NY AG Letitia James Hit Hard by Reality

Talk of seizing Trump's assets may have been wishful thinking. 

By Liberty Nation Authors | Mar 26, 2024 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags, Articles, Law, Opinion

Just hours before the March 25 deadline to pony up a bond of more than $450 million in New York, former President Donald Trump was handed a significant win by the state supreme court’s Appellate Division. The five-judge panel determined that Trump had a further ten days to post only $175 million as a bond to appeal the civil fraud verdict against him brought by Attorney General Letitia James. As well as the striking reduction in cash payouts, several other factors imposed by Judge Arthur Engoron were also put on hold.

What happens next for Trump? And will James continue her threats to seize assets? We spoke with Liberty Nation’s legal affairs editor, Scott D. Cosenza, to examine the case’s future.

A Last-Minute Win

Mark Angelides: Scott, I thought the deal was that Donald Trump had to post half a billion dollars before this verdict could be appealed.

Scott D. Cosenza: That was true when Judge Engoron called the shots. The Appellate Division judges seemed to think well under half of that amount was sufficient. Trump’s hope is that in time they will see the entire judgment as improper, but he can likely post this amount without a fire sale, something James had hoped for.

MA: What parts of Engoron’s ruling have been halted? And why do you think the judges decided to intervene? Does it suggest they believe the decisions against Trump were too harsh?

SDC: The provisions of Engoron’s order that were suspended until appeal are harsh measures to be sure, including a complete ban on being a corporate officer for three years and on applying for a loan from any New York financial institution for the same term. Trump’s real estate organization depends entirely on being able to take advantage of mortgages from New York banks, for instance – so these restrictions would have hobbled a significant portion of his business activities.

That doesn’t necessarily make the restrictions improper, however. Under the right circumstances, they may be just what society and justice demand. Such facts aren’t present here, in my opinion, and it’s a fair bet that’s true of the state appellate court judges, too. But this order did not come with a written opinion to support it, which would have explained the judges’ reasoning, so supposing is all we may do presently.

MA: I can’t help but wonder, Scott, if the appellate decision was in part due to the vast amount of bad press New York is getting from other businesspeople – including those who are no fans of Trump. When you have big-name investors saying they won’t put another cent into New York real estate, surely that’s a warning shot.

SDC: I hope that did not motivate the judges to reduce the award because it would be improper. A defendant’s rights should never depend on the reaction of others. Remember the wrong that is being corrected here: In this case, Trump’s “victims” (the most sophisticated mortgage bankers in the country and the rest of the world) did not want him prosecuted, claimed that they were not victims, and wished to continue doing business with him. If he had been found liable for bilking widows and orphans for a billion in ill-gotten gains, it might have gone differently.

Letitia James – Are Her 15 Minutes Over Yet?

MA: It appeared that prior to this appeals division ruling, James talked in an unseemly manner about how she was going to seize Trump’s properties and assets. To many observers, it seemed she was taking perverse glee in the troubles Trump had in trying to secure a half-billion-dollar bond. What is her mood now?

Donald Trump (Photo by Curtis Means-Pool/Getty Images)

SDC: The prospect of seizing Trump’s property and seeing him ruined seemed to animate her existence, and her media appearances show a passion for relentlessly pursuing Trump. If only she had turned her fervor against those who make daily life in New York a dystopian fever dream of random attacks and general lawlessness! She released a statement that the $464 million judgment still stands. And it does – for now.

MA: Now that Trump has said he will post the $175 million appeal bond in cash – or securities – is James’ role in this over? Is there any behavior that she could engage in – based on her past performance – that could serve the former president well in his appeal?

SDC: To answer the second question, Trump will certainly focus on her wildly inappropriate statements – from her campaign for office until the present day – to advance his appeal. She said the quiet part out loud, and that is to Trump’s favor. James is still very much a part of the process; it’s her office that will be fighting Trump’s appeal.

MA: I’d like to know about the next steps for Trump. Where does his appeal go from here? All the way to the US Supreme Court?

