People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump

[Boydstun]

 

Statement of Facts in the Indictment – 4/4/23

[StrictlyLogical]

Link to:

29 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

Statement of Facts in the Indictment – 4/4/23

because this is an important precedent setting case on the merits... well, at least laying out the allegations for all to see is instructive.

 

...and yet, I am reminded, never a whiff of "political activism" from the likes of Roark, Frisco, or Galt.

 

[tadmjones]

2 hours ago, Boydstun said:

 

Statement of Facts in the Indictment – 4/4/23

It basically says that although NDA’s are legal not disclosing in your records the specifics of the agreements is criminal , if you are Donald Trump.

Edited April 5, 2023 by tadmjones

[Boydstun]

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

. . . although NDA’s are legal not disclosing in your records the specifics of the agreements is criminal . . .

I thought it was the misrepresentation for taxes that was illegal.

Oddly, though this may not apply to NY tax, if you have income from a bribe, it has to be included in US Income Tax filing. Likewise, if you have income from selling illegal drugs!

[tadmjones]

The legal argument Bragg would have to make is that paying for an NDA or buying the rights to a story is the same as a campaign expense and that internal quasi-fictitious bookkeeping was employed for the sole purpose of misleading campaign finance statutes. A charge that could not be brought if any argument can be made that the use of the NDA could also be motivated for any other such purpose. ‘Protecting’ personal and or business reputations are legitimate ‘other’ uses, whether or not they are concurrent with being involved in a campaign for office.

Hostile authorities in agencies with purview/jurisdiction over these actions already passed on any sanctions for the same activities, it’s bs.

[Boydstun]

Tad, what about the intent for NY State election law violation and the defendant eye to tax misrepresentation? Under NY law, aren't these where the criminality of each of the 34 actions comes from? (i.e., white-collar crimes that result in fines, not jail [at least if you are rich].)

Edited April 5, 2023 by Boydstun

[tadmjones]

I'm not sure about the specifics of the taxing implications as they apply to expenditure(s), on 'each' of the 34 charges. The charge count is basically equivalent to being charged for shoplifting a bag of M&M's and then having the charges multiplied to account for each piece of candy in the bag.

The reimbursement was even structured so that Cohen would receive payments that totaled 420k so that income tax woud be collected and roughly 170k would accrue to his personal 'take home', so an intent to defraud tax collection seems inconsistent.

Edited April 5, 2023 by tadmjones

[Boydstun]

“The participants also took steps that mischaracterize, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.” (p. 1)

“The Trump Organization CFO then doubled that amount to $360,000 so that Lawyer A could characterize the payment as income on his tax returns, instead of a reimbursement, and Lawyer A would be left with $180,000 after paying approximately 50% in income taxes.” (p. 8 )

The $180,000 included $50,000 in actual legal fees, which were combined with the $130,000 that was misrepresented as legal fees and were really a reimbursement. It is the misrepresentation in the business records that crosses the law.

Whether the facts are as stated in the indictment will be a question for the jury based on the evidence if the case comes to trial (about a year from now). The legal reasoning in the case will be judged by the judge, and so far as I see in the prosecution's case, I don't see any real chance a judge would go along with a pretrial motion to dismiss the case due to plainly flawed legal reasoning in the prosecution's indictment.

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Boydstun

[tadmjones]

The misrepresentation that crosses the law is a misdemeanor offense , the DA is trying to make it a felony by claiming the actions furthered a plan to commit election finance fraud. What percentage of the total outlays for campaign expenditures did the 130k represent? Reasonable-ness is still a character of law , no ?

NDA's are legitimate legal instruments, why are they not to be considered an expense for Trump's private business concerns?

Does NY state law have jurisdiction over a federal election, they can override the FEC?

The DA's office has yet to publicly state what the 'other' crimes were that elevate the misdemeanor to a felony, so more to see .

The court/judge in this case sentenced Trump's CFO to 3 months in Riker's Island because he wouldn't 'flip' on DJT, these are not nice people, most rational are 'nice'.

Edited April 5, 2023 by tadmjones

[Boydstun]

Weisselberg fulfilled the conditions of his plea agreement, including testifying as a State’s witness. The prosecution attested to the truthfulness of Weisselberg’s testimony. The five-month sentence (in a prison infirmary) was part of the guilty-plea agreement up front, and without the agreement, he could have served up to fifteen years for the tax frauds they had him on.

Prosecutors and defendants, such as defendant Schurr in another pending case, can be not nice people. But as you know, though it is worth rehearsing, the case rightly proceeds only on the issues in the charges. 

