https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

Overview

Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

Permissible Discrimination

It is important to acknowledge that a government is allowed to discriminate against individuals, as long as the discrimination satisfies the equal protection analysis outlined below, and described in full detail in this Santa Clara Law Review article.

U.S. Constitution

The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the United States government to practice equal protection. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection.

Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

Equal Protection Analysis

When an individual believes that either the federal government or a state government has violated their guaranteed equal rights, that individual is able to bring a lawsuit against that governmental body for relief.

Based on the type of discrimination alleged, the individual will first need to prove that the governing body actually discriminated against the individual. The individual will need to prove that the governing body's action resulted in actual harm to them. After proving this, the court will typically scrutinize the governmental action in one of several three ways to determine whether the governmental body's action is permissible: these three methods are referred to as strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis scrutiny. The court will determine which scrutiny the individual will be subject to, relying on legal precedent to determine which level of scrutiny to use. It is important to note that courts have combined elements of two of the three tests to create an ad hoc test.

I'm not a lawyer, but hear me out...

We know that Letitia James campaigned for AG by promising to go after Trump.

What exactly was she planning on going after Trump for?

It would appear that she was very upset about how Mr Trump over-valued his properties, in order to get favorable loan terms and insurance policies.

While i haven't scrutinized the specifics in this case, there would seem to be some logical places to start looking, for example at the local tax assessors office.

When i called my local tax assessor long ago, i asked if they assess taxes at market value, above market value, or below market value. i was told they try to assess right at actual market value. i haven't looked, so maybe this works in Trumps favor, maybe not. i saw it mentioned elsewhere...

Also, who is the alleged victim in this "crime"?

Didn't the lenders show up in court and testify that they were satisfied with the loan terms and repayment?

Is the state somehow harmed in this scheme?

Is the state going to keep Trumps $500,000,000 if he loses all appeals?

Is the state really entitled to all that money, even if they can't show how the state was harmed?

So basically, we have to bait them into explaining how what Trump did was just so awful, and how so many people were hurt, and how the state of NY was harmed...

AND THEN...

We roll out the 14h amendment...

And we say, if there were so many people harmed, and even the state of NY was harmed, then WHY is Donald J Trump the ONLY person being prosecuted?

So if Donald Trump and his team of experts thought they could get away with this particular crime, surely many other property owners in NY are also getting away with this exact crime too.

So WHY isn't Letitia James prosecuting others, for their own versions of these same crimes?

It would appear to me, that Letitia James is NOT providing "equal protection under the law" for the presumably large number of "victims" in the state of New York, who are not getting their day in court.

She is even denying the State of NY its own justice!

Justice delayed is justice denied.

So we start pushing to have every big name property owner in New York prosecuted for this crime, which will obviously never happen...

And when Letitia James let enough time go by without taking action against anyone else for these types of crimes, we loudly accuse her of not providing equal protection under the law...

And then we start to loudly speculate as to why that might be...

We could even add the race angle, by singling out big name property owners who just happen to be black... and asking why they aren't being prosecuted,

but if you'd prefer not to go there, thats ok.

All we really have to do is find a handful of examples similar to Trumps, and start publicizing them,

This will put Letitia James in a very tough position.

1. does she fail to prosecute, and thereby deny equal protection under the law,

OR

2. she starts prosecuting, thereby spooking the big name property owners even more.

https://greatawakening.win/search?params=Letitia&community=GreatAwakening