NY Prosecutor MOVES to COLLECT on MASSIVE Trump Judgment

Michael popac legal AF look at the time look at my eyewear it must be time for legal af after dark the New York attorney general is not holding back in trying to support and collect on that $500 million civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump we break it all down the new briefing when the appet division first Department of New York is going to rule and When does the when do the people of the state of New York start collecting on their $500 million against Donald Trump all on a new addition of legal AF take a listen let's just talk briefly about the filing by the New York attorney general they filed their respondence brief uh in the Trump appeal of the uh civil fraud judgment by Justice Arthur and Goron remember Donald Trump had to post a bond to go through this whole appeals process so Donald Trump filed his brief now New York attorney general Laticia James filed her respondents brief which is basically the opposition and they talk about Donald Trump's fraud where he's inflated assets and engaged in fraud by as much as 2.2 billion a year and then it goes in to say that uh this court the appeals court should affirm Justice and Goron's ruling Supreme Court's liability determinations are supported by overwhelming evidence that in each statement defendant used a variety of deceptive strategies to vastly misrepresent the values of trump tr's assets for example Trump valued his apartment as if its square footage was Triple its actual size he valued rent regulated Apartments as if they were unregulated he valued maral Lago as if deed restrictions that he signed did not exist and he valued Golf properties by secretly including premiums that defendants represented were not included tellingly on Donald Trump's appeal he ignores these deceptions instead Trump relies primarily on an argument that the Attorney General failed to prove the defendant counterparties relied on the misrepresentations to their financial detriment but it is well established that neither Reliance nor victim's losses which are elements of common law fraud are required by the statute here under Section 63-12 for disgorgement by the office of Attorney General indeed one of the statutes core remedial purposes is to protect the honesty and integrity in the commercial Marketplace in New York by stopping fraudulent and illegal practices before they cause Financial loss to Market participants or broader harms to the public so she kind of lays it out there and it's 168 Pages I'm kind of summarizing it there I won't go over all 168 Pages there but you know she's saying look this is Justice and Goran got it right there's overwhelming evidence Trump's not even stating the law correctly here on Section 63-12 affirm it I think uh popac the appeal the appell division will affirm it's possible that they reduce the Judgment which with interest and everything is like at like $500 million I could see them potentially reducing it by a 100 million or 125 million based on what I don't know as um the 12-year-old Noah said to Mike Lindell trust me bro perhaps on just a trust me bro Theory um but they've SE we've seen them before kind of lower the amount of the uh of Trump's Bond obligation not the Judgment the bond obligation under kind of a trust me bro Theory so I I can't describe the logic of what they did but the law is clear Justice and Goron's got it right but I could see them saying oh look we we threw a bone or two Don not that he should have one but they they've shown an inclination to do that for so I'm going to go with the 12-year-old Noah and I'm gonna say trust me bro well I've got time today Ben so I'm gonna I'm gonna read I'm gonna um actually um gonna read 148 Pages page one preliminary statement I do like a uh um what's it called when you when you try to slow down the clock in Congress uh Fuster JD Vance read Dr Seuss while people are trying to get healthare but I will I will make one point that I that I because you covered really well the others the the primary focus of her argument the Attorney General's argument which is the winning argument is that they still at this late date refuse to understand how 63-12 the executive law of the state of New York works and why the sheriff of Wall Street which is the attorney general has that power because it's the financial capital of the world it is probably as I've said before the most robust the most muscular set of powers an attorney general has about financial fraud in in all of the United States a bar none I can't think of any equivalency to 63-12 the executive law under that executive law you stop crime before it happens let me let me put it another way you stop fraud before there are victims there doesn't have to be a victim of the fraud if you're operating a fraudulent scheme on an uneven unlevel playing field where you set the rules and your counterparties are um harmed or not harmed um if there's a fraud that's operated operating the New York attorney general gets to shut it down through the court system under 63-12 it's not like common law fraud that is a fundamental misunderstanding that Donald Trump's lawyers have had a willful blindness for them to accept that truth since the beginning of this case at every argument that they make with judge andoran they demonstrated they refuse to acknowledge that this is not a civil fraud common law fraud based statute this is a fraudulent practice disc gorment statute that can only be used by an attorney general and that's the difference in a fraud case if I defraud my neighbor no more likely my neighbor tries to defraud me there has to be a victim I have to reasonably rely on their fraudulent statement or scheme or artifice to my detriment and therefore there I am victimized but as Leticia James pointed out at the top of her brief there is there doesn't have to be a victim of the crimes Donald Trump keeps saying everybody on the counterparty side wanted to do business with me all the banks love me all all the banks love I paid them all back all the insurance companies I paid the premiums all the properties I spot or sold nobody was harmed in the making of this financial fraud and therefore you should just let me go which completely misses the point of 63-12 I said it on a hotake recently it's almost like that old movie that I love The Minority Report with Tom Cruz it's the thought police you can stop the crime before it actually happens there doesn't have to be a victim and that's the point and and maybe this doesn't work in Tulsa Oklahoma or in some other