Donald Trump is found liable for fraud in New York civil case · Page 2

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

rfenst
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

2 years ago

#21

I heard this is a show trial where Engoron is judge, jury and executioner.

Letitia James is a Demo-Commie that will say and do anything to pillage the wicked bourgeoisie and further her own political ambitions. She doesn't care who she hurts along the way, even the proletariat who she says she is fighting for (BIG LIE), and will steamroll anyone that gets in her way.

RayR wrote:

Yet another "I heard..." to bolster your opinion or whatever you regurgitate.
How about links to source articles?

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

2 years ago

#22

Yet another "I heard..." to bolster your opinion or whatever you regurgitate.
How about links to source articles?

rfenst wrote:

Oh, now you WANT links? Why? To ignore the source or pretend it didn't exist?

Whenever I post them...and I ALWAYS do to back up a point I'm revealing...you and a slew begrudge that I'm incapable of typing what I'm speaking! I can be on point, but when an article adds that little exclamation point, well who am I to get out of its way?

rfenst
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

2 years ago

#23

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Incapable? No.
You are wrongly projecting on me about what I think of you.
I just like to read everybody's sources myself, that's all. And, YES, you do certainly provide them.
I harbor no hard feelings- we just wear "different colored glasses."

RayR
Herf-A-Holic

2 years ago

#24

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Yes, these guys are so ridiculous, you post someone else's thoughts, then they accuse you of not having any original thoughts of your own. If you post only your own thoughts, they want links to someone else's thoughts to support your thoughts. I think they'd only be happy if we didn't have any thoughts at all. 🤔

RayR
Herf-A-Holic

2 years ago

#25

Yet another "I heard..." to bolster your opinion or whatever you regurgitate.
How about links to source articles?

rfenst wrote:

OK, I'll give you what you want this time, so don't say I never gave you anything.
I've heard it from a couple of sources, some of which you would say are not credible, but here's is one from a source you have total faith in.

Jurist presiding at Trump’s civil trial will serve as judge and jury.

Justice Arthur F. Engoron, a fan of puns and pop culture, will decide the fate of the former president’s family business at his civil fraud trial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/02/nyregion/arthur-engoron-fraud-trial-trump.html

eavesmac
Rookie

2 years ago

#26

What is this, the fiftieth time they've said 'they've got him?' Yawn......stick to cigar reviews.

rfenst
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

2 years ago

#27

RayR wrote:

So, stop with the "I heard" b.s.

RayR
Herf-A-Holic

2 years ago

#28

So, stop with the "I heard" b.s.

rfenst wrote:

Why? Because you don't like what I heard?

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

2 years ago

#29

That’s what I heard.

Mr. Jones
Herf-A-Holic

2 years ago

#30

Me Too !

RobertHively
Herf-A-Holic

2 years ago

#31

Heard that.

RobertHively
Herf-A-Holic

2 years ago

#32

RayR wrote:

Now you're starting to figure it out, but I must say it took me way less posts...

At one point Fankie T even banned quotes. 😞

Just cant win around here Lol

RayR
Herf-A-Holic

2 years ago

#33

Now you're starting to figure it out, but I must say it took me way less posts...

At one point Fankie T even banned quotes. 😞

Just cant win around here Lol

RobertHively wrote:

Ya, I heard that Frankie was kinda of a dicktator banning quotes and stuff.

Actually, this is not my first rodeo with thought controllers.

RayR
Herf-A-Holic

2 years ago

#34

My statement that Letitia James is a Demo-Commie is not without merit. Jim Hoft's own thoughts point to the same conclusion.

A Perfect Example of the Wickedness in Today’s Democrat Party: Unhinged Bully Letitia James Insists She Is the Real Victim

By Jim Hoft Oct. 5, 2023 8:15 am

In November 2018 Letitia James became the first African-American elected the Attorney General of New York state in November 2018.

It didn’t take long for Letitia to show her true colors. In a video taken at that time James was seen cursing and threatening President Trump.

