This is a valuation of property case. The claim is that valuations were inflated in a fraudulent manner.
If an attorney wants to present evidence in court, the attorney can certainly submit public records, bank records, insurance records, etc.
BUT ...
The attorney CANNOT attest to those records in a court case. That is hearsay (see: Trinsey v. Pagliaro).
In order for it to be EVIDENCE to be entered into the record, there MUST be a WITNESS to testify under oath, subject to cross examination, that they have PERSONAL FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE that these records are "this" and mean "that."
Furthermore, you would need expert witness testimony as to the valuations of the properties -- testified to under oath, and subject to cross-examination -- to verify (or deny) the CLAIMS made by the prosecution.
It appears to me that NONE of that was done. Ergo, there was no evidence ON THE RECORD upon which a judge could make a lawful determination of "guilty" of fraud, and therefore, the order is a void judgement (can be appealed, or set aside by a different court, as a "void judgement").
Evidence is submitted in summary judgment motions by way of sworn testimony and authenticated documents. This was a summary judgment motion. The judge is wrong, but that is the normal process.
That sworn testimony is hearsay UNTIL someone stands up in a court room, swears to tell the truth under oath, and states what they know, based on first-hand knowledge, AND is subject to cross-examination. Maybe their only testimony is, "Yeah, I wrote and signed that affidavit and it is correct to the best of my knowledge." Fine, BUT the other party gets to CROSS-EXAMINE UNDER OATH.
Now, maybe Trump's attorneys stupidly waived his rights. Would not suprise me, necessarily, but I have not seen any evidence of that, so I can only go on what I have read and heard (which is not a lot, because I am not that interested in it -- at least, until today).
EVIDENCE must follow the Rules of Evidence, and NOTHING is evidence until it is ON THE RECORD, UNDER OATH, and SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION.
Besides all that, this case fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted because there is NO INJURY to any complaining party.
The whole thing is a shit show. It will be appealed and overturned.
I have been an an attorney for 34 years. Undisputed testimony under oath and authenticated documents can establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It is a thing.
I realize you attorneys take short-cuts all the time. That is part of the problem, as I see it.
Where the hell were you during the Covid scam and violations of constitutional rights?
But I digress ...
Back on point. Like I said, I would not be surprised if Trump's attorneys STUPIDLY waived his rights, which is what you imply here by claiming they stipulated to "undisputed facts."
But elsewhere in this thread, it is clear from an article that the appraisers in question STAND BY their work, meaning their valuations.
Trump is accused of fraudulent valuations of real estate. But those valuations are supported by the appraisals. AG doesn't like the valuations, but so what? The appraisals support the valuations.
Why were the appraisers (and bank employees who reviewed the appraisals) not brought in as witnesses, subject to cross-examination, by the defense in a TRIAL?
AG says Trump inflated valuations. Appraisers support Trump's valuations.
There IS a dispute of material facts, if the case is for fraudulent valuations and appraisers support the valuations.
Unless there is something I'm missing, which is possible because I have not been following it. But based on DJT and Eric Trump's reactions, they certainly seem to think that there was supposed to be a trial (scheduled for 10/2) to determine the issue of fraud.
34 years or not, your industry has a nasty habit of taking short-cuts, because salaries are more important than justice and law.
Prosecutors have a 99% success rate not because they are brilliant, but because they can put undue pressure on defendants, and defendants' attorneys would rather not rock the boat than put up a vigorous defense.
"In more than 60 years in court rooms across America, I have never -- hear me now, NEVER -- had a case in which the government did not lie or cheat. Not one time." -- Gerry Spence (never lost a criminal case, lost only one civil case in 61 years as a trial lawyer)
If the appraisers are saying they disagree with the AG's view of fraudulent valuations, and their valuations support Trump's claims, and THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY, then (a) why would Trump's lawyers stipulate to fraudulent valuations (if they did; hard to believe they would), and/or (b) what is the judge doing issuing this judgement without a trial?
The article you linked appears to me to be about the AG office talking to an appraiser. That is not a deposition, and you can see that the appraiser never "got back to" the AG office with other info.
That is an investigation of an AG's office, not a deposition in a court case (which, by itself, would not be evidence, anyway).
From your article:
James has accused the appraiser of failing to fully comply with four subpoenas she has issued
Clearly, this was NOT a deposition. It was an informal discussion within the AG"s initial investigation.
"Any suggestion that Cushman & Wakefield has not responded in good faith to the Attorney General's investigation is fundamentally untrue," a company spokesperson said Monday of the AG's allegations.
"The Attorney General's filings do not accurately depict Cushman & Wakefield's responses to prior subpoenas and inquiries. We stand behind our appraisers and our work."
So ... THERE YOU HAVE IT.
The author of the article wrote a MISLEADING TITLE.
The appraiser STANDS BY their valuations.
It is only the AG who doesn't like it, and the author of the article (Laura Italiano) who apparently thinks that biased articles is some sort of stand-in for real journalism.
Regarding Laura Italiano (click on her name):
her work for Insider's Enterprise news desk is focused on the New York investigations into the Trump Organization and on related stories out of state and federal court
Which means ... she writes false hit pieces on Trump.
