Quote:

---

Seems to be signed, and it includes a direction to the clerk to "enter" the Judgment, but it is also marked as "non-final."

Weird.

---

read an article earlier about the AG submitting a proposed judgment and trump wanting to submit one also. so something else is going to be signed

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Seems to be signed, and it includes a direction to the clerk to "enter" the Judgment, but it is also marked as "non-final."

Weird.

---

read an article earlier about the AG submitting a proposed judgment and trump wanting to submit one also. so something else is going to be signed

---

Can you link that? Seems counter-intuitive for Engoron to request proposed judgments, when he just wrote a 92-page Judgment.

Quote:

---

Lawyers for New York Attorney General Letitia James submitted a draft judgment on Tuesday, prompting criticism from Trump's defense lawyer Clifford Robert.

---

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-asks-judge-delay-penalties-civil-fraud-case/story?id=107433418

Curious under what authority does a State Judge have the power to stop someone from obtaining a loan from and international or Federal Bank regardless if they have offices in NYC or the State of NY?

JP Morgan Chase for instance may have an office presence in NYC they are incorporated in Delaware, as are Bank of America, Barclays US Consumer Bank & Barclays Bank Delaware, Capital One, M&T Bank, Marlette Funding, WSFS Bank etc. etc.

Foreverconservative said:

---

Curious under what authority does a State Judge have the power to stop someone from obtaining a loan from and international or Federal Bank regardless if they have offices in NYC or the State of NY?

---

Section 63(12) pretty-clearly grants the authority. In layman's terms, it grants authority to enjoin any business activity (such as obtaining business loans) in which the defendant is engaged in a pattern of "fraudulent acts" such as the alleged misrepresentations at issue here.

The real question is whether that grant of authority is consistent with the Constitution when dealing with a cross-border entity like most of these banks.

The judgment has been signed and entered

Not yet publicly available — but docketed.

"JUDGMENT - SIGNED BY COURT TO COUNTY CLERK" https://t.co/Lf2NERP7Nh pic.twitter.com/ojr0TwcX5P

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) February 22, 2024

Antoninus said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Curious under what authority does a State Judge have the power to stop someone from obtaining a loan from and international or Federal Bank regardless if they have offices in NYC or the State of NY?

---

Section 63(12) pretty-clearly grants the authority. In layman's terms, it grants authority to enjoin any business activity (such as obtaining business loans) in which the defendant is engaged in "fraudulent acts" such as the alleged misrepresentations at issue here.

The real question is whether that grant of authority is consistent with the Constitution when dealing with a cross-border entity like most of these banks.

---

That's the question, a NY State Judge, district, appellate, or otherwise, their authority ends at the state line. Engoron is overreaching as a NY State Appellate Judge, he has zero say outside the state boundaries. Zero clue why this hasn't been challenged immediately

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Supreme_Court][/url]The Supreme Court of the State of New York is the trial-level court of general jurisdiction in the New York State Unified Court System. It is vested with unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction, although in many counties outside New York City it acts primarily as a court of civil jurisdiction

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Supreme_Court][/url]

Texas velvet maestro said:

---

He's fined 355 mil. Some are outraged. Some are ecstatic. financial woes.
Within 48 hours, what do you know...he's approved for a 4 billion$ deal.
but in case you can't read, here's a visual. Golden High-tops.
it's a movie.

---

I thought the approval was announced just before the judge's ruling, but I could be wrong.

It doesn't matter, though, since it is an entirely separate from the fraud trial. The SEC didn't wait to see what Engoron would do and Engoron did not wait to see what the SEC would do.

Quote:

---

I know many reading this think they are experts in everything. You're not. Those of us who actually attended law school and have been doing commercial real estate for over 40 years, you've been lied to. You do not have the facts. You do not know what you are talking about. We employ two of the largest law firms in the country and they've been in meetings 16 hours a day in order to determine just how bad this all really is.

Every one of these companies, representing trillions of dollars in real estate, is carefully evaluating whether to stay or exit.

Chetrit Group
Vorea Group
Turnbridge Equities
Extell Development
Bldg Management Company
Vornado Realty Trust
L+m Development Partners
United Construction And Development Group
Beb Capital, Totem
Howard Hughes Corporation
Starrett Corporation
Rfr Realty
Jay Group
Property Markets Group
Rabsky Group
Two Trees Management
Heartfelt Townhouse Builders
Lonicera Partners
Taconic Partners
Beitel Group

Whether Trump wins on appeal or at SCOTUS, the precedent has been set. A wall has been broken and there are no take backs. Any company can now be targeted and have their assets seized at the whim of an over zealous AG or politicians. I don't expect you to know or understand standard CRE practices, but every company below could be found guilty of the exact same actions the Trump Organization was accused of and found guilty, because it is NOT a crime.

