Judge Engoron's $355 Million Fine Against Donald Trump May Have Far-Reaching Consequences

[dmallord]

You're working overtime trying to find a way out of the legal inevitability that this verdict will be overturned.

Thank you for using your crystal ball to determine the outcome ahead of time. I should have borrowed yours earlier and saved the overtime hours - btw I'm retired, so it's not much trouble to balance out your commentary. It's not a paid position but enjoyable nonetheless.

I am looking forward to the future results of these trials in an age of uncertainty. Looking forward as well to a day when Trump's name falls off the front headlines and some sanity returns.

 

[HisArpy]

Thank you for using your crystal ball to determine the outcome ahead of time. I should have borrowed yours earlier and saved the overtime hours - btw I'm retired, so it's not much trouble to balance out your commentary. It's not a paid position but enjoyable nonetheless.

I am looking forward to the future results of these trials in an age of uncertainty. Looking forward as well to a day when Trump's name falls off the front headlines and some sanity returns.

I have decades of real world experience predicting outcomes. Even here on Lit I'm usually correct in what I say will happen.

You, not so much.

 

[dmallord]

I have decades of real world experience predicting outcomes. Even here on Lit I'm usually correct in what I say will happen.

You, not so much.

Your critics don't agree with you. I'm not into predicting outcomes - just stating facts for the most part. You have to dig real hard to find a 'prediction' made by me or your memory is foggy.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Your critics don't agree with you. I'm not into predicting outcomes - just stating facts for the most part. You have to dig real hard to find a 'prediction' made by me or your memory is foggy.

You make predictions all the time. I'm writing English, you understand English, so you will automatically predict what word is at the end of this

 

[Bray123]

I have decades of real world experience predicting outcomes. Even here on Lit I'm usually correct in what I say will happen.

You, not so much.

Years of telling clients that they're going to jail is not the same as predicting a fraudster can lodge an appeal without going through the proper procedure.

 

[dmallord]

You make predictions all the time. I'm writing English, you understand English, so you will automatically predict what word is at the end of this

sentence. Logic is sometimes funny.

 

[Lazaran]

I have decades of real world experience predicting outcomes. Even here on Lit I'm usually correct in what I say will happen.

You, not so much.

Remind us of your predictions on what would happen in the Michael Flynn case and what would happen to Judge Sullivan.



Derpy Mason

 

[dmallord]

It is astounding that Trump's lawyer fills a motion stating Trump's excessive richness means that it is absurd to have to put up a bond. It is ludicrous to think that Trump would not pay his bills if found guilty, right? But ... didn't he stiff a lot of his lawyer fees, failed his business partners in numerous bankruptcy cases, and isn't he having trouble finding someone to provide a bond?

I guess next, his lawyer should march into a bank with a letter demanding a bond fund because he is so excessively rich. Banks should buy into that, right? After all ... no, wait, the courts didn't buy that absurd crappy idea, so maybe the banks will not either.

The clocks are ticking on those guilty cases - Carroll's and the $345m NY City judgment. Tick ... Tick ... Tick. It feels like a 60-minute countdown clock.

 

[HisArpy]

Your critics don't agree with you. I'm not into predicting outcomes - just stating facts for the most part. You have to dig real hard to find a 'prediction' made by me or your memory is foggy.

My critics, like you, are just a bunch of sore losers and fuckups without a clue.

You don't know anything. Yet you come here and loudly and publicly crow to the world that you don't know anything and think doing so makes you smart.

The entire lot of you "critics" are nothing more than lackwits with big mouths and a false sense of superiority.

 

[dmallord]

My critics, like you, are just a bunch of sore losers and fuckups without a clue.

You don't know anything. Yet you come here and loudly and publicly crow to the world that you don't know anything and think doing so makes you smart.

The entire lot of you "critics" are nothing more than lackwits with big mouths and a false sense of superiority.

I understand that you may feel frustrated or disappointed with criticism, but I believe engaging in constructive dialogue is important rather than resorting to insults. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and when offered respectfully, criticism can often provide valuable insights and perspectives that we may not have considered before.

While I respect your right to express yourself, I encourage all to approach disagreements with an open mind and a willingness to listen to differing viewpoints. We can learn and grow through respectful exchange rather than name-calling and dismissiveness.

Your messages, like this one, are not fostering such dialogue. As astute as you are, you are fully cognizant that inflammatory statements only bolster more animosity in a measure equal to the angst you stir up. Why go there?

I don't feel any sense of personal loss over Trump's problems. I believe I am smart - perhaps somewhere in the middle of a 'smartness' scale. I am successful by American standards: multi-streams of income, ten rental homes, and a positive seven-digit net worth statement; my houses are paid for - unlike Trump's.

He reaps what he sows - discord and bad business are his hallmarks. The justice system is at work - let it wind its way forward. One way or another, it will culminate in a validation or overturning of a lower court decision. Let's live with that - not create a mockery of justice over it and march to overthrow the system. You, as a member of the court, espouse that view. Or did you not take an oath to uphold the laws?

Let's strive to maintain a positive and respectful atmosphere in our discussions, even when we may disagree.

 

[jomar]

I understand that you may feel frustrated or disappointed with criticism, but I believe engaging in constructive dialogue is important rather than resorting to insults. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and when offered respectfully, criticism can often provide valuable insights and perspectives that we may not have considered before.

While I respect your right to express yourself, I encourage all to approach disagreements with an open mind and a willingness to listen to differing viewpoints. We can learn and grow through respectful exchange rather than name-calling and dismissiveness.

Your messages, like this one, are not fostering such dialogue. As astute as you are, you are fully cognizant that inflammatory statements only bolster more animosity in a measure equal to the angst you stir up. Why go there?

A good thought, but Harpy’s go to is insults and a GO FUCK YOURSELF.

He reaps what he sows - discord and bad business are his hallmarks. The justice system is at work - let it wind its way forward. One way or another, it will culminate in a validation or overturning of a lower court decision. Let's live with that - not create a mockery of justice over it and march to overthrow the system. You, as a member of the court, espouse that view. Or did you not take an oath to uphold the laws?

He claims he did so there’s that. But given his posts here lawyers across the aisle must get a chubbie when they see he’s opposing counsel.

Let's strive to maintain a positive and respectful atmosphere in our discussions, even when we may disagree.

Agreed

 

[dmallord]

A good thought, but Harpy’s go to is insults and a GO FUCK YOURSELF.

Sadly, I'm very much aware of that - I've been on the receiving end many times as we seem to be polar opposites regarding ex-presidents.

It's humorous sometimes, he seems so 'lawyer-like' in some conversations but goes off his meds to become Mr. Hyde right afterward.

However, I consider him to be reformable - it just will take a couple more decades ... I'm an optimist ... when I'm on my meds!

Thanks for the caution note.

 

[HisArpy]

I understand that you may feel frustrated or disappointed with criticism, but I believe engaging in constructive dialogue is important rather than resorting to insults. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and when offered respectfully, criticism can often provide valuable insights and perspectives that we may not have considered before.

While I respect your right to express yourself, I encourage all to approach disagreements with an open mind and a willingness to listen to differing viewpoints. We can learn and grow through respectful exchange rather than name-calling and dismissiveness.

Your messages, like this one, are not fostering such dialogue. As astute as you are, you are fully cognizant that inflammatory statements only bolster more animosity in a measure equal to the angst you stir up. Why go there?

I don't feel any sense of personal loss over Trump's problems. I believe I am smart - perhaps somewhere in the middle of a 'smartness' scale. I am successful by American standards: multi-streams of income, ten rental homes, and a positive seven-digit net worth statement; my houses are paid for - unlike Trump's.

He reaps what he sows - discord and bad business are his hallmarks. The justice system is at work - let it wind its way forward. One way or another, it will culminate in a validation or overturning of a lower court decision. Let's live with that - not create a mockery of justice over it and march to overthrow the system. You, as a member of the court, espouse that view. Or did you not take an oath to uphold the laws?

Let's strive to maintain a positive and respectful atmosphere in our discussions, even when we may disagree.

Criticism is fine. Absolute insipid fuckery isn't.

The thing about Trump is that you use hate and division to justify spreading hate and division about Trump. You can't separate your personal feelings from the issue and instead vilify those who do and can.

Trump could be the worst fucking human on the planet and he could still be a good President. He could be king of the grifters and still do the job as long as his goals align with the needs of America.

Amazingly, we have PROOF that this alignment for the good of America seems to be the case and yet you dumfuks still hate him. You hate him so dam much you voted for the guy who wants to fucking kill all of us through intent and ineptitude. You support policies which are anti-life and anti-society. You engage in violence as a political statement. You rant and rage in the street against your neighbors and former friends because of their religion or skin color. You plant bombs and engage in mass slaughter in our schools. You support mental illness as normal behavior and deny that it's actual mental illness and self destructive.

