A TALE OF TWO CASES
TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME INFECTS THE NEW YORK STATE JUDICIARY AND COLLIDES WITH THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS—CASE 1
On February 16, 2024, Judge Arthur F. Engoron of the New York Supreme Court, the trial-level court in the New York judicial system, issued his decision in People v. Trump. He essentially prevented the Trump Organizations from doing business with New York registered banks for three years, put the corporation under the eyes of an “Independent Monitor,” another judge, and finally ruled that the “public” was injured in the amount of over $364,000,000 dollars with interest accruing as I type this. He had previously granted summary judgment without even a trial finding that financial statements were “fraudulent” as a “matter of law” and only held this trial for the alleged damages that the “public” constructively sustained.
New York’s Executive Law 63(12) provides almost unlimited power to a politically motivated Attorney General like Letitia James to use to bootstrap other violations of law to show “fraud” occurring in a pattern. Notwithstanding that fact that she campaigned on a platform to get Trump, using at times racially tinged rhetoric, Judge Engoron was all in. In the world of New York real estate finance and loans, sales “puffery” is a stock in trade. In fact, Donald Trump and his family gave personal guarantees of performance and, through their accountants, issued disclaimers that put the institutions on notice that the statements in the financial submissions may not be in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices and that Donald Trump was personally responsible. Judge Engoron was hearing none of that.
Earlier, Judge Engoron had already ruled that it didn’t matter that two sophisticated entities doing business with massive resources to mitigate risk had been perfectly happy with the arrangement. There was no complaint from a consumer or a bank; this was Attorney General James finding the “crime” to fit the man as she promised to do. Judge Engoron saw himself as the guardian of the New York financial market, “saving it” from the practices of a man and his corporation who made billions for banks and investors and at times saved New York’s sine curve of a real estate market. His judgment “returning” over $364,000,000 to the public treasury when no one suffered an injury in fact will not stand. Here is why.
“The award is so excessive and arbitrary that no less than the United States Constitution will be invoked and already has been. Last week Trump’s counsel made a multi-faceted argument in the first-level appellate court—the First Department. These included;
- The statute of limitations had passed on the underlying fraud claims;
- The law was not designed to cover these types of arm’s length transactions between sophisticated entities;
- The fines were excessive and arbitrary and violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments binding on the states.”
The United States Supreme Court has ruled very clearly on this, and in fact, Professor Dershowitz and others have filed “friend of the court” briefs to make these points. The judges at argument in the appeals court last week seemed interested in this, and here is what will control the review of one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in history:
In 2019, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Timbs v. Indiana (586 U.S. 146), in a unanimous decision, that the Eighth Amendment’s “Excessive Fines” provision was incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that forfeiture of a drug dealer’s Land Rover paid for with legitimate funds could not stand. The Court held:
“Like the Eighth Amendment’s proscriptions of “cruel and unusual punishment” and “excessive bail,“ the protection against excessive fines guards against ABUSES OF GOVERNMENT’S PUNITIVE OR CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY. THIS SAFEGUARD, WE HOLD, IS FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR SCHEME OF ORDERED LIBERTY WITH DEEP ROOTS IN OUR HISTORY AND TRADITION.”
It will not be lost that the New York Attorney General used a broad statute to create a case against the Trump family business as a political steppingstone, and she forgot two things—a victim and the Constitution. From denying the Trumps a trial on the merits by granting summary judgment, pushing the case to only a damage trial, and finally levying a punishing and ridiculous penalty that essentially puts the Trump Organization out of business for several years in New York, the Judge also forgot the Constitution’s constraints on his discretion. This will not stand, and it appears that the Appellate Division may agree. If not, the New York Court of Appeals and perhaps the Supreme Court will put an end to this politically motivated travesty.
