Quote:

---

How did the judge come up with the numbers?

---

I am guessing he had an impaction, and a doctor pulled it out out of his butt.

eric76 said:

---

How did the judge come up with the numbers?

If they are entirely fines, then they would seem to be excessive.

If they are largely the disgorgement of money that he got as a result of fraud, then they might not be excessive. After all, if someone commits fraud to take $500,000,000, then a $10 fine wouldn't be much of a deterrant.

---

The award is purportedly-based upon a calculation of the difference between the interest that he paid and the interest that would have been paid if the valuations had been accurately represented.

Personally, I am skeptical of the numbers. I expected a figure of less than $100mm.

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

How did the judge come up with the numbers?

If they are entirely fines, then they would seem to be excessive.

If they are largely the disgorgement of money that he got as a result of fraud, then they might not be excessive. After all, if someone commits fraud to take $500,000,000, then a $10 fine wouldn't be much of a deterrant.

---

The award is purportedly-based upon a calculation of the difference between the interest that he paid and the interest that would have been paid if the valuations had been accurately represented.

Personally, I am skeptical of the numbers. I expected a figure of less than $100mm.

---

Wouldn't the banks have done their own appraisals, and used those for determining interest rates?

Antoninus said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Thank you. But if he offers a $500 MM property as collateral on a $350 MM bond, someone will do that, won't they?

---

Does Trump own anything worth $500mm that is not already collateral on other obligations? I doubt it, and I doubt that any potential surety will be willing to accept a second lien on such a property as collateral for a bond.

But you are correct. It is certainly THEORETICALLY possible for him to obtain a surety bond. I just think it is unlikely that he will be able to find a financial institutition that is both willing and acceptable to the New York court system.

---

Think you nailed where this is headed….

It needs to be "acceptable to the New York court system"

If the court system is corrupt enough to impose this judgement then it's certainly corrupt enough to shoot down any reasonable solution trump's lawyers put forward for a collateral bond.

jjtrcka22 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

How did the judge come up with the numbers?

If they are entirely fines, then they would seem to be excessive.

If they are largely the disgorgement of money that he got as a result of fraud, then they might not be excessive. After all, if someone commits fraud to take $500,000,000, then a $10 fine wouldn't be much of a deterrant.

---

The award is purportedly-based upon a calculation of the difference between the interest that he paid and the interest that would have been paid if the valuations had been accurately represented.

Personally, I am skeptical of the numbers. I expected a figure of less than $100mm.

---

Wouldn't the banks have done their own appraisals, and used those for determining interest rates?

---

Yes, on a big loan like this, the bank is certainly going to have an appraisal and a good idea of how much they can safely loan. If the bank ignored that and loaned more than was safe it was just as much their fault as Trumps'.
Trump might even be able to sue the bank(s) for their half of the fine he owes since they agreed to the deal that New York now finds so horrible.

jja79 said:

---

Since no one suffered a financial loss to whom is this paid?

---

Dem machine!!

Rongagin71 said:

---

jjtrcka22 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

How did the judge come up with the numbers?

If they are entirely fines, then they would seem to be excessive.

If they are largely the disgorgement of money that he got as a result of fraud, then they might not be excessive. After all, if someone commits fraud to take $500,000,000, then a $10 fine wouldn't be much of a deterrant.

---

The award is purportedly-based upon a calculation of the difference between the interest that he paid and the interest that would have been paid if the valuations had been accurately represented.

Personally, I am skeptical of the numbers. I expected a figure of less than $100mm.

---

Wouldn't the banks have done their own appraisals, and used those for determining interest rates?

---

Yes, on a big loan like this, the bank is certainly going to have an appraisal and a good idea of how much they can safely loan. If the bank ignored that and loaned more than was safe it was just as much their fault as Trumps'.
Trump might even be able to sue the bank(s) for their half of the fine he owes since they agreed to the deal that New York now finds so horrible.

---

That would be an interesting and fun idea.

Since they agreed with the valuations, they should also be culpable for violating the statute.

