It's going to be glorious. Many poster's disappearing.
When does Trump have to pay $355 MM?
92,167 Views |
1167 Replies |
Last: 14 days ago by aTmAg
NYC is going to lose so much wealth over the next few years it's going to be WILD.
I find it difficult to care what happens to NYC, one way or the other.Aggie95 said:
NYC is going to lose so much wealth over the next few years it's going to be WILD.
To paraphrase The Donald, the place is a ****hole.
They'll be back for the next "victory" tour. And that might come sooner than we think. I am truly troubled by the Pennzoil precedent being binding on federal courts and no relief available there in the short term.Rockdoc said:
It's going to be glorious. Many poster's disappearing.
Nor do I have an ounce of faith in the NY appellate courts.
aggiehawg said:They'll be back for the next "victory" tour. And that might come sooner than we think. I am truly troubled by the Pennzoil precedent being binding on federal courts and no relief available there in the short term.Rockdoc said:
It's going to be glorious. Many poster's disappearing.
Nor do I have an ounce of faith in the NY appellate courts.
Can SCOTUS step in for relief?
Not until the highest court in New York has spoken, assuming that you then raise a federal question (such as the 8th Amendment).Barnyard96 said:aggiehawg said:They'll be back for the next "victory" tour. And that might come sooner than we think. I am truly troubled by the Pennzoil precedent being binding on federal courts and no relief available there in the short term.Rockdoc said:
It's going to be glorious. Many poster's disappearing.
Nor do I have an ounce of faith in the NY appellate courts.
Can SCOTUS step in for relief?
Hawg is right. Like it or not, this puni award (and surety requirement) will survive 8th Amendment scrutiny under Texaco/Pennzoil.
Not at this point. Can try, of course but unless enough justices are on board with a substantial modification or reversal of Pennzoil and that chance is slim or none and none just left the building. (Yes it is usually slim that left the building but a lot of wrinkles with this being a billionnaire former POTUS, GOP nominee in an election year?)Barnyard96 said:aggiehawg said:They'll be back for the next "victory" tour. And that might come sooner than we think. I am truly troubled by the Pennzoil precedent being binding on federal courts and no relief available there in the short term.Rockdoc said:
It's going to be glorious. Many poster's disappearing.
Nor do I have an ounce of faith in the NY appellate courts.
Can SCOTUS step in for relief?
SCOTUS absolutely abhors getting into political matters but enough may see this situation as so egregious they feel compelled to act? IDK.
ETA: There is a small fig leaf here. Pennzoil was about a publicly traded company. Trump's empire are privately held. Is that a distinction without a difference? Again, IDK.
aggiehawg said:Not at this point. Can try, of course but unless enough justices are on board with a substantial modification or reversal of Pennzoil and that chance is slim or none and none just left the building. (Yes it is usually slim that left the building but a lot of wrinkles with this being a billionnaire former POTUS, GOP nominee in an election year?)Barnyard96 said:aggiehawg said:They'll be back for the next "victory" tour. And that might come sooner than we think. I am truly troubled by the Pennzoil precedent being binding on federal courts and no relief available there in the short term.Rockdoc said:
It's going to be glorious. Many poster's disappearing.
Nor do I have an ounce of faith in the NY appellate courts.
Can SCOTUS step in for relief?
SCOTUS absolutely abhors getting into political matters but enough may see this situation as so egregious they feel compelled to act? IDK.
ETA: There is a small fig leaf here. Pennzoil was about a publicly traded company. Trump's empire are privately held. Is that a distinction without a difference? Again, IDK.
What about the fact the prosecutor campaigned to "get him"?
Malicious prosecution?
would you be upset if she had campaign upon a promise to "get" El Chapo? Capone? (confused my Italians)Barnyard96 said:
What about the fact the prosecutor campaigned to "get him"?
you don't agree, and that is fine, but a lot of people think Trump is a crook.
Really? That was a very stupid thing to say.Antoninus said:would you be upset if she had campaign upon a promise to "get" El Chapo? Willie Moscone?Barnyard96 said:
What about the fact the prosecutor campaigned to "get him"?
you don't agree, and that is fine, but a lot of people think Trump is a crook.
I'll just wait for the TDS and liberals slack jawed full on despaired look, when Trump drops a certified check for the full amount on this Beech DA and Hack Judge's ass last minute. The meltdown will be glorious
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
he struggled to find a guarantor for $88mm, and you think that he is going to just come up with liquid assets of his own in five times that amount? OkForeverconservative said:
I'll just wait for the TDS and liberals slack jawed full on despaired look, when Trump drops a certified check for the full amount on this Beech DA and Hack Judge's ass last minute. The meltdown will be glorious
The appeal will be interesting, I look forward to watching it.
