Yeah, it's probably not a good idea to meet a bunch of strangers and announce you're now walking back to your car on your own...and then repeat that action several weeks running.
I'm sorry, I momentarily forgot you think women deserve to be beaten at times.
I should have known fraud and deception committed by an adjudicated rapist aren't going to register on your moral compass.
You can go back to making up stories to feel better about yourself, now.
There's no need to worry your little head about real things, like judgement orders in the public domain and what's actually going on under your little nose.
According to the order, Letitia James applied for 'monetary penalties and injunctive relief'.
The 'injunctive relief' are the sanctions against him: losing his business licence for three years, not being able to apply to certain lenders, the imposition of an independent monitor, etc. This is to stop him from continuing his fraudulent behaviour, it provides some time to sort out his sorry mess (Barbara Jones continues to find discrepancies) and I'm pretty sure Trump will see it as a punishment.
I haven't read the whole 92 page order yet, but so far I've found nothing there, or even in the media that suggests any of the 'monetary penalty' is punitive.
$354.9M is disgorgement.
$110M is interest because Trump wanted a trial rather than admit his fraud and because he delayed paying the bond to appeal.
In other words, if you thieve $10 out of the till, you pay back $10 plus interest and lose your job.
What Ozzie is suggesting is that you thieve $10 out of the till, you pay back 3 cents and get a pat on the back for learning your lessen.
The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. This defines the word 'fraud' in the context of the statute. It clearly refers to a device like inflating/deflating property value for financial gain as well as many other devices. It's both precise and broad in the net it throws out to capture business deception.
The term “persistent fraud” or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term “repeated” as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. More definitions for clarity. This statute isn't for one off boo boo's.
Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law." As long as there isn't another law that says something different, any money awarded to the attorney general (or other official involved in the application) from the fraudulent person(s)/business can be seized from their assets if they fail to pay.
From the order: the order that Judge Engoron wrote and I cited twice in this blog.
" Executive Law § 63(12) now reads as follows: in the order Judge Engoron describes the history and evolution of the statute and what it now states.
Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, When someone commits persistent fraud...
the attorney general may apply… for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts,...the attorney general can apply for an order that commands...
directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate ...the fraud to pay back the money, pay for any harm done and if appropriate, stop that person from conducting business by revoking their licence.
filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, These are the bits of law that say the attorney general can do the above.
and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The judge will then review the attorney general's application and award the amount of money/sanctions that they think is reasonable from within that application.
Nota bene, Judge Engoron didn't award everything that AG James applied for, just most of it.
I do recall trying to save you from yourself and I've often felt sorry for you because I thought you had too low an IQ to understand your misogyny.
I see from this post above that you're smart enough.
There is no great mystery here. Women don't like you and that's why they don't want to have sex with you.
It's got nothing to do with looks, or how much money you have, or the size of your p*nis.
It's because you spend your time watching rubbish on the internet where unscrupulous people make a living from telling you what you want to hear - there's nothing you can do to change, your looks, your income and the size of your p*nis are all fixed; it's us nasty women who need to change our bad ways and give you the sex you think you're owed for no other reason than you're a man.
It seems like men even pay to hear what they want to hear so they can blame women for being unreasonable for not wanting to have sex with them.
Johnny, those women being interviewed are paid actors. That crap you're watching is an industry that preys on men like you that women don't like.
They feed you stuff that makes you more unlikeable so you keep coming back for more lessons on how to be a loser that no woman will touch.
The reality is, when men are kind and generous with nothing but themselves, we women are actually pretty easy. And vice versa.
That's the truth and there's bugger all hidden about it.
" Executive Law § 63(12) now reads as follows: Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply… for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term “persistent fraud” or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term “repeated” as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law."
It's not shrewd business practises, it's fraud as you can see from the statute under which Trump et al were adjudicated liable.
No, in the interests of equalityjustice should follow the evidence equally.
Nobody says that individual murderers shouldn't tried because other murderers aren't being tried at the same time.
Nobody says an individual murderer is being unfairly singled out if they are successfully prosecuted.
Nobody say every person should be investigated for murder if one person is, just make it fair.
Your argument is entirely specious. People should be investigated and prosecuted on the basis of evidence, of which the prosecution had plenty in this case.
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you really not understand how Trump's fraudulent behaviour was a breach of Executive Law § 63(12)?
Okay, so Trump over-inflated the value of his properties.
For example, he said Mar-a-Largo was a social venue, rather than a residential property. All these things made Mar-a-Largo less valuable ($18-27M) so he paid less property tax.
When it came to getting loans, all of a sudden Mar-a-Largo is not only valued as if it was a home, but it was valued as if he could develop the land and build lots more homes on it (hence his claims it's worth a billion, or more.)
The banks did a certain amount of due diligence, but didn't take his business apart like a fraud investigation. They missed much of the fraud and offered Trump loans at favourable rates because he appeared to have so much to sell if he couldn't pay back the loan.
Had the banks known the full extent of the truth, they perhaps wouldn't have loaned him as much as they did and it would have been at a much higher interest rate. The favourable loan terms received meant that Trump profited more than if he'd not committed fraud.