They ALSO misrepresented the value that the judge determined was correct. And, because they issued the loan, they had to have KNOWINGLY misrepresented it.

BTHOtrolls said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

Thank you. But if he offers a $500 MM property as collateral on a $350 MM bond, someone will do that, won't they?

---

Does Trump own anything worth $500mm that is not already collateral on other obligations? I doubt it, and I doubt that any potential surety will be willing to accept a second lien on such a property as collateral for a bond.

But you are correct. It is certainly THEORETICALLY possible for him to obtain a surety bond. I just think it is unlikely that he will be able to find a financial institution that is both willing and acceptable to the New York court system.

---

Think you nailed where this is headed….

It needs to be "acceptable to the New York court system"

---

Of course it does. The whole point of allowing a bond rather than a cash deposit is that the surety is an institution the court can be CERTAIN will pay the judgment, if the defendant fails to do so. If Trump walks down to Bubba's Bonds and gets them to issue a promise to pay $400mm dollars, it is unlikely that ol' Bubba is going to satisfy the court, because the court is going to have serious (and justified) concerns about Bubba's ability to pay the Judgment on Trump's behalf.

No court in this country (including courts in Deep Red states) is going to accept an appellate bond from anything OTHER than an institution the court KNOWS will be ready, willing and able to "pay up" if necessary.

What exactly did he do again that he has to pay $350 million whether it's b******* or not I can't imagine running over some kid on a bicycle in the school zone drinking and driving where the judgment would be less than that

But we all know that this is political terrorist due to differences of him and I can tell you this God's going to bring it back to him a hundredfold

Vengeance is God's and it will be coming because this is flat out evil and corruption

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Never.

This won't survive appeals.

---

I wonder on what specific grounds it might it be successfully appealed.

---

No one will answer.

It is like the typical hoodrat criminal defendant, chanting the mantra of "I'm gonna appeal!"

On what basis, my friend? Where is the reversible error?

"I don't like this result" is not a legally-sound appellate point.

---

How about ZERO evidence of a crime? How about that as a basis of appeal??

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

It is like the typical hoodrat criminal defendant, chanting the mantra of "I'm gonna appeal!" On what basis, my friend? Where is the reversible error? "I don't like this result" is not a legally-sound appellate point.

---

How about ZERO evidence of a crime? How about that as a basis of appeal??

---

Given that this was not a criminal proceeding, I don't see a lot of traction in that argument.

Governor Hochul just helped with Trump's appeal.

Quote:

---

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) addressed New York business owners in a new interview and told them there was "nothing to worry about" after former President Trump was hit with a $355 million fine and the inability to conduct business in New York for three years.

Hochul joined John Catsimatidis on "The Cats Roundtable" on WABC 770 AM where she was asked if other New York businesspeople should be worried that if "they can do that to the former president, they can do that to anybody."

---

Quote:

---

"I think that this is really an extraordinary unusual circumstance that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about because they're very different than Donald Trump and his behavior," Hochul responded.

---

No, they are not, Governor. They all do the exact same thing.

Quote:

---

Hochul said there was no way she would overrule Engoron's decision because "we need a clear separation of powers." She added that "that's what was envisioned by our Founding Fathers."

The governor provided reassurance to New York businesses after the ruling. "By and large, they are honest people and they're not trying to hide their assets and they're following the rules," she said of the people who own and conduct business in the New York City area.

"And so this judge determined that Donald Trump did not follow the rules. He was prosecuted and truly, the governor of the state of New York does not have a say in the size of a fine, and we want to make sure that we don't have that level of interference," she said.

---

LINK

fc2112 said:

---

jja79 said:

---

Since no one suffered a financial loss to whom is this paid?

---

Irrelevant

---

So it's extortion. Got it.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

eric76 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

I hate this country. Leftists are cancer cells.

---

I don't hate the country, but do consider extremists of any persuasion to be cancer cells.

