Antoninus said:

---

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.

---

You don't have to double down on proving my point that you are ok with big gov abusing its power against people it/you doesnt like....

I agreed with you that the legalities of the case is sound.

The reasoning behind the case AND the amount of damages sought AND the selective application of justice are what I am pointing out that any sane person would recognize as clear abuses of government thus making the whole case not sound, in my opinion.

Tea Party said:

---

The reasoning behind the case AND the amount of damages sought AND the selective application of justice are what I am pointing out that any sane person would recognize as clear abuses of government thus making the whole case not sound, in my opinion.

---

and I agreed with you.

Antoninus said:

---

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.

---

I'm not quibbling that misrepresentations were made. I'm quibbling with how the "profits" were calculated

Antoninus said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

The reasoning behind the case AND the amount of damages sought AND the selective application of justice are what I am pointing out that any sane person would recognize as clear abuses of government thus making the whole case not sound, in my opinion.

---

and I agreed with you.

---

Don't take this the wrong way as I truly mean it with good intentions. Maybe it's just how the personality comes across via text and since you're a lawyer and I am not, but reading your posts gives off the completely opposite vibe.

I could be reading it wrong and I apologize if so, but just giving you a heads up that the tea leaves of your posts lead others to believe that you are strongly in favor of big gov abusing it's power especially when directed at Trump since you constantly comment on the legalities of the case and ignore the fundamentals of is the case morally right in the first place.

Kind of goes against the whole libertarian notion and being conservative where morals are valued. Not saying you aren't those, but your posts come off that way.

Edit to add that I do appreciate your knowledge on the law. Just like aggiehawg is appreciated here detailing the nuances, whether we agree with them or not.

This is why my company has lawyers review our contracts, but we don't let them make any business decisions.

And they will call Trump a dictator.

aggiehawg said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

What about the fact the prosecutor campaigned to "get him"?

---

would you be upset if she had campaign upon a promise to "get" El Chapo? Willie Moscone?

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.

---

Just reposting for fun.

Your concern is duly noted.

captkirk said:

---

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.

---

That may be, but the award is, I think, listed as a disgorgement, not a fine. If it was written as a fine, then the Eighth Amendment might actually apply. As a disgorgement, I don't think that it would.

eric76 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

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.

---

That may be, but the award is, I think, listed as a disgorgement, not a fine. If it was written as a fine, then the Eighth Amendment might actually apply. As a disgorgement, I don't think that it would.

---

A disgorgement requires illegal conduct... not just being the target of a partisan AG and a Democrat hack sitting on the bench.

Reality Check said:

---

eric76 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

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.

---

That may be, but the award is, I think, listed as a disgorgement, not a fine. If it was written as a fine, then the Eighth Amendment might actually apply. As a disgorgement, I don't think that it would.

---

A disgorgement requires illegal conduct... not just being the target of a partisan AG and a Democrat hack sitting on the bench.

---

Fraud is an illegal conduct.

Whether or not the decision stands remains to be seen, but that does not mean that Trump gets to make that determination.

eric76 said:

---

Quote:

---

A disgorgement requires illegal conduct... not just being the target of a partisan AG and a Democrat hack sitting on the bench.

---

Fraud is an illegal conduct.

Whether or not the decision stands remains to be seen, but that does not mean that Trump gets to make that determination.

---

Or his mewling sycophants.

For now we just get to leave it up to the Puritans running the NY legal system.

eric76 said:

---

Reality Check said:

---

eric76 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

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.

---

That may be, but the award is, I think, listed as a disgorgement, not a fine. If it was written as a fine, then the Eighth Amendment might actually apply. As a disgorgement, I don't think that it would.

---

A disgorgement requires illegal conduct... not just being the target of a partisan AG and a Democrat hack sitting on the bench.

---

Fraud is an illegal conduct.

Whether or not the decision stands remains to be seen, but that does not mean that Trump gets to make that determination.

---

Fraud is also not arbitrarily defined based on the political needs of the court and the DA. If it is so, then all those engaged in New York real estate transactions should be in considerable fear if they have the wrong politics, or are just a valuable or lucrative target.

What is more fraudulent, a real estate investor over valuing his properties, or a judge undervaluing them so he can apply some BS statute?

Antoninus said:

---

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.

---

Do you really think Trump was a rapist?
And, even if he was back then, did he need a huge penalty to make him "safe" now?
Perhaps Biden needs a huge penalty to make him safe from document mishandling?

