Headline: The Astonishing Overreach in Attempting to Prosecute Trump's Wealth Valuation
With the spotlight on administrative law in the current case against former President Donald Trump by New York Attorney General Letitia James, ignoring the law's injustice towards Trump means embracing its unfair application for all of us.
James seeks to employ Executive Law, a provision never before used against Trump, to prove that he defrauded certain financial institutions, despite these institutions profiting from their transactions with him. This makes no sense and highlights the law's potency to ensure gross injustice, especially in the hands of a proactive Attorney General.
Trump was scheduled to testify again on Monday, following his testimony last month, but he announced on Sunday evening that he wouldn't pied piper for another round of testing. On Tuesday, Trump's defense filed a motion to postpone the proceedings.
In James' accusation, the financial reports presented by Trump to various creditors were allegedly fraudulent due to inflating his property assets. However, what James failed to mention is whether at least one of these creditors had complained about Trump's appraisal, if it violated the creditors’ regulations, or if Trump defaulted on any loans – as he didn't.
Can the government charge someone with fraud if no one was harmed by the supposed fraud? Given administrative law, yes; Trump's situation proves it. The consequences of this law are clear, worrying, and potentially catastrophic.
If a person sells two properties at a doubled price, based on an independent appraiser's estimate, but desperate buyers were ready to pay the demanded amount, can the Attorney General charge this seller for multiple "fraudulent" transactions under the Administrative Code? In theory, maybe. But what about a deli owner boasting about serving the "best sandwiches in the world"? Even if customers only rave about the sandwich quality and never complain, could the Attorney General charge the deli owner with "fraud"? Theoretically, yes. However, is there anything in the law that allows courts to restrict the Attorney General's excessive reach? No, not in this case – a New York court ruled that the Attorney General's authority to act under the Administrative Code remains practically uncontested.
Following the instructions of these courts, Judge Arthur Engoron of the New York State Supreme Court ruled in favor of James in September, asserting that Trump had violated the Executive Law. When Judge Ngolon granted a hearing on the question of damages, he also ruled that the forfeiture – the Attorney General's preferred means of forcing individuals to return unjustly obtained funds – "is inherently fair and requires a legal proceeding". It's up to a judge's discretion." The ruling plainly illustrates how administrative law allows courts to bypass an individual's constitutional right to a jury trial.
In the context of fair restitution, the focus is often on unjustly obtained gains. For instance, in an insurance fraud case where one person induces another person to pay premiums for a non-existent policy, the restitution would require the fraudster to return all illicitly gained funds from the victim. However, in Trump's situation, there were no victims and therefore no unjust gains.
So if James demands $250 million from Trump, allegedly stolen assets, this is, in reality, another kind of punishment – nonexistent compensation for the suffering of the victims, but rather a decision on undefined and punishable financial damage claims.
Instead of summoning a jury, Trump called Ngolon, who did not subscribe to free market principles and based on which his defense relied. In September's ruling, Ngolon derisively mocked Trump's "fundamental belief that values are inherently subjective". However, value can often be subjective, especially on the real estate market. Ngoren's ruling whitewashes this, predominantly citing cases that revolve around tax challenges and not commercial sponsorship decisions, such as those in Trump's case.
Ngolon also ridiculed Trump by saying "no experienced business partner would consider [financial reports] and other documents provided by [Trump]...without conducting their own diligence." But Trump's argument makes good business sense – the ultimate lending decision by a bank is based on its self-assessment, not that of the borrower. This was confirmed in the trial evidence.
At a full day's worth of witness testimonies after Thanksgiving, a top executive from one of Trump's creditors confirmed that there was nothing unusual about Trump's overvaluation – the bank carried out its own due diligence and determined that Trump's assets were less valuable than the figures he claimed, yet still decided to grant the loan. Individuals and companies have the right to value things according to their preferences and sign contracts accordingly. However, an administrative law provision grants the Attorney General and the courts the power to intervene, and even punish, such behavior.
Moreover, the sanctions the Attorney General can impose under the administrative law are not limited to recovering stolen funds – the Attorney General can also revoke the business license, as James did against Trump (the step was subsequently frozen, pending an appeal).
In a nutshell, the case against Trump demonstrates why no one should want the government to acquire the powers of the Executive Law. It's not that Trump doesn't inflate the value of his properties – he does. But the lack of harm to the initial creditors, and the potential misuse of administrative law’s broad reach, are clear-cut enough reasons to reject this power grab.
Happy Reading!
- Made a mistake? Contact us with your feedback.
- Join us on Twitter and Facebook for updates. Trump's case shows why no one wants the government to acquire powers under the Executive Law. This doesn't mean that Trump didn't overvalue his property assets – he does. However, the absence of demonstrable damage to lenders, the distortion of business practices into criminal offenses, and the potential misuse of administrative law to control individuals' rights and private business relations are compelling reasons to reject this power grab. It's a matter of personal liberties and the freedom to operate in a fair and unregulated market.
Further Reading:
Additional Insights
- In the United States, there are varying opinions about Trump's massive wealth, with some pointing to questionable financial transactions upon which he took advantage.
- However, the escalation of this situation into a 'how-to-prosecute' guide by Nevada State Attorney General Letitia James raises concerns about governance overreach. The interpretation of the Executive Law as giving the Attorney General and the courts the power to control free market and personal rights is seen as a dangerous precedent.
- Critics argue that the attempt to prosecute Trump under the Executive Law can punish politically motivated actions while potentially damaging the state's premier lending industry. They view the requirements for reaching restitution without demonstrating illicit gains and the $500 billion bond as unjust and abuses of due process.
- Additionally, some question the constitutionality of the Executive Law, as it may infringe upon the freedoms guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.
- Overall, the case against Trump underscores concerns about the potential misuse of administrative law for political purposes. Advocates argue that there should be strict scrutiny in the application of administrative powers and that such powers should only be employed when they serve clear public interest objectives. This is critical in protecting individual liberties and ensuring fair and balanced government.
