“These are huge towers. I’ve lived in the city my whole life. You can’t just do this because the zoning allows it. I just can’t believe this is the case.”
— State Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron
Early in my career, I wrote about the backroom dealmaking that produces state Supreme Court judges. Now, at The Real Deal, I see the havoc these jurists wreak on the city and its real estate industry. It compels me to revisit the tawdry topic of how they get to the bench.
New Yorkers might assume their judges are top-notch legal minds who have reached the pinnacle of the profession. Um, no.
Many were middling, undistinguished lawyers. You’d almost have to be to subject yourself to the shady, debasing process one must endure for a shot at holding the gavel.
State Supreme Court judges, who preside over cases big enough to matter to the industry, serve 14-year terms and make $210,900. That adds up to $3 million, not including pension benefits, potential future raises and any additional terms. Beats hustling for clients in the backwaters of Brooklyn or toiling away as a law secretary.
These robed men and women rule on high-stakes real estate disputes and rezonings for projects and entire neighborhoods. Lately, some of their key decisions have been reversed on appeal, which suggests they are not doing a bang-up job.
Take the quote above by Engoron, who ruled that four towers proposed by JDS Development, L+M Development, CIM Group and Starrett Corporation in the Manhattan neighborhood Two Bridges required a rezoning, even though they complied with the zoning in place. If that sounds like sound legal reasoning, I’ve got two bridges to sell you.
The developers appealed and won. The Appellate Division also overturned recent anti-real estate rulings at SJP Properties’ 200 Amsterdam Avenue and in Inwood, where a sweeping rezoning had been temporarily invalidated because Judge Verna Saunders decided the land-use review process should — for the first time in its 30-year history — have included a racial impact study.
“Part of [the Appellate Division’s] job is to clean up the crap from the trial courts,” said one judicial system veteran. “Frankly, there’s a lot of it.”
All three reversals were unanimous. Do the judges care about being overturned? One would hope. But the court system does not keep track of their reversal rates and their jobs are as safe as houses. They nearly always serve until they hit the mandatory retirement age of 70 (at which point they can request up to three two-year extensions).
But wait. These judges are elected. Can’t New Yorkers just vote for better judges?
Again, no. These judicial elections bear no resemblance to democracy. The Democratic county organizations nominate as many candidates as there are Supreme Court openings. If your ballot in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens or the Bronx says “vote for any six candidates,” there will be exactly six Democrats. In New York’s Republican counties, the GOP does the same thing.
“This is an insider game where it’s a question of who you know, not what are your abilities.” Lincoln Restler, Brooklyn reformer
Under the state constitution, this is a partisan process involving a judicial convention. The local political machines have the infrastructure to control it, rendering the annual convention a Soviet-style affair.
“The whole system is so wrapped up in politics and patronage, there’s no incentive for anyone to relinquish authority,” said Ken Fisher, a land-use attorney at Cozen O’Connor and former City Council member. “Absent some miraculous burst of civic leadership out of Albany, there’s no reason to think the system is going to change any time soon.”
A candidate for judge must round up support from party functionaries. In Brooklyn, 42 Democratic state committee members — known as district leaders — elect a county leader. To keep their loyalty, the county leader fills the judicial slate with candidates who have garnered the most support among them. Candidates win that support by attending district leaders’ fundraisers and writing checks.
That is why in any interview about judge-making in New York, the phrase “chicken dinners” will come up.
“The idea that you can attend a few chicken dinners … and that determines whether you’re deciding cases of consequence is terribly disappointing and unacceptable,” said Lincoln Restler, a City Council candidate who has tried to reform the system. “This is an insider game where it’s a question of who you know, not what are your abilities.”
“The process is bizarre,” said the court system veteran, who navigated it years ago and spoke on condition of anonymity to protect professional relationships. “Oddly enough, the system produces some very good judges, [but also] a lot of mediocre judges and some turkeys.”
Lawrence Knipel, for example, became a judge because his wife, district leader Lori Knipel, “bulldozed him through,” as the source put it. Fortunately, Knipel turned out to be one of the court’s best judges.
Noach Dear did not. The late former City Council member, who failed the bar exam repeatedly before getting an exemption to take it untimed, got his judgeship without ever having tried a case. It is not clear that he had even practiced law.
“It’s not that good judges don’t come out of the system. It’s that the system is not designed to produce the leading scholars,” said Fisher, who once sat on a screening panel created to ensure judicial candidates at least had basic qualifications.