And then you come here and call me stupid despite all of the evidence to the contrary that the ONLY stupid ones here are you and the rest of your idiot brethren.

You were wrong about Joe. You were wrong about Disney. You were wrong about DeSantis. You were wrong about Kyle Rittenhouse. You were wrong about George Floyd and BLM. You are wrong about Trump. You're wrong about DEI, genderism, abortion, guns, immigration, crime, law, and EVERY DAM THING ELSE. You are wrong. Not mistaken, WRONG.

And that's only making you hate more. Which absolutely proves that you're not "smart" like you claim.

OTOH, I have a proven track record of being right most of the time and I'm not afraid of you. And that just makes you grind your teeth even more.

 

[ll74]

Lmao.... Wow

 

[HisArpy]

Lmao.... Wow

And one of the insipid rears his ugly mug...

 

[ll74]

And one of the insipid rears his ugly mug...

You provided great humor this morning. Thanks! You forgot to tell the kids to get off your lawn, though

 

[HisArpy]

You provided great humor this morning. Thanks! You forgot to tell the kids to get off your lawn, though

There are no kids here. Da rulez and all dat jazz ya know.

And you only say it's humor because you can't accept that it's all true and that you've been wrong about everything all along and that you'll continue to be wrong in the future.

 

[Bray123]

 

[jomar]

Criticism is fine. Absolute insipid fuckery isn't.

The thing about Trump is that you use hate and division to justify spreading hate and division about Trump. You can't separate your personal feelings from the issue and instead vilify those who do and can.

Trump could be the worst fucking human on the planet and he could still be a good President. He could be king of the grifters and still do the job as long as his goals align with the needs of America.

Amazingly, we have PROOF that this alignment for the good of America seems to be the case and yet you dumfuks still hate him. You hate him so dam much you voted for the guy who wants to fucking kill all of us through intent and ineptitude. You support policies which are anti-life and anti-society. You engage in violence as a political statement. You rant and rage in the street against your neighbors and former friends because of their religion or skin color. You plant bombs and engage in mass slaughter in our schools. You support mental illness as normal behavior and deny that it's actual mental illness and self destructive.

And then you come here and call me stupid despite all of the evidence to the contrary that the ONLY stupid ones here are you and the rest of your idiot brethren.

You were wrong about Joe. You were wrong about Disney. You were wrong about DeSantis. You were wrong about Kyle Rittenhouse. You were wrong about George Floyd and BLM. You are wrong about Trump. You're wrong about DEI, genderism, abortion, guns, immigration, crime, law, and EVERY DAM THING ELSE. You are wrong. Not mistaken, WRONG.

And that's only making you hate more. Which absolutely proves that you're not "smart" like you claim.

OTOH, I have a proven track record of being right most of the time and I'm not afraid of you. And that just makes you grind your teeth even more.

Quoted for the record. This reads like one of Rightguide’s Gateway Pundit articles. Thanks Harpy!

 

[ll74]

There are no kids here. Da rulez and all dat jazz ya know.

And you only say it's humor because you can't accept that it's all true and that you've been wrong about everything all along and that you'll continue to be wrong in the future.

Of course, Mr lawyer.

 

[SmokingFap]

Huh. I thought Trump had billions and billions of dollars. Guess he's going to have to ask Russian banks for more loans. Or maybe he can just "think" his way to more cash on hand.

 

[dmallord]

Criticism is fine. Absolute insipid fuckery isn't.

Trump could be the worst fucking human on the planet and he could still be a good President. He could be king of the grifters and still do the job as long as his goals align with the needs of America.

Thanks for your response. I'm glad you accept that criticism is acceptable. But then you broke that statement by going on an insipid fuckery rant to the contrary. How's that square with criticism being fine?

The Trump worst human statement is ludicrous and so like a contrarian thinker's view. Anyone accepting that the worst fucking human on the planet could still be a good President reveals a major warped way of thinking. I'm surprised you would even make such a statement. The worst fucking human wouldn't have the moral values that make a good President. We would hold the Presidency to a higher standard than that - I hope.

Are you so planted on that idea that if Trump thrived on insipid fuckery you would feel he was good for America? You said insipid fuckery isn't fine. That doesn't square with anyone's views on America's governance.