---

Let's test that: was this judgement fair or a political attack that was the result of judge and jury shopping to get a verdict

---

What jury? Let that sink in.

jjtrcka22 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

How did the judge come up with the numbers?

If they are entirely fines, then they would seem to be excessive.

If they are largely the disgorgement of money that he got as a result of fraud, then they might not be excessive. After all, if someone commits fraud to take $500,000,000, then a $10 fine wouldn't be much of a deterrant.

---

The award is purportedly-based upon a calculation of the difference between the interest that he paid and the interest that would have been paid if the valuations had been accurately represented.

Personally, I am skeptical of the numbers. I expected a figure of less than $100mm.

---

Wouldn't the banks have done their own appraisals, and used those for determining interest rates?

---

Yes, and the banks, including the state's own witness from Deutsche Bank, testified at the trial that they did exactly that - performed their own due diligence, ignored Trump's alleged fraudulent documents, and relied solely on their own due diligence to arrive at the rates, terms and conditions for the loans.

This testimony directly refutes the state's claim that Trump received favorable rates due to his fraudulent documents to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

cheeky said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Let's test that: was this judgement fair or a political attack that was the result of judge and jury shopping to get a verdict

---

What jury? Let that sink in.

---

Every time someone files a lawsuit that this crowd does not like, we hear choruses of "The Judge Should Throw This Out!"

As soon as a judge makes a ruling that keeps something from a jury on a claim where the majority LIKES the plaintiff, we see this sort of nonsense.

Antoninus said:

---

cheeky said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Let's test that: was this judgement fair or a political attack that was the result of judge and jury shopping to get a verdict

---

What jury? Let that sink in.

---

Every time someone files a lawsuit that this crowd does not like, we hear choruses of "The Judge Should Throw This Out!"

As soon as a judge makes a ruling that keeps something from a jury on a claim where the majority LIKES the plaintiff, we see this sort of nonsense.

---

So, based on your response (and for the record), you agree with Engoron. A case with zero evidence, should cost a defendant $350 million. That seems reasonable to you. Please respond directly to my question.

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

cheeky said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Let's test that: was this judgement fair or a political attack that was the result of judge and jury shopping to get a verdict

---

What jury? Let that sink in.

---

Every time someone files a lawsuit that this crowd does not like, we hear choruses of "The Judge Should Throw This Out!"

As soon as a judge makes a ruling that keeps something from a jury on a claim where the majority LIKES the plaintiff, we see this sort of nonsense.

---

So, based on your response (and for the record), you agree with Engoron. A case with zero evidence, should cost a defendant $350 million. That seems reasonable to you. Please respond directly to my question.

---

You have major focus issues, amigo. I commented about the lack of a jury, and you are demanding that I address your concerns regarding the amount of the restitution award?

On exactly what point is it that you think I agree with Engoron? We can certainly examine your (probably mistaken) belief, once you manage to state it in clear and concise English.

If you are asking whether I think that Engoron ruled correctly in excluding the supporting affidavits that Trump submitted in response to the MSJ, "yes." I have seen those affidavits, and they were in fact entirely conclusory and therefore inadmissible. Try to wrap your brain around the fact that this assessment is not remotely political. It is a simple application of the Rules of Evidence.

[Please don't be snarky and condescending when engaging in discussions and debates with other users. This only serves to create a more contentious dialogue where one need not exist. Thanks. -Staff]

He can appeal but the interest starts on day one, something like a million a day.

[This one got you a timeout. Please be respectful. - Staff]

BMX Bandit said:

---

There is no "deadline" to pay. In Texas, assume New York similar, there is a 30
Day stay on they trying to collect the judgment. If Trump wants them to not try to collect during appeal, then a bond is necessary.

---

Unless he's able to secure a stay on the collection during the appeal process.

jja79 said:

---

Since no one suffered a financial loss to whom is this paid?

---

Same question. I assume this is merely the NYC government stealing $350 million for themselves.

AggieUSMC said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

There is no "deadline" to pay. In Texas, assume New York similar, there is a 30
Day stay on they trying to collect the judgment. If Trump wants them to not try to collect during appeal, then a bond is necessary.

---

Unless he's able to secure a stay on the collection during the appeal process.

---

which he can do by… get this… posting that appeal bond.

Back on the topic...
I'm not an attorney, but if I was Trump's team I would focus an appeal on the absurdity of the amount of the fine/judgement.

The basis for the amount is the state's claim that Trump received favorable rates from the banks due to his alleged fraudulent documentation. But actual trial testimony by the banks and other financial experts (including the state's own witness from one of the lenders) shows that the state's claim of the favorable rates is demonstrably false. The banks ignored Trump's documents, performed their own due diligence, and provided rates based on their own due diligence.

Thus, even if Trump cannot successfully appeal that he didn't commit the fraud, and even if he can't successfully appeal that this is a case of selective enforcement of the statute, he can successfully appeal (backed by actual testimony) that the disgorgement/actual benefit obtained by the alleged fraud was $0.

The legal appeal approach to the "how can it be fraud if there is no victim" approach so many on here are touting.

TheRatt87 said:

---

Back on the topic...
I'm not an attorney, but if I was Trump's team I would focus an appeal on the absurdity of the amount of the fine/judgement.

The basis for the amount is the state's claim that Trump received favorable rates from the banks due to his alleged fraudulent documentation. But actual trial testimony by the banks and other financial experts (including the state's own witness from one of the lenders) shows that the state's claim of the favorable rates is demonstrably false. The banks ignored Trump's documents, performed their own due diligence, and provided rates based on their own due diligence.

---

Let's look at the text of the statute. That is usually a good place to start, when seeking appeal of a statutory enforcement proceeding.

Quote:

---

Section 63(12).

Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. ....

---

Both "restitution" and "damages" tie back to "what someone lost as a result of the actions of the Defendant." Given that there is no evidence Trump's misrepresentations caused ANY alteration in the behavior of the Lenders (vis-a-vis interest rates, at least), it is rather difficult to imagine how either "restitution" or "damages" could be calculated.

Quote:

---

Thus, even if Trump cannot successfully appeal that he didn't commit the fraud, and even if he can't successfully appeal that this is a case of selective enforcement of the statute, he can successfully appeal (backed by actual testimony) that the disgorgement/actual benefit obtained by the alleged fraud was $0.

The legal appeal approach to the "how can it be fraud if there is no victim" approach so many on here are touting.

---

That would certainly appear to be his most-productive avenue for an appeal.

Honestly, for this reason, I was expecting a smaller monetary award and a longer ban.

He said he Hass 700m liquid, so I'm sure he'll just pay the sum vs interest plus sum

Quote:

---

Both "restitution" and "damages" tie back to "what someone lost as a result of the actions of the Defendant." Given that there is no evidence Trump's misrepresentations caused ANY alteration in the behavior of the Lenders (vis-a-vis interest rates, at least), it is rather difficult to imagine how either "restitution" or "damages" could be calculated.

---

Not really.

Let's say I'm a house-flipper. I lie to get a $100,000 mortgage loan, flip the house, sell it for $200,000, and then repay the bank the $100,000 (plus some interest).

The bank hasn't been hurt. My $100,000 in profits are still ill-gotten and restitution would say I don't get to keep that $100,000.


The whole idea of disgorgement is to prevent wrongdoers from profiting.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Both "restitution" and "damages" tie back to "what someone lost as a result of the actions of the Defendant." Given that there is no evidence Trump's misrepresentations caused ANY alteration in the behavior of the Lenders (vis-a-vis interest rates, at least), it is rather difficult to imagine how either "restitution" or "damages" could be calculated.

---

Not really.

Let's say I'm a house-flipper. I lie to get a $100,000 mortgage loan, flip the house, sell it for $200,000, and then repay the bank the $100,000 (plus some interest).

The bank hasn't been hurt. My $100,000 in profits are still ill-gotten and restitution would say I don't get to keep that $100,000.


