BREAKING NEWS:
Tulsi Gabbard Defends Trump From Nikki Haley At CPAC As South Carolina Primary Nears
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7RH_Lz58Ro
OUR BORDERS, OUR FREE SPEECH, WE ARE ALL IN DANGER SO LONG AS PIG LAWYER BIDEN IS AROUND!
I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue and stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms, are hostile to people of faith and spirituality, demonize the police and protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans, believe in open borders, weaponize the national security state to go after political opponents, and above all, dragging us ever closer to undeclared nuclear war. TULSI GABBARD
Levin Reads ‘Excellent’ 8th Amendment Article by CNSNews on Air
On Wednesday, nationally-syndicated radio Host Mark Levin praised, and quoted verbatim, an article by MRCTV’s CNSNews Managing Editor Craig Bannister, regarding President Donald Trump’s standing to raise an 8th Amendment challenge to the malicious $370 million fine imposed by a hostile New York judge.
“Most people don’t even read the 8th Amendment. But, this is what I do and, when I ask my friends, this is what they do: Craig Bannister, over at CNSNews, he got it right,” Levin said in the opening segment of his show.
Levin, then, read directly from Bannister’s article:
“‘President Trump has an 8th amendment challenge to the unconstitutional fines levied against him by a rogue judge,’ Constitutional Scholar Mark Levin noted Tuesday, commenting on the extraordinary $370 million fine (including interest) imposed by a New York judge.
“Later that day, former President Trump posted the text of the 8th Amendment on TruthSocial.com platform, later linking to the same article linked by Levin in his comment posted on X (formerly Twitter).”
“The text of the 8th Amendment – this aspect is quite simple,” Levin said, quoting the amendment:
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
Levin, a constitutional scholar, went on to provide the history of the 8th Amendment, explaining that it was created to prevent the type of legal theft and political persecution practiced by royals in Britain.
“Let me continue with this excellent piece from CNS News and Craig Bannister,” Levin says, again quoting the CNSNews article:
“In ‘Stalinist $370M judgment against Trump should be vacated immediately,’ writes my friend Arthur Fergenson. And he points out, does Fergenson:
“‘Professor Jonathan Turley called the $370 million judgment confiscatory, extreme and abusive. Professor Steven Calabresi termed it a travesty and an unjust political act. The subhead for his online commentary employed the term ‘Stalinist.’”
“A term I use often,” Levin says, noting that “Both law professors are right” and continuing to quote Fergenson from the article:
“Because the judgment does not relate to any loss, the $370 million is not, properly understood, violative of the prohibition against grossly excessive punitive damages. It does fall, however, directly within the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Earlier on Wednesday, Levin linked to the CNSNews article in a post on X.com (formerly, Twitter), in which he stressed the importance of the 8th Amendment in the fight against “New York’s attempt to legalize the stealing of President Trump’s property.”
Read the full CNSNews article here.
New York’s Trump Fraud Findings Refute Judge’s Conclusions
Last week, a New York court issued judgments against Donald J. Trump and his sons, asserting violation of state anti-fraud law in connection with several real estate mortgage loans. The judgments, which aggregate $355 million and may escalate to $454 Million or more, shocked Republicans and Democrats alike and stunned the national real estate community. It was immediately apparent that something was wildly wrong, since the Trump transactions were nothing unusual or remarkable for the real estate industry.
Essential Requirements for Claims of Fraud
The case primarily involves applications for mortgage loans submitted by Trump entities to major federal banks. The state of New York claims that Trump, in connection with such loans, committed repeated fraudulent and illegal acts. The judge acknowledges that common law fraud (also known as “misrepresentation”) requires a finding of five elements: (1) A material statement of fact (not opinion), (2) falsity, (3) knowledge of the falsity, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim, and (5) damages. Although the judge apparently concludes that all of the elements have been proven, it is quite obvious that none, let alone all, of the required elements of fraud and misrepresentation was proven.
- Material Statement of Fact: Most of the 92-page document relates to alleged false statements in so-called Statements of Financial Condition (SFCs), which were schedules of values allocated to various Trump properties. Values, by their nature, are opinions (not facts) and therefore cannot serve as a basis for a claim of fraud.
- Falsity: The Statements of Financial Condition were merely statements of opinion submitted by the proposed borrowers and guarantor(s) and, thus, were neither true nor false.
- Knowledge of the Falsity: The proposed borrowers knew that the SFCs were schedules of opinions as to values, were subject to debate, and were neither true nor false.
- Justifiable Reliance by the Alleged Victim: The word justifiable appears only twice, only on page 2 of the document, and only with respect to a listing of the required elements of fraud and misrepresentation. The judge reports that some of the bankers indicated that they had relied on statements in the SFCs (i.e., as to valuations) in connection with making a loan, but the judge’s findings do not provide any grounds for determining whether or not any such reliance was justified. Valid justifiable reliance does not even appear to be possible:
- The Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC) has promulgated laws and regulations prohibiting federally chartered banks from making large commercial mortgage loans without first securing an appraisal by an independent and state-licensed and/or state-certified appraiser, which appraisal must comply with additional applicable requirements. Reliance upon other valuations that deviate from the required appraisals is clearly not justified.
- Valuations by the borrower or appraisers engaged by the borrower are subject to bias and conflicts of interest. Reliance on such tainted valuations is unwarranted and unwise and unjustified.
- The judge’s findings contain evidence that valuations contained in the SFCs submitted by Trump entities were summarily reduced 50% by one of the lenders, which lender also reduced valuations submitted by similar borrowers in similar situations in similar amounts. Such policies evidence that bankers recognize and acknowledge that they are not justified in relying on borrower valuations and, in fact, do not and will not so rely.
- Damages: The findings confirm that all of the lenders suffered no loss or damage and apparently were paid in full and in a timely manner. Thus, yet another essential element for recovery for common law fraud and misrepresentation did not exist. As the Wall Street Journal concluded (2/17-18/2024), “there was no real financial victim.”
Notwithstanding that New York, for the above reasons, has no valid claim on behalf of itself or any of the lenders for common law fraud and misrepresentation, New York is claiming under a state statute that some immaterial mistakes or misrepresentations justify recovery, not for the banks, but for the benefit of the state of New York, of all gains or profits that the borrower may have made on each project where claimed illegality may have occurred. All of this results, notwithstanding that the lenders suffered no financial or other loss, were not fraudulently induced to do anything, and were aware and comfortable with the notion that the banks are totally responsible for performing their own due diligence, securing of their own appraisals, and developing their own valuations.
In the Trump case, that approach has led to a claim that New York is entitled to recover for its own account (not for the account of any lender) the sum of at least $355 million, apparently just to teach Trump and others a lesson. The findings reveal no evidence of the amount or extent to which any bank would have raised its interest rate if the guarantor’s (Trump’s) net worth valuation had potentially been reduced by various amounts. New York’s entitlement to such recovery and the amounts thereof will assuredly be challenged on appeal for the above reasons and for constitutional, equitable, and other reasons.
Pre-emption
A remedy for the disaster being thrust upon normal nationwide borrower/lender policies and procedures may be for Trump and one or more of the national banks to seek a judicial or OCC determination that New York is prevented and pre-empted by federal law from utilizing its state law for the purposes and in the manner utilized in the Trump case or in any other specific manner that “prevents or significantly interferes with” a national bank’s exercise of its powers in connection with the Trump cases. If any lie can put a borrower out of business, even if there is no reliance on it, the entire nature of loan transactions will need wholesale realignment, at great expense to both borrower and lender.
Consequences
Other extremely damaging consequences will befall banks and other businesses alike.
The Trump judgment has caused consternation in the business community, especially in the real estate sector, the mortgage sector, and other business lending sectors. In cases where there may be claimed fraud or misrepresentation (material or otherwise), borrowers are now at great risk that New York will come after them for all their profits and gains on a project, notwithstanding that no one has suffered financial loss or damage. The Trump case provides excuse and incentive and warning for borrowers, lenders, and other businesses to avoid subjecting themselves to similar outrageous claims. That may, indeed, necessitate removing their businesses and all negotiations, contracts, meetings, and property from the jurisdiction of the state of New York.
Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.
New York Democrats ADMIT To Targeting Trump
FUKING LIKELY!!!
A stay until the Court rules on the question of Trump’s presidential immunity would help restore the integrity of the justice system in the eyes of the American public, the brief’s authors assert.