You're gonna be disappointed. I can't wait.
That's probably what will happen (meaning last minute satisfaction of the requirement, I think it will still be a bond) but he's going to have to spend a lot of money to mortgage real estate to gain the liquidity. It's a practical impossibility to transact on that amount of real estate in 30 days.
I suspect the appeals court is going to give him additional time to obtain mortgages on real estate in order to meet underwriting requirements for the bonds since this amount is unprecedented and they won't accept hard assets as collateral. There is no counterparty with a loss, just a fine to the state and supposedly plenty of assets to satisfy the judgment. So no harm to freeze the status quo and wait for mortgages to satisfy the appeal bond collateral.
Bottom line, this is a third world country style attack on political opposition.
I suspect the appeals court is going to give him additional time to obtain mortgages on real estate in order to meet underwriting requirements for the bonds since this amount is unprecedented and they won't accept hard assets as collateral. There is no counterparty with a loss, just a fine to the state and supposedly plenty of assets to satisfy the judgment. So no harm to freeze the status quo and wait for mortgages to satisfy the appeal bond collateral.
Bottom line, this is a third world country style attack on political opposition.
I am genuinely interested in your thought processes, to the extent we can use that term.Rockdoc said:
You're gonna be disappointed. I can't wait.
What do you think will "disappoint" me? And why?
Trump has a trump card, no pun intended
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
I am not one of the people who is convinced the man is completely lying about his net worth or living in the poorhouse, but he is obviously leveraged on all of his holdings. $25 million in equity here, another $35 million there, etc.LostInLA07 said:
That's probably what will happen (meaning last minute satisfaction of the requirement, I think it will still be a bond) but he's going to have to spend a lot of money to mortgage real estate to gain the liquidity.
This is a third world country style attack on political opposition.
Thus, he is going to have to really shift things around to come up with enough equity to satisfy a guarantor.
Antoninus said:I am genuinely interested in your thought processes, to the extent we can use that term.Rockdoc said:
You're gonna be disappointed. I can't wait.
What do you think will "disappoint" me? And why?
You just can't help yourself with your arrogance and condescension. Boy when you finally came out of the closet with your severe case of TDS, it was a real leap.
For sure he is screwed if he doesn't have sufficient collateral. But then so is the state on its big payday from the fine. Outside of the political win, it's a loss for the state (and people) of New York to force a fire sale if his net assets are already insufficient.
Where do you GET this stuff?Rockdoc said:
Boy when you finally came out of the closet with your severe case of TDS, it was a real leap.
I have loathed the man for more than 35 years, and I have always been very upfront about it.
Antoninus said:Where do you GET this stuff?Rockdoc said:
Boy when you finally came out of the closet with your severe case of TDS, it was a real leap.
I have loathed the man for more than 35 years, and I have always been very upfront about it.
Nah, you didn't use to be an *** about it.
What are the necessary elements that must be proven to get a decision that it was malicious prosecution?TexAg1987 said:
Malicious prosecution?
Merely wishing that it didn't happen certainly wouldn't be a necessary element.
In 2016, Trump campaigned to get Hillary -- "Lock Her Up". If Hillary had been convicted, should the conviction have been thrown out because of that?Barnyard96 said:aggiehawg said:Not at this point. Can try, of course but unless enough justices are on board with a substantial modification or reversal of Pennzoil and that chance is slim or none and none just left the building. (Yes it is usually slim that left the building but a lot of wrinkles with this being a billionnaire former POTUS, GOP nominee in an election year?)Barnyard96 said:aggiehawg said:They'll be back for the next "victory" tour. And that might come sooner than we think. I am truly troubled by the Pennzoil precedent being binding on federal courts and no relief available there in the short term.Rockdoc said:
It's going to be glorious. Many poster's disappearing.
Nor do I have an ounce of faith in the NY appellate courts.
Can SCOTUS step in for relief?
SCOTUS absolutely abhors getting into political matters but enough may see this situation as so egregious they feel compelled to act? IDK.
ETA: There is a small fig leaf here. Pennzoil was about a publicly traded company. Trump's empire are privately held. Is that a distinction without a difference? Again, IDK.
What about the fact the prosecutor campaigned to "get him"?
