Fun Fact:
1 Like
Holy shit!!
Judge Engoron referenced this passage in a footnote on page 21:
âThis statement may suggest influence buying more than savvy investing.â
1 Like
Engoron has had it with Team Trump. They kept spewing out Fox News talking points as defenses and the judge kept telling them that they are not valid defenses. They were hanging everything on the weasel words attached to the financial disclosure statements.
They were doing it again in Fridayâs hearing and Engoron was at his witâs end. He actually banged the table, telling Trumpâs lawyers âyou canât give someone false information in a business deal, thatâs what this case is all about.â
Fun Fact: The balance of the case goes to trial starting Monday. Because of Alina Habbaâs incompetence, itâs a bench trial in front of [checks notes] Judge Engoron.
Some Engoron highlights:
Defendantsâ arguments that OAG has neither capacity nor standing to sue under Executive Law 63 § (12), and that the disclaimers of non-party accountants Mazars insulate defendants, invoke the time-loop in the film âGroundhog Day.â
In flagrant disregard of prior orders of this Court and the First Department, defendants repeat the untenable notion that disgorgement is unavailable as a matter of law in Executive Law 63 § (12) actions.
Defendants correctly assert that the record is devoid of any evidence of default, breach, late payment, or any complaint of harmâŚHowever, that is completely irrelevant.
In rejecting such arguments for the second time, this Court cautioned that âsophisticated counsel should have known better.ââŚApparently, the point was not received.
One would not know from reading defendantsâ papers that this Court has already twice ruled against these arguments, called them frivolous, and twice been affirmed by the First Department.
Defendantsâ conduct in reiterating these frivolous arguments is egregious. We are way beyond the point of âsophisticated counsel should have known betterâ; we are at the point of intentional and blatant disregard of controlling authority and law of the case.
Defendantsâ arguments that the factual record developed in discovery changed the landscape under which standing should be viewed is legally preposterous.
This may be the best, but Iâm only at Page 10 so there could be something better:
Exacerbating defendants obstreperous conduct is their continued reliance on bogus arguments, in papers and oral argument. In defendants world: rent regulated apartments are worth the same as unregulated apartments; restricted land is worth the same as unrestricted land; restrictions can evaporate into thin air; a disclaimer by one party casting responsibility on another party exonerates the other partyâs lies; the Attorney General of the State of New York does not have capacity to sue or standing to sue (never mind all those cases where the Attorney General has sued successfully) under a statute expressly designed to provide that right; all illegal acts are untimely if they stem from one untimely act; and square footage subjective.
That is a fantasy world not the real world.
âSquare footage is subjectiveâ. 
1 Like
OK, this might be better:
However, defendantsâ reliance on these âworthlessâ disclaimers is worthless. The clause does not use the words âworthlessâ or âuselessâ or âignoreâ or âdisregardâ or any similar words . It does not say, âthe values herein are what I think the properties will be worth in ten or more years.â Indeed, the quoted language uses the word âcurrentâ no less than five times, and the word âfutureâ zero times.
That was one of my favorites.
1 Like
And what is weight, really, if not the bodyâs square footage?
1 Like
He also cites the Marx Brothers in a footnote, which seems very meta.
1 Like
This may not be the most pithy element of the decision, but the stuff surrounding Mar-a-Lago is astonishing and yet so classically Trump:
- Trump gave up the right to use the land on which Mar-a-Lago sits for anything other than a social club.
- On that basis, the tax-assessed valuation of MAL from 2011-2021 was $18 million.
- In his financial statements during that same period, Trump valued the property at $427 million and $612 million.
The excuse given was that this was what the property would be worth if developed into condos. When this was challenged, because there is no right to use this land for condos, Team Trump claimed that they would do it anyway and then probably prevail in any court challenge.
Pure. Fantasy.
Maybe we have judged the GOP harshly. They are just ignoring crimes by their Republican colleagues (and former colleagues), they want to ignore crimes by Democrats too.
Next time I apply for a home equity loan, I am going to say that the valuation of my house should be based on the vault full of gold at Ft. Knox being moved to my property.
4 Likes
Next time I apply for credit, and they ask for the balance outstanding on my mortgage, Iâm going to tell them âzeroâ, because that is what it will be in the future.
2 Likes
You misspelled Ponzi
1 Like