UPDATE: Thursday, Sep 28, 2023 · 12:00:22 PM +00:00 · AlyoshaKaramazov
Looks like the bench trial is “mandatory,” (kind of?) due to James’ use of Executive Law 63, which requires a judge and not a jury.
The NYTimes is the only news source that got it right: “It is not a normal fraud case. Rather, it was brought under a powerful New York statute that gives the attorney general wide scope to investigate and prosecute corporate fraud. Because that law is being used, the questions that remain will be decided by Justice Engoron in a bench trial — one decided by a judge rather than by a jury.”
ProfRobert called it correctly. Take a look at the rest of his “tweaks,” as I don’t have time to do that today. But they’re likely correct as well.
Since this order was filed, I have been watching the “experts” explain it all, and I wasn’t even close to satisfied. So, I spent the morning delving……..
So, Trump has already lost on one of the main parts (causes of action) of the NY Attorney General’s civil action against him.
But it ain’t the whole shootin’ match….
The damages amount still has to be tried and adjudicated. AG James sued for $250,000,000 on behalf of all the people of New York state. Some experts predict a much higher amount to be awarded. This amount, as well as the adjudication on liability for the remaining six causes of action (listed below), will be decided by Judge Arthur F. Engoron in a bench trial (no jury).
But the trial will now be shorter, because of this order. It’s already been determined that fraud was committed on multiple Statements of Financial Condition, in which all of the defendants were involved.
LEGEND
OAG = Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York (Letitia James, Attorney General)
First, the obvious and ubiquitous questions (and their corresponding answers):
1. Does this mean prison for Trump?
No, this is a civil case. Though a finding of liability on some or all the causes of action may mean financial ruin for him, eventually. And appeals could go on for years…...Still, Trump awaits 4 CRIMINAL TRIALS next year, as well as two more civil trials……...
2. What is a “Summary Judgment”
A Summary Judgment is a judgment by the presiding judge of a civil case, where the facts and evidence of the case are substantiated sufficiently by the plaintiff (OAG), and also not successfully rebutted by the defense (Trump). Thus, anything included in the summary judgment is already adjudicated, as if it had been ruled upon after a trial. The summary judgment was requested in a filing by OAG (Donald Trump countered with his own summary judgment request, which was denied in this same ruling).
3. But why are they calling it a “partial summary judgment?”
Because OAG brought SEVEN CAUSES OF ACTION (see below) against Trump et al, and this summary judgment includes adjudication only upon CAUSE OF ACTION #1.
4. What happens with Causes of Action 2-7?
Judge Engoron has decided that causes of action 2-7 should go to trial. But the trial will be a bench trial. So, Causes of Action 2-7 will be tried and adjudicated by the same judge who issued this partial summary judgment.
5. Why no jury?
Because Trump’s lawyers (some some reason) did not file a motion for a jury trial. So, since no filing for a jury trial, Judge Engoron (who Trump has sued to get him off the case), will be both presiding and adjudicating. See UPDATE at top.
6. Who are included as defendants in the lawsuit?
From the lawsuit — “DONALD J. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP JR, ERIC TRUMP, ALLEN WEISSELBERG, JEFFREY MCCONNEY, THE DONALD J. TRUMP REVOCABLE TRUST, THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC., TRUMP ORGANIZATION LLC, DJT HOLDINGS LLC, DJT HOLDINGS MANAGING MEMBER, TRUMP ENDEAVOR 12 LLC, 401 NORTH WABASH VENTURE LLC, TRUMP OLD POST OFFICE LLC, 40 WALL STREET LLC, SEVEN SPRINGS LLC.”
7. Why is this already bad for Trump?
The first two items of the “Prayer for Relief” (see below) have already been ordered by Judge Engoron:
A. Cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section one hundred thirty of the General Business Law for the corporate entities named as defendants and any other entity controlled by or beneficially owned by DonaldJ. Trump which participated in or benefitted from the foregoing fraudulent scheme;
B. Appointing an independent monitor to oversee compliance, financial reporting, valuations, and disclosures to lenders, insurers, and tax authorities, at the TrumpOrganization, for a period of no less than five years;
8. Anything else of note in Judge Engoron’s Ruling?
Lots of things. I highly recommend reading it. It took me about ½ hour and it’s chock-full of tasty nuggets, as well as some scorching footnotes. Plus, the judge has already sanctioned Trump’s lawyers in this case for baseless motions, as well as other things. Each lawyer must now pay $7,500 to the court.
9. When does the trial start?
The trial is scheduled to begin on October 2nd (Monday) and could last until at least December.
