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.
Granted, IF both sides stipulate as to the facts, then there is no need to present evidence, since the stipulation tells the facts.
However, IF there is not agreement as to the facts, then there IS a material issue of fact, and a trial is the way to resolve that, where evidence must be authenticated in court, under oath.
Why should I believe that your affidavit is valid, unless I can question you about it within the bounds of a court procedure? How do I know you wrote it and not your attorney? How do I know it is your own first-hand knowledge unless I can question you about it?
Even depositions are discovery, not evidence. Of course, if that discovery leads to stipulation as to facts, then it is all moot. The stipulation rules.
I cannot imagine that Trump's lawyers would have stipulated as to the low valuations the AG alleges. That would be an automatic loss, since that is the basis of the claim.
If there is not a stipulation between the parties, then the facts need to be determined at trial, not by having the judge merely pick which set of allegations he likes better.
If you are saying that it is routine for judges to make rulings with no trial where there IS a material issue of fact, and the judge just choses which allegation he likes better, then I have even less respect for your industry than I already do.
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.
Granted, IF both sides stipulate as to the facts, then there is no need to present evidence, since the stipulation tells the facts.
However, IF there is not agreement as to the facts, then there IS a material issue of fact, and a trial is the way to resolve that, where evidence must be authenticated in court, under oath.
Why should I believe that your affidavit is valid, unless I can question you about it within the bounds of a court procedure? How do I know you wrote it and not your attorney? How do I know it is your own first-hand knowledge unless I can question you about it?
Even depositions are discovery, not evidence. Of course, if that discovery leads to stipulation as to facts, then it is all moot. The stipulation rules.
I cannot imagine that Trump's lawyers would have stipulated as to the low valuations the AG alleges. That would be an automatic loss, since that is the basis of the claim.
If there is not a stipulation between the parties, then the facts need to be determined at trial, not by having the judge merely pick which set of allegations he likes better.
If you are saying that it is routine for judges to make rulings with no trial where there IS a material issue of fact, and the judge just choses which allegation he likes better, then I have even less respect for your industry than I already do.
There is no stipulation by the party that opposes an MSJ. They have to submit evidence that refutes the evidence set forth in the msj. Example:
John Doe sued Jane Doe for a slip and fall at Jane Doe's alleged house at 1 Park Ave.
Jane Doe moves for summary judgment with an affidavit that says she has never lived at or owned any property at 1 Park Ave.
John Doe doesn't have any affidavit or attestation or anything to REFUTE what she is saying, but he isn't stipulating either.
Jane Doe is granted summary judgment. The End.