Octopus Overlords

Unagi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 4:11 pm

UsulofDoom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 4:05 pm All they seem to be saying is that he said the value of his assest are higher that they were. What is the crime?

When you borrow money, and say that your assets are worth more than they are, you have defrauded the people whose money you just borrowed.

defraud
/dəˈfrôd,dəˈfräd/
illegally obtain money from (someone) by deception.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 3:01 pm not true. He was able to buy his way out of trouble, but he was definitely being touched.

UsulofDoom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 4:57 pm Nothing is worth any thing till it's sold for a price.

UsulofDoom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 4:57 pm
But should'nt the lender check assets before giving out a loan. Did he make up insurence docs or fake tax docs, that said it was worth more? That would then be a punisable crime.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 1:34 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 1:30 pm I'm sure the tactic is to goad the judge into taking some action that they can then use in the appeal.

I think the appeals court would see right through that.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 5:02 pm

UsulofDoom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 4:57 pm Nothing is worth any thing till it's sold for a price.

Wait, are you suggesting that trying to financially defraud someone (or a bank) isn't a crime unless they verify your statements and prove them to be false?

UsulofDoom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 4:57 pm
But should'nt the lender check assets before giving out a loan. Did he make up insurence docs or fake tax docs, that said it was worth more? That would then be a punisable crime.

UsulofDoom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 4:57 pm But should'nt the lender check assets before giving out a loan. Did he make up insurence docs or fake tax docs, that said it was worth more? That would then be a punisable crime.

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 7:42 am https://www.newsweek.com/alina-habba-mo ... nt-1842241

During her testimony, prosecutors asked Ivanka Trump, who left The Trump Organization in 2017 to join her father's White House administration and was initially named as a co-defendant in the trial, about emails she exchanged with Trump Organization executives.

She said she couldn't remember them, so the Attorney General's office entered documents into evidence to remind her, including an email she sent to Allen Weisselberg and other Trump Organization executives dated December 15, 2011.

"It doesn't get better than this. lets (sic) discuss asap (sic)," Ivanka wrote in the email.

At this point, Habba objected to the email being entered as evidence, claiming that it was never sent, The Messenger's Adam Klasfeld reported. Prosecutor Kevin Wallace told Habba that the document she objected to was one of her team's own documents.

The ruling Thursday by a four-judge panel rejected Trump's appeal and reinstated the orders against Trump and his lawyers, who'd repeatedly complained about the clerk in court.

Judge Arthur Engoron, who issued the gag orders, informed both sides of the appeals court's decision at the ongoing trial. "I intend to enforce the gag orders rigorously and vigorously and I want to make sure counsel informs their clients of the fact that the stay was vacated," he said
...
The orders only bar Trump and his attorneys from talking about court staff. They do not prevent Trump from criticizing Engoron or state Attorney General Letitia James' office, which brought the claims against him.

Octavious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 1:40 pm Will they actually enforce it outside of pointless fines is the real question? I'd love to see everyone freakout when he goes into jail for a weekend.

"I have already testified to everything & have nothing more to say," wrote Trump on his social media site Truth Social on Sunday.

Trump took the stand last month, but was slated to testify for the defense on Monday.

In a letter to attorneys for Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James just after noon Wednesday, Engoron said that Trump hasn’t agreed to conditions he set should the former president wish to give a statement.

“Not having heard from you by the third extended deadline (noon today), I assume that Mr. Trump will not agree to the reasonable, lawful limits I have imposed as a precondition to giving a closing statement above and beyond those given by his attorneys, and that, therefore, he will not be speaking in court tomorrow,” Engoron wrote.

Email correspondence shows the parties have been discussing the possibility of Trump participating in the closing arguments since at least last week.
...
Engoron offered Trump the opportunity to speak in his own defense closing argument but said the former president must agree to preset conditions that would limit what he can and cannot say. He would not be allowed to campaign, the judge said.

Engoron also said if Trump violated the gag order, he’d fine him and remove him from court.

“Thus, in my sole discretion, I will consent to let Mr. Trump make a closing argument if, and only if, through counsel by 1/9/2024, and by himself, personally, on the record, just before he speaks, he agrees to limit his subjects to what is permissible in a counsel’s closing argument, that is, commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts,” Engoron wrote in an email last week.

“He may not seek to introduce new evidence. He may not ‘testify.’ He may not comment on irrelevant matters,” Engoron wrote. “In particular, and without limitation, he may not deliver a campaign speech, and he may not impugn myself, my staff, plaintiff, plaintiff’s staff, or the New York State Court System, none of which is relevant to this case, and all of which, except commenting on my staff, can be done, and is being done, in other forums.”

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 2:28 pm Probably because he would have been yelling from the rooftops that the court system is rigged, had him silenced, wasn't allowed to speak as his own trial, etc...

Completely ignoring that there were conditions he needed to agree with first. Also, he's still going to say all of the above, regardless.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 2:36 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 2:28 pm Probably because he would have been yelling from the rooftops that the court system is rigged, had him silenced, wasn't allowed to speak as his own trial, etc...

Completely ignoring that there were conditions he needed to agree with first. Also, he's still going to say all of the above, regardless.

Surprising (to me) that the judge changed his mind, given that:
-There was a 0% chance that it would go any way other than this once Trump was given a chance to speak
-There is a 100% chance that Trump will still cry foul for being stopped early/silenced

I guess Engoron must view having let this farce happen as marginally increasing the strength of this trial standing up to appeal?

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 2:43 pm Pretty relevant when the case is about him and his organization not following rules.

The judge who presided over a civil business fraud trial against Donald Trump and his company has issued his decision in the case.

Judge Arthur Engoron ordered the former president and the Trump Organization to pay over $350 million in damages, and bars 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."

He also continued "the appointment of an Independent Monitor" and ordered "the installation of an Independent Director of Compliance" for the company.

The ruling also bars the Trump sons — who've been running the company since their father went to the White House — “from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in New York for a period of two years.”

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 5:17 pmThanks.