Dana Loesch's Chapter and Verse

Dana Loesch's Chapter and Verse

Share this post

Dana Loesch's Chapter and Verse
Dana Loesch's Chapter and Verse
Last Week In Legal: Fraud Appeal Edition

Last Week In Legal: Fraud Appeal Edition

Hunter's sentencing pushed back, again, Trump's appeal in the James case heard, and so much more.

Lorraine Yuriar's avatar
Lorraine Yuriar
Oct 02, 2024
∙ Paid
17

Share this post

Dana Loesch's Chapter and Verse
Dana Loesch's Chapter and Verse
Last Week In Legal: Fraud Appeal Edition
1
Share

Hunter Biden Legal Troubles

Gun Case

His sentencing has been pushed back for a second time. Now, instead of December 4, it will be December 12.

Other News

Hunter’s former business associate, Dan Burrell, was arrested for writing a bad check worth $1.5 million to a casino in Vegas. Seems things haven’t been going well for him in recent years.


Carroll 2: Appeal

Hollywierd is making a “documentary” about the case, starring Kathryn Hahn.

Business Fraud Case

The Appeals case was heard and streamed online; however, I highly recommend watching it through Joe “GoodLawgic” Nierman’s stream. Joe is a New York Lawyer and offers insights into how the courts in New York work.

The very first question for the AG’s office, from Justice David Friedman, completely destroyed the whole case.

“Can you identify any previous case in which the AG sued under executive law 63.12 to upset a PRIVATE business transaction that was between equally sophisticated partners, where the supposed victim had the ability and legal obligation to discover the allegedly misrepresented matters by conducting its own due diligence where the supposed wrongdoer advised the supposed victim through written disclaimer to conduct its own due diligence and to draw its own conclusions, where the alleged misrepresentation almost entirely concerned inherently subjective valuations of properties and businesses, and where the victim NEVER COMPLAINED about any fraud in the transactions or losses from it?”

The hearing went downhill for the AG’s Office after that. Based on the questions asked, the judges seem to be 3-2 in favor of Trump. However, Justice Peter Moulton, one of the two judges who seemed to be against Trump, said he was concerned about the extremely high penalty:

“The immense penalty in this case is troubling,” said Justice Peter Moulton. “How do you tether the amount that was assessed by the Supreme Court to the harm that was caused here where the parties left these transactions happy?”

There is nothing left to do here but wait for the ruling.

This post is for paid subscribers

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in
© 2025 Dana Loesch
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start writingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture

Share