“In the years when I was involved in vetting them, I don’t recall a single assistant district attorney, a single law professor, a single partner in a law firm to even inquire about doing it,” he said.
Candidates rejected by screening panels can still make it to the bench. Some of them just blow off the panels, calling them rigged.
Besides judicial incompetence, a second problem is influence. This is where real estate gets hurt. Judges who come through a political process do not get a nod from a political boss in the back of the courtroom, but they tend to be “more sensitive to public opinion, more sensitive to the feelings of the people they garnered support from,” said Fisher.
He was speaking generally, but a case he is handling bears mentioning. Fisher represents a group favoring the de Blasio administration’s Gowanus rezoning plan, which is being held up by Judge Katherine Levine because its public hearings would be held on Zoom.
Early in the case, which is itself being litigated on Zoom, Levine seemed to be just fine with virtual hearings. “That’s life,” she told opponents in January. “That’s Covid.”
But she has since pondered the matter long enough that the rezoning might not get done before the mayor and Gowanus’ two local City Council members leave office. That would seriously jeopardize its chances, potentially denying developers the right to build 8,000 apartments and 20,000 people the opportunity to live in them.
“The whole system is so wrapped up in politics and patronage,there’s no incentive for anyone to relinquish authority.” Ken Fisher, land-use attorney
Emboldened, opponents of a Bruce Eichner project in Crown Heights are suing on the same grounds. Levine is on that case too. The judge’s beef with Zoom endangers dozens of rezoning applications and billions of dollars’ worth of development.
As it happens, a politician whose Democratic club put Levine on the bench, Assemblywoman Jo Anne Simon, has demanded that the Gowanus rezoning be paused until in-person hearings can be held.
I’ve known Simon since she led the Boerum Hill Civic Association in the early 1990s. She later became a district leader and was considered a reformer. She would never call a sitting judge about an active case. Still, her connection with Levine undermines public confidence in the case.
“If the community is up in arms, opposing a development, does that impact judges? Absolutely. They are human beings,” a former Supreme Court judge told me. “But hopefully they are still ruling on the law.”
Judging by the reversals, some are not. While winning at the trial court matters, lawyers concentrate on getting all their evidence and arguments into the record because the appeals panel cannot consider new material.
Fisher is now less focused on swaying Levine’s decision than on simply getting her to make one. His enemy is time. Besides, as with most real estate cases, this one is likely to be decided by the Appellate Division.
By the way, appellate judges are also products of politics: They are picked by the governor, sometimes based upon who is whispering in his ear. But that’s a story for another day.
Trump had the misfortune of being sued under NY Executive Law section 63(12), a fraud statute under the Martin Act. This is the most powerful anti-fraud statute in the nation and came into existence to combat fraud on Wall Street.
Once he was sued under this statute it was clear he was going to lose. Why? The Martin Act does not require fraudulent intent; it does not require reliance by the defrauded party; and it does not require damages to the defrauded party. The elements of the statute are met when a person or entity provides knowingly false or misleading information to another person or entity in order to receive something of value from them. That's it.
The penalties are wicked as we learned yesterday. Trump has lost his ability to operate in New York State and his corporations and LLC's were ordered to be dissolved.
Unfortunately, there aren't any grounds for appeal. He will try, but he will lose. As I said, the fraud statutes in New York are wicked.
Plenty of grounds for appeal. It requires “knowingly”. To decide that on summary judgment when there are multiple standards valuing property and relying on the absolute lowest assessed value, of a property in another state entirely I might add, is abuse of discretion.
And by the way it most certainly DOES require fraudulent intent. Knowingly providing false information to someone to receive something of value IS FRAUD as defined in every single common law jurisdiction IN THE WORLD.
I have no fear of AI if it is as stupid as all the bots are who show up on this board.
63(12) does not have a scienter element. Scienter means intent.
Appellate courts rarely grant appeals on findings of fact, and the judge is the sole finder of fact in this case. Only errors in law are surefire grounds for appeal.
Quit throwing around terms you don’t understand. I merely repeated your statement in the last post and told you it was a textbook definition of fraud and fraud requires intent. And yes, the law does require intent because it repeatedly mentions fraud. Fraud is a legal term requiring more than mere misrepresentation or being wrong on a valuation.