10. What are the requests for remedy in the lawsuit?
Called “PRAYER FOR RELIEF” — (“A” and “B” have already been provided by the judge in his summary judgment)
A. Cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section one hundred thirty of the General Business Law for the corporate entities named as defendants and any other entity controlled by or beneficially owned by Donald J. Trump which participated in or benefitted from the foregoing fraudulent scheme;
B. Appointing an independent monitor to oversee compliance, financial reporting, valuations, and disclosures to lenders, insurers, and tax authorities, at the Trump Organization, for a period of no less than five years;
C. Replacing the current trustees of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust (“Revocable Trust”) with new independent trustees, and requiring similar independent governance in any newly-formed trust should the Revocable Trust be revoked and replaced with another trust structure;
D. Requiring the Trump Organization to prepare on an annual basis for the next five years a GAAP-compliant, audited statement of financial condition showing Mr. Trump’s net worth, to be distributed to all recipients of his prior Statements of Financial Condition;
E. Barring Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization from entering into any New York State commercial real estate acquisitions for a period of five years;
F. Barring Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization from applying for loans from any financial institution chartered by or registered with the New York Department of Financial Services for a period of five years;
G. Permanently barring Mr. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump from serving as an officer or director in any New York corporation or similar business entity registered and/or licensed in New York State;
I. Permanently barring Allen Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney from serving in the financial control function of any New York corporation or similar business entity registered and/or licensed in New York State;
J. Awarding disgorgement of all financial benefits obtained by each Defendant from the fraudulent scheme, including all financial benefits from lenders and insurers through repeated and persistent fraudulent practices of an amount to be determined at trial but estimated to be $250,000,000, plus prejudgment interest; and
K. Granting any additional relief the Court deems appropriate.
11. Why is item “H.” in the Prayer for Relief missing?
Perhaps it’s like the 13th floor of a skyscraper?
12. Why isn’t Ivanka Trump mentioned any more, in relation to this lawsuit?
She was dismissed from the case as a defendant, after filing a motion for dismissal.
ADDENDUM
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Executive Law § 63(12) – Persistent and Repeated Fraud (Against All Defendants)
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12), Repeated and Persistent Illegality: Falsifying Business Records under New York Penal Law (Against All Defendants)
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12) Repeated and Persistent Illegality: Conspiracy to Falsify Business Records under New York Penal Law (Against All Defendants)
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12) Persistent Illegality: Issuing False Financial Statements under New York Penal Law § 175.45 (Against All Defendants)
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12) Repeated and Persistent Illegality: Conspiracy to Falsify False Financial Statements under New York Penal Law (Against All Defendants)
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12) Repeated and Persistent Illegality: Insurance Fraud under New York Penal Law § 176.05 (Against All Defendants)
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12) Repeated and Persistent Fraud or Illegality: Conspiracy to Commit Insurance Fraud under New York Penal Law (Against All Defendants)
Executive Law § 63(12) — Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law 3 or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term “persistent fraud” or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term “repeated” as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person.
Honorable mention:
13. Whatever happened to Barbara Jones?
Following an order from Judge Engoron on Nov. 3rd, 2022, she kept a close eye on Trump and his business. And (SHOCK!!!) she found that he continued to commit fraud…….
From the Ruling:
Having found, at the commencement of the action, that OAG had preliminarily demonstrated defendants’ “propensity to engage in persistent fraud,” this Court appointed the Hon. Barbara S. Jones (ref.) as an independent monitor “to ensure there is no further fraud or illegality that violates § 63(12) pending the final disposition of this action.” NYSCEF Doc. No. 194. On August 3, 2023, Judge Jones reported as follows:
- “Since my appointment I have reviewed material financial and accounting information submitted by the Trump Organization. As part of my review, I have made preliminary observations regarding certain current financial disclosures with respect to the Trump Organization's reporting of financial information. Specifically, I have observed that information regarding certain material liabilities provided to lenders — such as inter company loans between or among trust entities and Donald J. Trump, certain of the Trust's contingent liabilities, as well as refundable golf club membership deposits—has been incomplete. The Trust also has not consistently provided all required annual and quarterly certifications attesting to the accuracy of’ certain financial statements. In addition, annual audited financial statements for certain entities, prepared by an external accounting firm, list depreciation expenses. However, interim internally prepared financial statements provided to third parties for these same entities inconsistently report depreciation expenses.”
NYSCEF Doc. No. 647. Even with a preliminary injunction in place, and with an independent monitor ovcrseeing their compliance, de1'endants have continued to disseminate false and misleading information while conducting business. 3 his ongoing flouting of this Court's prior order, combined with the persistent nature of the false SFCs year after year, have demonstrated the necessity of canceling the certificates filed under GBL § 130, as the statute provides. People v Northern Leasing, 70 Misc 3d 256. 279-80 (Sup Ct, NY County 2020) (denying a trial on the petition and ordering the LLC respondents to dissolve upon a finding of persistent iraud under Executive Law § 63(12)).