Communism breeds atrocity. Revolutions in China, Russia, and elsewhere were bloody, then followed by far more bloody purges of political enemies, which were in turn followed by death-dealing stupidity and waste. When Germany adopted socialism in the form of the socialist Nazi party, they rapidly developed a reputation for sadistic cruelty. Their trespasses against mind, spirit, and body were at a scale that is hard to imagine. Despite that, the good people of Germany did nothing to stop the proportionately smaller number of bad people for over a decade. When they were stopped, it wasn’t by the responsible citizens of Germany, but citizens of other countries who had come together to destroy the Nazi menace.
The requirement for posting a bond (or delivering property to the court) pending an appeal grew out of a desire/need to protect plaintiffs, who have been harmed and who have won a judgment at trial, from losing the ability to collect the judgment during the time it takes to go through the an appeal by the defendant.
In Trump's NY state case, there is no victim who has been defrauded, and there is also no risk that the state of New York cannot recover money from Trump's NY State businesses after the time required for an appeal.
A process designed to preserve the opportunity to do justice is being misused to do injustice.
The large judgment against Trump was obtained under a law (NYS 63(12), see https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/executive-law/exc-sect-63/) that allows the Attorney General of NY State (when read and interpreted broadly) to sue for "fraud" on the basis of mere repeated misrepresentations (in business)--independent of anybody being defrauded (actually relying on any misrepresentation, and actually suffering any loss as a result).
This is way beyond the bounds of "fraud" as known and developed in common law. To state a claim for fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation under (normal) New York law, a plaintiff must show: “(1) the defendant made a material false representation, (2) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff[s] thereby, (3) the plaintiff[s] reasonably relied upon the representation, and (4) the plaintiff[s] suffered damage as a result of their reliance.” Swersky v. Dreyer & Traub, 643 N.Y.S.2d 33, 36 (1st Dept. 1996) (quoted from https://www.melnick-law.com/pleading-fraud-in-new-york-an-overview-2).
There are similarities here with the Jan. 6 prosecutions that include counts for "corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so" under a law originally aimed at destruction of evidence during a federal investigation. (Wiped, like with a cloth?) In both proceedings, statutory language is being interpreted very literally, as broadly as its grammar will allow.
Not sure how long the NY law has been in place, but it is an example of gross overreach (or uncareful wording) by the legislature of NY state, and/or gross overreach by the attorney general and the courts. According to commentators and news reports, the law has never been used before in this way--in a case without an actual victim and an actual loss.
There are reasons that the common law requires/required a showing of reliance and of loss for proof of fraud. Preventing injustice to the accused is one.
I can't immediately remember when, but that "Red Line" of dishonest political acts was crossed a long time ago! As it seems, the conservative side would move the line back, only to see it crossed again and again! Some agree that remediation will take a certain "unspoken" response to restore balance. Others are still letting that line slide back further!
Often I hear the phrase "Where are the men in this fight?" It's true the Voter Integrity groups are full of and many started by the women! My belief is that when things have gotten bad enough, that "God-Fearing" Christian men start to act, their level of battle (let me just say can't be put into words on social media). But it is surprising the latest news hasn't brought some to action already!
I use "God-Fearing" Christian more as a reference to anyone that Loves God. Has faith in his Plan and believes his words. Words like "Thou Shall Not Kill" which can be interpreted differently like in times of war or protecting your family! I believe, despite the red line having been crossed, that this still could get resolved. There are events or processes that could still fix this! Maybe this coming November is that final line in the sand, referencing "the Libya Line of Death". I personally worry for my salvation at Judgement, standing before Christ. Because if God and his kingdom are Eternal (for Eternity) then is the little time temporally just about learning, returning and the judgement?
(Sorry, didn't mean to go off that way).
It's been said, when the conservative side opens the door to war and taking up arms, as the Constitution allows for...
It might be near impossible to close that door. That's also what we fear.
Fantastic summary of our predicament. I too was particularly struck by the lack of understanding or our country's founding by Justice Brown, in her questions. She simply does not understand that our rights come from God and our government was developed to assure our rights are protected. But she is only one of thousands who lack that understanding, but are in positions of power. A Trump election, with 2025 minions filling many of the deep state positions, offers a ray of hope, but may be thwarted by 30 million non-citizens voting. It sure would be nice to be able to distinguish citizen vs non-citizen in our state voter registration databases.
Barak Obama criticized the Constitution as merely “a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
At the core of this statement rested the idea that government is the vehicle for the redistribution of wealth.
The same idea is at the heart of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s question yesterday: “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.” Of course, Brown was appointed twice by Barak Obama and was then elevated to where she sits today via his proxy.
Who then can be the perceived victim of an invented crime when there is no victim? Who or what will be slipped in as the victim of this crime, and who or what will benefit from the litigation? In the grand scheme of things, if Leticia James’ case ever reaches its desired conclusion, it is the State that will benefit and direct the redistribution of Trump’s wealth.
The punitive damages set against Trump and his family business are so high just to get an appeal, that due process under the law is being denied. According to Jonathan Turley, the Supreme Court has stepped in at times when such State actions are so excessively punitive.
We are witnessing a communist takeover of our country allowed by citizens that have become complacent to it in the effort of “niceness” and easiness Doc
What makes you think that the same communists that would install a justice that you accurately explained doesn’t know the meaning of justice (hell she’s a woman and can’t define what a woman is and was easy confirmed) wouldn’t manipulate voting machines and collect overwhelming amounts of illegitimate ballots to complete the globalist communist takeover.
