ALBANY, NY - In February, a Manhattan judge found former president Donald Trump guilty of exaggerating his net worth and that of his real estate holdings to allegedly get favorable rates from banks and insurers. Despite there being precisely zero victims, with everyone being made whole, Judge Arthur Engoron decided Trump had violated something and ordered him to pay a judgment of nearly half a billion dollars.
That fine amount is wholly absurd, and all but the most ardent sufferers of Trump Derangement Syndrome realized it. Now, a New York court may either significantly reduce or vacate the fine.
The trial against Trump was part of a crusade by New York Attorney General Letitia James to “get Trump,” a promise she made when she ran for the statewide post. What James did was criminalize something that is common practice in what some consider to be the “cutthroat” real estate market in the Big Apple, where aggressive tactics and inflated valuations are often used to gain a competitive edge.
In making his ruling, partisan leftist Judge Engoron felt the former president had shown no remorse for overvaluing his assets, including Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida. Engoron claimed the property was worth only $18 million; however, real estate experts in Palm Beach said the property could be listed “at around $300 million, minimum…” according to the New York Post.
Trump’s appeal of the fine and underlying “investigation” has now reached the New York Court of Appeals. Based on questions from the five-judge panel, it appears that James’ witch hunt and Engoron’s verdict are very much in jeopardy.
PJ Media reports that last week, some panel members indicated that James overstepped her authority by invoking the particular statute she used to target Trump. For example, when Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale, James’ surrogate, began her opening remarks, she was immediately interrupted by Associate Justice David Friedman, who asked Vale if her office had ever used the statute in question “to upset a private business transaction that was between equally sophisticated partners.”
Chiming in after Friedman questioned Vale, Associate Justice Llinet Rosado added, “and little to no impact on the public marketplace.”
Those questions closely mirrored portions of Trump’s defense, which stated that the alleged inflated valuations harmed no one.
“I think you hear underneath all these questions, the question of mission creep,” Associate Justice Peter Moulton added. “Has 6312”--the statute in question–morphed into something that it was not meant to do?”
“I will stress, your honor, that this does have harm to the public and to the markets,” Vale said in response.
Trump’s lawyer had disputed that during trial when he argued there were “no victims, no complaints.” Indeed, none of the alleged “victims” expressed any harm. Also, while some judges claimed there was a “crime,” none could say who was harmed. As PJ Media noted, “the valuations occurred in a private business transaction; therefore, no one was injured in any way as a result of Trump’s [alleged] false valuation.”
The appeals court panel continued pressing Vale, demanding to know if there had ever been a previous case in which the attorney general sued under state executive law.
Friedman asked her a series of questions, among them, “...where the supposed victim had the ability and legal obligation to discover the allegedly misrepresented matters by conducting its own due diligence; where the supposed wrongdoer advised the supposed victim, through written disclaimers, to conduct its own due diligence and to draw its own conclusions; where the alleged misrepresentation almost entirely concerned inherently subjective valuations of properties and businesses; and where the victim never complained about any fraud.”
The questioning of Vale continued, with a second judge asking if there was “harm” when there was “little to no effect on the public marketplace.” Finally, a third judge labeled the case “a potential commercial dispute ‘between private actors, suggesting it’s not something the attorney general needed to get involved with.’”
Finally, a fourth judge said the panel was concerned with “mission creep.” In other words, were Letitia James and the State of New York using state law to accomplish something it wasn’t meant to do?
Some legal experts believe there is a strong chance that the court will either reduce the judgment or dismiss the entire case, offering a ray of hope for Trump's defense.
Comments