Letitia James Says She’ll Seize Trump’s Assets If He Can’t Pay $354M Fine
New York Attorney General Letitia James is prepared to seize former President Donald Trump’s assets if he is unable to find cash to cover a $354 million fine in his civil fraud case, she said Tuesday in an interview with ABC News.
James told ABC News, “If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets.”
Trump was fined $354.8 million plus approximately $100 million in pre-judgment interest on Friday after Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron ruled the former president had inflated his net worth in order get more favorable loan terms.
Trump has said he will appeal the ruling. Still, he will have to pay the fine as a bond to New York State before he can appeal.
When asked about Trump’s defense that the banks were paid back for all loans and there were no victims in the case, James responded “financial frauds are not victimless crimes,” but did not name any victims and instead said the fraud was “massive.”
“He engaged in this massive amount of fraud. It wasn’t just a simple mistake, a slight oversight, the variations are wildly exaggerated, and the extent of the fraud was staggering,” she argued. She then raised a hypothetical situation, saying, “If average New Yorkers went into a bank and submitted false documents, the government would throw the book at them, and the same should be true for former presidents.”
James said she was eyeing Trump’s building on 40 Wall Street known as the “Trump building.”
“We are prepared to make sure that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers, and yes, I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day,” she said.
She dismissed Trump’s assertion businesses would leave New York over the case, saying, “Last I checked, tourism is up. Wall Street is doing just fine.”
She also gloated about her, columnist E. Jean Carroll, and embattled Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s cases against Trump, saying, “Someone once told me if you want something done, give it to a woman.”
Follow Breitbart News’s Kristina Wong on ”X”, Truth Social, or on Facebook.
Twenty-Two State AGs to Supreme Court: Decide Trump’s Immunity Question Before Prosecution
WASHINGTON, DC – Twenty-two state attorneys general requested the Supreme Court halt Special Counsel Jack Smith’s rush to prosecute former President Donald Trump for allegedly conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election until the Court rules on whether the trial is permitted by the Constitution.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R-AL) led a 22-state amicus brief to the Court requesting a stay on Smith’s prosecution, arguing Smith’s sudden push to prosecute the President before the 2024 election “has invited public speculation that this case has an improper purpose—to influence the 2024 election.”
A stay until the Court rules on the question of Trump’s presidential immunity would help restore the integrity of the justice system in the eyes of the American public, the brief’s authors assert.
Trump recently filed an application to the Court to stay the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that presidents are not immune to prosecution for alleged crimes from when they were in office.
Marshall and his coauthors support Trump’s application, insisting the weighty implications of the issue of presidential immunity require the highest court in the land to weigh in.
“Before a former President faces a federal criminal trial for the first time in our Nation’s history, this Court should decide whether such a trial is permitted by the Constitution.”
The brief raises additional questions regarding the DOJ’s failure to file charges on the actions raised in the allegation for over two years before insisting on its “relentless” demand to take Trump to trial “as promptly as possible.”
“To say the least, the timing is suspicious, and it warrants explanation,” the brief reads. “But the United States has never offered one.”
“[T]iming a criminal prosecution to influence an election is no way to protect democracy, and it is not a legitimate end of law enforcement,” the brief continues.
The brief’s authors suggest President Joe Biden deserves a share of the blame for the appearance of impropriety:
President Biden himself, in November 2022, declared that Donald Trump “will not take power …. I’m making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again.” It does not look good, and it looks worse when the prosecution presses every court reviewing President Trump’s constitutional claims to move more quickly. This week, the prosecution’s amicus said the quiet part out loud: “[T]his is not just any case,” argued the Protect Democracy Project, because a stay might “delay the trial until after the 2024 election,” “denying the voters relevant information.”
Trump announced he would seek the nomination on November 15, 2022, but had forecast his intentions in the days leading to Biden’s comments.
Marshall and his coalition of attorneys general argue a slowdown is necessary to ensure both the constitutionality of the process and to assure the public that DOJ is not election meddling.
“Contrary to the prosecution’s haste, the fact that the defendant is a former President is a reason to move carefully—to be sure the prosecution is constitutional from inception. And the fact that the defendant is potentially a future President is even more reason to ensure the appearance and reality of fairness.”
Joining Alabama are Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The application is United States v. Trump, No. 23A745 in the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Bradley Jaye is a Capitol Hill Correspondent for Breitbart News. Follow him on X/Twitter at @BradleyAJaye.
No comments:
Post a Comment