@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

dsurkin

@dsurkin@mastodon.social

Tax Attorney, NYC metropolitan area

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

I am almost finished with this week's blog post.

Meanwhile, my 3-year old neice (grand niece? what do I call my niece's daughter?) taught me to play hide and seek.

Here's how:

💠 I tell her where I'll hide.
💠She closes her eyes and counts to 10.
💠When she reaches 10, she opens her eyes and looks for me.
💠It does't take long to find me.
💠Then we laugh.

I suspect I am supposed to tell her where I will hide so she doesn't feel scared when she opens her eyes and doesn't see me.

dsurkin,
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield Grand-niece is correct.

Teri_Kanefield, (edited ) to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

If you read my weekend blog post, you know that I've been pointing out that the predicate crime in the Trump trial is not clear.

(For what I mean, see my weekend blog post).

Here is what the Washington Post reported.

See screenshots #1 and #2.

Here is the law: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152?utm_medium=email&wpisrc=nl-nationalpopup&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=wp_the_trump_trials

To be clear: I have no idea how this trial will turn out. I cannot substitute my judgment for the jury because I am not seeing what they are seeing.

1/

dsurkin,
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield As I understand it, part of "catch and kill" is that the source of the story has received a representation from the National Enquirer that they are selling a story for publication. This is an intentionally deceptive misrepresentation, since the National Enquirer does not intend to publish the story. As I've said before, I don't practice criminal law, but "catch and kill" sure sounds like fraud. Perhaps Penal Law §190.65, first degree fraud (a felony) applies?

dsurkin, (edited )
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield One thing that has puzzled me: since the falsified business records resulted in claiming a deduction for a non-deductible item, i.e., a substantial tax understatement, why has that not been set forth as the underlying felony? Tax Law §1803, class E felony for understatement in excess of $3,000. Unfortunately, I do not know any inside source who can answer this for me.

dsurkin,
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield To be deductible, an expense must be an ordinary and necessary business expense (I'll omit the cites but I'll supply them on request). It is not an ord. & nec, business expense for a real estate company to pay someone to keep quiet about an affair. The tax evasion was performed by Trump. Cohen probably reported the reimbursement because he asked to be compensated for the additional income tax he incurred. Nonetheless, your point is well taken; criminal law's not my field.

dsurkin,
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield I'm afraid I disagree. The expense doesn't qualify as an ordinary & necessary business expense, no matter what it's called. The underlying facts show a personal expense of the former guy, not an expense related to the operation of the business.

dsurkin,
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@lesblazemore @Teri_Kanefield No annoyance taken; I'm enjoying this exchange.

dsurkin,
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield @lesblazemore I'm afraid I haven't been clear - the tax underpayment - the fraud - appears to have been committed by Trump, the payer, by incorrectly characterize the payment. It appears that Cohen reported the income. Even if Cohen reported it as legal fees, the IRS cares about the amount of income reported, not the description of the item. For deductions, the payment must be a truly deductible. Note: Al Capone was convicted of tax fraud, because that was easiest to prove.

dsurkin,
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield The issue that must be proven is whether Trump knew what the invoice was truly for - and it wasn't legal fees.

dsurkin,
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield Hmm - I can cheerfully say that I don't understand what the prosecution is thinking about the tax fraud angle.

dsurkin,
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield Thanks. I'm in the middle of resolving a computer problem on my wife's machine; I'll get to the blog post later.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

JJ was moping around with his tail between his legs yesterday. We didn't know what was wrong.

Then we found the torn up and eaten box of cookies in my college-age son's bedroom.

Was the sad look guilt or a stomach ache?

(This dog cannot be trained not to eat cookies, but the college age boy should be trainable.)

dsurkin, (edited )
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield Two years ago, at the vet emergency room: it was my wife's birthday and a guest brought a box of dark chocolates. The guest left them in the spare bedroom on top of the coats and did not heed our warning to make sure the door was closed. The poor pup wound up spending all night at the hospital while they gave him fluids and meds to stabilize his heart rate. Like you said, the dog cannot be trained to not eat the food...

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

I'd like to add a bit more to what I said about this week's blog post:

https://mastodon.social/

Invented Narratives and the Outrage Industry

It took me several years to understand what I was seeing.

At first, I thought the problem was Twitter algorithms. I thought that was the explanation for why what I was calling rage-inducing simplifications spread like wildfire.

1/

dsurkin,
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield I will miss your comments on the latest legal development. I don't practice criminal law and I appreciated your explanations of the procedure relating to the former guy's cases.

Teri_Kanefield, (edited ) to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

We developed the habit of spelling W-A-L-K each time we want to say "walk" because if JJ hears the word, he leaps up, runs to the door, wags his tail and waits.

Could you say no to this face?

I think he now knows what "W-A-L-K" means because I spelled it out, and he's by the door demanding a you-know-what.

I guess I'm going for a walk.

dsurkin,
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield One of my dogs used to dance and run to the kitchen when someone would say "dessert." We started spelling it out, and within a week she started to dance and run to the kitchen when she heard "D E S S E R T."

Teri_Kanefield, (edited ) to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rudy-giuliani-verdict-defamation-trial-georgia-election-workers/

This is the end of Guilani. He's broken and finished.

