This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Apart from the trial judge and 4/5 appellate judges. The Higgitt/Rosado opinion agrees that executive law 63(12) applies - nothing in the text of the law says it only covers frauds against "little guys", that's just how it has historically been enforced. (It also agrees that if the facts found by Engoron are correct, the Trump Org defendants are guilty - the disagreement is about whether Engoron was allowed to make those factual findings at the summary judgement stage of proceedings).
You are technically correct here - if you or I misstated the square footage of an appartment by a factor of three, or valued a property subject to deed restrictions on the basis that it wasn't, and got caught (which is admittedly unlikely), then we would be facing a normal prosecution for mortgage fraud. I don't know why James used executive law 63(12) - I always assumed that as a civil forfeiture statute it allows a lower standard of proof than a criminal statute.
agreeing afterwards in a political charged case in a state ruled by one party (and which you require an upcoming reappointment to keep your seat) is not the same thing as "and no one even thought it could be used this way"
as Friedman notes applying "section 63(12) to a scenario to which that provision has never before been applied, or even thought to apply" and the the other opinions don't actually contradict this beyond saying they don't find a prohibition in the very broad plain language of the law (and then goes on to handwave away or ignore any previous decision in the state which restricted the usage of s. 69 (12) in the past, e.g., the requirement to show a concrete public interest)
this position should raise grave constitutional concerns because it is ripe for abuse, selective application, and targeting people for their constitutionally protected speech (see s. 69 (12) usage against Martin Shkrelli), and lacks a limiting factor, but don't worry because despite the defendants raising general constitutional concerns throughout the case and even in the appeal, they didn't raise this exact one specifically enough specifically on appeal therefore who cares, it's not preserved, and also law of the case doctrine precludes it anyway (after all, the court previously rejecting a motion to dismiss for lack of standing at the preliminary stage precludes the court from discussion appropriate statute interpretation which doesn't put the law in constitutional danger) so it's been decided anyway also this opinion is already 360+ pages (we'll just ignore how in other similar cases, neither of these things stops an appellate court from this analysis, especially in the context of statutory interpretation)
silly
again, this is an equity action
right, which is why you are unable to produce a single other similar example while simultaneously claiming this would of course be used this way against anyone else "if caught"
the fact that something hasn't over a very long period of time from its adoption to now been used in a way is good evidence that it wasn't meant to be used that way
this isn't novel or rare behavior and it's not hard to catch
that's a big "if" given a court opinion which entirely vacates the financial penalty and argues for reversal and new trial over an error on summary judgment on first cause of action which necessarily pollutes findings of facts and at least one element required in all the later causes of action - not to mention the opinion arguing the findings of fact and pattern of behavior rely on acts which are barred by the statute of limitations
the outcome of still joining in support of the liability finding given the actual written opinion is puzzling indeed, almost like the two judges who are soon up for renewal of their seats thought about other considerations when doing it
almost like the outcome is crafted to remove all the real penalties for the liability finding (various injunctions and sanctions, attorney penalties and sanctions, and financial penalties) as a compromise position to allow the liability to stand but the actual bite to be minimal
wow, how convenient "the law" worked out this way
well, no, because the Accounting Standards Board permits valuations based on long-term expectations, even very optimistic ones, for changes in usage or disagreement about restrictions
w/re to the apartment, the Trump org corrected that in 2017, after a Forbes article made the "lie" public, long before AG James began her persecution, and the Trump org claims this was an inadvertent oversight (in CFCs listing billions in assets) and the AG provided zero evidence whatsoever this wasn't inadvertent (not to mention, this was findable public knowledge with a minimum level of research since the 90s)
or the Supreme Court's finding that MarALago couldn't be used as a private residence despite it literally being currently used as a private residence (and had been used as a private residence open and notoriously for decades) without issue in support of the laughable "finding of fact" about its value
or its finding failing to list rent stabilized apartments was fraud because it was wrong for Trump to think they wouldn't be long-term (we'll just avoid the majority of the 12 rent stabilized apartments did indeed lose that status over the period of CFCs)
seeing a pattern here?
now, why didn't James just use one of these "lies," and criminally prosecute Trump? why did she and clown Engoron have to weave together a series of misleading statements, i.e., any statements which have “the capacity or tendency to deceive, or create[d] an atmosphere conducive to fraud”?
why not just use a garden variety fraud statute for all of these "lies" ?
you have such a confident theory of the case and its outcome; I find it strange you haven't the slightest clue why the case brought against the trump organization using this specific law in this specific way for the first time in history and not other garden-variety laws (like the ones being used against AG James) which you're now using to buttress your claim any rando would be prosecuted
except that's not was done to Trump and that's not the case against Trump or the Trump org
and Executive Law s. 69 (12) is not properly characterized as a "civil forfeiture statute"
there are other laws in NY which aren't criminal which could have been used; the reason those weren't used is because it was otherwise barred by lack of evidence, statute of limitations, inability to satisfy an element, higher burdens and showings which couldn't be satisfied, inability to connect it to Trump as opposed to his employees (among many other issues), and this law allowed broad power to engage in asinine behaviors to just attack and harm Trump, his family, and anyone connected to his businesses
perhaps I'm being unfair and I've only read a dozen or so of your posts fitting the category, but every time I read or respond to one of your posts characterizing a legal case involving Trump or another of your political opponents, it's hard to avoid the conclusion you know just enough about law generally, the specific law, and some of the facts to buttress your opinion that Trump (or similar bad political opponent of yours) is awful or whatever which you've crafted over iterations of arguing about it on the internet
is that right? or are you generally interested in law, work in law, read these opinions and not just distilled summaries by agenda driven partisans in the media?
in any case, this exchange exemplifies why I typically do not respond to comments like this; it takes far more effort on my part to respond to why your mischaracterizations are wrong, legally ignorant, and contain context-less "facts"
to which a typical response will be a short and sweet "but what about the Trump Tower apartment listed as 30,000 square feet which is obvious criminal fraud you would be put in jail over" implying that's, even if true, dispositive with the actual Trump legal case
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link