Also, having received these loans, Trump developed other properties from which he could profit. Had he not received the loans fraudulently, he wouldn't have been able to do that.
That's just one example of what Trump did fraudulently. Judge Engoron's summary judgement was based on the maths (Mar-a-Largo valued at $18M in one set of official documents and $1B+ in another, for example.) Letitia James put so much documentary evidence in front of him, he was able to say there was widespread fraud within the Trump Organisation over a 10-15 year period.
The $354.9M original amount is just the excess money Trump gained by lying. The extra $110M is interest accrued during and after the trial. Had he admitted the fraud before it went to trial and paid the bond immediately after he wouldn't have accrued all that interest.
I realise you don't care and think it's irrelevant that Robert Reich is Jewish.
That's because you have no understanding of how being Jewish is relevant when evaluating the socio-political dynamic in the US and how it is relevant to your crass suggestion that it's Reich who is a Nazi.
Hitler's playbook is quite literally embedded in our genes and we recognise the same stories told to us as children by the survivors (our parents) with what is in front of us now.
It's clear you don't recognise Hitler's playbook in Trump's actions because you didn't respond to the question in my last comment.
I'm afraid you can't claim that white. male, Christian conservatives are the persecuted minority when not only are they the ones who are in power regardless of who you vote for, but that the constitution was created by the very same largely in their own interests.
It's not the non-MAGA element who have relegated women to breeding mares (Mutterkreuz anyone?).
It's not the non-Maga element who wanted to strip Muslim Americans of their citizenship, deport Muslim people and stop people from Muslim countries entering the US (as Hitler did with the Jewish people).
It's not the non-MAGA element who wanted to shoot BLM protesters in the legs (as Hitler had the Resistance shot in the streets like dogs, likely including my grandfather.)
It's not the non-MAGA element who want to strip LGBTQ+ people of their human rights (as Hitler did even with their rights to liberty and life.)
It's not the non-MAGA element who came up with Jewish space lasers starting forest fires (as Hitler blamed the Jewish people for all ills however ridiculous and fantastical.)
It's not the non-MAGA element who blame anti-fascists for their own fascism (as Hitler did when the Reichstag was burned.)
It's not the non-MAGA element who disparages the differently abled (as Hitler so famously did.)
Of course that was the irony, not you mis-translating the German, or accusing a Jewish man of Nazism in order to support your favourite adjudicated rapist, fraud and insurrectionist who wanted to strip Muslim Americans of the citizenship.
The $354.9M as far as I can work out is entirely a disgorgement order.
It's the amount of money Trump and the Trump Organisation made through fraud.
It's like stealing £10 out of the till and having to pay £10 back.
Trump made an extra $354.9M through fraud and now he has to pay $354.9 back.
The money doesn't go to the banks, but they can sue him separately if they think it's worth their while.
The money will go to 'the people', aka the state of NY to be used for the benefit of NY and NYers.
As far as I can work out, there are no punitive money damages; penalties are in the form of sanctions.
It's like losing your job after stealing £10 out of the till, except Trump has had his business licence in NY revoked for a mere three years. Having the independent monitor to oversee the businesses is another punitive measure given Trump can no longer fart without asking permission from Barbara Jones. She's there because Trump can't be trusted not to commit more fraud.
The $83.3M in the second defamation suit is considerably larger that the first $5M simply because Trump didn't have the sense to keep his mouth shut. He continued to defame Carroll after the first case, so the increase in the penalty reflected that.
Another aspect was Trump informing the court under oath that he had $400M in cash and however many billion in assets, whereupon Judge Kaplan instructed the jury that was the pool of money they had to work within. If Trump inflated his assets for the sake of appearances and doesn't actually have that much, he's only himself to blame for that, too.
You can't claim someone has violated the Act, but have no idea what crime they may, or may not have committed.
The RICO Act is very specific about which combination of crimes come under it's jurisdiction. You'd know that if you had read anything from the link I cited as you asked.
I realise there are no pictures in the RICO manual, but surely you can see that holding an impeachment inquiry where no one has any idea what crime may have been committed, is not what you might expect from grown-arsed politicians who are being paid relatively handsomely for their expertise.
If you are, it's because it's a civil case, not a criminal one. The objective was to disgorge fraudulently obtained profits and give that money back to 'the people' of NY.
The hush money case is criminal, but it's a very low level felony. A prison sentence of up to four years could be imposed in the event of a guilty verdict, but my understanding is that it's unlikely.
Having obtained a civil ruling of widespread and persistent fraud in the Trump Organisation, it's possible that a criminal trial could follow, especially with the independent monitor in place who has to report any discrepancies. This would be an expensive and pointless exercise however, if any of his other pending cases landed him enough jail time to be a life sentence in effect.
If the federal Supreme Court and Judge Aileen Cannon get his criminal cases dismissed between them, then it may become relevant to pursue a criminal conviction for fraud, assuming no statute of limitations have passed, or that he isn't voted back into office where he can dismantle everything that doesn't suit him.
RE: Speed dating
You utter snob, Ninurta.I can't spell for toffee.