misstates the law.

Sorry. But the judge is bound by the law not his creative writing.

Doesn’t matter. I’ve read the judge’s partial summary judgment decision. And he is clearly wrong.

Maybe his biased law secretary should have whispered in the judge’s ear:

“No victim; no fraud.”

Rather than relying on that judge’s alleged “legal reasoning,” you would be better served by remembering that judges are also subject to getting their opinions and decisions overruled on appeal.

Once again
Fraud is not a what if nor what could have been.
It’s a what is where harm occurred to another. Not theoretical or possible harm but rather a true, identified harmed party.
Sorry that words don’t fit the Lib 101 wishes.

 

[WEATHER53]

Lying, and certifying special conditions that were knowingly lies, is fraud, under NY Executive Law 63 (12).

It is your belief. Truth telling is not always mandated as lawfully required. That’s you feeling it should always be but most everyone else is not as virtue prone as you are.

 

[BackAgain]

Once again
Fraud is not a what if nor what could have been.
It’s a what is where harm occurred to another. Not theoretical or possible harm but rather a true, identified harmed party.
Sorry that words don’t fit the Lib 101 wishes.

They actively deny it, in fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Truth telling is not always mandated as lawfully required.

Another stupid strawman.

The judges have all clearly stated that the orange pile of shit has the right to tell lies to the public.

 

[Care4all]

Yes. It does. Judgment summaries don’t constitute the actual law. They sometimes purport to do so. In this case, however, like you do, it misstates the law.

Sorry. But the judge is bound by the law not his creative writing.

Doesn’t matter. I’ve read the judge’s partial summary judgment decision. And he is clearly wrong.

Maybe his biased law secretary should have whispered in the judge’s ear:

“No victim; no fraud.”

Rather than relying on that judge’s alleged “legal reasoning,” you would be better served by remembering that judges are also subject to getting their opinions and decisions overruled on appeal.

Wrong on all accounts, Trump's team made the arguments, and got handed their ass for it.

Here is a link to the summary that the NY times posted....

Read the Judge’s Ruling in the Trump Fraud Case (Published 2023)

The decision by Justice Arthur F. Engoron is a major victory for Attorney General Letitia James in her lawsuit against Mr. Trump, effectively deciding that no trial was needed to determine that he had fraudulently secured favorable terms on loans and insurance deals.

www.nytimes.com

Below are some of the pages that dismisses Trump's and some of your arguments

 

[pknopp]

No. But those who know a lot of law and are blindly partisan and unethtical know how to abuse and misuse it. And there are those who are blindly partisan and unethical who approve of them doing just that.

I don't.

Trump has been involved in unethical dealings forever.

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong on all accounts, Trump's team made the arguments, and got handed their ass for it.

Here is a link to the summary that the NY times posted....

Read the Judge’s Ruling in the Trump Fraud Case (Published 2023)

The decision by Justice Arthur F. Engoron is a major victory for Attorney General Letitia James in her lawsuit against Mr. Trump, effectively deciding that no trial was needed to determine that he had fraudulently secured favorable terms on loans and insurance deals.

www.nytimes.com

Below are some of the pages that dismisses Trump's and some of your arguments

View attachment 842971

View attachment 842973

View attachment 842972


View attachment 842978

You persist in your error.

And therefore you remain wrong on all these matters.

Putting aside the required elements of a criminal fraud, try to focus on the elements required for a civil fraud.

There has to be a victim for a couple of reasons. For one thing, absent a victim, the allegations won’t support any civil fraud claim. It is still a necessary element.

Secondly, damages are also required to be pleaded and proved. Absent that, nobody can win a meaningless lawsuit unless the sole objective is to obtain declaratory relief which isn’t applicable in the Trump case.

You may believe what you post but you aren’t meeting your burden of persuasion here because you are wrong all the same.

No victim: no fraud.

No victim; no damages.

No damages; no case.

Let me reiterate for your benefit. Citing the opinion of a judge — who is clearly wrong on the law — isn’t going to help you make your argument. The judge is simply going to get reversed on appeal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't know how a lawyer can represent this person.

Apparently, it helps to be incompetent. As Trump's lawyers clearly are.

 

[Care4all]

Once again
Fraud is not a what if nor what could have been.
It’s a what is where harm occurred to another. Not theoretical or possible harm but rather a true, identified harmed party.
Sorry that words don’t fit the Lib 101 wishes.

That's not what the civil law says under NY executive law 63 (12), which is what Trump was charged under....

 

[Batcat]

False. You have posted opinion pieces that you don't read that don't support your position. They simply restate your wrong opinion.

I doubt if you even read anything that might disagree with your liberal views.

You probably think Joe Biden is in excellent health and is one of most honest people in our nation, an absolute paragon of virtue.

 

[eagle1462010]

The State of New York, as I have explained multiple times. When you break a jurisidiction's laws, the jurisdiction is the victim.

That's why many cases are called "The People of (Jurisdiction) vs. (Defendant's Name)". I'll bet you've heard that phrase many times, whether you'll admit it or not.

My goodnesss, you people and your intellectual rabbit hole. You are hopeless.

Oh the victim is the State itself.

So says the good wittle Tyrant.

 

[Mac1958]

Oh the victim is the State itself.

So says the good wittle Tyrant.

So you didn't know how laws work.

Amazing. But not surprising.

 

[eagle1462010]

The law is a way for the state to steal money. Where is my cut.

 

[eagle1462010]

So you didn't know how laws work.

Amazing. But not surprising.

Oh I know. Corrupt piliticians pass laws to steal other peoples money.

They sure as fuck didnt pass it to say they are the victim like you are saying.

On that note. WTF are you smoking?

 

[Mac1958]

Oh I know. Corrupt piliticians pass laws to steal other peoples money.

They sure as fuck didnt pass it to say they are the victim like you are saying.

On that note. WTF are you smoking?

So laws shouldn't be enforced unless there is a victim.

Therefore, you should be able to drive through a 20mph school zone at 95mph, as long as you don't hit any children.

Is that correct?

 

[eagle1462010]

So laws shouldn't be enforced unless there is a victim.

Therefore, you should be able to drive through a 20mph school zone at 95mph, as long as you don't hit any children.

Is that correct?

False Equivalence

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I doubt if you even read anything that might disagree with your liberal views.

You probably think Joe Biden is in excellent health and is one of most honest people in our nation, an absolute paragon of virtue.

This off-topic whining won't help Trump.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

False Equivalence

Right, Trump's felonies are far more serious.

 

[WEATHER53]

You persist in your error.

And therefore you remain wrong on all these matters.

Putting aside the required elements of a criminal fraud, try to focus on the elements required for a civil fraud.

There has to be a victim for a couple of reasons. For one thing, absent a victim, the allegations won’t support any civil fraud claim. It is still a necessary element.

Secondly, damages are also required to be pleaded and proved. Absent that, nobody can win a meaningless lawsuit unless the sole objective is to obtain declaratory relief which isn’t applicable in the Trump case.

You may believe what you post but you aren’t meeting your burden of persuasion here because you are wrong all the same.

No victim: no fraud.

No victim; no damages.

No damages; no case.

Let me reiterate for your benefit. Citing the opinion of a judge — who is clearly wrong on the law — isn’t going to help you make your argument. The judge is simply going to get reversed on appeal.

Fraud is an act with a victim and not a “what if” feeling

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fraud is an act with a victim and not a “what if” feeling

Wow, did you learn that in law school?