 

[HisArpy]

Thanks for your response. I'm glad you accept that criticism is acceptable. But then you broke that statement by going on an insipid fuckery rant to the contrary. How's that square with criticism being fine?

The Trump worst human statement is ludicrous and so like a contrarian thinker's view. Anyone accepting that the worst fucking human on the planet could still be a good President reveals a major warped way of thinking. I'm surprised you would even make such a statement. The worst fucking human wouldn't have the moral values that make a good President. We would hold the Presidency to a higher standard than that - I hope.

Are you so planted on that idea that if Trump thrived on insipid fuckery you would feel he was good for America? You said insipid fuckery isn't fine. That doesn't square with anyone's views on America's governance.

tl;dr;stupid as all fuck like usual

 

[dmallord]

@HisArpy and @Rightguide and @icanhelp1

____________

It's interesting that in this and other threads, we have focused our comments on some misconceptions or statements based on assumptions. Those misconceptions being, you ask?

• The foreign bank Trump used did its separate property value assessment.
• Fraud in the case had to have a 'victim.'

The short version of these two from Engoron's decision document can be corrected by reading closely. That the bank did not do a separate evaluation and secondly, the applicable laws to the case do not have to show there is a 'victim.'

Let's look at the first bullet - the banks did a separate property evaluation - it is a wrongful assumption. The Honorable Judge Engoron's finding, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1688, points out how the bank determined the validity of Trump's request for a loan via erroneous misstatements by Trump and a falsified SFC required for the loan.

The first layer in this cake of info: Trump and his sons had Donald Bender, an accountant who worked for Mazars USA LLP, their financial company, prepare documents about their worth based upon data Trump provided. Bender prepared the SFC relying on Trump's data to be accurate. Trump signed documents that it was. Bender signed the SFC that the numbers were accurate, a prerequisite for the loan application. Later, the company learned from the AG that they were not accurate and disassociated itself from Trump - fired Trump as a client.

The second layer in this cake is at the Deutsche Bank’s level as found in Engoron's document and states:

“In deciding to approve the credit facility, Haigh relied on Donald Trump’s 2011 SFC and assumed that the representations of value of the assets and liabilities were “broadly accurate.” TT 1009-1010; PX 330. The Deutsche Bank Credit Report’s “Financial Analysis” is based on numbers provided by the “family office” (here, the Trump Organization) and contains the same numbers represented in the SFC. PX 293; TT 1010-1013."

“Before approving the credit facility, the Private Wealth Management Division consulted Deutsche Bank’s Valuation Services Group about market conditions to arrive at a conservative estimate of the value of the commercial real estate should a need arise to liquidate during “bad market conditions.” TT 1013-1016. In so doing, the Valuation Services Group applied a 50% “haircut” to the valuations presented by the client, which Haigh affirmed was the “standardized number for commercial real assets.”6 TT 1016, 1041.

“Haigh, [banker's lending officer] affirmed that the Private Wealth Management Division would not have done business with Donald Trump without a personal guarantee and that the personal guarantee was the reason for favorable pricing on the loan and the large size of the loan itself. TT 1017, 1020-1021, 1032.”

This, in short, shows the Deutsche Bank relied on the SFC document, not it's own eval, to be accurately files and upon Trump's personal guarrantee that he had sufficient resources to cure any defaults. "A rich man's handshake." One that Trump had his fingers crossed to ward off the lies in the SFC doc.

Now, let's look at the second bullet - Fraud. In this case, it had to have a 'victim.' It doesn't according to the statues applicable to this case.

“In varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace.” People v Grasso, 11 NY3d 64, 69 at n 4 (2008); People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 346 (1st Dept 2008) (“the claim pursuant to Executive Law §63(12) constituted proper exercises of the State’s regulation of businesses within its borders in the interest of securing an honest marketplace”); People v Amazon.com, Inc., 550 F Supp 3d 122, 130-131 (SDNY 2021) (“[T]he State’s statutory interest under § 63(12) encompasses the prevention of either ‘fraudulent or illegal’ business activities. Misconduct that is illegal for reasons other than fraud still implicates the government’s interests in guaranteeing a marketplace that adheres to standards of fairness …”).

“Timely and total repayment of loans does not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict on the marketplace. Indeed, the common excuse that “everybody does it” is all the more reason to strive for honesty and transparency and to be vigilant in enforcing the rules. Here, despite the false financial statements, it is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments on time; the next group of lenders to receive bogus statements might not be so lucky. New York means business in combating business fraud.”

