The New York Appellate Court has displayed skepticism on the merits of Letitia James’ unconstitutional prosecution of President Trump. They also scolded her Deputy Solicitor General Judy Vale twice for trying to gaslight them. Two judges asked Vale if there had ever been a prosecution case forward where no one lost even a penny. She cited cases where fraud was present and victims could be found. Which, of course, is not an answer to their question.
Radical Marxist New York Attorney General Letitia James previously sought $370 million in ‘damages’ when there was no victim in a civil fraud case against Trump. She also sought to ban Trump and his sons from operating any businesses in New York. She accused Trump of inflating his assets and defrauding lenders and insurance companies.
In February, after 11 weeks of a Soviet-style non-jury trial, far-left Judge Engoron ordered Trump to pay more than a $355 million fine and barred Trump “from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in New York for a period of three years.”
The $355 million judgment PLUS daily interest swelled to $464 million.
Engoron claimed Trump and each of the defendants “participated in aiding and abetting the conspiracy to commit insurance fraud by their individual acts in falsifying business records and valuations, causing materially fraudulent SFCs to be intentionally submitted to insurance companies.”
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNELLast November a Deutsche Bank executive who worked to approve at least one of Trump’s loans testified that it is “atypical, but not entirely unusual,” to reduce a client’s asset values and still approve a loan.
This type of lending is typical in high net-worth, high-profile clients like Donald Trump. Anyone with basic knowledge of banking, lending, portfolios, and credit risk management knows this.
Trump’s lawyers fired off an appeal along with the following statement:
“It would be completely illogical — and the definition of an unconstitutional Excessive Fine and a Taking — to require Defendants to sell properties at all, and especially in a ‘fire sale,’ in order to be able to appeal the lawless Supreme Court judgment, as that would cause harm that cannot be repaired once the Defendants do win, as is overwhelmingly likely, on appeal.”
The court would be well within their rights to file a complaint against James and to recommend a judicial review of alleged judge Engoron for the way he conducted the trial. It is also possible that Trump could ue James for prosecutorial misconduct. After all, James cam-paigned on the promise that she would get Trump.But, if James would be found guilty it would be New York taxpayers that would have to pick up the tab. Then again, they are responsible for reelecting her after he did not go after actual criminal in her pursuit of Trump.
Justice David Friedman told Vale:
“Every case that you cite involves damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace.”
“We don’t have anything like that here,” Friedman added, saying that nobody “lost any money.”
Reuters reported:
Members of the five-judge panel on the Appellate Division – the mid-level state appellate court hearing arguments in Trump’s appeal – appeared concerned about possible overreach by James.
Two of the judges interrupted Judith Vale, the lawyer arguing for New York, during her opening statement to ask if there were any other examples of the state suing over private business transactions between sophisticated parties under a law aimed at protecting market integrity.
“Every case that you cite involves damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace,” Justice David Friedman told Vale.
“We don’t have anything like that here,” Friedman added, saying that nobody “lost any money.”The judges also wondered about what constraints applied to the law James cited in bringing the case – one that is typically used to go after fraudsters who target vulnerable consumers.
“How do we draw a line or at least put up guardrails? Justice Peter Moulton asked.
