This isn’t over. Still has to go to NY SCT, which they weirdly call the Court of Appeals. NY law is screwy.
I learned about that watching Law & Order. The trial courts are called Supreme courts... or maybe it's Superior courts. Whatever. Still confusing.
Fair point about speeding tickets. One distinction is that the legislature de-criminalized minor speeding to reduce the procedural burdens in the criminal system.
But that isn’t this case. First the statute creates a new violation and is intended to protect consumers from systematic or ongoing commercial fraud. Damages can reasonably be presumed. In this one-off case brought against the consumer ( Trump) isn’t that. Second, the documented history of why James brought the case, by using the statute in a way not intended, unmistakably showed she targeted Trump for purposes of putting him out of business. She almost admitted as much. I think there is plenty of evidence to support a taking. In fact, I think Trump can now bring a section 1983 case, for at least the out of pocket expense of the bond he had to post.
because it was a joke and a fraud by the AG and Judge. They should both lose their law license and be personally assessed Trump’s legal fees.@bradstevens tossed the money. 8th. Excessive blah blah blah. Duh. Upheld rest for our drive by friends
Why toss it altogether rather than lower it?
Thanks, but I was asking for the legal reasoning, not some delirious screed.
I hope he sues the hell out of them.
https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1958672041705382221?t=27FYqU2b4fW4AZ8Hv0x6XQ&s=19
Again, this case should never have been brought. It wouldn't have happened to anyone not named Trump. This has a good summary of what the ruling actually was and a link to the opinions:
New York appeals court throws out $527 million penalty in Trump civil fraud case - CBS News
Again, this case should never have been brought. It wouldn't have happened to anyone not named Trump. This has a good summary of what the ruling actually was and a link to the opinions:
New York appeals court throws out $527 million penalty in Trump civil fraud case - CBS News
"I find it remarkable that, although a three-justice majority of this five-justice panel believe that the judgment in favor of the Attorney General should not stand … the result of the appeal is the affirmance of the judgment, albeit as modified to eliminate the disgorgement award," Friedman wrote.
"To draw a sports analogy, it is as if a team is awarded a touchdown without crossing the goal line," he continued.
Ouch.
This case is a perversion of the statute, an insult to the notion of we have a government of laws, not men, and an abuse of the judicial power. After reading even this CBS account, it’s obvious the case should have been tossed in its entirety, and the state’s attorneys referred to the disciplinary process. This smells an awful lot like politics.
“Justices John Higgitt and Llinét Rosado said they would have preferred to order a new trial, but would join the majority "with great reluctance."
While I’m sure this sentiment drives many judges, I have never seen a judge actually say it in an official written opinion. The case and this opinion have zero value as legal precedent. These two judges should have stood on their principles, joined with the dissenting judge and we get three judges voting to toss the verdict, and depending on analysis, maybe prevent the case from ever being retried.
Trump should definitely sue the state of New York and all the prosecutors. Not only under the eighth ( which I think is weak because that only arises with the outrageous judgment) but I think based on James’ clearly stated intentions of targeting Trump, under the takings clause as well. He also has a state-law claim for abusing the legal process. The judge would be in deep doodoo except he has absolute immunity.
@co-hoosier as for state most malicious prosecution abuse of process require a win as a predicate. Trump doesn’t have that
Abuse of process does not require a win as a predicate. Malicious prosecution does. (You need a refresher at CO.H U 
)
I think Trump proves his prima facie case with James campaign statements. She would not have immunity as a candidate. She could have immunity for the targeting and filing, depending on state law immunity.
@co-hoosier as god as my witness I defended a malicious prosecution case once for a buddy in small claims court. The judge was the dumbest judge I’ve ever encountered. She literally goes I’m having trouble here. I don’t see anything the prosecutor has done.
so I immediately barked WHERE. IS. THE PROSECUTOR!! She goes right. Right. And looked down at the filings. Opposing counsel kicked me and whispered you’re so Fing annoying. You know I’ll try it in associate court. Real good dude. They require work there and not just words so I knew he wanted no part of that. I won. We got into the hallway and I go hey my guy will pay half. lol. Done.
Latest Post: X GIVEAWAY TIME 🚨 Our newest member: Scott Potter Recent Posts Unread Posts
