Driving drunk is victimless, if you get lucky and don’t kill anyone.
I agree about that paragraph. The fraud issue and the demand for restitution there seems right to me.
I just wondered about the dissolution of his corporation and revocation of his business license? Is there precedent for that?
I also noticed that the author teaches at Yale, and used to work for Edwin Meese. So not exactly a distinguished resume.
I suspect that’s the main point of the authors of this piece:
“Taxation is theft and the state has no right to take your money via taxes.”
That seems to fit with their philosophy.
The fact that such a thing as a business license even exists implies that it’s possible to revoke one.
I forgot that we’re dealing with libertarians here, that’s very much on brand.
Corporations are creatures of statute. They are created according to the terms of the state’s corporations law and must operate within the rules set by that law. Serious breaches of corporate law can lead to dissolution of the corporation. I don’t see anything there, speaking as an outsider. There’s no constitutional right to have a corporation.
Let me note, I work for my state government and my agency deals with businesses and licensing in my state. The actions that New York are proposing here are routine. My agency revokes business licenses all the time. It’s not a criminal matter at all. The article in question is pretty ignorant.
What’s happening to Trump happens to others all the time. I hear about similar cases frequently. The only reason why this case is remarkable is because it involves Trump.
I also don’t get the reference to a bill of attainder. Historically, a bill of attainder was passed by the English Parliament to convict an individual of crimes by legislation. No judicial process, nothing in court. Parliament just declared that the Duke of Wotshire was guilty of treason, murder, etc. Off to the Tower, and off with his head!
That’s nothing like what is happening here. The NY legislature passed the statute in question decades ago, setting out the legal standards to be followed, and creating this civil enforcement provision.
The AG NY has brought the action under that statute. The NY court is hearing the evidence and arguments to determine if Trump Org has breached the statute. If it has, the court has to determine the appropriate penalties, whether monetary or related to corporate compliance.
That’s how laws work all the time: declared in advance by the legislature, administered by the executive, and allegations of breach of the statute determined by the courts, after trials and due process.
Good points. I guess I’m concerned that Trump, and his enablers will find a way to save him. It just doesn’t seem possible that he will see consequences for his acts.
I hope you’re right.
< channeling MAGAts: “That sounds Woke!” >
Agree 100%. As soon as I got to the “victimless crime” bit, I was done.
And victims never need to accuse perpetrators of crimes. It usually makes the police’s job easier when they do, but if a victim accusation were necessary, it’d be impossible to prosecute murder.
Thanks for talking me off the ledge.
You might also want to check out this thread from the time the trial started, discussing the nature of the civil proceedings:
A point of confusion seems to be that some people think either there is a criminal trial for fraud, or a civil suit brought by the victim; nothing in between.
The law in this case is something different: it’s based on the assumption that dishonest business practices harm the community, even if it doesn’t amount to a criminal offence. Therefore a public civil action has been created by the statute, to give the AG NY the power to bring an action to correct the improper business practices.
Absolutely. People who are harmed by fraudulent borrowing include other businesses competing honestly to try to raise funds in a finite capital market. This is actual harm to the community, even if it is hard to isolate and quantify.
And although these lenders got lucky and did get repaid, the fact is that a significant portion of the collateral that was supposed to protect them in more adverse circumstances did not exist because Trump lied about it. Prosecuting somebody for fraudulent activity that is potentially harmful is conceptually no different from keeping drunk drivers off the street because they are drunk without waiting for them to actually kill someone.
Also lying to the bank about the worth of your assets is fraud. By ballooning his net worth, he got a lower interest rate. (This guy’s low risk - not). That’s less income for the bank and shareholders even if it’s repaid. The bank’s (evil corporation) sole responsibility is to its stockholders (something Supreme Court decision).
And costs and benefits that are hard to isolate are a big part of the reason why we have governments to begin with, so it makes perfect sense that the government should be able to bring suit in a case like this.
I’m also going to guess that the banks who suffered financial harm due to Trump’s extensive fraud:
-
Have to evaluate the likely public relations hit (esp. to share price) to announcing loudly that they let themselves get ripped off by a well-known con man, and
-
Have to consider the possible exposure to a shareholder lawsuit (eg, Class Action for Breach of Fiduciary Obligation) if they attenuated due diligence for any of a host of not-so-noble reasons.
And that’s in addition to the point made above:
The New York Legislature enacted Executive Law § 63(12) to combat fraudulent and illegal commercial conduct in New York. Under this provision, “[w]henever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York” for disgorgement and other equitable relief (Executive Law § 63[12]). The Attorney General is not suing on behalf of a private individual, but is vindicating the state’s sovereign interest in enforcing its legal code – including its civil legal code – within its jurisdiction.
[bolding added]
The law was passed in 1956, while Jacob Javits was attorney general [Ed: and Averell Harriman was the Governor].
It points up the logical deficiency in Glibertarian dogma.
My property rights supersede everything else, and you cannot impinge upon them by counting my property as collateral against the tax obligation that you claim that I owe.
Okayfine. If you do not want to support the government that establishes and maintains recognition of your property title, then you are welcome to attempt to defend “your property” from any and all takers, and do fail to ask for help from the police, who are funded by our taxes (but apparently not yours).
Exactly. Want to cut yourself off from supporting society? Fine.
Then you’re on your own. Expect a bunch of us to come and take everything you own. Good luck to you.