The feds declined to file charges as did the previous AG. And the reality is, this should have been heard by the Commercial Division, however, they had already declined to file.

Why do you suppose the real experts in complicated commercial cases, part of the Supreme Court of New York State would decide not to pursue?

---

I know many reading this think they are experts in everything. You’re not. Those of us who actually attended law school and have been doing commercial real estate for over 40 years, you’ve been lied to. You do not have the facts. You do not know what you are talking about. We…

— Tony Seruga (@TonySeruga) February 21, 2024

This might have to be a separate thread, I dunno. In your opinion do you think this case becomes a domino to fall against the Democrats Lawfare Machine?

Once firms collectively sitting on trillions of dollars in assets begin figuring out how to exit a countries central hub of finance. It would seemingly have a far reaching impact on politicians responsible for massive lost revenue for their state.

This seems like an order of magnitude way beyond the pay grades of the NYAG and Judge in this case.

For what it's worth, we seem to be confusing the decision with the judgment. At least, I know that I tend to think about them interchangeably. But they are not the same thing.

Engoron has issued his decision, not the judgment.

From what I gather, the judge normally has the winning side write up the judgment which they then review. It would be rare, I think, for the judge to write the judgment..

And then the winning side, using the decision as a guide, writes up the actual judgment.

For example, a friend of mine was involved in a civil trial a couple of years ago and lost over division of assets. The plaintiff's attorney wrote the judgment issued by the court. He thought that was terribly unfair.

Do I understand that correctly?

If so, then it is easy to see why the date of the court's decision is not the date the judgment is entered.

policywonk98 said:

---

This might have to be a separate thread, I dunno. In your opinion do you think this case becomes a domino to fall against the Democrats Lawfare Machine?

Once firms collectively sitting on trillions of dollars in assets begin figuring out how to exit a countries central hub of finance. It would seemingly have a far reaching impact on politicians responsible for massive lost revenue for their state.

This seems like an order of magnitude way beyond the pay grades of the NYAG and Judge in this case.

---

I have no idea how this gets resolved, not quickly anyway. There is an argument to be made that an 8th Amendment violation did not start until Engeron entered his order but is a continuing violation.

FILE MOTION TO STAY IN NY PROPERTY CONFISCATION CASE: MORE ON THE 8TH AMENDMENT AND EXCESSIVE FINES

Accompany the motion with request for expedited discovery in aid of the motion and 8th amendment defense. All documents relating to any communications by Letitia James or her…

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) February 21, 2024

Quote:

---

FILE MOTION TO STAY IN NY PROPERTY CONFISCATION CASE: MORE ON THE 8TH AMENDMENT AND EXCESSIVE FINES

Accompany the motion with request for expedited discovery in aid of the motion and 8th amendment defense. All documents relating to any communications by Letitia James or her agents or employees about the case or Trump or his companies with White House, with Bragg or his staff, with Willis or her staff, with Smith or his staff. And with Hochul or her staff, with the DNC, with any Democratic office holders and their staffs.

Seek production in 2 weeks. Followed by third party subpoenas and depositions. All to be completed in six weeks.

The enormity of the fine against President Trump and the use of a facially preposterous statute, never used in this way before, and the attorney general's own campaign statements as well as her most recent statements on her TV media tour, together create a prima face case of an 8th amendment violation against excessive fines and penalties. In 2019, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the 8th amendment applies to states through the 14th amendment.

This is a fundamental violation of the Constitution.

---

I assume that is a reference to a type of remedy bound for SCOTUS. No idea if they would take it though.

policywonk98 said:

---

This might have to be a separate thread, I dunno. In your opinion do you think this case becomes a domino to fall against the Democrats Lawfare Machine?

Once firms collectively sitting on trillions of dollars in assets begin figuring out how to exit a countries central hub of finance. It would seemingly have a far reaching impact on politicians responsible for massive lost revenue for their state.

This seems like an order of magnitude way beyond the pay grades of the NYAG and Judge in this case.

---

Is it your proposal that judges should have a maximum amount of damages that they can handle?