Keep up the work and the fight our country and freedom depends on the work you and others like you do!
The requirement for posting a bond (or delivering property to the court) pending an appeal grew out of a desire/need to protect plaintiffs, who have been harmed and who have won a judgment at trial, from losing the ability to collect the judgment during the time it takes to go through the an appeal by the defendant.
In Trump's NY state case, there is no victim who has been defrauded, and there is also no risk that the state of New York cannot recover money from Trump's NY State businesses after the time required for an appeal.
A process designed to preserve the opportunity to do justice is being misused to do injustice.
The large judgment against Trump was obtained under a law (NYS 63(12), see https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/executive-law/exc-sect-63/) that allows the Attorney General of NY State (when read and interpreted broadly) to sue for "fraud" on the basis of mere repeated misrepresentations (in business)--independent of anybody being defrauded (actually relying on any misrepresentation, and actually suffering any loss as a result).
This is way beyond the bounds of "fraud" as known and developed in common law. To state a claim for fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation under (normal) New York law, a plaintiff must show: “(1) the defendant made a material false representation, (2) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff[s] thereby, (3) the plaintiff[s] reasonably relied upon the representation, and (4) the plaintiff[s] suffered damage as a result of their reliance.” Swersky v. Dreyer & Traub, 643 N.Y.S.2d 33, 36 (1st Dept. 1996) (quoted from https://www.melnick-law.com/pleading-fraud-in-new-york-an-overview-2).
There are similarities here with the Jan. 6 prosecutions that include counts for "corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so" under a law originally aimed at destruction of evidence during a federal investigation. (Wiped, like with a cloth?) In both proceedings, statutory language is being interpreted very literally, as broadly as its grammar will allow.
Not sure how long the NY law has been in place, but it is an example of gross overreach (or uncareful wording) by the legislature of NY state, and/or gross overreach by the attorney general and the courts. According to commentators and news reports, the law has never been used before in this way--in a case without an actual victim and an actual loss.
The New Yorker celebrates this "powerful law" that "finally brought Trump to book" and discusses how and when the law was passed here: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-powerful-new-york-law-that-finally-brought-trump-to-book. I am reminded of the famous scene from A Man For All Seasons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk. (The New Yorker seems to have no such worries.)
There are reasons that the common law requires/required a showing of reliance and of loss for proof of fraud. Preventing injustice to the accused is one.
I can't immediately remember when, but that "Red Line" of dishonest political acts was crossed a long time ago! As it seems, the conservative side would move the line back, only to see it crossed again and again! Some agree that remediation will take a certain "unspoken" response to restore balance. Others are still letting that line slide back further!
Often I hear the phrase "Where are the men in this fight?" It's true the Voter Integrity groups are full of and many started by the women! My belief is that when things have gotten bad enough, that "God-Fearing" Christian men start to act, their level of battle (let me just say can't be put into words on social media). But it is surprising the latest news hasn't brought some to action already!
I use "God-Fearing" Christian more as a reference to anyone that Loves God. Has faith in his Plan and believes his words. Words like "Thou Shall Not Kill" which can be interpreted differently like in times of war or protecting your family! I believe, despite the red line having been crossed, that this still could get resolved. There are events or processes that could still fix this! Maybe this coming November is that final line in the sand, referencing "the Libya Line of Death". I personally worry for my salvation at Judgement, standing before Christ. Because if God and his kingdom are Eternal (for Eternity) then is the little time temporally just about learning, returning and the judgement?
(Sorry, didn't mean to go off that way).
It's been said, when the conservative side opens the door to war and taking up arms, as the Constitution allows for...
It might be near impossible to close that door. That's also what we fear.
-Mo
Fantastic summary of our predicament. I too was particularly struck by the lack of understanding or our country's founding by Justice Brown, in her questions. She simply does not understand that our rights come from God and our government was developed to assure our rights are protected. But she is only one of thousands who lack that understanding, but are in positions of power. A Trump election, with 2025 minions filling many of the deep state positions, offers a ray of hope, but may be thwarted by 30 million non-citizens voting. It sure would be nice to be able to distinguish citizen vs non-citizen in our state voter registration databases.
Barak Obama criticized the Constitution as merely “a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
At the core of this statement rested the idea that government is the vehicle for the redistribution of wealth.
The same idea is at the heart of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s question yesterday: “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.” Of course, Brown was appointed twice by Barak Obama and was then elevated to where she sits today via his proxy.
Who then can be the perceived victim of an invented crime when there is no victim? Who or what will be slipped in as the victim of this crime, and who or what will benefit from the litigation? In the grand scheme of things, if Leticia James’ case ever reaches its desired conclusion, it is the State that will benefit and direct the redistribution of Trump’s wealth.
The punitive damages set against Trump and his family business are so high just to get an appeal, that due process under the law is being denied. According to Jonathan Turley, the Supreme Court has stepped in at times when such State actions are so excessively punitive.
We are witnessing a communist takeover of our country allowed by citizens that have become complacent to it in the effort of “niceness” and easiness Doc
What makes you think that the same communists that would install a justice that you accurately explained doesn’t know the meaning of justice (hell she’s a woman and can’t define what a woman is and was easy confirmed) wouldn’t manipulate voting machines and collect overwhelming amounts of illegitimate ballots to complete the globalist communist takeover.
Keep up the work and the fight our country and freedom depends on the work you and others like you do!
Well said sir. You're speaking my mind here... again.
God be with you my bother.
Hope you find the time to accomplish that which you desire to do these rather busy days..
Either way, we'll be here a waitin...