More winning
Comments
-
The statute that you cited for defrauding actual plaintiffs versus your imaginary wealthy developer who didn't get a loan because Trump had better collateral and the bank had run out of money. Then a fine that had no connection to actual damages because there were none. You should go to law school and learn about fines and punitive damages.
-
No one ever charged before… Weaponized justice systems do not dispense justice. I thought even the dazzler would have balked when Trump could not present a defense case in the phony rape case.. Not a peep. That's the kind of bottom feeder the Dazzler is.
-
Moar winning! Watching the lefties here bleat is delicious,
-
You were wise to drop pout of law school before they dropped you out.
"However, where, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution (see Applied Card Sys., 11 N.Y.3d at 125–126, 863 N.Y.S.2d 615, 894 N.E.2d 1). Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim (id. at 125, 863 N.Y.S.2d 615, 894 N.E.2d 1). Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is “immaterial” (see SEC v. Commonwealth Chem. Sec., Inc., 574 F.2d 90, 102 [2d Cir.1978]; see also Excelsior 57th Corp. v. Lerner, 160 A.D.2d 407, 408–409, 553 N.Y.S.2d 763 [1st Dept.1990] [in a fiduciary duty context] )." (emphasis added)
People v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 980 N.Y.S. 2d 456 (2014).
-
The appeals court says different
-
whooshing sound detected
-
Of course
-
What was the fraudulent activity? And what profits did Trump have to disgorge? Don't hurt yourself.
https://ace.mu.nu/
From one judge's opinion: He points out that three of the five judges do not believe that Big Fat Tish's judgment of liability is legal, and yet, somehow, in the interests of just disposing of the case, they... agree to sustain the judgment they also say is invalid?
BTW, the word "decretal" is related to "decree," and I guess -- I don't know -- this is how the New York courts refer to their opinions?
-
"What was the fraudulent activity?"
asked the gal who wants to be taken seriously.
They should have had a trial or something to look at that question, I guess.