Rongagin71 said:

---

Do you really think Trump was a rapist?

---

I have no doubt that he was a sexual predator. You need to look no further than the accounts told by the beauty pageant contestants to confirm this. Did he "rape" Carroll, by the statutory definition? No, apparently not. Apparently, it was "only" sexual assault. A layperson can be forgiven for struggling with the distinction.

Quote:

---

And, even if he was back then, did he need a huge penalty to make him "safe" now?

---

The large punitive damage award was related to the defamation, not the sexual assault. Yes, I do believe that he needed a smack between the eyes with a 2x4, because he had not stopped the defamation.

Leftist NPCs have been waxing poetic about seizing Mar-A-Lago lately.

I'm curious to see how Florida courts react to attempts to domesticate this judgment.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Leftist NPCs have been waxing poetic about seizing Mar-A-Lago lately.

---

I would expect that property to be the last on the list, for a number of reasons. First, it is out of state. Second, there are a lot of deed restrictions. Third, there are apparently historic easements in place as well.

All of that works to reduce the value for someone who is really just looking to buy property in fee simple.

but who knows, even with all of those complications it may be the property in which he has the most equity.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Leftist NPCs have been waxing poetic about seizing Mar-A-Lago lately.

I'm curious to see how Florida courts react to attempts to domesticate this judgment.

---

Question is what value will NYC put on it?

I don't think you quite understood the point of my post.

But you did raise an interesting point. Commercial real estate ownership and finance is mind-bogglingy complicated. By simply inserting itself as equity holder in place of whatever Trump entity, New York is almost assuredly immediately creating a host of hard and soft covenant defaults.

So on top of the properties dropping off of tax rolls, bond holder trusts are going to turn around and shove the valuations the state/judge used at trial straight up NY's ass and assume ownership with $0 going to NY's equity assertion. lol.

Barnyard96 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Leftist NPCs have been waxing poetic about seizing Mar-A-Lago lately.

I'm curious to see how Florida courts react to attempts to domesticate this judgment.

---

Question is what value will NYC put on it?

---

I hope someone puts in a bid of $19.8 million, a 10% premium over the judge 's valuation. Their reaction will show the absurdity of that valuation.

Barnyard96 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Leftist NPCs have been waxing poetic about seizing Mar-A-Lago lately.

I'm curious to see how Florida courts react to attempts to domesticate this judgment.

---

Question is what value will NYC put on it?

---

like I said in my post immediately following this, lenders in the various debt stacks for property that NY actually seizes are going to use the values NY used judicially and vaporize whatever equity claim NY asserts.

Which is sad for the underlying bond holder classes (pension funds, retirement funds, etc). The ultimate result will be massive wealth destruction because some democrats hate Trump.

Barnyard96 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Leftist NPCs have been waxing poetic about seizing Mar-A-Lago lately.

I'm curious to see how Florida courts react to attempts to domesticate this judgment.

---

Question is what value will NYC put on it?

---

Good Lord. NY does not "value" the property.

They sell it at auction and apply the proceeds first to any outstanding mortgage and then to the judgment debt.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

I don't think you quite understood the point of my post.

But you did raise an interesting point. Commercial real estate ownership and finance is mind-bogglingy complicated. By simply inserting itself as equity holder in place of whatever Trump entity, New York is almost assuredly immediately creating a host of hard and soft covenant defaults.

So on top of the properties dropping off of tax rolls, bond holder trusts are going to turn around and shove the valuations the state/judge used at trial straight up NY's ass and assume ownership with $0 going to NY's equity assertion. lol.

---

I might never stop laughing if that happens. I have no idea what the chances are.

I haven't read this entire thread but can someone educate me on my biggest question regarding this whole thing? Why does the judgement go to the state of NY? They make their money on property taxes. They have no skin in the game on commercial loans so why do they benefit from the judgement?

Antoninus said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Leftist NPCs have been waxing poetic about seizing Mar-A-Lago lately.

I'm curious to see how Florida courts react to attempts to domesticate this judgment.

---

Question is what value will NYC put on it?

---

Good Lord. NY does not "value" the property.

They sell it at auction and apply the proceeds first to any outstanding mortgage and then to the judgment debt.

---

Good Lord, get a sense of humor. You might be the most dense poster on this board.

Do you sit in section 316 about row 6 by any chance?

Antoninus said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Leftist NPCs have been waxing poetic about seizing Mar-A-Lago lately.

