[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
ObamaNation See other ObamaNation Articles Title: NY Appellate Judges Skeptical of Letitia James’ Civil Fraud Case Against Trump, Blast Her Deputy Solicitor General During Opening Statement New York appellate judges on Thursday appeared skeptical of Letitia James’s NYC civil fraud case against President Trump. Radical Marxist New York Attorney General Letitia James previously sought $370 million in ‘damages’ when there was no victim in a civil fraud case against Trump. She also sought to ban Trump and his sons from operating any businesses in New York. She accused Trump of inflating his assets and defrauding lenders and insurance companies. In February, after 11 weeks of a Soviet-style non-jury trial, far-left Judge Engoron ordered Trump to pay more than a $355 million fine and barred Trump “from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in New York for a period of three years.” The $355 million judgment PLUS daily interest swelled to $464 million. Engoron claimed Trump and each of the defendants “participated in aiding and abetting the conspiracy to commit insurance fraud by their individual acts in falsifying business records and valuations, causing materially fraudulent SFCs to be intentionally submitted to insurance companies.” Last November a Deutsche Bank executive who worked to approve at least one of Trump’s loans testified that it is “atypical, but not entirely unusual” to reduce a client’s asset values and still approve a loan. This type of lending is typical in high net-worth, high-profile clients like Donald Trump. Anyone with basic knowledge of banking, lending, portfolio and credit risk management knows this. Trump’s legal team previously filed an appeal and requested a stay on the massive $464 million judgment. Trump’s attorneys sent a letter to the Appellate Division of New York’s Supreme Court and asserted Letitia James’ actions are “unconstitutional.” “It would be completely illogical — and the definition of an unconstitutional Excessive Fine and a Taking — to require Defendants to sell properties at all, and especially in a ‘fire sale,’ in order to be able to appeal the lawless Supreme Court judgment, as that would cause harm that cannot be repaired once the Defendants do win, as is overwhelmingly likely, on appeal,” Trump’s attorney Cliff Robert wrote. Two of the appellate judges interrupted Letitia James’s deputy solicitor general Judy Vale during her opening statement to ask her if there are any other examples of the state suing private business transactions where there was no victim. “Every case that you cite involves damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace,” Justice David Friedman told Vale, according to Reuters. “We don’t have anything like that here,” Friedman added, saying that nobody “lost any money.” Reuters reported: Members of the five-judge panel on the Appellate Division – the mid- level state appellate court hearing arguments in Trump’s appeal – appeared concerned about possible overreach by James. Two of the judges interrupted Judith Vale, the lawyer arguing for New York, during her opening statement to ask if there were any other examples of the state suing over private business transactions between sophisticated parties under a law aimed at protecting market integrity. “Every case that you cite involves damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace,” Justice David Friedman told Vale. “We don’t have anything like that here,” Friedman added, saying that nobody “lost any money.” The judges also wondered about what constraints applied to the law James cited in bringing the case – one that is typically used to go after fraudsters who target vulnerable consumers. “How do we draw a line or at least put up guardrails? Justice Peter Moulton asked. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: All (#0)
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Says ‘Misogyny’ to Blame For Kamala Harris’s Bad Polling Numbers (VIDEO) While interviewing Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey about the upcoming presidential election in Pennsylvania, Mitchell went on a rant about how unfair it was that Harris was still lagging behind Trump on the economy. She explained: Our latest polling shows that Kamala Harris, on the economy, is nine points behind Donald Trump. And that’s closing the gap, because Joe Biden was 22 points behind Donald Trump on the economy and that people are worried about the cost of living. Now, inflation has come down. And the Fed has just cut rates by 50 basis points, and that will improve, but not quickly enough to help you in your race and Kamala Harris in her race. So, what has to happen to try to narrow that gap on the economy, which is what most people care about? Casey argued that prices were high due to greed. “There’s probably a lot of misogyny going on there also, because men are still lagging behind in the polling,” Mitchell responded. “But that’s hard to quantify.” According to the polling data that Mitchell was citing, 50 percent of voters trust Donald Trump to better handle the economy, as opposed to 41 percent who think the reverse. In an interview last year with Kamala Harris, Mitchell asked how she could explain her low popularity. “Why do you think the President has such low popularity and you have even less favorable ratings. Why do you think that is?” Mitchell asked her at the time. “I see people thanking the president, thanking our administration,” Harris responded. “I think that it is very important to focus on the needs of the American people and not political chatter out of Washington.”
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||