The estimable NTodd mentioned that he'd read the NY Judge's ruling; so I decided I should, too.
The NY judge’s ruling is here.
I’m not going to try to cut and paste pieces of it; I just want to point out the disingenuous nature of most of the commentary on it, especially the baseless criticisms of it.
Much of that criticism revolves around Trump’s ignorant claim that he didn’t defraud anyone because he paid all his loans off in time. No one supporting that argument has read the opinion, because the judge includes the entire text of Executive Law sec. 63(12), upon which the judgement rests. It’s on page 2 of the opinion, you can’t miss it.
Unless, that is, you don’t read it.
Funny thing about judges: they explain why they do what they do. They have to. Superior judges can look down on their work at almost any time and reject it. Unlike screamers and yammerers on Xitter or in front of a TeeVee camera, judges have to show their work.
In that vein, the court discusses the defendants’ argument that a disclaimer from Mazars, the non-party accountants, absolves them of all blame for fraud. Per the court, this was actually a standard disclaimer that the financial statements had not been audited by Mazars and that "Donald J. Trump is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements..." Trump cannot say, as he has since the ruling, that everybody knows he's a liar: "It has been stated that '[t]he rule is clear that where one party to a transaction has superior knowledge, or means of knowledge not open to both parties alike, he [sic] is under a legal obligation to speak and his [sic] silence constitutes fraud.'"
In simpler terms: it don't work that way.
It's worth pointing out here that the court is ruling on two motions for summary judgment: one from the state, and one from Trump, et al. After 7 pages outlining the arguments raised by the defendants, and rejecting them, the court notes that for all of these arguments (made in defendants' motion for summary judgment), "this Court rejected every one of the aforementioned arguments." Rejected not once, but twice. Even after rejecting these arguments a second time, the court forebore to impose sanctions, "believing it had 'made its point.'" That's the Court quoting its previous opinion in the matter. The next sentence is a big, big hammer being dropped from a very great height:
Apparently, the point was not received.
One would not know from reading defendants' papers that this Court has already twice ruled against these arguments, calling them frivolous, and twice been affirmed by the First Department [New York appellate level]. (emphasis in original)
The sad upshot of this is that tout le Xitter is arguing (pointlessly) over the valuation of MAL. That issue is hardly the heart of this case, or of this opinion. You can find the comments like "This is a fantasy world, not the real world." That comment is in this section, on the sanctions against the lawyers for peddling what the Court is too polite to call bullshit. But the real action is that Trump's lawyers ran out of arguments after the first round, and kept reloading with the same worthless claims and defenses. If you still think Trump has a colorable defense in any case going forward, or is just keeping his powder dry for trial where he'll spring a big surprise against Fani Wallis or Jack Smith, well....I can't help you, then.
Trump keeps banging on about the "worthless clause" he says is his "King's 'X'". On p. 12 the court quotes the "worthless clause," and on the next page, a passage from Trump's deposition where he describes this clause as the magic shield that Trump thinks makes him invisible and bulletproof. I will quote the court's conclusions on this "argument":
However, defendants' reliance on these "worthless" disclaimers is misleading. The clause does not use the words "worthless" or "useless" or "ignore" or "disregard" or any similar words. It does not say, "the values herein are what I think the properties will be worth in ten or more years." Indeed, the quoted language uses the word "current" no less than five times, and the word "future" zero times.
Additionally..., a defendant may not rely on a disclaimer for misrepresentation of facts particularly within the defendant's knowledge. [citation omitted] Here, as the valuations of the subject are, obviously, particularly within defendants' knowledge, their reliance on them is to no avail.
....
Thus, the "worthless clause" does not say what the defendants say it says, does not rise to the level of an enforceable disclaimer, and cannot be used to insulate fraud as to facts peculiarly within defendants' knowledge, even vis-a-vis sophisticated recipients.
Trump is shouting at clouds when he rants about this issue.
This is where I cut to the chase, because I'm having to re-type these quotes, and it's going to be tedious going in a minute, for you and for me. Let me just drop in this quote from the NYTimes about this ruling, as cited in a xweet from emptywheel:
Mr. Trump's family business itself has not been dissolved. Although popularly known as the Trump Organization, it actually comprises hundreds of entities, many of which were not named as defendants in the lawsuit. But the decision could still have a sweeping impact, with the potential to shut down an entity that employs hundreds of people working for Mr. Trump in New York.
Yeah, strictly speaking, that seems to be correct. Legally speaking, it’s bullshit. Here's a section of the court's ruling:
Having prevailed on liability on standalone Executive law sec. 63(12) cause of action, the Attorney General is entitled to the first two prayers for the relief sought in her complaint: (1) canceling any certificate filed under and by virtue of New York General Business Law sec. 130 for all the entity defendants found liable, as well as any other entity controlled or beneficially owned by individual defendants found liable herein, which and who participated in or benefited from the foregoing fraudulent schemes.
"All the entities found liable" includes individuals and:
The Donald J Trump Revocable Trust
The Trump Organization, Inc.
Trump Organization, LLC
DJT Holdings, LLC
DJT Holdings Managing Member Trump Endeavor 12, LLC
410 North Wabash Venture, LLC
Trump Old Post Office, LLC
40 Wall Street, LLC
Seven Springs, LLC
I'm pretty sure the language of that ruling covers any entity operating under the "Trump Organization" umbrella without each such being individually named as defendants.
Further to the point, the court explicitly:
ORDERED that any certificates filed under any by virtue of GBL sec. 130 by any of the entity defendants or by any other entity controlled or beneficially owned by Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, Alan Weisselberg, and Jeffrey McConney are canceled....
So I'm pretty sure this order covers "hundreds of entities, many of which were not named defendants in the lawsuit." Insofar, anyway, as they are part of the Trump Organization, or owned or beneficially operated by any of the defendants.
In the opinion the court also examines the appraisal history for purposes of financial statements and insurance policies, of the following properties:
The Trump Tower Triplex
Seven Springs Estate
Trump Park Avenue
40 Wall Street
Mar-A-Lago
Aberdeen
US Golf Clubs
Much attention has been focussed on the language of the order in this section, but our interest is in this: for all of these properties the court finds that defendants engaged in fraud in the valuation of the properties. Clearly the underpinning of these findings is that the defendants entities and individuals control or beneficially own said properties. Otherwise their fraudulent valuation would be irrelevant here. In other words, all the defendants are named, even if every organiztion under the "Trump Organization" is not cataloged somewhere in this order. I'd go so far as to say Trump's "family company" has been dissolved, since any GBL sec. 130 certificate it holds, or is held by the individual defendants operating under the "Trump Organization," has been canceled.
I admit this is complicated stuff. I'm just not sure it's that complicated. Effectively, Trump has been sued into bankruptcy court and found to be insolvent. Not, under bankruptcy law, because he is unable to pay his creditors on time, but because, under New York law, he and the other defendants are guilty of massive and persistent fraud.
ORDERED that within 10 days of the date of this order, thea parties are directed to recommend the names of no more than three potential independent receivers to manage the dissolution of the canceled LLC's; and it is further
ORDERED that the Hon. Barbara S. Jones (ret.) shall continue to serve as an independent monitor of the Trump Organization until further court order
Basically, Trump and his companies are bankrupt. His companies and his company's companies are out of business. Their assets will go to pay creditors, and there's not a damned thing any of the defendants can do about it, aside from appeals I'm quite sure will be fruitless.
This judge seems to know what he's doing; and he showed his work.
No comments:
Post a Comment