The unhinged fraud case against Trump

 Red State:

George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley has ripped apart the weaponization of the law against former President Donald Trump in the New York fraud decision, noting how unusual the application of the statute was, particularly given there were no victims and no one lost anything. 

He noted how the fine was more than $455 million with interest, and the people — 'the victims" — wanted to do more business with Trump, that they made a lot of money. Usually, awards are based on the damage sustained, and this decision is completely unhinged on that basis. 

In an article on the decision, Turley called the fine "greater than the gross national product of some countries." He also said the people were now prevented from doing business with Trump as they wished because of the decision. 

Turley also noted how the law hadn't been applied before in such a case. 

The New York statute has been on the books for decades and has always been something of an anomaly in not requiring an actual victim or loss to justify disgorgement or fines. 

Even the New York Times agreed that it could not find a single case in history where this statute was used against an individual or a company that did not commit a criminal offense, go bankrupt, or leave financial victims. 

But on top of all that, Turley noted the "poison pill" — that in order to appeal such an unfair decision, Trump would have to come up with the full amount or a bond covering it just to appeal, within 30 days. 

...

It is not in New York's interest to pursue such a case.  The Trump poison pill is probably enough for most businesses to avoid doing any busienss in New York if that is going to be the approach of the New York prosecutors.  It is one of the most absurd cases in history.  Trump's lawyers should counter sue the state for damages. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more