Christopher Schurr shot a man in the back of the head; whether it was a crime is the trial issue.

Edited April 5, 2023 by Boydstun

[DavidOdden]

All 34 charges are counts of New York Penal Code §175.10, Falsifying business records in the first degree, which is defined as:

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof

The criminal complaint is here: it is a series of check numbers, ledger entries, invoices etc. The lesser included crime of second degree falsification is just making or causing a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, without the fraud of other crime aspect.

[tadmjones]

Why was Weisselberg being charged?

SDNY combs through all corporations in their jurisdiction as a matter of course to ensure compensation/tax compliance is kosher, in an even handed manner? Are we to assume if there are no examples of CFOs being incarcerated then those corporations have not compensated their employees in a similar way?

I have to say my streak of radical capitalism colors my opinion of 'law breakers' that 'evade' the revenue man somewhat favorably.

[Boydstun]

Weisselberg was indicted on 15 charges of grand larceny, criminal tax fraud, scheme to defraud, conspiracy, falsifying business records and offering a false instrument for filing. He pleaded guilty to all charges. His plea-deal included him paying $2 million in back taxes and penalties, which he has been doing. The list I recall of his misrepresentations for tax purposes included a lot of personal and family items, even his Manhattan luxury high-rise residence, claimed to be business expenses in his tax filings.

Over on Madison Avenue, I get our bed linens from the shop for Frette. Those are medical expenses, no?

[tadmjones]

Would that it were, Stephen.

Although .. a consumption tax with no ' loopholes' may be preferable.

40 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

Weisselberg was indicted on 15 charges of grand larceny, criminal tax fraud, scheme to defraud, conspiracy, falsifying business records and offering a false instrument for filing. He pleaded guilty to all charges. His plea-deal included him paying $2 million in back taxes and penalties, which he has been doing. The list I recall of his misrepresentations for tax purposes included a lot of personal and family items, even his Manhattan luxury high-rise residence, claimed to be business expenses in his tax filings.

Over on Madison Avenue, I get our bed linens from the shop for Frette. Those are medical expenses, no?

When did Weisselberg's transgressions occur ? and when was it he was charged ? the point I was discussing was that Trump and those in his orbit are being targeted for being in his orbit. ( I'm sure Frette never listed a sale price in their books for items purchased at full retail, proof being they are in NYC and not jailed )

Edited April 5, 2023 by tadmjones

[Boydstun]

Frette for the poor, Frette for the poor, . . . 

You are correct, Tad. The offenses had begun at least as far back as 2005 and continued each year to the indictment in July 2021. Until then the defendant had even failed to disclose that he was a resident of the state of New York, thereby avoiding the State tax! It seems very possible that the spotlight would not have come and exposed this scheme but for Mr. Trump becoming President.

I doubt that anyone prosecuting the former President has been aiming to have a negative impact on his coming campaign. Every opponent of his that I heard address his impending indictment, which did come about, yesterday, thought indictments would boost his chances for getting the Republican nomination, the first necessity for a chance to win in the general in 2024. Perhaps some prosecutors have hoped he will be the nominee because they suppose he can again be defeated in the general, and more soundly that other possible Republican nominees. But any such motives and hopes are irrelevant to correctness of any charges brought.

Thomas Paine wrote a dream when law would be king in America. And so it is.

Edited April 5, 2023 by Boydstun

[Jon Letendre]

Isn't it fun that we haven't seen a single one of Epstein and Maxwell's elite politician/billionaire child sex trafficking clients indicted, but instead Trump gets indicted, on charges that Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz describes as "Micky Mouse charges made against a man running for President" ... "this is American injustice at its worst." https://rumble.com/v2gdjco-liberal-media-cancels-dershowitz-for-exposing-fraud-theory-alvin-bragg-conc.html

 

[tadmjones]

Dershowitz says the place is invested with quislings , but what would he know? He doesn’t hang with them anymore.

[StrictlyLogical]

4 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Isn't it fun that we haven't seen a single one of Epstein and Maxwell's elite politician/billionaire child sex trafficking clients indicted, but instead Trump gets indicted, on charges that Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz describes as "Micky Mouse charges made against a man running for President" ... "this is American injustice at its worst." https://rumble.com/v2gdjco-liberal-media-cancels-dershowitz-for-exposing-fraud-theory-alvin-bragg-conc.html

 

Great video.  Thank you.  The directness and intellectual honesty of Dershowitz is magnificent.

Bravo!

Edited April 6, 2023 by StrictlyLogical

[StrictlyLogical]

I'm staggered by the pitchfork holding witch-hunters who are completely self-unaware of it.