As for a determination of fact, meh. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. Maybe the court incorrectly applied the law to make it’s determination of “fact”. For instance, he apparently relied upon a tax appraisal and took the lowest value it could possibly be. Did he consider other standards? Were they presented? Was error preserved? What standards have been applied in similar cases? What evidence of fraudulent intent was presented?
I've been an attorney in New York State since 1993. I know what the terms mean. Common law fraud requires intent to defraud others for the purposes of depriving them of a thing of value. The Martin Act does not require this to be found liable for fraud. There is no intent to defraud element. All that is required is the act/statement that tends to mislead or deceive. The statute specifically states that there need not be a finding of common law fraud to have a violation of the Act. That is the whole point of my original response which was that it was unfortunate for Trump to be sued under section 63(12).
If you don't understand the law in this case you can't say the things you are saying without sounding buffoonish. Trump's intent was irrelevant, and thus the ruling on summary judgment.
Now you’re just making schit up. It says no such thing. But, I’ll grant it does look like something an affirmative action New York attorney would write as that it says, “ 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.”
You’ve got some real brain surgeons up there. In the definition of “fraud” you use the term “defraud” in thr first sentence of the definition. lol New York says “fraud is anything meant to defraud.” lol
The state has alleged fraud involving two of Trump's residences, at Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago.
Trump owns and sporadically lives in the triplex penthouse atop Trump Tower.
The AG has alleged, and the judge Tuesday found, that the former president fraudulently tripled the apartment's size, claiming it was 30,000 square feet, in five years of his annual financial statements.
The statements were relied on by banks to collateralize and maintain hundreds of millions of dollars in loans.
The judge also found Tuesday that Trump valued Mar-a-Lago as high as $739 million based on the false premise that it was free of any development restrictions. Trump had personally signed deeds giving up any residential development rights, collecting a tidy tax benefit by doing so, the AG and judge found.
Remember why, specifically, the Bill of Rights was written...remember its purpose. It was written to limit the power of government over the individual.
There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth.
Trump had the misfortune of being sued under NY Executive Law section 63(12), a fraud statute under the Martin Act. This is the most powerful anti-fraud statute in the nation and came into existence to combat fraud on Wall Street.
Once he was sued under this statute it was clear he was going to lose. Why? The Martin Act does not require fraudulent intent; it does not require reliance by the defrauded party; and it does not require damages to the defrauded party. The elements of the statute are met when a person or entity provides knowingly false or misleading information to another person or entity in order to receive something of value from them. That's it.
The penalties are wicked as we learned yesterday. Trump has lost his ability to operate in New York State and his corporations and LLC's were ordered to be dissolved.
Unfortunately, there aren't any grounds for appeal. He will try, but he will lose. As I said, the fraud statutes in New York are wicked.
Plenty of grounds for appeal. It requires “knowingly”. To decide that on summary judgment when there are multiple standards valuing property and relying on the absolute lowest assessed value, of a property in another state entirely I might add, is abuse of discretion.
And by the way it most certainly DOES require fraudulent intent. Knowingly providing false information to someone to receive something of value IS FRAUD as defined in every single common law jurisdiction IN THE WORLD.
I have no fear of AI if it is as stupid as all the bots are who show up on this board.
63(12) does not have a scienter element. Scienter means intent.
Appellate courts rarely grant appeals on findings of fact, and the judge is the sole finder of fact in this case. Only errors in law are surefire grounds for appeal.
Quit throwing around terms you don’t understand. I merely repeated your statement in the last post and told you it was a textbook definition of fraud and fraud requires intent. And yes, the law does require intent because it repeatedly mentions fraud. Fraud is a legal term requiring more than mere misrepresentation or being wrong on a valuation.
As for a determination of fact, meh. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. Maybe the court incorrectly applied the law to make it’s determination of “fact”. For instance, he apparently relied upon a tax appraisal and took the lowest value it could possibly be. Did he consider other standards? Were they presented? Was error preserved? What standards have been applied in similar cases? What evidence of fraudulent intent was presented?
I've been an attorney in New York State since 1993. I know what the terms mean. Common law fraud requires intent to defraud others for the purposes of depriving them of a thing of value. The Martin Act does not require this to be found liable for fraud. There is no intent to defraud element. All that is required is the act/statement that tends to mislead or deceive. The statute specifically states that there need not be a finding of common law fraud to have a violation of the Act. That is the whole point of my original response which was that it was unfortunate for Trump to be sued under section 63(12).