Supporter: What would you say to people who say, ‘Oh, I’m not going to bother to register to vote because my voice doesn’t make a difference.” Or, “I’m just one person.”

Letitia James: “I say one name. Donald Trump. That should motivate you. Get off your ass and vote.

Supporter: Will you sue him for us?

Letitia James: Oh, we’re definitely going to sue him. We’re going to be a real pain in the ass. He’s going to know my name personally.

First listen to this profanity language

Now imagine a conservative would've said this and Obama is President

She is the newly elected Attorney General of New York pic.twitter.com/Gmk7JwEiyk

— Joel Fischer 🇺🇸 (@realJoelFischer) November 10, 2018

Joseph Stalin’s henchman Lavrently once famously said, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
That famous Marxist quote defines today’s Democrat party.

Since that time Letitia James has made it her goal in life to harass and destroy President Donald Trump, his family, the family name, and his massive business empire.

More...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/10/perfect-example-wickedness-todays-democrat-party-crazed-lunatic/

RobertHively
Herf-A-Holic

2 years ago

#35

Ya, I heard that Frankie was kinda of a dicktator banning quotes and stuff.

Actually, this is not my first rodeo with thought controllers.

RayR wrote:

I have no doubt that you have seen it all before. In fact your post that I commented on was one of the best I've read in a while. I think that correctly sums up some of these jokers.

I was just teasing with Frank too. I consider him my vet, bc he always stood up for my right to say what I want, no matter if he disagreed with me or not. That's a libertarian principle and one of several things that we have in common.

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

2 years ago

#36

So, stop with the "I heard" b.s.

rfenst wrote:

You heard that?

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

2 years ago

#37

I was just teasing with Frank too. I consider him my vet, bc he always stood up for my right to say what I want, no matter if he disagreed with me or not. That's a libertarian principle and one of several things that we have in common.

RobertHively wrote:

that'll never change.

and off camera, I encouraged rayray to stay too...much to my regret...HA!!!

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

2 years ago

#38

Been doing some research on this. It seems that proving requires proving ALL nine elements.

https://www.robertdmitchell.com/common-law-fraud [/u][/size][/b]

To successfully allege a claim for common law fraud, a plaintiff must plead each element with specificity and particularity. See, e.g., Baron v. Pfizer, Inc., 820 N.Y.S.2d 841, 12 Misc. 3d 1169(A) (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) (holding that New York law requires a cause of action for fraud be pled with greater specificity than other causes of action (citing Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 N.Y.2d 43, 57, 720 N.E.2d 892, 898 (N.Y. 1999))); Enyart v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 195 Ariz. 71, 77, 985 P.2d 556, 562 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998) (“Each element [of fraud] must be supported by sufficient evidence. ‘Fraud may never be established by doubtful, vague, speculative, or inconclusive evidence.’” (quoting Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., 132 Ariz. 498, 500, 647 P.2d 629, 631 (1982))); Liniger v. Sonenblick, 532 P.2d 538, 539-40, 23 Ariz. App. 266, 267-68 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975) (“Actionable fraud cannot exist without a concurrence of all essential elements.” (citing Nielson v. Flashberg, 101 Ariz. 335, 339, 419 P.2d 514, 518 (1966))); but see Zimmerman v. Loose, 162 Colo. 80, 87-88, 425 P.2d 803, 807 (1967) (concluding that “fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence” and that direct proof of reliance is unnecessary to prevail on a common law fraud claim); but see Denbo v. Badger, 503 P.2d 384, 386, 18 Ariz. App. 426, 428 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972) (reasoning that a party need not allege with particularity whether the party “had a right to rely on representations,” because this element is “determined from the very facts alleged” (citing Jamison v. S. States Life Ins. Co., 412 P.2d 306, 3 Ariz. App. 131 (1966))). Notably, “conclusory language” will not satisfy the specificity requirement of a common law fraud claim. Small v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 30 Cal. 4th 167, 184, 65 P.3d 1255, 1265 (Cal. 2003); see Armed Forces Ins. Exch. v. Harrison, 2003 UT 14, 16, 70 P.3d 35, 40 (Utah 2003) (stressing that “mere conclusory allegations in a pleading, unsupported by a recitation of relevant surrounding facts, are insufficient to preclude summary judgment”).

