Judge Engeron should be disbarred for judicial misconduct.

[meaner gene]

Yes, I saw that interview. unbelievable the vacuousness of that appointee. Our government is full of them too. I love the Kennedy videos available at You Tube. Here's one:

I watched the first part, where Kennedy was trying (but failed to do a "gotcha" over where states police powers were from. It's clear those are inherent powers of government, and as such are retained by the states because article I doesn't through supremacy take them from the states. But Kennedy was looking for the answer of the 10th amendment specifically enumerating it.
And the constitution doesn't enumerate federal police powers. But are inherent parts of executive power from article 2.

 

[meaner gene]

Yes, that's the same as saying the court has discretion. To continue...

"...or may vacate, limit or modify any stay imposed by subdivision (a), subdivision (b) or this subdivision, except that only the court to which an appeal is taken may vacate, limit or modify a stay imposed by paragraph one of subdivision (a)."

The court to which the appeal is taken? Gee, is that the First Department of the NY Appellate Division? That court that has the appeal right now?

There is no legal mandate for them to require a bond. It is the discretion of the court.

Discretion in your view is they may grant a stay, not a limited stay. A limited stay means that stay is only good until the court of appeals accepts or denies the case.

Until then this applies
2. the judgment or order directs the payment of a sum of money, and an
undertaking in that sum is given that if the judgment or order appealed
from, or any part of it, is affirmed, or the appeal is dismissed, the appellant
or moving party shall pay the amount directed to be paid by the judgment or
order, or the part of it as to which the judgment or order is affirmed;

 

[westwall]

The point is, when they get a child to give factual consent, it's a 2nd degree felony, when the child doesn't give factual consent, it'a 1st degree felony.

Yeah? So? Your analogy fails at every point.

Moron.

 

[para bellum]

Discretion in your view is they may grant a stay, not a limited stay. A limited stay means that stay is only good until the court of appeals accepts or denies the case.

They can grant, vacate, limit, or modify any stay. Period. Trump has right of appeal. That is not negotiable. Trump can stay enforcement by posting a bond, or the appeals court can use it's discretion to stay enforcement until the after appeal is decided. It is entirely up to them.

You guys think Trump has crappy attorneys because the judge shut them down on every motion and objection, but you're wrong. They knew they could not win in Engoron's court, they weren't trying to win. The judge had already found Trump guilty before the trial. All they could do was establish the factual record for the appeal.

They have that, now it's up to the appeals court to apply the law.

 

[meaner gene]

They can grant, vacate, limit, or modify any stay. Period. Trump has right of appeal. That is not negotiable. Trump can stay enforcement by posting a bond, or the appeals court can use it's discretion to stay enforcement until the after appeal is decided. It is entirely up to them.

You guys think Trump has crappy attorneys because the judge shut them down on every motion and objection, but you're wrong. They knew they could not win in Engoron's court, they weren't trying to win. The judge had already found Trump guilty before the trial. All they could do was establish the factual record for the appeal.

They have that, now it's up to the appeals court to apply the law.

Lots of fraud had been proven. Like Trumps claim of the size of the Trump Tower penthouse being triple actual size.

And Trumps own admission that his wealth changes from day to day, depending on how he feels it should be that day.

Between 2014 and 2021, he wrote, Trump and others overvalued his assets by $812 million to $2.2 billion.

 

[Leo123]

Lots of fraud had been proven. Like Trumps claim of the size of the Trump Tower penthouse being triple actual size.

And Trumps own admission that his wealth changes from day to day, depending on how he feels it should be that day.

Between 2014 and 2021, he wrote, Trump and others overvalued his assets by $812 million to $2.2 billion.

None of that is fraudulent. It's not uncommon for property owners to inflate the value of their own property No one is charged with fraud because independent valuations provided the opinion of value.
Example: If you come to me wanting a loan and tell me what you think your property is worth, I cannot charge you with anything. That is not a crime at all. I am the one under the obligation to do my due diligence. Have the property inspected, appraised, etc. I would not count on your estimate, that would be stupid.

 

[para bellum]

Lots of fraud had been proven. Like Trumps claim of the size of the Trump Tower penthouse being triple actual size.

It's not fraud if no one is fooled.

They couldn't even charge him with the misdemeanor because even that requires showing an intent to defraud.

What they have is a theory- that someone could have taken the SFC's at face value and maybe gave Trump a better interest rate than he deserved. But the banks and insurance companies and parks department all said "no, that's not how it works".

 

[meaner gene]

None of that is fraudulent. It's not uncommon for property owners to inflate the value of their own property No one is charged with fraud because independent valuations provided the opinion of value.

Nobody with a 2 bedroom 1 1/2 bath house lists it as 6 bedroom 4 bath.

If Trump was a used car salesman, he would list a Pinto as a Lincoln Continental.