Antoninus said:would you be upset if she had campaign upon a promise to "get" El Chapo? Capone? (confused my Italians)Barnyard96 said:
What about the fact the prosecutor campaigned to "get him"?
you don't agree, and that is fine, but a lot of people think Trump is a crook.
For the record, I wasn't asking you.
eric76 said:In 2016, Trump campaigned to get Hillary -- "Lock Her Up". If Hillary had been convicted, should the conviction have been thrown out because of that?Barnyard96 said:aggiehawg said:Not at this point. Can try, of course but unless enough justices are on board with a substantial modification or reversal of Pennzoil and that chance is slim or none and none just left the building. (Yes it is usually slim that left the building but a lot of wrinkles with this being a billionnaire former POTUS, GOP nominee in an election year?)Barnyard96 said:aggiehawg said:They'll be back for the next "victory" tour. And that might come sooner than we think. I am truly troubled by the Pennzoil precedent being binding on federal courts and no relief available there in the short term.Rockdoc said:
It's going to be glorious. Many poster's disappearing.
Nor do I have an ounce of faith in the NY appellate courts.
Can SCOTUS step in for relief?
SCOTUS absolutely abhors getting into political matters but enough may see this situation as so egregious they feel compelled to act? IDK.
ETA: There is a small fig leaf here. Pennzoil was about a publicly traded company. Trump's empire are privately held. Is that a distinction without a difference? Again, IDK.
What about the fact the prosecutor campaigned to "get him"?
Did Trump indict her as a prosecutor? And im not looking for over turned verdict, I'm looking for a reasonable bond
so you were upset that politician actually followed through on campaign promises?Barnyard96 said:Did Trump indict her as a prosecutor?Quote:
In 2016, Trump campaigned to get Hillary -- "Lock Her Up". If Hillary had been convicted, should the conviction have been thrown out because of that?
How is a bond "reasonable" to a successful plaintiff in a lawsuit, if it is too small to guarantee the ultimate payment of the debt owed to her?Quote:
And im not looking for over turned verdict, I'm looking for a reasonable bond
that is the purpose of an appellate bond
Do you think $400+ million is reasonable?
I dont, so I am asking questions to how Trump can fight these a-holes. Now please stop responding to me.
I dont, so I am asking questions to how Trump can fight these a-holes. Now please stop responding to me.
This is supposedly in regards to the bond amount.
JUST IN - Billionaire investor John Paulson to hold megadonor fundraiser for Donald Trump — FT
— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) March 19, 2024
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
49,090
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
this. When half a billion drops of the taxpayer roll, the minorities in queens and Brooklyn are on the hook.LostInLA07 said:
For sure he is screwed if he doesn't have sufficient collateral. But then so is the state on its big payday from the fine. Outside of the political win, it's a loss for the state (and people) of New York to force a fire sale if his net assets are already insufficient.
The properties will not be dropping into a black hole, never to be seen again on this side of the event horizon.ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
When half a billion drops of the taxpayer roll, the minorities in queens and Brooklyn are on the hook.
They will just have different ownership after the state sells them BACK into the private sector.
So if a lunatic judge in a bench trial awards 10 trillion in damages where there was no evidence of a party suffering any damages, the defendant needs to post that in a bond to perfect an appeal of the ludicrous award? Seems like a square deal in American law these days.
Sounds like wishful thinking since the fundraiser isn't until April and past the bondl deadline. Plus, that sounds like a campaign finance violation.will25u said:
This is supposedly in regards to the bond amount.JUST IN - Billionaire investor John Paulson to hold megadonor fundraiser for Donald Trump — FT
— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) March 19, 2024
Yes, the banks did not rely on his estimates of the value of his assets. They made their own assessment and made the loan accordingly. There was no interest rate savingsshiftyandquick said:
1. He misrepresented his assets (and not by a little bit) in order to get himself a better interest rate, in order to convey that the risk was less than it really was.
2. The better interest rate made a ton of money for him. I saw one source that said it was more than $170 million in his pocket.
3. The misrepresentation of his assets was a crime (against the law).
4. The penalty handed out by the judge was for "disgorgement" of his ill-gotten gains, i.e. how much money he made + interest (+penalty?).
Anything I am missing?
You're so innocent.Antoninus said:The properties will not be dropping into a black hole, never to be seen again on this side of the event horizon.ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
When half a billion drops of the taxpayer roll, the minorities in queens and Brooklyn are on the hook.
They will just have different ownership after the state sells them BACK into the private sector.
Trump will fix it.