Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire trump hammered in court...

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.

JoeBob Esq, don't you know you're talking to a WarAdmiral? LOL

He seems about as smart as the original WarAdmiral was, but I doubt he is as fast.

I can't wait until 2024 when President Trump turns all the MILITARY PATRIOTS loose on the democommies.

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.

He seems about as smart as the original WarAdmiral was, but I doubt he is as fast.

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?

From what I saw discussed by the "experts", what you're describing is the difference between a civil and criminal case & charges.....yesterday was civil, much lower level of burden of proof needed.

But the appeals process will start, and go on for years....all the while his holdings will be idle.

I can't wait until 2024 when President Trump turns all the MILITARY PATRIOTS loose on the democommies.

Yes, and no. The standard for a civil trial is preponderance of the evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the basis for making the determination is still the same. You still have to show “intent”.

You don’t just get to say, “The tax appraisal said $18 million, and you said $250 million, therefore I say you committed fraud.” It shouldn’t work that way.

I think the real issue was that no jury was needed, just a judge makes the decision and you are supposed to swallow the pill...like it or not. He obviously had an agenda, with his post trial statements and fines issued to attorneys for "frivolous filings".

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.