 

[meaner gene]

It's not fraud if no one is fooled.

They couldn't even charge him with the misdemeanor because even that requires showing an intent to defraud.

What they have is a theory- that someone could have taken the SFC's at face value and maybe gave Trump a better interest rate than he deserved. But the banks and insurance companies and parks department all said "no, that's not how it works".

This is where discovery is not Trumps friend. For he had offers from a bank that he gave fraudulent business records to, and another bank he didn't. And that resulted in two vastly different quotes.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A nonsensical attempt at false equivalence. Come on, you can do better than that.

Sigh

 

[Lisa558]

Actually under the "son of sam" laws, the victims would be notified, and given the opportunity to be a plaintiff.

the new law required that victims or their families be notified anytime a convicted person earned more than $10,000 from any source. Then the victims or families could sue to get some of the money.

Deutche bank and others failed to enjoin the case, but are still free to sue Trump separately, but there are limits to the time they have to do so, which may have already expired.

So in this case, the money goes to the state, for the general benefit of the people.

Why would the state confiscate hundreds of millions of Trump’s money for “the people”? Neither the state, nor “the people” were damaged. There was no victim at all.

Is this the new way for the Dems to take money from wealthy people and then use it to pay hotel bills and other support for illegals?

 

[Lisa558]

You don't know do you? Answer: Loan paid in full, no harm to any party in the transaction, no crime. The judgement is flawed and you don't seem to be able to think for yourself.

If he could think for himself, he wouldn’t be a Biden voter.

 

[Lisa558]

None of that is fraudulent. It's not uncommon for property owners to inflate the value of their own property No one is charged with fraud because independent valuations provided the opinion of value.
Example: If you come to me wanting a loan and tell me what you think your property is worth, I cannot charge you with anything. That is not a crime at all. I am the one under the obligation to do my due diligence. Have the property inspected, appraised, etc. I would not count on your estimate, that would be stupid.

And to expand upon that….

When has any law enforcement body ever gone through the loans of someone who has paid them back on time and thus there is no plaintiff, or lawsuit, in an effort to penalize that specific person - and then proceed with a claim against him?

This is both selective prosecution on the part of the AG and judicial misconduct on the part of the judge.

 

[para bellum]

This is where discovery is not Trumps friend. For he had offers from a bank that he gave fraudulent business records to, and another bank he didn't. And that resulted in two vastly different quotes.

So what? They were two different banks. The State did not establish that the SFC's were the cause of the difference in the rates offered.

I advertised a motorcycle for sale. I received widely different offers from prospective buyers, yet they were all bidding on the same motorcycle...

 

[Lisa558]

So what? They were two different banks. The State did not establish that the SFC's were the cause of the difference in the rates offered.

What’s surreal to me is that we have Democrats up in arms over Trump’s victimless civil “crime” (where they so-called victim netted $100 million) and ignoring that we have a president in office fighting the Supreme Court in order to let millions more illegals in and after a hearing, with evidence, that Biden was The Big Guy on the take from foreign adversaries.

 

[Lisa558]

There are more than 1,800 Americans with a net worth of $10 million or more. Has anyone, anywhere, gone through these people’s business records in search of a fraud - even a non-fraud in which the other party is aware of the numbers - and where the rich guy paid back his loan on time, and the bank was happy?

Let’s say that even 5% overstated their assets. That’s 90 people. law enforcement can go after them, judge them quilty, and levy a multimillion dollar fine. Why haven’t they?

A: Because they are only interested in pursuing Trump for political reasons.

 

[para bellum]

Not at all. She was up against statute of limitation clock, and handicapped by the window of opportunity only opened on January 20th 2021, which was the soonest that the investigation could begin.
If anything, the timing of the case was set by all of Trumps appeals that delayed important steps in the investigation.

Otherwise the suit could have been brought soon enough to be over and done with, before Trump could announce another presidential run.

Trump delayed it.

Nope. This was a civil action, and the SCOTUS had already ruled a sitting President was not immune from civil suits (Paula Jones case).

James was free to conduct any investigation, or bring any civil suit at any time.

 

[Lisa558]

Nope. This was a civil action, and the SCOTUS had already ruled a sitting President was not immune from civil suits while in office (Paula Jones case).

James was free to conduct any investigation, or bring any civil suit at any time.

Yup. She could have brought this case much sooner. She waited until election season to do the most damage possible to North Korea’s —- oops, I meant Democrats’ - #1 political opponent.

 

[MarathonMike]

Sigh

No logical, reasonable thinker would equate Clarence Thomas to Engoron.

 

[meaner gene]

Nope. This was a civil action, and the SCOTUS had already ruled a sitting President was not immune from civil suits (Paula Jones case).

James was free to conduct any investigation, or bring any civil suit at any time.

Ask for a refund for your law degree.

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation, in federal court, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office.