Don't forget that the largest court decision ever was decades ago for something like $200 billion against tobacco companies. How many judges do you propose should be able to make decisions about such cases?

eric76 said:

---

For what it's worth, we seem to be confusing the decision with the judgment. At least, I know that I tend to think about them interchangeably. But they are not the same thing.

Engoron has issued his decision, not the judgment.

From what I gather, the judge normally has the winning side write up the judgment which they then review. It would be rare, I think, for the judge to write the judgment..

And then the winning side, using the decision as a guide, writes up the actual judgment.

For example, a friend of mine was involved in a civil trial a couple of years ago and lost over division of assets. The plaintiff's attorney wrote the judgment issued by the court. He thought that was terribly unfair.

Do I understand that correctly?

If so, then it is easy to see why the date of the court's decision is not the date the judgment is entered.

---

Yes, the process you describe is fairly-normal. Judge makes oral ruling at conclusion of trial. Prevailing party drafts Judgment. Losing party has opportunity to object. Judge signs Judgment.

The thing is ... this is not a normal case. That judicial ruling is usually oral and perhaps a few paragraphs. NOT a 92-page formal opinion that (in its last sentence) tells the Clerk to "enter judgment." That is language that one normally finds in a Final Judgment, and (yes) judges DO sometimes write their own judgments, especially in complex cases.

I suspect that inclusion of that last sentence was just a holdover from a form or template, but who knows.

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

For what it's worth, we seem to be confusing the decision with the judgment. At least, I know that I tend to think about them interchangeably. But they are not the same thing.

Engoron has issued his decision, not the judgment.

From what I gather, the judge normally has the winning side write up the judgment which they then review. It would be rare, I think, for the judge to write the judgment..

And then the winning side, using the decision as a guide, writes up the actual judgment.

For example, a friend of mine was involved in a civil trial a couple of years ago and lost over division of assets. The plaintiff's attorney wrote the judgment issued by the court. He thought that was terribly unfair.

Do I understand that correctly?

If so, then it is easy to see why the date of the court's decision is not the date the judgment is entered.

---

Yes, the process you describe is fairly-normal. Judge makes oral ruling at conclusion of trial. Prevailing party drafts Judgment. Losing party has opportunity to object. Judge signs Judgment.

The thing is ... this is not a normal case. That judicial ruling is usually oral and perhaps a few paragraphs. NOT a 92-page formal opinion that (in its last sentence) tells the Clerk to "enter judgment." That is language that one normally finds in a Final Judgment, and (yes) judges DO sometimes write their own judgments, especially in complex cases.

I suspect that inclusion of that last sentence was just a holdover from a form or template, but who knows.

---

Thanks.

I assume that the judgment itself will be largely limited to the fines and punishments. Is that true?

Timbs v. Indiana.
U.S. v. Bajakajian (1998)
Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (1909)

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/opinion-analysis-eighth-amendments-ban-on-excessive-fines-applies-to-the-states/

a little more about SCOTUS.

Quote:

---

Levin cites Timbs v Indiana, a case decided almost exactly five years ago that reversed the confiscation of a $42,000 vehicle in a drug and theft case.

In a unanimous ruling written by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court emphasized that the Eighth Amendment was fully incorporated, and as such, its prohibitions on excessive fines and penalties applied to state and local governments.

Furthermore, and perhaps more applicable in Trump's case, Ginsburg took care to note the origins of the Eighth Amendment in the Magna Carta -- and why it emerged, emphasis mine:

Quote:

---

The Excessive Fines Clause traces its venerable lineage back to at least 1215, when Magna Carta guaranteed that"[a] Free-man shall not be amerced for a small fault, but after the manner of the fault; and for a great fault after the greatness thereof, saving to him his contenement . . . ."20, 9 Hen. III, ch. 14, in 1 Eng. Stat. at Large 5 (1225).2As relevant here, Magna Carta required that economic sanctions "be proportioned to the wrong" and "not be so large as to deprive [an offender] of his livelihood." Browning Ferris, 492 U. S., at 271. See also 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 372 (1769) ("No man shall have a larger amercement imposed upon him, than his circumstances or personal estate will bear . . . .").But cf. Bajakajian, 524 U. S., at 340, n. 15 (taking no position on the question whether a person's income and wealth are relevant considerations in judging the excessiveness of a fine).

Despite Magna Carta, imposition of excessive fines persisted. The 17th century Stuart kings, in particular, were criticized for using large fines to raise revenue, harass their political foes, and indefinitely detain those unable to pay

---

---

Quote:

---

And Ginsburg returned to the same threat a few paragraphs later, emphasis again mine:

Quote:

---

For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties. Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies, as the Stuarts' critics learned several centuries ago.

