Antoninus said:

---

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.

---

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.

Thus, he is going to have to really shift things around to come up with enough equity to satisfy a guarantor.

---

You just described every billionaire. You think these guys are Scrooge McDuck swimming in a money bin?

Antoninus said:

---

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.

---

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.

Thus, he is going to have to really shift things around to come up with enough equity to satisfy a guarantor.

---

On the flip side, this will make it difficult for the NYAG to seize properties to satisfy the judgement.

Ag with kids said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

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.

---

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.

Thus, he is going to have to really shift things around to come up with enough equity to satisfy a guarantor.

---

On the flip side, this will make it difficult for the NYAG to seize properties to satisfy the judgement.

---

Why would it make it more difficult?

I can see that it might make it more difficult to sell Trump's interest in the property, but keep in mind that the state is likely under no obligation to maximize the selling price.

Barnyard96 said:

---

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.

---

It should be entirely reasonable for a $400+ million judgment. The point is to make sure that the amount of the judgment is still there if the appeal fails.

I'm sure that if you were the plaintiff, you would be willing to let the defendant off from paying the judgment if the appeal fails, wouldn't you?

eric76 said:

---

By the way, did anyone see the story about the Florida State Senate Republican who introduced a bill to have the state give $5 million in taxpayer money to help pay Trump's legal expenses?

DeSantis quickly promised that if the bill made it to him, he would veto it.

Is "Welfare for Billionaires" the new Republican motto?

---

Wheres the story?

IslanderAg04 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

By the way, did anyone see the story about the Florida State Senate Republican who introduced a bill to have the state give $5 million in taxpayer money to help pay Trump's legal expenses?

DeSantis quickly promised that if the bill made it to him, he would veto it.

Is "Welfare for Billionaires" the new Republican motto?

---

Wheres the story?

---

Lots of them. A few examples:

From https://mynews13.com/fl/orlando/news/2024/01/22/florida-senator-seeks-to-use-public-funds-to-defend-trump-in-court

Quote:

---

Florida Sen. Ilena Garcia has filed Senate Bill 1740, or the "Florida Freedom Fighters Fund," to set aside $5 million in public funds to help pay legal fees for "Florida residents running for president."


While the bill would hypothetically help pay legal fees for any Florida presidential candidate facing "political discrimination" in the form of criminal charges, Garcia made it clear that former President Donald Trump was the focus of the legislation.

---

From https://www.newsweek.com/florida-bill-legal-costs-presidential-candidates-donald-trump-1862914

Quote:

---

On Monday, a new piece of legislation, championed by Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis, was introduced by Florida state Senator Ileana Garcia which would create the "Florida Freedom Fighters Fund." The fund would provide up to $5 million to cover legal costs for Florida residents who are running for president, like Trump, and face "legal, partisan, political attacks by the Department of Justice or State Attorneys," according to a release from Patronis's office.

---

From https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/theyre-not-trying-to-win-at-the-ballot-box-lawmakers-want-5-million-in-public-funds-to-pay-off-florida-man-trumps-legal-bills-in-various-criminal-prosecutions/

Quote:

---

The two-page bill would create a new section of the Sunshine State's public campaign finance law to establish the "Defending Freedom Fighters Trust Fund." The fund would allot "up to $5 million" that could be tapped by a "qualified person" if they are running for the U.S. presidency as a Florida resident and face criminal charges.

---

After Governor DeSamtos promised to veto the bill if it reached him, it was withdrawn.

From https://www.floridadaily.com/state-sen-garcia-withdraws-bill-to-spend-5-million-of-florida-state-funds-to-trumps-legal-defense/

Quote:

---

Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia (R) announced she will withdraw her bill to send $5 million from Florida's budget to support the legal defense of former President Donald Trump. The bill was heartily endorsed and heavily promoted by Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Trump might think about seeking emergency relief on constitutional grounds.

Hire a team of law professors to construct an argument rooted in the 8th amendment, with the key distinguishing factor being that judgment creditor is the State of New York.

We ain't talking about Texaco-Pennzoil here where two companies were fighting with each other over a circumstance of their own making.

Here we are dealing with the State imposing an excessive fine on an individual for the arbitrary reason of prosecuting a political opponent.

---

Isn't the amount for the disgorgement of undeserved profits rather than a fine or punishment? That's a big difference. It's hard to see how the Eighth Amendment would cover such a disgorgement.

And Trump with his bluster and stupid antics makes it easy for the justice systems of the various states and the federal government to go after him. He is hardly not responsible for what is happening.

It might or might not be heavy handed. If so, that is presumably something for the appeals court. Remember that appeals courts look for errors in law -- they don't normally reexamine the facts of the case.

techno-ag said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

When half a billion drops of the taxpayer roll, the minorities in queens and Brooklyn are on the hook.

---

The properties will not be dropping into a black hole, never to be seen again on this side of the event horizon.

They will just have different ownership after the state sells them BACK into the private sector.

---

You're so innocent.

---

No doubt you have concocted some paranoid delusion as to how Trump Tower just disappears from the tax rolls.