It's also a warning to people who want to spread lies about others.

(Adding: Whatever Giuliani has, the plaintiffs will take.)

Also adding: I don't know anything about collecting judgments.

Also, cynical comments don't make you look worldly or clever. They make you look either cynical or naive as if you think we live in a fairy tale world.

dsurkin,
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@artemesia @not2b @Teri_Kanefield That's NY law - the plaintiff can continue collection procedures unless the defendant posts bond in the amount of the judgment. CPLR §5519(a)(2). The comparable federal rule is Rule 62(b).

dsurkin,
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield Giuliani says he will appeal. On appealing to reduce the amount of punitive damages, plaintiffs will likely point out that this significant judgment wasn't enough to stop Giuliani from continuing to make the same defamatory comments. In addition, appeals cost money. The typical retainer agreement provides that appeals require a new agreement and a new retainer (advance payment). I don't think he has the cash to do that.

dsurkin,
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@SteveBellovin @Teri_Kanefield @artemesia @not2b Thirty days automatic stay, extended stay by posting bond, and court has power to impose stay (but defendant will likely have to show a good reason).

Teri_Kanefield, to random

Someone asked me what I think is going on with Trump's lawyers attacking the clerk.

Yesterday I said this:

"It's hard to tell what is going on with that. My best guess is that Trump's lawyers are fatigued, know they are losing, and are getting weird and paranoid."

Judge Engoron, who sees it all up close, said there is misogyny.

I just saw a picture of the clerk and I have revised my opinion.

The judge may be right . . .

1/

dsurkin,
@dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

@Teri_Kanefield Law clerks in NY Supreme Court (for non-New Yorkers, that's the major trial court, not an appellate court) are lawyers characterized by their excellent credentials. Unlike in federal court where clerks get their jobs right out of school and serve a few years, the NY law clerks serve as long as the judge, or longer if a successor judge is pleased with the work. Usually attorneys trying to contact a judge contact the law clerk first.

Teri_Kanefield, to random

deleted_by_author

    •
    dsurkin,
    @dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

    @Teri_Kanefield I don't recall - were the charges against Powell misdemeanors or felonies? In reading the document, it appears that the prosecution did not offer reduced charges, only a reduced sentence. Here in NY, an attorney convicted of a felony loses their license. Do you think Powell will be relinquishing her license or have it taken away?

    Teri_Kanefield, to random

    deleted_by_author

    •
    dsurkin,
    @dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

    @Teri_Kanefield It appears that the App. Div. did not stay the portion of the order appointing a monitor. This, to my thinking, is the more important part of the court's order. My reason for that is that the cancellation of business certificates applies to General Obligation Law business certificates, not to LLC Articles of Formation. Trump's entities are LLCs, and I think it likely that they never filed - nor were they required to file - GOL business certificates.

    dsurkin,
    @dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

    @Teri_Kanefield The Washington Post article is, I think, misleading, because it starts with the claim of Trump's attorneys that he has not lost control of his companies. As I pointed out in my previous post and as the Wash. Post article says in paragraph 9, the receivership proceedings will continue. That sounds like loss of control to me.

    emptywheel, to random
    @emptywheel@mastodon.social avatar

    Why Reality TV Star Donald Trump Is More Trusted than Most News Outlets

    https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/10/02/why-reality-tv-star-donald-trump-is-more-trusted-than-most-news-outlets/

    dsurkin,
    @dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

    @emptywheel That's one of the most depressing columns I've read, and I'm afraid it's completely accurate.

    Teri_Kanefield, to random

    deleted_by_author

    •
    dsurkin,
    @dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

    @Teri_Kanefield Please refresh my memory: what is Habba's experience with handling high-end financial fraud cases?

    Teri_Kanefield, to random

    deleted_by_author

    •
    dsurkin,
    @dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

    @kkeller @Teri_Kanefield They perhaps didn't think they'd get a favorable jury pool, and they (mistakenly) were so taken with their quasi-legal arguments that they thought a bench trial would prioritize legal arguments over facts.

    Teri_Kanefield, (edited ) to random

    deleted_by_author

    •
    dsurkin,
    @dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

    @Teri_Kanefield Jeff Clark lost his motion to remove his case to federal court. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/jeff-clark-loses-bid-to-remove-georgia-rico-case-to-federal-court

    Teri_Kanefield, to random

    deleted_by_author

    •
    dsurkin,
    @dsurkin@mastodon.social avatar

    @Teri_Kanefield Yes, I've seen that fraud clause in loan documents. I would call that a non-curable default, triggering a call, which in turn would support a foreclosure action. However, the fraud clause alone won't let the lender go after the principals of the borrower. There would have to be a civil case to piece the LLC veil. I think the lenders have reasonable grounds, and defendant's usual policy of throwing lawyers at it won't work against lenders' lawyers (who are likely better).

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • megavids
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • osvaldo12
  • GTA5RPClips
  • mdbf
  • Youngstown
  • tacticalgear
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • kavyap
  • ethstaker
  • everett
  • khanakhh
  • JUstTest
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • cubers
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • ngwrru68w68
  • cisconetworking
  • modclub
  • Durango
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • tester
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •