It's like someone has never heard of the fleet of electric boats that's been cruising around Newport Harbor for....seriously, what, 30 years now? Electric boats are not exactly new tech. He's a fucking idiot, a complete fucking moron. Seriously, if you support him in any way, if you would even think of voting for him, you need to own the fact that you are on team "the dumbest man alive."
Really glad someone got around to posting this. Some FACTS that DalTx apparently needs to hear repeatedly:
1) Summary Judgment IS a trial. It is a trial in which the judge determines "questions of law on which there is no issue of disputed material fact." My practice involves a shitload of these: the facts are not in dispute, what happened and what was said/done were done in the open, and aren't in dispute. What they MEAN, legally, is what's in dispute -- and that's for a judge to decide.
2) When a Summary Judgment DOES depend on some facts (e.g., even if they aren't disputed facts, they do need to be in the record), the party making the motion submits those facts. Maybe those facts are a) a copy of the signed contract, b) a copy of the letter from the other side saying "we're not paying you for this month's delivery, and c) an affidavit from my client verifying that indeed, he did not receive payment. Depo testimony is also commonly used. Presuming those are undisputed facts, then the court will consider the legal question presented by those facts.
3) Facts CAN be disputed in a Summary Judgment proceeding. In my example above, see my example of the affidavit saying "nope, I never received payment." But maybe the other side disputes that -- THEY submit an affidavit that says "That's not true, I paid you. See the attached check and bank record indicating my $10k payment for your August invoice." That fact is now DISPUTED, and my Summary Judgment motion would be DENIED.
4) DENIAL of a summary judgment motion doesn't mean that the non-moving party won their case. It means that they survived this procedural challenge, and the question now goes on to a full trial (yes, with cross examination etc.).
What this means re: TRUMPCO: The DA presented a motion, saying "these are the facts: a) these are the representations made, and b) these are the actual values/dimensions of the properties/assets at issue. BASED ON THOSE UNDISPUTED AND UNDISPUTABLE FACTS, the elements of our NY fraud case are established." Trumpco HAD EVERY RIGHT to dispute any of those facts -- things like "that's not what was actually said," or more likely "that is only part of what was said, here's the full disclosure with the detailed valuation numbers," and "also, the actual values/dimensions of the properties are not what the DA says they are" [it seems they made a halfhearted attempt at this, but it's functionally impossible to create a "disputed factual issue" on objective measurements].
Trumpco had every chance to put on evidence that would save their case. They didn't even have to prove their position, they just had to raise a QUESTION of fact, by introducing "more than a scintilla" of evidence. Trumpco failed to do so, even when given the chance. That's what summary judgment is, and what it means. You fucking dumbass.