Here are some of the titles of her other articles:
Does Trump know how many minutes are in a day?
Donald in Wonderland
Trump keeps asking to move his March hush-money trial date because he's overbooked with criminal trials
Trump rambled so much in an NY fraud-case deposition ...
No.
This is a valuation of property case. The claim is that valuations were inflated in a fraudulent manner.
If an attorney wants to present evidence in court, the attorney can certainly submit public records, bank records, insurance records, etc.
BUT ...
The attorney CANNOT attest to those records in a court case. That is hearsay (see: Trinsey v. Pagliaro).
In order for it to be EVIDENCE to be entered into the record, there MUST be a WITNESS to testify under oath, subject to cross examination, that they have PERSONAL FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE that these records are "this" and mean "that."
Furthermore, you would need expert witness testimony as to the valuations of the properties -- testified to under oath, and subject to cross-examination -- to verify (or deny) the CLAIMS made by the prosecution.
It appears to me that NONE of that was done. Ergo, there was no evidence ON THE RECORD upon which a judge could make a lawful determination of "guilty" of fraud, and therefore, the order is a void judgement (can be appealed, or set aside by a different court, as a "void judgement").
Evidence is submitted in summary judgment motions by way of sworn testimony and authenticated documents. This was a summary judgment motion. The judge is wrong, but that is the normal process.
That sworn testimony is hearsay UNTIL someone stands up in a court room, swears to tell the truth under oath, and states what they know, based on first-hand knowledge, AND is subject to cross-examination. Maybe their only testimony is, "Yeah, I wrote and signed that affidavit and it is correct to the best of my knowledge." Fine, BUT the other party gets to CROSS-EXAMINE UNDER OATH.
Now, maybe Trump's attorneys stupidly waived his rights. Would not suprise me, necessarily, but I have not seen any evidence of that, so I can only go on what I have read and heard (which is not a lot, because I am not that interested in it -- at least, until today).
EVIDENCE must follow the Rules of Evidence, and NOTHING is evidence until it is ON THE RECORD, UNDER OATH, and SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION.
Besides all that, this case fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted because there is NO INJURY to any complaining party.
The whole thing is a shit show. It will be appealed and overturned.
I have been an an attorney for 34 years. Undisputed testimony under oath and authenticated documents can establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It is a thing.
I realize you attorneys take short-cuts all the time. That is part of the problem, as I see it.
Where the hell were you during the Covid scam and violations of constitutional rights?
But I digress ...
Back on point. Like I said, I would not be surprised if Trump's attorneys STUPIDLY waived his rights, which is what you imply here by claiming they stipulated to "undisputed facts."
But elsewhere in this thread, it is clear from an article that the appraisers in question STAND BY their work, meaning their valuations.
Trump is accused of fraudulent valuations of real estate. But those valuations are supported by the appraisals. AG doesn't like the valuations, but so what? The appraisals support the valuations.
Why were the appraisers (and bank employees who reviewed the appraisals) not brought in as witnesses, subject to cross-examination, by the defense in a TRIAL?
AG says Trump inflated valuations. Appraisers support Trump's valuations.
There IS a dispute of material facts, if the case is for fraudulent valuations and appraisers support the valuations.
Unless there is something I'm missing, which is possible because I have not been following it. But based on DJT and Eric Trump's reactions, they certainly seem to think that there was supposed to be a trial (scheduled for 10/2) to determine the issue of fraud.
34 years or not, your industry has a nasty habit of taking short-cuts, because salaries are more important than justice and law.
Prosecutors have a 99% success rate not because they are brilliant, but because they can put undue pressure on defendants, and defendants' attorneys would rather not rock the boat than put up a vigorous defense.
"In more than 60 years in court rooms across America, I have never -- hear me now, NEVER -- had a case in which the government did not lie or cheat. Not one time." -- Gerry Spence (never lost a criminal case, lost only one civil case in 61 years as a trial lawyer)
If the appraisers are saying they disagree with the AG's view of fraudulent valuations, and their valuations support Trump's claims, and THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY, then (a) why would Trump's lawyers stipulate to fraudulent valuations (if they did; hard to believe they would), and/or (b) what is the judge doing issuing this judgement without a trial?
I have not been following the story much.
The article you linked appears to me to be about the AG office talking to an appraiser. That is not a deposition, and you can see that the appraiser never "got back to" the AG office with other info.
That is an investigation of an AG's office, not a deposition in a court case (which, by itself, would not be evidence, anyway).
From your article:
Clearly, this was NOT a deposition. It was an informal discussion within the AG"s initial investigation.
So ... THERE YOU HAVE IT.
The author of the article wrote a MISLEADING TITLE.
The appraiser STANDS BY their valuations.
It is only the AG who doesn't like it, and the author of the article (Laura Italiano) who apparently thinks that biased articles is some sort of stand-in for real journalism.
Regarding Laura Italiano (click on her name):
Which means ... she writes false hit pieces on Trump.
Here are some of the titles of her other articles:
Trump has been deposed in this case, Eric, Don jr and Ivanka were all deposed
You have no idea what you’re talking about in regards to law Jesus
Happy to be educated