Please DO share with the class.

IslanderAg04 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

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.

Thus, he is going to have to really shift things around to come up with enough equity to satisfy a guarantor.

---

You just described every billionaire. You think these guys are Scrooge McDuck swimming in a money bin?

---

Pretty sure I just said exactly the opposite.

It is YOUR compatriots who have been suggesting that Trump or one of his dear, close friends (LoL) will just casually cover the bonding requirement with a cash deposit from the petty cash box.

Some wealthy individuals have more liquidity than others, but I doubt many have $500mm in liquid assets lying around.

Ag with kids said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

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.

---

On the flip side, this will make it difficult for the NYAG to seize properties to satisfy the judgement.

---

Not really "difficult," but certainly cumbersome. They will have to seize more properties, but the cost of doing so comes "off the top" from sale proceeds, so Trump is paying those costs before anything is applied to the judgment debt. No real downside to the judgment creditor.

eric76 said:

---

sn't the amount for the disgorgement of undeserved profits rather than a fine or punishment? That's a big difference. It's hard to see how the Eighth Amendment would cover such a disgorgement.

---

Trumpists have convinced themselves that the bonding requirement alone is a "fine" targeted at punishing Trump

eric76 said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

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.

---

It should be entirely reasonable for a $400+ million judgment. The point is to make sure that the amount of the judgment is still there if the appeal fails.

I'm sure that if you were the plaintiff, you would be willing to let the defendant off from paying the judgment if the appeal fails, wouldn't you?

---

Who is the plaintiff again?

Is the judgment going anywhere if the appeal fails?

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

sn't the amount for the disgorgement of undeserved profits rather than a fine or punishment? That's a big difference. It's hard to see how the Eighth Amendment would cover such a disgorgement.

---

Trumpists have convinced themselves that the bonding requirement alone is a "fine" targeted at punishing Trump

---

And the useful idiots have been convinced that all this is completely normal and not selective prosecution.

eric76 said:

---

By the way, did anyone see the story about the Florida State Senate Republican who introduced a bill to have the state give $5 million in taxpayer money to help pay Trump's legal expenses?

DeSantis quickly promised that if the bill made it to him, he would veto it.

Is "Welfare for Billionaires" the new Republican motto?

---

So, the Republican governor vows to veto it but you want to attribute the law to all Republicans?

Barnyard96 said:

---

Who is the plaintiff again?

---

the taxpaying citizens of the State of New York.

They now own a half billion dollar asset, in the form of a court judgment convertible to cash

Why should an elected representative put that asset at risk?

Just file the appeal without the bond and then litigate whatever.

They can't put him jail, no debtor prison exists in USA. Well IRS can jail you for debt due to lying on taxes.

eric76 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Trump might think about seeking emergency relief on constitutional grounds.

Hire a team of law professors to construct an argument rooted in the 8th amendment, with the key distinguishing factor being that judgment creditor is the State of New York.

We ain't talking about Texaco-Pennzoil here where two companies were fighting with each other over a circumstance of their own making.

Here we are dealing with the State imposing an excessive fine on an individual for the arbitrary reason of prosecuting a political opponent.

---

Isn't the amount for the disgorgement of undeserved profits rather than a fine or punishment? That's a big difference. It's hard to see how the Eighth Amendment would cover such a disgorgement.

And Trump with his bluster and stupid antics makes it easy for the justice systems of the various states and the federal government to go after him. He is hardly not responsible for what is happening.

It might or might not be heavy handed. If so, that is presumably something for the appeals court. Remember that appeals courts look for errors in law -- they don't normally reexamine the facts of the case.

---

There were no undeserved profits. The bank testified it did not rely on Trump's estimation of values when making the loan or setting the rate of interest.

Trump can start bringing pallets of 1 dollar bills and have the court sign for @ first truck. Truck after truck unloading pallets. Think of the imagery. Links to Obama's 10BB on pallets to Iran.

captkirk said:

---

There were no undeserved profits. The bank testified it did not rely on Trump's estimation of values when making the loan or setting the rate of interest.

---

you are quibbling about semantics.

This lawsuit is about a series of transactions in which Donald Trump made misrepresentations which are defined as "fraudulent" for purposes of 63(12).

He made profits as a result of those transactions.

The lawsuit sought (and obtained) disgorgement of those profits, to "discourage" such fraudulent statements in future transactions.

Antoninus said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Who is the plaintiff again?

---

the taxpaying citizens of the State of New York.

They now own a half billion dollar asset, in the form of a court judgment convertible to cash

Why should an elected representative put that asset at risk?

---

Is the judgement going anywhere if the appeal fails?

Now that's just funny right there.

TRADUCTOR said:

---

Trump can start bringing pallets of 1 dollar bills and have the court sign for @ first truck. Truck after truck unloading pallets. Think of the imagery. Links to Obama's 10BB on pallets to Iran.

---

you would have to check New York law, but most statutes (and court judgments) require that cash deposits in lieu of bond be tendered to the court in the form of a cashiers check.

RogerFurlong said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Who is the plaintiff again?