I'm curious to see how Florida courts react to attempts to domesticate this judgment.

---

Question is what value will NYC put on it?

---

Good Lord. NY does not "value" the property.

They sell it at auction and apply the proceeds first to any outstanding mortgage and then to the judgment debt.

---

bond holder trusts and other stakeholders are going to cause serious problems with this process.

Anyone that just tries to say, "oh, they'll just have an auction and apply the proceeds" does not have the requisite sophistication to be involved in the conversation. This isn't a foreclosure on a 3 bed/2.5 bath on a quarter acre in Little Elm, Texas.

The most disturbing part here is that the democrats involved in this process are incentivized NOT to achieve whatever the best and highest value preservation scenario might look like. Remember: their goal is to get Trump so the more of these properties that are sold below market, the more they can continue to seize in the name of satisfying the judgment.

stick93 said:

---

I haven't read this entire thread but can someone educate me on my biggest question regarding this whole thing? Why does the judgement go to the state of NY? They make their money on property taxes. They have no skin in the game on commercial loans so why do they benefit from the judgement?

---

Some BS about in the "interest of the public", the fine is paid to the state.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

[Anyone that just tries to say, "oh, they'll just have an auction and apply the proceeds" does not have the requisite sophistication to be involved in the conversation. This isn't a foreclosure on a 3 bed/2.5 bath on a quarter acre in Little Elm, Texas.

---

most states REQUIRE a share of sale at auction, when a property is seized in order to satisfy a judgment debt.

Reading between the lines of your post, you do have some experience with foreclosure sales putsuant to a deed of trust in favor of the lender or lenders. That is an entirely different animal.

trying to get too deep in the weeds at this point would be unproductive. We don't even know what property is it issue, much less the ownership or creditor/bond arrangements.

The point is that the state of New York is not going to randomly assign a value, then move into Trump Tower and set up an AG office in Trump's living room.

Antoninus said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

[Anyone that just tries to say, "oh, they'll just have an auction and apply the proceeds" does not have the requisite sophistication to be involved in the conversation. This isn't a foreclosure on a 3 bed/2.5 bath on a quarter acre in Little Elm, Texas.

---

most states REQUIRE a share of sale at auction, when a property is seized in order to satisfy a judgment debt.

Reading between the lines of your post, you do have some experience with foreclosure sales putsuant to a deed of trust in favor of the lender or lenders. That is an entirely different animal.

trying to get too deep in the weeds at this point would be unproductive. We don't even know what property is it issue, much less the ownership or creditor/bond arrangements.

The point is if the state of New York is not going to randomly assign a value, then move into Trump Tower and set up an AG office in Trump's living room.

---

So how do they know he overvalued them?

Antoninus said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

[Anyone that just tries to say, "oh, they'll just have an auction and apply the proceeds" does not have the requisite sophistication to be involved in the conversation. This isn't a foreclosure on a 3 bed/2.5 bath on a quarter acre in Little Elm, Texas.

---

most states REQUIRE a share of sale at auction, when a property is seized in order to satisfy a judgment debt.

Reading between the lines of your post, you do have some experience with foreclosure sales putsuant to a deed of trust in favor of the lender or lenders. That is an entirely different animal.

trying to get too deep in the weeds at this point would be unproductive. We don't even know what property is it issue, much less the ownership or creditor/bond arrangements.

The point is if the state of New York is not going to randomly assign a value, then move into Trump Tower and set up an AG office in Trump's living room.

---

The point here is that the actors involved are basically too dumb to understand value preservation, complex real estate finance, and all sorts of other issues.

Hell, the workings of the debt stack and lending covenants associated with a decent sized strip mall is probably way over these idiots' respective heads.

You're right that we have no idea how the financing and debt stacks for these properties look or work. But anyone with exposure is going to lose their **** if some NY state pencil pusher seriously tries to get involved.

You're right that I know what I'm talking about. I don't really do deed of trust type work. I am a business bankruptcy lawyer. And I've done a lot of work in extremely complicated distressed commercial real estate situations.

In this situation, you'd do well to realize that this is the equivalent of a situation where sophisticated parties are playing chess and Letitia James and that weirdo judge are two pigeons strutting around the chess board kicking over pieces at random and cooing, "checkmate, *****."

Barnyard96 said:

---

So how do they know he overvalued them?

---

you could start by reading the opinion. It outlines the pattern of deception in great detail.