The whole idea of disgorgement is to prevent wrongdoers from profiting.

---

I understand that.

But in your example, the flipper made money that he would not have made without the misrepresentation, because he would not have gotten the loan without the misrepresentation. So it is easy to calculate the (let's use your term) "disgorgement" figure.

In this case, Trump's misrepresentation did NOT induce the loan, and the bank would have loaned the money and charged the same rate of interest, no matter what valuation Trump put on the properties (per their own testimony).

If Trump would have gotten the loan (and the same interest rate) regardless of the alleged misrepresentation, the "disgorgement" math gets a bit fuzzy.

Antoninus said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Both "restitution" and "damages" tie back to "what someone lost as a result of the actions of the Defendant." Given that there is no evidence Trump's misrepresentations caused ANY alteration in the behavior of the Lenders (vis-a-vis interest rates, at least), it is rather difficult to imagine how either "restitution" or "damages" could be calculated.

---

Not really.

Let's say I'm a house-flipper. I lie to get a $100,000 mortgage loan, flip the house, sell it for $200,000, and then repay the bank the $100,000 (plus some interest).

The bank hasn't been hurt. My $100,000 in profits are still ill-gotten and restitution would say I don't get to keep that $100,000.


The whole idea of disgorgement is to prevent wrongdoers from profiting.

---

I understand that.

But in your example, the flipper made money that he would not have made without the misrepresentation, because he would not have gotten the loan without the misrepresentation. So it is easy to calculate the (let's use your term) "disgorgement" figure.

In this case, Trump's misrepresentation did NOT induce the loan, and the bank would have loaned the money and charged the same rate of interest, no matter what valuation Trump put on the properties (per their own testimony).

If Trump would have gotten the loan (and the same interest rate) regardless of the alleged misrepresentation, the "disgorgement" math gets a bit fuzzy.

---

Exactly. In this trial, the provable fraud was committed by the State, which stated no less than 10 times in their complaint that Trump's alleged fraudulent documents resulted in the banks providing lower rates. But this claim was directly disproven by actual testimony from multiple witnesses, including the state's own witness from one of the lending banks.

Antoninus said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Both "restitution" and "damages" tie back to "what someone lost as a result of the actions of the Defendant." Given that there is no evidence Trump's misrepresentations caused ANY alteration in the behavior of the Lenders (vis-a-vis interest rates, at least), it is rather difficult to imagine how either "restitution" or "damages" could be calculated.

---

Not really.

Let's say I'm a house-flipper. I lie to get a $100,000 mortgage loan, flip the house, sell it for $200,000, and then repay the bank the $100,000 (plus some interest).

The bank hasn't been hurt. My $100,000 in profits are still ill-gotten and restitution would say I don't get to keep that $100,000.


The whole idea of disgorgement is to prevent wrongdoers from profiting.

---

I understand that.

But in your example, the flipper made money that he would not have made without the misrepresentation, because he would not have gotten the loan without the misrepresentation. So it is easy to calculate the (let's use your term) "disgorgement" figure.

In this case, Trump's misrepresentation did NOT induce the loan, and the bank would have loaned the money and charged the same rate of interest, no matter what valuation Trump put on the properties (per their own testimony).

If Trump would have gotten the loan (and the same interest rate) regardless of the alleged misrepresentation, the "disgorgement" math gets a bit fuzzy.

---

You said disgorgement is about what "someone lost." I'm saying no, disgorgement is about what someone gained. The point is to put them back in the position they were in before anything happened.

What the other side "lost" is irrelevant to calculating disgorgement.


If you don't believe Trump's gains were ill-gotten in the first place because the banks didn't rely on his representations, then that's another argument (that I think is legally irrelevant in New York since reliance isn't an element of the statute as far as I understand.)

jja79 said:

---

Since no one suffered a financial loss to whom is this paid?

---

To the communists

Burpelson said:

---

He can appeal but the interest starts on day one, something like a million a day.

---

Dang! What interest rate is that? Without doing the calculations, is that about 75% interest?