---

That passage seems almost prophetic in this case. Letitia James ran for office on a promise to "get Trump," and Judge Engoron entered this case making derogatory remarks about Trump. Governor Kathy Hochul had to reassure business owners in New York that they would only target Trump for such treatment, which lends more weight to Trump's claims of selective prosecution and political targeting. The sheer magnitude of the fines in a civil case where no one lost a dime makes this look very much like the kind of politicized use of government authority Ginsburg warned about in Timbs. (Clarence Thomas' concurrence-in-part offers even more detail on similar cases in history and the reasons why the Eighth Amendment was necessary to win ratification.)

---

I doubt SCOTUS iinclined to act before the state appellate processes have been completed. Further Sotomayor is the supervising Justice for that circuit. She wouldn't lift a finger to give any relief to Trump.

Via Hot Air

eric76 said:

---

I assume that the judgment itself will be largely limited to the fines and punishments. Is that true?

---

USUALLY, that plus a few "findings" necessary to support the award of relief. VERY seldom 92-pages of legal analysis.

But this case is anything BUT "usual." We will see.

Quote:

---

AP also notes that, similarly to Wade not being the best qualified to prosecute Trump in Georgia, Engoron was not the most appropriate judge to handle the Trump case. But this is Trump we're talking about the Great Orange Whale (that's a literary reference, for those of you who were educated after the 1990s) and that ol' New York City magic was in play:

---

Quote:

---

Engoron has been involved in Trump-related cases since 2020, when he was assigned to intervene in quarrels among Trump's lawyers and James' office over demands for evidence and the direction of her investigation.

Trump's lawyers wanted James' lawsuit moved to a judge in the court's Commercial Division, which is set up to handle complex corporate litigation, but an administrative judge kept the case with Engoron, citing his experience with the matter.

---

LINK

eric76 said:

---

policywonk98 said:

---

This might have to be a separate thread, I dunno. In your opinion do you think this case becomes a domino to fall against the Democrats Lawfare Machine?

Once firms collectively sitting on trillions of dollars in assets begin figuring out how to exit a countries central hub of finance. It would seemingly have a far reaching impact on politicians responsible for massive lost revenue for their state.

This seems like an order of magnitude way beyond the pay grades of the NYAG and Judge in this case.

---

Is it your proposal that judges should have a maximum amount of damages that they can handle?

Don't forget that the largest court decision ever was decades ago for something like $200 billion against tobacco companies. How many judges do you propose should be able to make decisions about such cases?

---

Are you talking about the case that involved 46 out of 50 States in the country taking on an entire industry in that country?

This case seems quite different. I don't see 45 other state AGs coming to the defense of what NY has just done. I think there is a reason why. There are certainly other Dem AGs around the country. None of them seem to be saying, yeah this seems right, let's take a look at all our real estate moguls and see what we can find there. I'm just asking the question from the standpoint of the reverb based on information posted.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

AP also notes that, similarly to Wade not being the best qualified to prosecute Trump in Georgia, Engoron was not the most appropriate judge to handle the Trump case. But this is Trump we're talking about the Great Orange Whale (that's a literary reference, for those of you who were educated after the 1990s) and that ol' New York City magic was in play:

---

Quote:

---

Engoron has been involved in Trump-related cases since 2020, when he was assigned to intervene in quarrels among Trump's lawyers and James' office over demands for evidence and the direction of her investigation.

Trump's lawyers wanted James' lawsuit moved to a judge in the court's Commercial Division, which is set up to handle complex corporate litigation, but an administrative judge kept the case with Engoron, citing his experience with the matter.

---

LINK

---

This whole thing is so transparently corrupt. Engoron and James both belong in prison and sued into bankruptcy. Regardless of how one feels about Trump, this kind of gestapo tactic should terrify people. This is a terrible precedent to set.

Would Sotomayor have to ability to block or deny Cert after it makes it's way through the succession of appeals courts?

aggieforester05 said:

---

Would Sotomayor have to ability to block or deny Cert after it makes it's way through the succession of appeals courts?

---

Only if she has the company of enough of the other justices to deny cert.

aggieforester05 said:

---

Would Sotomayor have to ability to block or deny Cert after it makes it's way through the succession of appeals courts?

---

the only thing she could block (and just temporarily) would be an application for emergency relief.

if the supreme court justice assigned to that particular circuit (here 2nd) denies an application without referring it to the full panel, the applicant can apply to a different justice.