---

the taxpaying citizens of the State of New York.

They now own a half billion dollar asset, in the form of a court judgment convertible to cash

Why should an elected representative put that asset at risk?

---

Is the judgement going anywhere if the appeal fails?

---

no, but the assets which are now available to satisfy that judgment might.

The buildings might fall down. The real estate market might crash. There are probably a few dozen ways in which the value of that judgment could be lessened, as a result of forces outside the control of the judgment debtor.

Tea Party said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

you are quibbling about semantics.

---

No, he's not.

---

yes, he is.

Eric used the imprecise term "undeserved profits" and he took off with it.

Antoninus said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

you are quibbling about semantics.

---

No, he's not.

---

yes, he is.

Eric used the imprecise term "undeserved profits" and he took off with it.

---

Semantics are the last bastion for the losing side.

TRADUCTOR said:

---

Trump can start bringing pallets of 1 dollar bills and have the court sign for @ first truck. Truck after truck unloading pallets. Think of the imagery. Links to Obama's 10BB on pallets to Iran.

---

He should pay in loose pennies and nickels.

Antoninus said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

you are quibbling about semantics.

---

No, he's not.

---

yes, he is.

Eric used the imprecise term "undeserved profits" and he took off with it.

---

How very libertarian assuming the people can't make their own judgements if a deal is ok (the bank doing it's own due diligence) and we must rely on government to tell us what is or is not deserved.

You are the one quibbling about semantics. HTH. Your discussion about the case is correct, but your point of reference about why the case is here is way off the mark.

Tea Party said:

---

How very libertarian assuming the people can't make their own judgements if a deal is ok (the bank doing it's own due diligence) and we must rely on government to tell us what is or is not deserved.

---

did I write the statute?

Antoninus said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

How very libertarian assuming the people can't make their own judgements if a deal is ok (the bank doing it's own due diligence) and we must rely on government to tell us what is or is not deserved.

---

did I write the statute?

---

No but you sure do sunshine pump the clear abuse of the statute in this instance and ignore the fact that the bank said they did not rely on his numbers.

We are pointing out that this whole charade is big gov abusing it's power and ignoring the banks saying they did their own due diligence.

You are saying yay big gov for ignoring the bank and seeking maximum damages per the law against bad orange man even though even though a significant amount of people already do the very same activity and do not get punished.

Don't bother. Libs are never wrong don't ya know

Tea Party said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

How very libertarian assuming the people can't make their own judgements if a deal is ok (the bank doing it's own due diligence) and we must rely on government to tell us what is or is not deserved.

---

did I write the statute?

---

No but you sure do sunshine pump the clear abuse of the statute in this instance and ignore the fact that the bank said they did not rely on his numbers.

---

Not so much.

I have said… repeatedly… thatthis case was an obvious instance of selective enforcement, and that I would not have filed it had I been in a position to make that decision.

I've also said… repeatedly… that the portion of the judgment related to "excess interest" should not have been included, because he clearly did not obtain preferential rates.

Quote:

---

You are saying yay big gov for ignoring the bank and seeking maximum damages per the law against bad orange man even though even though a significant amount of people already do the very same activity and do not get punished.

---

I have said no such thing.

I think you may be confusing my position in this case, with my position in the Carroll case. In that case, I absolutely support the amount of the punitive damages. Why? Because punitive damages are intended as a tool to smack a bad actor between the eyes with a 2x4, to get their attention and convince them to change their behavior. $2-3 million impunitive damages would not have gotten Trump's attention.

Hypothetical.... And I could be way off base here.... But just for my understanding, would this be the same situation just on a smaller scale?

An individual buys a house to rent out as a STVR. Rents the house out for 3 years. Wants to buy a new house to rent as a STVR. Wants to use a HELOC to get the new house(stupid idea, but just for S&G). Employs a realtor to give price on current house to give to lender. Realtor says current house is worth $400,000. HELOC lender says house is worth $320,000. Lender approves $250,000 for new house using the old house as equity.

Individual buys new house for $200,000. Individual rents out house as STVR for 5 more years.

Along comes some prosecutor who dislikes you for whatever reason and says you committed fraud by telling the lender the house is worth $400,000. Gets the case before a judge or jury who say the individual is guilty of fraud under this same statute.

So for 5 years of renting, lets say the individual made $500,000(Executive rental FTW). So in NY before this individual could ask the appeals court to even listen to their case, they would have to come up with at least $500,000(probably more since I don't know what all it entails, plus interest of course). That is more than all their assets combined because they don't have 100% equity in either house. Nor enough cash to make up the difference.

I understand NY makes their own laws, but it seems kinda preposterous that the requirement for you to appeal is tied to a figure that could be well above your means to pay. If bond companies don't exist or won't take the risk, and a bogus charge is levied against you and you have a lawyer who loses the first trial you are screwed with no way to appeal the bad trial.

Maybe I didn't need to type all this out, maybe I did. But I am not a lawyer and trying to piece this all together in my mind.

Maybe it is as simple as too bad, so sad. But to me it seems like it is a disservice to your citizens to do it this way.