In short, the second bullet says the state of New York has an interest in assuring businesses adhere to standards of fairness even if, in this case, all the money was paid. [Note elsewhere in the threads, Trump defaulted and renegotiated terms on this and other loans reducing his debt by further legal means.]

 

[Fuzzy1975]

@HisArpy and @Rightguide and @icanhelp1

____________

It's interesting that in this and other threads, we have focused our comments on some misconceptions or statements based on assumptions. Those misconceptions being, you ask?

• The foreign bank Trump used did its separate property value assessment.
• Fraud in the case had to have a 'victim.'

The short version of these two from Engoron's decision document can be corrected by reading closely. That the bank did not do a separate evaluation and secondly, the applicable laws to the case do not have to show there is a 'victim.'

Let's look at the first bullet - the banks did a separate property evaluation - it is a wrongful assumption. The Honorable Judge Engoron's finding, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1688, points out how the bank determined the validity of Trump's request for a loan via erroneous misstatements by Trump and a falsified SFC required for the loan.

The first layer in this cake of info: Trump and his sons had Donald Bender, an accountant who worked for Mazars USA LLP, their financial company, prepare documents about their worth based upon data Trump provided. Bender prepared the SFC relying on Trump's data to be accurate. Trump signed documents that it was. Bender signed the SFC that the numbers were accurate, a prerequisite for the loan application. Later, the company learned from the AG that they were not accurate and disassociated itself from Trump - fired Trump as a client.

The second layer in this cake is at the Deutsche Bank’s level as found in Engoron's document and states:

“In deciding to approve the credit facility, Haigh relied on Donald Trump’s 2011 SFC and assumed that the representations of value of the assets and liabilities were “broadly accurate.” TT 1009-1010; PX 330. The Deutsche Bank Credit Report’s “Financial Analysis” is based on numbers provided by the “family office” (here, the Trump Organization) and contains the same numbers represented in the SFC. PX 293; TT 1010-1013."

“Before approving the credit facility, the Private Wealth Management Division consulted Deutsche Bank’s Valuation Services Group about market conditions to arrive at a conservative estimate of the value of the commercial real estate should a need arise to liquidate during “bad market conditions.” TT 1013-1016. In so doing, the Valuation Services Group applied a 50% “haircut” to the valuations presented by the client, which Haigh affirmed was the “standardized number for commercial real assets.”6 TT 1016, 1041.

“Haigh, [banker's lending officer] affirmed that the Private Wealth Management Division would not have done business with Donald Trump without a personal guarantee and that the personal guarantee was the reason for favorable pricing on the loan and the large size of the loan itself. TT 1017, 1020-1021, 1032.”

This, in short, shows the Deutsche Bank relied on the SFC document, not it's own eval, to be accurately files and upon Trump's personal guarrantee that he had sufficient resources to cure any defaults. "A rich man's handshake." One that Trump had his fingers crossed to ward off the lies in the SFC doc.

Now, let's look at the second bullet - Fraud. In this case, it had to have a 'victim.' It doesn't according to the statues applicable to this case.

“In varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace.” People v Grasso, 11 NY3d 64, 69 at n 4 (2008); People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 346 (1st Dept 2008) (“the claim pursuant to Executive Law §63(12) constituted proper exercises of the State’s regulation of businesses within its borders in the interest of securing an honest marketplace”); People v Amazon.com, Inc., 550 F Supp 3d 122, 130-131 (SDNY 2021) (“[T]he State’s statutory interest under § 63(12) encompasses the prevention of either ‘fraudulent or illegal’ business activities. Misconduct that is illegal for reasons other than fraud still implicates the government’s interests in guaranteeing a marketplace that adheres to standards of fairness …”).

“Timely and total repayment of loans does not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict on the marketplace. Indeed, the common excuse that “everybody does it” is all the more reason to strive for honesty and transparency and to be vigilant in enforcing the rules. Here, despite the false financial statements, it is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments on time; the next group of lenders to receive bogus statements might not be so lucky. New York means business in combating business fraud.”

In short, the second bullet says the state of New York has an interest in assuring businesses adhere to standards of fairness even if, in this case, all the money was paid. [Note elsewhere in the threads, Trump defaulted and renegotiated terms on this and other loans reducing his debt by further legal means.]

Excellent post, again; but the triangle of stupidity you are trying to educate will only embrace the points in your post as real facts when it is a Democrat who is being prosecuted.

Sad but true.