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 haven't read the briefs, and as I said in my original response, I think the judge was incorrect in the actual ruling. But it is not impossible or improper to submit a brief with deposition testimony and authenticated documents and argue that there is no material issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Your argument was that there is no such thing because without a trial everything is hearsay, etc. And I am telling you that is not the case. There is such a thing. A judge reviewing that information can still be wrong. But the process is not unique or unusual. AT ALL.
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 haven't read the briefs, and as I said in my original response, I think the judge was incorrect in the actual ruling. But it is not impossible or improper to submit a brief with deposition testimony and authenticated documents and argue that there is no material issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Your argument was that there is no such thing because without a trial everything is hearsay, etc. And I am telling you that is not the case. There is such a thing. A judge reviewing that information can still be wrong. But the process is not unique or unusual. AT ALL.