RYAN WESLEY ROUTH WILL BE CONVICTED OF THE ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF DONALD TRUMP—CASE 2
Last week a Miami federal grand jury indicted Ryan Wesley Routh on several counts, the most serious of which is an alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 351(c), the attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate. This carries a maximum of life imprisonment, and I believe this will be the result. For purposes of this blog, I will reserve the analysis of the mystery surrounding this person, who has a long criminal record, including a predicate felony of possessing a machine gun, but never served a day in jail, apparently. He traveled the world in a fog of delusions of grandeur, attempting to recruit for Ukraine’s war effort after having been rejected for military service there. He tried to recruit and pay Afghan and Syrian mercenaries, lived in Hawaii, and traveled the world all on an alleged $3000.00 a month fixed income. His plea for Iran to kill Trump and his letter written six months ago all became evidence wherein he said that he “failed to kill Trump.” Had he tried it before? Why wasn’t he on someone’s radar? Or was he? We may know, but perhaps he will meet an unfortunate end in jail awaiting trial before he is debriefed. He has acted very Oswald-like in his life. Maybe a modern Jack Ruby waits in the wings so we can forever speculate.
Well, on to the law. It is here that I disagree with Professor Dershowitz, who opined on his podcast that it may be “difficult” to convict Routh of attempted assassination because they intercepted him before he could engage in a sufficient act of preparation or in marshalling proof that he had the intent to do so. The law and precedent state otherwise.
In 1995, a miscreant named Francisco Martin Duran was convicted of the attempted assassination of President Clinton. The facts are interesting. Duran was in the vicinity of the White House when a visitor named Dennis Basso was standing on the grounds with three other men when two nearby children exclaimed how much Mr. Basso looked like President Clinton. Duran then opened fire with a concealed rifle, and the bullets struck trees and the building near where Mr. Basso was standing. No one was hurt, and the president was nowhere near that location. The government charged him with the attempted assassination of the president and secured a conviction. The government presented the following evidence:
- Duran told several people he wanted to kill the president.
- He bought a firearm and magazines.
- He wrote materials that also stated he wanted to kill the president.
- He concealed these and lay in wait.
Interestingly, the court might have found the attempt even without the discharge of the weapon:
“Based on the evidence proffered by the government in this case, a reasonable jury could find that his crime of attempt WAS COMPLETE LONG BEFORE THE DEFENDANT EVEN PULLED THE TRIGGER OF HIS FIREARM….HAVING LEFT A TRAIL OF WRITTEN THREATS….ARRIVING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON THE MORNING OF OCTOBER 29TH 1994 AND CONCEALING A RIFLE UNDER HIS TRENCH COAT….”
Thankfully, the moron didn’t hurt anyone. That brings us to the new moron.
- Routh wrote the letter and told people he wanted the President killed and even asked a geopolitical foe, Iran, to do so;
- He offered a $150,000 bounty for someone to do it (could he pay it?);
- Despite at least one felony conviction, he managed to put together an SKS with a magazine feed (as standard issue, they have an attached box magazine);
- He scrubbed the serial number;
- He obtained (how?) Trump’s golf schedule;
- He traveled to the boundary of the golf course.
- He set up two crude outer carriers in which he mounted ballistic plates as if to prevent incoming fire (he saw how Crooks died);
- He set these up in a “sniper’s hide” and lay in wait.
What is absent from the indictment or the statement of the US Attorney is whether the SKS was loaded—did the mag left there have rounds in it? Were rounds or a loaded magazine found in the vehicle?
An alert Secret Service agent deployed suppressive fire, and apparently none was returned. Routh fled and was apprehended 40 miles away because a nearby citizen got the license plate and vehicle description.
A guilty verdict is likely unless there is an intervening insanity defense, which will not fly. If the weapon was inoperable or if there was no ammunition at the scene, they may try an impossibility defense. Also, unlikely. What we want to know is whether Routh and/or Crooks were played by Iranian intelligence or other shadowy agents to undertake these acts. We may never know, and in this political season, these events are being suppressed by the legacy media to avoid any inquiry or to boost Trump’s profile. We cannot let that stand.
Mike Imprevento
September 2024
