A judge has ruled that Donald Trump committed fraud for years while building the real estate empire that catapulted him to fame and the White House. Judge Arthur Engoron, ruling Tuesday in a civil lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general, found that the former president and his company deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth to make deals and secure financing.

The decision, days before the start of a nonjury trial in state Atty. Gen. Letitia James’ lawsuit, is one of the strongest repudiations yet of Trump’s carefully coiffed image as a wealthy and shrewd real estate mogul turned political powerhouse.

It comes amid numerous state and federal criminal cases Trump is facing as he seeks the Republican nomination for reelection in 2024. Beyond mere bragging about and exaggerating his wealth, Trump, along with his company and its key executives, repeatedly lied about it on his annual financial statements, reaping rewards such as favorable loan terms and lower insurance premiums, Engoron found.

Those tactics crossed a line and violated the law, the judge said, rejecting Trump’s contention that a disclaimer on the financial statements absolved him of any wrongdoing. Manhattan prosecutors had looked into bringing a criminal case over the same conduct but declined to do so, leaving James to sue Trump and seek penalties that could disrupt his and his family’s ability to do business in the state.

Engoron’s ruling, in a phase of the case known as summary judgment, resolves the key claim in James’ lawsuit, but six others remain. Engoron is slated to preside over a nonjury trial starting next Monday before deciding on those claims and any punishments he may impose.

James is seeking $250 million in penalties and a ban on Trump doing business in New York, his home state. The trial could last into December, Engoron has said. Trump’s lawyers had asked the judge to throw out the case, contending that James wasn’t allowed to file the lawsuit because there isn’t any evidence that the public was harmed by Trump’s actions.

They also argued that many of the allegations in the lawsuit were beyond the statute of limitations.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Judge rules Donald Trump defrauded banks, insurers while building real estate empire appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Insurance companies collected more than $150 billion in premiums from California homeowners over the last 25 years and enjoyed profits at four times the national average. Now they’re demanding an unprecedented bailout from the California Legislature as the price of continuing to do business here in the wake of wildfire losses.

Industry lobbyists are reportedly negotiating with lawmakers, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office toward a deal that would be unveiled in the last weeks before the Legislature adjourns on Sept. 14. The industry’s plan would advance its decades-long drive to undermine the protections of Proposition 103, the insurance reform measure passed by voters 35 years ago. The proposal would allow insurance companies to hike rates without full transparency or justification; force policyholders to assume the staggering costs of insurers’ backup coverage for unexpected losses; and use secret algorithms to set premiums.

These currently illegal practices are likely to raise property insurance premiums by 40% or more. Many more customers could be forced into the California FAIR (Fair Access to Insurance Requirements) Plan, a state-created, industry-controlled association that offers less generous, last-resort coverage at higher prices.

Worse, the proposed bailout relieves insurance companies of their responsibility to cover all losses under the FAIR Plan, forcing the state’s policyholders to shoulder the burden through mandatory surcharges on their insurance bills. The proposal would incentivize insurance companies to push their riskiest customers into the FAIR Plan and make other policyholders subsidize their claims. Insurers would retain only their most profitable customers.

Some lawmakers have suggested that capitulating to the industry’s demands for deregulation, vastly higher premiums and zero risk is necessary to lure insurance companies back to California. Companies such as State Farm, Allstate and Farmers have orchestrated an insurance shortage in the state by refusing to sell new policies and improperly dumping existing customers. But the companies’ proposal does not guarantee that anyone who wants to buy insurance coverage will be able to do so.

Nor has surrendering to industry demands worked in Florida. Under Gov. Ron DeSantis, rate regulation is weak, insurers are opaque and companies are allowed to pass on the cost of reinsurance and impose surcharges on policyholders if the state’s FAIR Plan equivalent falls short. And yet homeowner premiums are two to three times higher than in California, the proportion of policyholders with last-resort insurance is five times greater, and companies are rapidly abandoning the state anyhow.

Under the California Constitution, the Legislature is barred from amending the terms of Proposition 103 except to further the initiative’s purposes. Courts have repeatedly invalidated legislation that weakens those reforms, as the industry’s latest proposal does. Whatever their personal views, lawmakers must respect the voters’ will and insist that insurance companies do the same.

By waiting until the last days of legislative business to negotiate such a bailout, lawmakers are cynically attempting to bypass public scrutiny and debate while undermining the credibility of their institution. As the Legislature’s 1996 deregulation of utility rates showed, poorly vetted, industry-backed proposals can become costly debacles for California consumers and taxpayers.

There are many legitimate ways to address the impact of wildfires and other extreme weather events without bailing out the industry or allowing it to avoid transparency and accountability. Our leaders should take the time to look into them.

For example, money from a proposed climate bond and the state’s cap-and-trade program could be deployed to help homeowners take precautions that reduce the risk of loss from extreme events such as wildfires. Rather than allowing insurance companies to make land use policy through rates, state and local authorities ought to develop rational rules to guide construction in high-risk areas. And insurance companies should be given a deadline to stop insuring and investing in the oil and gas companies that are fueling climate change.

Finally, as a condition for the privilege of selling any kind of insurance in California, companies must be required to cover all homeowners who have taken appropriate measures to protect their property. And insurers that choose to leave the state should not be allowed to return for five years. Companies that collect our premiums for decades and then suddenly decide they don’t want to obey our laws should not be allowed to do business in the largest and most lucrative insurance market in the nation.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post How home insurers are trying to bully California politicians into a disastrous bailout appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.