The whole thing is just the judge riddling Trump's Lionel Hutz-tier lawyers with bullet holes.
Like, he opens with calling them sophists trapped in the time loop from Groundhog Day:
Defendants arguments that OAG has neither capacity nor standing to sue under Executive Law 63( 12) , and that the disclaimers of non-party accountants Mazars insulate defendants, invoke the time-loop in the film Groundhog Day. " This Court emphatically rejected these arguments in its preliminary injunction decision and in its dismissal decision, and the First Department affirmed both. Defendants contention that a different procedural posture mandates a reconsideration , or a fortiori, a reversal, is pure sophistry
It goes through page after page of the judge dismantling them for totally misinterpreting (or misrepresenting) a bunch of cases, and literally not knowing what counted as precedent in the court they were in. Like when they invoked a "consumer" ruling that did not have the word consumer in it:
Defendants glaringly misrepresent the requirements of an Executive Law 63( 12) cause of action. Citing to People v Northern Leasing Sys. Inc., 70 Misc 3d 256, 267 (Sup , NY County 2021), defendants assert that OAG must show the practice is one likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances . NYSCEF Doc. No. 835 at 42. However, the word consumer does not appear anywhere in the referenced decision, and defendants characterization of its holding is inaccurate.
Or when Honest Don put in a disclaimer that his accountants hadn't reviewed the numbers, so he therefore could not have committed fraud...for some reason. The judge points out that his lawyers have basically just proven he's guilty:
Defendants, yet again , argue that OAG's complaint must be dismissed because the contain language, provided by non-party accountants Mazars, that indicate that they have not audited or reviewed the accompanying financial statements and therefore cannot express an opinion as to whether the financial statements comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( GAAP ) However , as this Court already ruled , these non-party disclaimers do not insulate defendants from liability , as they plainly state that Donald J. Trump is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation ofthe financial statement in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and for designing , implementing, and maintaining internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statement.
In sum, the Mazars disclaimers put the onus for accuracy squarely on defendants shoulders.
Trump has been sued so much that the judge had to point out that the precedent against one of their arguments was literally a previous Trump case from 2010:
Also fatally flawed is defendants reliance on People v Frink Am. Inc., 2 AD3d 1379, 1380 (4th Dept 2003), as it relies on the outdated proposition that Executive Law 63( 12) does not create any new causes of action and thus , the remedy of disgorgement is unavailable . NYSCEF Doc. No.835at73-74 However, in Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, in which at least three of the instant defendants were parties, the First Department unambiguously declared that the Attorney General is, in fact, authorized to bring a cause of action for fraud under Executive Law 63 (12)
Which was almost as bad as when the judge had to cite rulings from the case they're currently in:
In flagrant disregard of prior orders of this Court and the First Department , defendants repeat the untenable notion that disgorgement is unavailable as a matter of law in Executive Law 63(12)actions. NYSCEFDoc.No.835at70. This is patently false, as defendants are, or certainly should be, aware that the Appellate Division, First Department made it clear in this very case that we have already held that the failure to allege losses does not require dismissal of a claim for disgorgement under Executive Law 63( 12). Trump , 217 AD3d at 610.
Like, it just goes on and on and on. More highlights from various other terrible arguments they made:
In fact, had defendants not cut off the beginning of the sentence they cited, it would be evident on its face that such case is legally irrelevant
Defendants also incorrectly rely on Abrahami v UPC Const. Co., 224 AD2d 231, 233 ( 1st Dept 1996), for the proposition that "merely providing copies of purportedly false financial
statements is insufficient."
However, Fletcher is not an Executive Law 63(12) action, it was brought as a corporate tort; accordingly, is not relevant here.
However, defendants neglect to mention that Direct Revenue was superseded , and essentially overruled, in 2016 by the New York Court of Appeals in People v Greenberg, which unequivocally held that disgorgement is an available remedy under the Martin Act and the Executive Law."
Defendants incorrectly posit that, under People v Ernst & Young LLP, 114 AD3d 569 ( 1st Dept 2014), disgorgement is available under the Martin Act but not under Executive Law 63( 12) . NYSCEF Doc. No. 836 at 73. This is simply untrue.
...and I'm only at page 8 of 35 here. So I'll leave off with (part of) this lengthy section of him calling the lawyers morons:
Defendants conduct in reiterating these frivolous arguments is egregious . We are way beyond the point of sophisticated counsel should have known better ; we are at the point of intentional and blatant disregard of controlling authority and law of the case. This Court emphatically rejected these arguments, as did the First Department. Defendants repetition of them here is indefensible.