If you don't understand the law in this case you can't say the things you are saying without sounding buffoonish. Trump's intent was irrelevant, and thus the ruling on summary judgment.
Now you’re just making schit up. It says no such thing. But, I’ll grant it does look like something an affirmative action New York attorney would write as that it says, “ 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.”
You’ve got some real brain surgeons up there. In the definition of “fraud” you use the term “defraud” in thr first sentence of the definition. lol New York says “fraud is anything meant to defraud.” lol
And if you're confused why the Martin Act and NY Executive Law are used together, read this also, retard. https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2019/08/new-yorks-martin-act-restored#:~:text=Section%2063(12)%20further%20bolsters,enforcement%20tools%20in%20the%20country.
Trump had the misfortune of being sued under NY Executive Law section 63(12), a fraud statute under the Martin Act. This is the most powerful anti-fraud statute in the nation and came into existence to combat fraud on Wall Street.
Once he was sued under this statute it was clear he was going to lose. Why? The Martin Act does not require fraudulent intent; it does not require reliance by the defrauded party; and it does not require damages to the defrauded party. The elements of the statute are met when a person or entity provides knowingly false or misleading information to another person or entity in order to receive something of value from them. That's it.
The penalties are wicked as we learned yesterday. Trump has lost his ability to operate in New York State and his corporations and LLC's were ordered to be dissolved.
Unfortunately, there aren't any grounds for appeal. He will try, but he will lose. As I said, the fraud statutes in New York are wicked.
Plenty of grounds for appeal. It requires “knowingly”. To decide that on summary judgment when there are multiple standards valuing property and relying on the absolute lowest assessed value, of a property in another state entirely I might add, is abuse of discretion.
And by the way it most certainly DOES require fraudulent intent. Knowingly providing false information to someone to receive something of value IS FRAUD as defined in every single common law jurisdiction IN THE WORLD.
I have no fear of AI if it is as stupid as all the bots are who show up on this board.
63(12) does not have a scienter element. Scienter means intent.
Appellate courts rarely grant appeals on findings of fact, and the judge is the sole finder of fact in this case. Only errors in law are surefire grounds for appeal.
Quit throwing around terms you don’t understand. I merely repeated your statement in the last post and told you it was a textbook definition of fraud and fraud requires intent. And yes, the law does require intent because it repeatedly mentions fraud. Fraud is a legal term requiring more than mere misrepresentation or being wrong on a valuation.
As for a determination of fact, meh. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. Maybe the court incorrectly applied the law to make it’s determination of “fact”. For instance, he apparently relied upon a tax appraisal and took the lowest value it could possibly be. Did he consider other standards? Were they presented? Was error preserved? What standards have been applied in similar cases? What evidence of fraudulent intent was presented?
I've been an attorney in New York State since 1993. I know what the terms mean. Common law fraud requires intent to defraud others for the purposes of depriving them of a thing of value. The Martin Act does not require this to be found liable for fraud. There is no intent to defraud element. All that is required is the act/statement that tends to mislead or deceive. The statute specifically states that there need not be a finding of common law fraud to have a violation of the Act. That is the whole point of my original response which was that it was unfortunate for Trump to be sued under section 63(12).
If you don't understand the law in this case you can't say the things you are saying without sounding buffoonish. Trump's intent was irrelevant, and thus the ruling on summary judgment.
Who specifically was defrauded, how and for what dollar amount? What legal precedents exist to show how value must be calculated?
This thread seems to have brought out the majority of our resident misguided libs…… believe we are still missing Jeff Obama though, am sure he’ll be along to tell us how Trump is going down this time….
Trump had the misfortune of being sued under NY Executive Law section 63(12), a fraud statute under the Martin Act. This is the most powerful anti-fraud statute in the nation and came into existence to combat fraud on Wall Street.
Once he was sued under this statute it was clear he was going to lose. Why? The Martin Act does not require fraudulent intent; it does not require reliance by the defrauded party; and it does not require damages to the defrauded party. The elements of the statute are met when a person or entity provides knowingly false or misleading information to another person or entity in order to receive something of value from them. That's it.
The penalties are wicked as we learned yesterday. Trump has lost his ability to operate in New York State and his corporations and LLC's were ordered to be dissolved.
Unfortunately, there aren't any grounds for appeal. He will try, but he will lose. As I said, the fraud statutes in New York are wicked.
Plenty of grounds for appeal. It requires “knowingly”. To decide that on summary judgment when there are multiple standards valuing property and relying on the absolute lowest assessed value, of a property in another state entirely I might add, is abuse of discretion.
And by the way it most certainly DOES require fraudulent intent. Knowingly providing false information to someone to receive something of value IS FRAUD as defined in every single common law jurisdiction IN THE WORLD.
I have no fear of AI if it is as stupid as all the bots are who show up on this board.
63(12) does not have a scienter element. Scienter means intent.
Appellate courts rarely grant appeals on findings of fact, and the judge is the sole finder of fact in this case. Only errors in law are surefire grounds for appeal.
Quit throwing around terms you don’t understand. I merely repeated your statement in the last post and told you it was a textbook definition of fraud and fraud requires intent. And yes, the law does require intent because it repeatedly mentions fraud. Fraud is a legal term requiring more than mere misrepresentation or being wrong on a valuation.
As for a determination of fact, meh. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. Maybe the court incorrectly applied the law to make it’s determination of “fact”. For instance, he apparently relied upon a tax appraisal and took the lowest value it could possibly be. Did he consider other standards? Were they presented? Was error preserved? What standards have been applied in similar cases? What evidence of fraudulent intent was presented?
I've been an attorney in New York State since 1993. I know what the terms mean. Common law fraud requires intent to defraud others for the purposes of depriving them of a thing of value. The Martin Act does not require this to be found liable for fraud. There is no intent to defraud element. All that is required is the act/statement that tends to mislead or deceive. The statute specifically states that there need not be a finding of common law fraud to have a violation of the Act. That is the whole point of my original response which was that it was unfortunate for Trump to be sued under section 63(12).
If you don't understand the law in this case you can't say the things you are saying without sounding buffoonish. Trump's intent was irrelevant, and thus the ruling on summary judgment.
Now you’re just making schit up. It says no such thing. But, I’ll grant it does look like something an affirmative action New York attorney would write as that it says, “ 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.”
You’ve got some real brain surgeons up there. In the definition of “fraud” you use the term “defraud” in thr first sentence of the definition. lol New York says “fraud is anything meant to defraud.” lol
And if you're confused why the Martin Act and NY Executive Law are used together, read this also, retard. https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2019/08/new-yorks-martin-act-restored#:~:text=Section%2063(12)%20further%20bolsters,enforcement%20tools%20in%20the%20country.
So let’s see. First, you state that in your post, “The elements of the statute are met when a person or entity provides knowingly false or misleading information to another person or entity in order to receive something of value from them.” I remind you that your statement pretty much encompasses the textbook definition of common law fraud.
Then you state that the statute specifically states that common law fraud is not required and is broader. I show you that isn’t so.
So finally you show a short treatise on case law that has developed around the law. Okay, fair enough. But you never said case law. You said statute. So, I’m the retard?
I’ll also note that the case law seems to mostly deal with securities. Has it ever been applied to real estate valuations like this?
Do a couple furlongs and get back to me on that.
Oh, and from your own link here is this gem: “But, unlike common law fraud or federal antifraud statutes, it has been interpreted by the Attorney General and some New York courts to not require proof of intent or justifiable reliance.”
NEW YORK, Sept 27 (Reuters) - The New York judge who found Donald Trump liable for fraud on Wednesday stopped short of addressing whether his scathing decision would force the former U.S. president to sell his prized real estate.
Justice Arthur Engoron at a hearing on Wednesday was asked by Trump's lawyer Christopher Kise about what he intended a day earlier by ordering the cancellation of business certificates that let some of Trump's businesses operate.
Engoron's ruling could force Trump to give up control to a receiver of properties including Manhattan's Trump Tower, golf courses and his family estate in a Manhattan suburb.
Trump's businesses "own physical assets like Trump Tower, like 40 Wall Street. Is the court under the impression those assets are to be sold or are they just to be managed under the monitor?" Kise asked.
"I'm not prepared to issue a ruling right now," Engoron responded. ...
NEW YORK (AP) — Does a judge’s fraud finding spell the end of Donald Trump ’s real estate empire? The former president seems to think so. He decried Tuesday’s ruling, which shifts control of some of his companies to a court-appointed receiver, as the “KILL TRUMP” decision.
But the judge himself isn’t so sure, telling Trump’s lawyers at a hearing Wednesday that he isn’t ready to discuss what the ruling — which strips Trump’s entities of their New York-issued business licenses — will mean for his company and the marquee properties bearing his name.
Judge Arthur Engoron, who will preside over a non-jury trial next week on issues remaining in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ civil lawsuit against Trump, acknowledged that the “contours of the case (have) changed significantly,” but declined to elaborate on the real-world impacts of his fraud finding. ...
NEW YORK, Sept 27 (Reuters) - The New York judge who found Donald Trump liable for fraud on Wednesday stopped short of addressing whether his scathing decision would force the former U.S. president to sell his prized real estate.
Justice Arthur Engoron at a hearing on Wednesday was asked by Trump's lawyer Christopher Kise about what he intended a day earlier by ordering the cancellation of business certificates that let some of Trump's businesses operate.
Engoron's ruling could force Trump to give up control to a receiver of properties including Manhattan's Trump Tower, golf courses and his family estate in a Manhattan suburb.
Trump's businesses "own physical assets like Trump Tower, like 40 Wall Street. Is the court under the impression those assets are to be sold or are they just to be managed under the monitor?" Kise asked.
"I'm not prepared to issue a ruling right now," Engoron responded. ...
NEW YORK (AP) — Does a judge’s fraud finding spell the end of Donald Trump ’s real estate empire? The former president seems to think so. He decried Tuesday’s ruling, which shifts control of some of his companies to a court-appointed receiver, as the “KILL TRUMP” decision.
But the judge himself isn’t so sure, telling Trump’s lawyers at a hearing Wednesday that he isn’t ready to discuss what the ruling — which strips Trump’s entities of their New York-issued business licenses — will mean for his company and the marquee properties bearing his name.
Judge Arthur Engoron, who will preside over a non-jury trial next week on issues remaining in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ civil lawsuit against Trump, acknowledged that the “contours of the case (have) changed significantly,” but declined to elaborate on the real-world impacts of his fraud finding. ...
That translates to the judge is yanking stuff out of his ass and has no idea what he's doing.
Ol bone spurs got his azz handed to him in 2020 by the worst presidential candidate ever. If and a big IF ol spurs is the nominee in 24 he will lose bigly again.
Keep on believing that PedoJoe won without collusion from multiple jurisdictions & 3 letter agencies.
BTW-I missed the reason you changed your username, can you drop that tidbit again?
CalledScum / LostC.unt60 is scared schittless she’s going to lose all of her Free .Gov Handouts when Trump wins again in 2024.
She’s going to be hiding in the Section 8 Housing basement shaking like a Chihuahua schitting a peach seed like she did in 2020.
I’m guessing this is her:
[video:youtube] [/video]
"Allways speak the truth and you will never have to remember what you said before..." Sam Houston Texans, "We say Grace, We Say Mam, If You Don't Like it, We Don't Give a Damn!"
Nothing to wonder about, very seldom is someone sentenced at the same time as the verdict is stated. In this case, Tuesday's announcement was one of seven counts in the case but the most important count. The other counts will be in trial Monday at which time or soon thereafter more will be discussed about the penalties associated with Tuesday's guilty verdict on the first count of the case.
But in another case, trump got hammered in court again today... trumps lawyers putting lies down in writing in a motion for the judge to recuse herself. More (LOL), big time...
Nothing to wonder about, very seldom is someone sentenced at the same time as the verdict is stated. In this case, Tuesday's announcement was one of seven counts in the case but the most important count. The other counts will be in trial Monday at which time or soon thereafter more will be discussed about the penalties associated with Tuesday's guilty verdict on the first count of the case.
But in another case, trump got hammered in court again today... trumps lawyers putting lies down in writingin a motion for the judge to recuse herself. More (LOL), big time...
Phil
Provide link to where the above quoted underlined bold script states as verifiable fact...
OR, ...
is it merely just another one of your overblown TDS exaggerations ???
Nothing to wonder about, very seldom is someone sentenced at the same time as the verdict is stated. In this case, Tuesday's announcement was one of seven counts in the case but the most important count. The other counts will be in trial Monday at which time or soon thereafter more will be discussed about the penalties associated with Tuesday's guilty verdict on the first count of the case.
But in another case, trump got hammered in court again today... trumps lawyers putting lies down in writingi. More (LOL), big time...
Phil
Provide link to where the above quoted underlined bold script states as verifiable fact...
OR, ...
is it merely just another one of your overblown TDS exaggerations ???
Where's the formal verifiable factual link expressly stating your, "Trumps lawyers putting lies down in writing in a motion for the judge to recuse herself", though ???