places but it works in New York which is the financial capital of the world with the attorney general and so she says in the first part of her brief there's no need for a victim there's no detrimental Alliance it's you're we're not talking about common law fraud now part of the problem is the lawyers for Donald Trump most of them that started this case don't really practice regularly in New York Alina Haba people forget started this case you know they brought in some other lawyers towards the end and put her at the kids table but but and even the new lawyers they brought in most of them did not like Chris kis is a Florida lawyer doesn't really know what 63-12 is all about you know and some of the people they brought in were just there on a special admission into the courthouse so it doesn't surprise me but they've been taught this now for two years they can read the case law some of the case law in the area of this particular statute has Donald Trump's name on it already because his Trump organization was nailed with a 63-12 by a prior attorney general Schneiderman in the city in the state so he knows the law he should know the law and even if there was a require somehow that there' be a victim or detrimental Reliance relying on it there was enough testimony of Deutsche Bank and the insurance companies and the counterparties to Donald Trump to show that they relied demanded the personal financial statements that Donald Trump created falsely and relied on them and were and whether it was the front of the bank or the back of the bank or the compliance Department of the bank they needed regular updated accurate financial statements and Donald Trump didn't provide them and neither did Eric and neither did Don Jr and that's why and on this on this last part then so you have this brief you got one more brief by Donald Trump um and then you've got that oral argument that's going to be um in front of the app pellet division first Department in Manhattan I might try to get into that one because I'm actually a member of that particular court um and I like that courtroom so that one is going to be happening in September as well and then we'll get a ruling four six eight months later and what you alluded to earlier is that some people were annoyed or pissed off even in our audience that the appell division gave Donald Trump a break in the size of the bond that he had to put up because the Judgment was $465 Million for discouragement meaning ripping away illg gotten gains uh uh uh clawing them back from somebody that should not have obtained them that's why it's not damages civil fraud damages it's disgorgement Equitable discouragement under this unique statute back to that point again and the the Court said well because Donald Trump was crying and bleeding and upset that he couldn't scrape up the $465 million despite looking everywhere you know even in the couch cushions no no joke there and the court said all right all right 175 million put up 175 million now people were like oh they just reduced the potential judgment to 175 million no they didn't the 175 million is just I think a reflection that Donald Trump has a lot of exposed obvious assets a lot of them have his name on it and there is a monitor a financial monitor that's been in place over every financial transaction bank account and asset of Donald Trump for the last two years her name is Barbara Jones she's paid for by Donald Trump but she's an officer of the Court who reports the judge in gon and so with the with the uh monitor in place the the independent compliance director in place regular reporting the judge engoron in place and assets all over New York and other places with Donald Trump's name on it they were like just scrape up 175 million well that is but I don't think that reflects and we had a little bit of a debate I can't remember if it was me and you or if it was uh a Karen or Karen and meate about whether that means oh they're going to take a red pencil or a blue pencil to the judgment and start loing off things I'm not sure that means that at all I mean I think judge engoron got it right about how to apply the statute of limitations which was the only issue that Donald Trump won on an appeal it was an issue about what transactions were inside and outside a statute of limitations there was a 10-year statute of limitations and it took a while for for Leticia James to to work her way through this prosecution and some of the transactions fell off the Continuum they fell off the table as being stale as outside the statute of limitations not all of them just some of them that's why uh that's why Ivanka Trump people will remember she was originally a defendant in the case she got dismissed because really the thing she was involved with in 2017 and 2018 put her outside the statute of limitations and so she left and that's the reason but now with that in mind I believe that judge andoran properly applied the teachings of that Supreme Court decision about the transactions and the values of things methodically in rendering his decision he spent four months writing the decision um from the time the case ended in before the holidays in December until he issued the decision in sometime in March he had a lot of time to get it right and I believe he got it right H maybe because they Lop off five or 10 million dollar here and there yeah are they going to cut it down to 175 million from 450 now 500 million with interest I don't think so that's my opinion welcome back that was legal AF that was me and Ben melis we do that every Saturday on a show we call Legal AF and now you know why we call it that Wednesdays and Saturdays Wednesdays with Karen Freeman nifo and me Saturday with Ben melis and me and we we do hot takes like this about every hour at the intersection of law in politics we're practicing lawyers who don't blow smoke or sunshine and we're almost never wrong how how refreshing if you like that brand of analysis you'll love the fulllength podcast Wednesday Saturdays 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time right here on the mest touch Network and then you can pick it up on all audio podcast platforms as well so until my next hot take to my next legal AF this is Michael popac reporting herei herei legal AF law breakdown is now in session go beyond the headlines and get a deep dive into the important legal Concepts you need to know and we discuss every day on legal AF exclusive content you won't find anywhere else all for the price of a couple of cups of coffee join us at patreon.com leala that's patreon.com leala