BMX Bandit said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Would Sotomayor have to ability to block or deny Cert after it makes it's way through the succession of appeals courts?

---

the only thing she could block (and just temporarily) would be an application for emergency relief.

if the supreme court justice assigned to that particular circuit (here 2nd) denies an application without referring it to the full panel, the applicant can apply to a different justice.

---

Thanks you and Hawg, that clears it up.

BMX Bandit said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Would Sotomayor have to ability to block or deny Cert after it makes it's way through the succession of appeals courts?

---

the only thing she could block (and just temporarily) would be an application for emergency relief.

if the supreme court justice assigned to that particular circuit (here 2nd) denies an application without referring it to the full panel, the applicant can apply to a different justice.

---

They can? Did not know that. Thanks for the info.

aggieforester05 said:

---

Would Sotomayor have to ability to block or deny Cert after it makes it's way through the succession of appeals courts?

---

Alone?

No.

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I assume that the judgment itself will be largely limited to the fines and punishments. Is that true?

---

USUALLY, that plus a few "findings" necessary to support the award of relief. VERY seldom 92-pages of legal analysis.

But this case is anything BUT "usual." We will see.

---

Seems like a whole lot of legal analysis to support a case the was awarded summary judgement prior to the trial...

Judge: Youse guys. It's OBVIOUS that the plaintiffs will prevail on this case. So obvious I need to write 92 pages to explain how obvious...

Foreverconservative said:

---

All these speculators on whether of not Trump has the cash and speculation on whether or not he's going to sell off buildings all fail to acknowledge or just plain ignore the fact that all he has to do is produce an irrevocable letter of credit from a bank acceptable to the surety in the surety's format. He can easily produce that and the left loses their talking point on how strapped for cash Trump will be after the judgement.

---

Well Team Trump filed a motion saying that was most likely going to happen:

Quote:

---

In the absence of a stay on the terms herein outlined, properties would likely need to be sold to raise capital under exigent circumstances, and there would be no way to recover any property sold following a successful appeal and no means to recover the resulting financial losses from the Attorney General.

---

Any notion this would be an easy bond to get is also dismissed in the motion:

Quote:

---

An appeal bond would include the amount of the underlying judgmenthere, more than $460 millionas well as costs and interest during the pendency of the appeal. Robert Aff. 46. To account for post-judgment interest and appeal cost, a surety will often set the bond amount at 120% of the judgment or more, i.e., more than $550 million. Id. 47. The exorbitant and punitive amount of the Judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond.

---

Trump says he post $100 million bond and that should be sufficient given there is a monitor in place and he has enough property to satisfy a bigger judgment.

Seems more than reasonable to me!

jja79 said:

---

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

---

The DNC

Quote:

---

Trump says he post $100 million bond and that should be sufficient given there is a monitor in place and he has enough property to satisfy a bigger judgment.

Seems more than reasonable to me!

---

Reasonable or not, unsure that the statute allows that?

According to the Motion, the Court has discretion to stay enforcement of a judgment. So if I were the one deciding, I'd say this proposal is reasonable and allow it!

I don't expect NY to feel that way.


Here is the Motion, starting at page 1742.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=oor8_PLUS_SyilUVorLgVywrDfQ==

Im Gipper said:

---

Trump says he post $100 million bond and that should be sufficient given there is a monitor in place and he has enough property to satisfy a bigger judgment.

Seems more than reasonable to me!

---

Given his history on paying his bills, not sure how "reasonable" that is, but that is not really the question.

The question is whether the statute allows it. First, I doubt the statute allows it. Second, if it does, it almost certainly requires court approval, and I don't see Engoron signing-off on that sort of proposal.

Antoninus said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Trump says he post $100 million bond and that should be sufficient given there is a monitor in place and he has enough property to satisfy a bigger judgment.

Seems more than reasonable to me!

---

Given his history on paying his bills, not sure how "reasonable" that is, but that is not really the question.

The question is whether the statute allows it. First, I doubt the statute allows it. Second, if it does, it almost certainly requires court approval, and I don't see Engoron signing-off on that sort of proposal.

---

Is there evidence of this?

Quote:

---

The question is whether the statute allows it. First, I doubt the statute allows it. Second, if it does, it almost certainly requires court approval, and I don't see Engoron signing-off on that sort of proposal.

---

Confused. Trump applied for a stay of execution with the appellate court, not Engeron's court, correct?