Posted on 04/03/2024 6:49:05 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The current status of the New York civil fraud case that New York Attorney Letitia James filed against Donald Trump, and that resulted in a huge ruling against him, thanks to Judge Arthur Engoron, is just a little bit of a puzzle. In the short term, Trump is on defense, but the wheels of justice should turn and place him on offense. Understanding that requires us to look at the logic of the law, a subject at once fascinating and exacting and, sometimes, very surprising.
The role of logic in law is one of the features of the law that most non-lawyers misunderstand. When a case goes to trial, whether criminal or civil, it is because the two sides are unable to resolve their differences out of court. This means the parties disagree either as to the facts of the dispute, or as to the law governing the dispute, or both.
The two sides to a court case are called the “plaintiff” and the “defendant.” In a criminal case, the plaintiff is the state, sometimes called the “people” of the state. Whether criminal or civil, the plaintiff accuses the defendant
SNIP
Here are some Examples of accusations and their elements:
SNIP
Malicious Prosecution: The elements of the tort of malicious prosecution are (1) The civil or criminal action was terminated in favor of the plaintiff (who was the defendant in the underlying case). (2) The defendant filed or played an active role in the underlying case. (3) The defendant had no reasonable grounds to file and pursue the underlying case. (4) The defendant filed or pursued the underlying case for an improper purpose or abusive purpose, such as a desire to ruin the plaintiff’s reputation. (5) Plaintiff suffered significant harm because of the defendant’s actions.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It seems that all of these cases are Malicious Prosecution and Defamation.
Hope so.
The collection of cases also remind me of the prohibition against Bills of Attainder. I have little doubt the White House is or has coordinated on all of the cases.
Logic is now deemed “racist.” I’m not going to count on it.
.
Exactly, Malicious Prosecution and Defamation and Selective Prosecution.
All of these are illegal, and could eventually result not only in Trump be exonerated, but more importantly the DA being disbarred and subjected to lawsuits by Trump against them.
Da disbarred and the Judge removed.
We need more than the DA being disbarred. We need her broke and in prison so that future Dims like her are less liable to be swayed by Soros money.
The legal system is based on everyone, especially the judge and jury - following these rules.
Are they?
Oh Molly, your naivete' is adorable and charming. 😁
This article is pure wishful thinking.
The author is correct that a private party suing for fraud must show a loss. In New York, however, a law enacted in 1956 (at the urging of a Republican Attorney General) gives the Attorney General the power to sue for fraud even if there was no loss.
There was a prior appeal in this very case. It was partially successful – see full opinion at https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-first-department/2023/index-no-452564-22-appeal-no-553-case-no-2023-00717.html — as the appellate court dismissed the case against Ivanka Trump on other grounds (statute of limitations, because, unlike her brothers, she had stopped working for the Trump Organization years ago). The “no-harm” argument, however, was rejected. The appellate court stated: “We have already held that the failure to allege losses does not require dismissal of a claim for disgorgement under Executive Law § 63(12) (see People v Ernst & Young LLP, 114 AD3d 569, 569-570 [1st Dept 2014]).” That’s the governing precedent – and note that the Ernst & Young case was decided before Trump ever came down the escalator.
You think that’s a bad law? You’re entitled to your opinion, but the state legislature enacted the law. The court that will hear Trump’s latest appeal has already held that the law applies to this case. There’s no reason to think that the new appeal will produce a different result.
You don’t think the case is malicious prosecution? Queen Letitia campaigned on taking down Trump. There are no realtors in South Florida that I have heard say that the Mara Lago valuation was unreasonable on the Trump paperwork so the charges seem to be malicious.
If law had logic, Biden would be incarcerated at least.
The Complete Pervesion of the Law
“The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right.”
The Law - Frederic Bastiat
When the unscrupulous face a risk, the exploitation will be reduced in proportion to the severity of the risk.
“You don’t think the case is malicious prosecution? Queen Letitia campaigned on taking down Trump. There are no realtors in South Florida that I have heard say that the Mara Lago valuation was unreasonable on the Trump paperwork so the charges seem to be malicious.”
I haven’t read Justice Engoron’s decision, let alone the lengthy trial record. Here’s the impression I have from the media, so take it with a grain of salt. Or several.
1. Engoron’s criticism of Trump’s valuation of Mar-a-Lago was that Trump’s statements valued it as if there were no restrictions on its use. At one point, however, Trump had agreed to restrictions on use plus a conservation easement. Engoron found that it was fraudulent for Trump to use valuations that ignored these facts.
2. There were many issues besides Mar-a-Lago. The one I’ve seen mentioned most often is that Trump’s statements asserted that his penthouse apartment in Trump Tower, which he owned, had 30,000 square feet, but it actually had only 10,000.
3. On the appeal, the “no-harm” argument is a loser. So are the arguments about political motive and White House involvement. Trump’s best argument is that he can’t be punished personally for mistakes his subordinates made. There was conflicting evidence about the extent of his involvement.
4. To win a case of malicious prosecution, Trump would have to show much more than that he eventually won (even assuming he does). According to the excerpt in the OP, he would have to show that Letitia James “had no reasonable grounds to file and pursue the underlying case.” My guess is that all this financial stuff is complicated enough that, even if Trump eventually wins, he couldn’t meet that higher standard. Even an honest red-state jury would say that each side had at least SOME reasonable grounds. I’ll also guess that Trump would have to sue in blue New York. Note that a court has just ruled that an officer of the government of Florida (DeSantis) can’t be sued in Massachusetts for acts done in his official capacity in Florida (ordering the migrant transfer).
What you and I think of the case is irrelevant. I’m just making a prediction about what the courts will actually do.
We have all grown up watching TV shows where the good guys always win in the end. It’s going to be hard to adapt to this evil government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.