SDC: Trump may be willing to take the issue to the Supreme Court, but it won’t accept most cases. I have had parking tickets I gladly would have appealed to the Supreme Court. New York has an odd naming structure for the state courts – the lowest level of state trial court is called the supreme court. The court of final appeals is called the New York Court of Appeals. Trump would have to lose in both of those courts before challenging Engoron’s judgment in federal court. Then he would have to start with a federal district court, followed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals before going to the US Supreme Court.

MA: It seems to me, Scott, that these efforts by James and even Judge Engoron have tainted New York City. A perusal of social media suggests that many people see it as a corrupt hellscape riddled with crime that goes unpunished and a legal class that would rather score political points than protect its citizens. In fact, the exodus of people indicates that even in New York, this is a widespread view.

Can the Big Apple courts ever regain their lost reputations?

SDC: In good conscience, I can’t imagine advising anyone to center their business or personal life in that jurisdiction. There is no party competition for leadership, with predictable results.

 

Read More From Liberty Nation Authors

Innocence Doesn’t Matter When the Government Wants to Steal Your Money

Joe Setyon –January 11, 2023 @ American Institute for Economic Research

 

There’s a fault line permeating America’s criminal justice system—a built-in defect that the government can use to steal your property, even if you’re innocent. And many Americans don’t even know about it.

Hardworking sisters Vera and Apollonia Ward didn’t either, until it happened to them. A California county government used a civil asset forfeiture law to seize $17,500 of their hard-earned money and treat them like criminals without a shred of evidence. County officials did their best to intimidate these two law-abiding Americans into relinquishing their claim on what was rightfully theirs, railroading these two sisters who were pursuing the American Dream, and who hadn’t done a single thing wrong. 

“It was nothing short of terrifying — and it’s a lesson for every law-abiding citizen in America,” the Wards wrote recently in The Orange County Register.

Tragically, Vera and Apollonia aren’t alone. Far from it. In fact, federal, state, and local governments seize countless Americans’ property using a law called civil asset forfeiture, which allows government agencies to take, keep, and profit from someone’s money and other possessions without even charging them with a crime, much less convicting them of one. The Wards got their money back with the pro-bono legal aid of my organization, the Goldwater Institute, a nonprofit group that sues the government to protect innocent victims of civil asset forfeiture. But many law-abiding citizens aren’t as fortunate.

Vera, of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and Apollonia, of Redondo Beach, California, are the furthest thing from criminals. They’re law-abiding Americans, entrepreneurs who run a thriving dog-breeding business. Late last year, they were looking to expand, so they sent $17,500 via FedEx to someone they’d hired to find and purchase two new dogs. But the cash never made it to its final destination. Instead, the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office seized it, and tried to bully the Wards into abandoning their claim on their money.

“To me, it felt like being treated like a criminal, even though you’re not. It makes you question everything,” Vera said in a Goldwater Institute video where she and her sister shared their story publicly for the first time.

The Ward sisters had everything they should have needed to prove they were telling the truth, including documentation showing the money had come out of Apollonia’s account and records related to the purchase of their first dog, Luna.

But the San Joaquin County government didn’t care one bit. Their innocence, their rights, the truth—none of it mattered. 

It gets worse. Not only did county officials refuse to give them their money back, but they tried intimidating the Wards by wrongfully accusing the sisters of drug trafficking.

“The government had all the power, and we had no idea what to do,” the Wards say. “They gave us a choice. We could either cave in to the government’s demands, say that the money wasn’t our money, and let them keep it, or we could stand up for our rights and risk our freedom.”

San Joaquin County officials were attempting to circumvent California law, which is supposed to require a criminal conviction before anyone loses their property for good. First, they tried the false claim of “drug trafficking” to coerce the Wards into dropping their claim of ownership. But the Ward sisters had zero intention of caving. So when that tactic failed, the county government initiated legal proceedings that it knew would only be successful if the Wards couldn’t find an attorney to challenge the forfeiture.

In search of legal assistance, Vera contacted multiple lawyers, but no one returned her calls. Eventually, she sent an email to the Goldwater Institute, which quickly took the case and made it crystal clear to the government that there wasn’t any evidence of illegal activity. The San Joaquin County government had no choice but to give the money back and leave the Wards alone.

Of course, the quick reversal demonstrates that the civil forfeiture was conducted only because it was allowed to happen by law, not because the Ward sisters actually broke any laws. Had the Wards been unable find legal help, as county officials hoped, their money would likely still be in the government’s grip.

“We got our money back, but we’re the lucky ones,” the Wards say. After all, according to a 2020 report, the median currency forfeiture was $1,276, a sizable amount for most people, but less than half of the $3,000-plus in legal costs that it usually takes to fight an unjust seizure.

“For many Americans,” the Wards add, “it’s simply not worth the fight.”

Unfortunately, this shameful guilty-until-proven-innocent scheme is all too common, to the tune of more than $68 billion seized since 2000. It’s an inversion of our justice system, and it targets innocent Americans all across the country.

The same practice targeted Malinda Harris, an innocent Massachusetts grandmother whose car was stolen by the Berkshire County government, even though it never even suspected her of wrongdoing. County officials kept Malinda’s car for six long years, and they would have held onto it longer if the Goldwater Institute hadn’t taken the case and gotten it back. Something similar happened to Kevin McBride, an Arizona handyman whose Jeep was seized by Pima County officials because they suspected his girlfriend of a $25 crime. Had the Goldwater Institute not stepped in, the county would have forced him to pay $1,900 just to get his own property back.

Unfortunately, these cases are outliers only in that they had happy endings.

“It always made sense to us that police can seize criminals’ money when it’s being used for wrongdoing. We’re pro-law enforcement, and we think it’s important to equip police with the tools they need to crack down on crime,” the Wards explain. “But we also believe in being innocent until proven guilty…that’s not what’s happening with these laws.”

Innocent people shouldn’t need legal help just so a government office will return property that it stole. That’s why it’s important for state lawmakers to adopt commonsense legislation to address this issue, like the bill that the Goldwater Institute helped pass last year in Arizona, requiring state and local government agencies to obtain a criminal conviction before forcing citizens to forfeit their property. The law shifts the burden of proof from the accused, back onto accusers.

If we truly believe that Americans should be considered innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent, then we need to end the scourge of civil asset forfeiture entirely. The government should not be in the business of stealing its citizens’ property.

Law-abiding Americans deserve better.

READ MORE

Joe Setyon

Joe Setyon is the Communications Manager at the Goldwater Institute, a free market think tank dedicated to empowering Americans to live freer, happier lives. Prior to joining Goldwater, he worked in journalism as deputy managing editor at The Western Journal, and before that as an assistant editor at Reason magazine.

A native of Brooklyn, New York, Joe graduated in 2017 from Grove City College in Pennsylvania with a BA in Communication Studies.

Get notified of new articles from Joe Setyon and AIER.

SUBSCRIBE

The Social Security Collection Agency

Paul Jacob | Dec 28, 2014

To those nattering nabobs of negativity who don’t trust government to do the right thing, or even to stop doing the wrong thing once discovered, I just want to say: “You’re right.”

Again.

Last April, a Washington Post exposé about a bizarrely tyrannical debt collection program caused the Social Security Administration (SAA) to publicly promise it would cease and desist from said program. The Social Security bureaucracy had been snatching the income tax refund checks of grown children whose parents, many decades ago, had allegedly been sent excess money intended for the care and feeding of these then-youngsters by this same incompetent outfit.

The booty? A not insignificant $75 million. The victims? A whopping 400,000 of them.

Due process? The SSA didn’t go before a judge to prove these people owed a valid debt, nor even bother to inform folks that their tax refunds were being seized. Instead, the Social Security gang just flat-out took the money . . . surreptitiously, like any other thief in the night........To Read More.....