More criticism of this ruling coming in.

Quote:

---

The bottom line is that a never before used New York State penalty has been twisted into a tool for a grossly excessive fine and more seriously the completely inappropriate appointment of Judge Jones as an "independent monitor" who can micromanage the Trump business, which she is not competent to do, and to even order the dissolution of the Trump Business in New York State. This outcome was pursued by Letitia James, a politically ambition Democrat, who is the Attorney General of New York State, and who hopes to win a future Democratic primary for Governor of or Senator from New York State.

Ms. James and Judge Engeron have essentially turned a vaguely worded New York State law into a modern day Bill of Attainder targeted at Donald Trump both for political gain and because they despise his political views and desperately want to call his truthfulness into question as he runs for President of the United States inn 2024.

In doing this, the have violated Trump's First Amendment right to freedom of speech and of the press; his Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law; his Fifth Amendment right not to have property taken away from him except for a pubic use with just compensation being paid; his Eighth Amendment right not to be made to pay an excessive fine; his Article IV, Section 2 right as a citizen of Florida to do make and enforce contracts in New York on the same terms as are other New Yorkers; and his Fourteenth Amendment right to be free to pursue an occupation without unnecessary and burdensome regulation.

---

Quote:

---

If the New York State appellate courts do not reverse this judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST grant cert on this case and reverse Judge Engeron's outrageous decisions. National, presidential politics will be permanently altered if a local State's legal system can be used in this way against candidates for President of the United States. This case raises a national issue of profound importance and if the New York State appellate courts do not address it, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST!

---

That emphasis was in the original.

LINK

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Both "restitution" and "damages" tie back to "what someone lost as a result of the actions of the Defendant." Given that there is no evidence Trump's misrepresentations caused ANY alteration in the behavior of the Lenders (vis-a-vis interest rates, at least), it is rather difficult to imagine how either "restitution" or "damages" could be calculated.

---

Not really.

Let's say I'm a house-flipper. I lie to get a $100,000 mortgage loan, flip the house, sell it for $200,000, and then repay the bank the $100,000 (plus some interest).

The bank hasn't been hurt. My $100,000 in profits are still ill-gotten and restitution would say I don't get to keep that $100,000.


The whole idea of disgorgement is to prevent wrongdoers from profiting.

---

I understand that.

But in your example, the flipper made money that he would not have made without the misrepresentation, because he would not have gotten the loan without the misrepresentation. So it is easy to calculate the (let's use your term) "disgorgement" figure.

In this case, Trump's misrepresentation did NOT induce the loan, and the bank would have loaned the money and charged the same rate of interest, no matter what valuation Trump put on the properties (per their own testimony).

If Trump would have gotten the loan (and the same interest rate) regardless of the alleged misrepresentation, the "disgorgement" math gets a bit fuzzy.

---

You said disgorgement is about what "someone lost." I'm saying no, disgorgement is about what someone gained. The point is to put them back in the position they were in before anything happened.

What the other side "lost" is irrelevant to calculating disgorgement.


If you don't believe Trump's gains were ill-gotten in the first place because the banks didn't rely on his representations, then that's another argument (that I think is legally irrelevant in New York since reliance isn't an element of the statute as far as I understand.)

---

In this case, the value of what Trump gained/the disgorgement from his alleged fraud is zero.

The fine/judgement issued was based upon the State's claim that Trump's alleged fraud resulted in banks providing lower rates which resulted in benefit of hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump. That's not my claim or interpretation, that is exactly what the state said more than 10 times in their actual claim that they filed.

The issue is that the state's claim of hundreds of millions in disgorgement/benefit to Trump was shown to be completely false per testimony from multiple witnesses during the trial, including testimony from the state's witness from Deutsche Bank which was one of the lenders. These witnesses testified that the banks ignored Trump's documents and based the loan rates & terms solely on their own due diligence. There was literally zero disgorgement/benefit to Trump. Why is this issue so difficult for some to understand??