IX. Ninth Element of Common Law Fraud: Injured Party Suffered Consequent and Proximate Injury

The ninth and final common law fraud element is proof of the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury. “It is of the very essence of an action of fraud and deceit that the same shall be accompanied by damage, and neither damnum absque injuria nor injuria absque damnum by themselves constitute a good cause of action.” George Hunt, Inc. v. Wash-Bowl, Inc., 348 So. 2d 910, 912, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15920, at *5 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977) (quoting Stokes v. Victory Land Co., 99 Fla. 795, 802, 128 So. 408, 410 (1930)); Cocchiara, 353 Or. at 299 (“Most notably, a plaintiff will have to prove damages to bring a successful [fraud] claim.”); Larsen v. Pacesetter Sys., Inc., 74 Haw. 1, 29, 837 P.2d 1273, 1288 amended on reh’g in part, 74 Haw. 650, 843 P.2d 144 (1992) (“An action based on fraud will not lie where plaintiff has suffered no injury or damage.” (citing Hawaii’s Thousand Friends v. Anderson, 70 Haw. 276, 286, 768 P.2d 1293, 1301 (1989))). The plaintiff must have incurred the loss “in the type of transaction in which the maker of the representation intends or has reason to expect his or her conduct to be influenced.” Ernst & Young, L.L.P., 51 S.W.3d at 577, 2001 Tex. LEXIS 61 at *8-9 (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 531 (1977)). “It may differ in matters of detail or in extent, unless these differences are so great as to amount to a change in the essential character of the transaction.” Id.

In the common law fraud context, “to be actionable the alleged misrepresentation must not only have induced the recipient’s reliance, but must also have caused the recipient’s loss.” Clayton v. Heartland Res., Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 884, 899, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143996, at *41 (W.D. Ky. 2010) (quoting Flegles, Inc. v. Truserv Corp., 289 S.W.3d 544, 553, 2009 Ky. LEXIS 23, at *18 (2009)). Importantly, the term “cause” means “legal or proximate cause, which consists of a finding of causation in fact.” Id. (quoting Flegles, Inc., supra); see also Glaser v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 464 F.3d 474, 477, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 23968, at *5-6 (4th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of a common law fraud claim due to insufficient pleading of loss causation); Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 722 F.Supp.2d 546, 559-60, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71127, at *31-33 (D. Del. 2010) (finding loss causation required for common law fraud claim under Delaware state law); Kosovich v. Metro Homes, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121390, at *19-21 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (finding the common law fraud claim deficient for failure to establish loss causation).

“Generally speaking, to be actionable, harm must constitute something more than ‘nominal damages, speculative harm, or the threat of future harm.’” Philipson & Simon, 154 Cal. App. 4th at 364, 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 517 (quoting Buttram v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 16 Cal. 4th 520, 531 n. 4, 941 P.2d 71, 77 n. 4 (1997). Accordingly, “damage claims are not ripe or recoverable” until the plaintiff “is actually exposed to liability toward a third party.” Id.

For example, a plaintiff is not harmed if she is “in exactly the same situation” before and after the representation. Rice, 268 Ore. at 128-29, 519 P.2d at 1265. Thus, even if the “plaintiff[] ha[s] established all the other elements necessary to maintain an action for fraud,” she will not successfully plead common law fraud if she does not establish that a judgment will affect her current situation.

IIRC DA Bragg never proved Trump caused any entity to suffer a loss. If so, wouldn’t that mean that ALL nine REQUIRED elements were not proven?

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

2 years ago

#39

this is Civil Fraud.
No idea if that's different than Common Law Fraud

rfenst
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

2 years ago

#40

Sorry, but you have simply cited general examples of laws from multiple different states.
This needs to be analyzed under NEW YORK'S LAWS....
More to come

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: