TA-OP said:

---

Seeing some talk about Trump invoking the 8th Amendment. I think he's finally on to something.

---

Yes, we have been discussing that for weeks. you can certainly come up with a few distinguishing facts, but they really do not amount too much

The consensus amongst those who understand the issue is that it is not much of an argument, under Texaco/Pennzoil

techno-ag said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

Seeing some talk about Trump invoking the 8th Amendment. I think he's finally on to something.

---

Yup. Excessive fines are cruel and unusual.

---

But are disgorgements considered legally to be cruel and unusual?

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

Seeing some talk about Trump invoking the 8th Amendment. I think he's finally on to something.

---

Yup. Excessive fines are cruel and unusual.

---

But are disgorgements considered legally to be cruel and unusual?

---

the "cruel and unusual" clause relates to criminal proceedings. Relevant here is the "excessive fines" clause though, again, that is probably a losing argument under Texaco/Pennzoil

Antoninus said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

Seeing some talk about Trump invoking the 8th Amendment. I think he's finally on to something.

---

Yes, we have been discussing that for weeks.

The consensus amongst those who understand the issue is that it is not much of an argument, under Texaco/Pennzoil

---

ah thanks for the info.

Regarding the value added from potential future revenue, why should that be included anyways? If I'm selling you my house from which I also conduct my private business, I don't get to charge you for potential lost revenue, or at least you'd laugh me out the door.

Antoninus said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Since these properties aren't just "value holders" but "revenue producers", what happens if they sell one and Trump wins on appeal?

Do they just give him the money back that they got from the sale? Because that would mean he'd be missing all the revenues past and future... Something something irreparable harm...

---

it is a question of state law, and I'm not going to look up New York law for you, but the following is Texas law.

Quote:

---

Sec. 34.022. RECOVERY OF PROPERTY VALUE AFTER SALE. (a) A person is entitled to recover from the judgment creditor the market value of the person's property that has been seized through execution of a writ issued by a court if the judgment on which execution is issued is reversed or set aside but the property has been sold at execution.
(b) The amount of recovery is determined by the market value at the time of sale of the property sold.

---

---

And see...this was my question.

This sounds like it's based on the property just being an asset, rather than a revenue source.

So, the future profits from the property (if it had not been seized/sold) would be apparently "disgorged"?

---

As I read the statute, those hypothetical revenues would be an irrelevancy under Texas law. Who knows what New York law might be, however?

---

Fair enough.

Although, doesn't that seem like "irreparable harm"?

TA-OP said:

---

Regarding the value added from potential future revenue, why should that be included anyways? If I'm selling you my house from which I also conduct my private business, I don't get to charge you for potential lost revenue, or at least you'd laugh me out the door.

---

there's actually an interesting theoretical argument there.

You've not just been deprived of a piece of dirt, but also of an entire business, which generates revenue. Of course, the response is that many types of real property do the same. Farmland, for instance.

But the simple answer, at least under that Texas statute, is that it simply is not included. it would be interesting if someone would actually research the analogous New York statute, but I'm tired of doing all the legal research around here, and I really doubt that the law would be any different in New York.

Ag with kids said:

---

Quote:

---

As I read the statute, those hypothetical revenues would be an irrelevancy under Texas law. Who knows what New York law might be, however?

---

Fair enough.

Although, doesn't that seem like "irreparable harm"?

---

I hope this doesn't sound like a smart ass, but it actually sounds absolutely nothing like "irreparable harm" from a legal perspective.

That concept is tied closely to injunctive relief, and only really comes to play when money damages could not make a person whole.

Lost revenues are almost a textbook example of a situation when money damages CAN make a person whole.

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

Seeing some talk about Trump invoking the 8th Amendment. I think he's finally on to something.

---

Yup. Excessive fines are cruel and unusual.

---

But are disgorgements considered legally to be cruel and unusual?

---

the "cruel and unusual" clause relates to criminal proceedings. Relevant here is the "excessive fines" clause though, again, that is probably a losing argument under Texaco/Pennzoil

---

A $400 ticket for speeding in a school zone not being excessive does not mean a $400 ticket for parking next to a fire hydrant is not excessive.

Ag with kids said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In the late 80s and early 90s I had occasion to try to deal with the Resolution Trust Corporation on office buildings they had from the S&L crisis. They couldn't have cared less about any upkeep on those buildings yet still wanted full price for essentially rotted out buildings with massive roof leaks, broken windows, and all manners of damage..

I doubt Letitia James has any clue about maintenance costs for those massive buildings.

---

I assume that they will be selling them as fast as they can. If they don't get full price, that doesn't relieve Trump of the obligation for the full amount, does it? Won't they just keep seizing and selling assets until the full amount is paid?

---

It is not like the auction will held at Sotheby. It will be a courthouse steps or written bid process most likely the latter with financial terms any bidder would have to provide they can pay that auction amount.

To be clear, that is not a quick process. Not by a longshot. And that is why James' seizure of the properties is dumb while the case is on appeal. That would make the state responsible for maintenance of those properties in the meantime. His buidings have tenants. She has to respect those contracts.

---

Since these properties aren't just "value holders" but "revenue producers", what happens if they sell one and Trump wins on appeal?

Do they just give him the money back that they got from the sale? Because that would mean he'd be missing all the revenues past and future...It would be like being fired, suing and winning, and then being told that you were allowed to get your office back...but not your job or paycheck.

Something something irreparable harm...

---

It would certainly seem to be better for Trump to get a bond, but it's not surprising that bonding companies don't want to provide bonds for Trump.

---

See...your problem is that everything is because Trump bad for you'.

There are other reasons...

---

Blathering again?

My comment had absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of Trump. That Trump is a real piece of sh*t has nothing to do with my comment. The comment would apply even if I thought that Trump was sent by God to deal with all of God's enemies on Earth.

If Trump could get a bond, then he would keep the property at least until the decision of the Appeals Court. If the Truth Social sale goes through and he can sell enough shares to cover the judgment, then he need not lose his property at all.

Without a bond and without putting the amount in escrow, the state can seize his property and sell it. In the event that the case is remanded for a new trial he would get back the cash value of what the state received when it sold the property.

But yeah. Just read into everything what you want to read into it instead of trying to figure out what someone actually said.

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

Seeing some talk about Trump invoking the 8th Amendment. I think he's finally on to something.

---

Yup. Excessive fines are cruel and unusual.

---

But are disgorgements considered legally to be cruel and unusual?

---

the "cruel and unusual" clause relates to criminal proceedings. Relevant here is the "excessive fines" clause though, again, that is probably a losing argument under Texaco/Pennzoil

---

Exactly.

That was a rhetorical question asked because of the confusion of some who think that disgorgements and fines are the very same thing.

it is funny how those who scream "TDS!!!" loudest are also the most likely to be totally incapable of seeing any situation through anything other than orange-tinted glasses.

eric76 said:

---

That was a rhetorical question asked because of the confusion of some who think that disgorgements and fines are the very same thing.

---

some posters really do seem to be struggling to internalize that distinction, aren't they?

This is a decent article that explains a few things that have been severely misrepresented by several posters

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

Foreverconservative said:

---

This is a decent article that explains a few things that have been severely misrepresented by several posters

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

---

Quote:

---

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump's case stands apart in a significant way: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

---

One rule for Trump, potentially the same rule applying to any Republican businessman or investor who decides to run (or even exist) in New York or in some other part of Hobbesian America.

Antoninus said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Quote:

---

As I read the statute, those hypothetical revenues would be an irrelevancy under Texas law. Who knows what New York law might be, however?

---

Fair enough.

Although, doesn't that seem like "irreparable harm"?

---

I hope this doesn't sound like a smart ass, but it actually sounds absolutely nothing like "irreparable harm" from a legal perspective.

That concept is tied closely to injunctive relief, and only really comes to play when money damages could not make a person whole.

Lost revenues are almost a textbook example of a situation when money damages CAN make a person whole.

---

Oh no...I'm just trying to understand the technical parts...

You're saying money damages CAN make a person whole for "lost revenue".

But the only money damages that would be returned would be value of the asset and NOT the lost revenue.

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

That was a rhetorical question asked because of the confusion of some who think that disgorgements and fines are the very same thing.

---

some posters really do seem to be struggling to internalize that distinction, aren't they?

---

lots of posters fail to understand value preservation. Seizing Trump property is a phenomenally bad value preservation strategy spearheaded by political sycophants.

This whole process/thread/argument is the reason why proper ch.11 lawyers love when cock-sure state court litigators come stomping into our court: they're right, of course, except they don't know what they're doing. "Coo coo- I just kicked a rook!"

They don't realize the damages they've done to themselves

Claverack said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

This is a decent article that explains a few things that have been severely misrepresented by several posters

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

---

Quote:

---

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump's case stands apart in a significant way: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

---

One rule for Trump, potentially the same rule applying to any Republican businessman or investor who decides to run (or even exist) in New York or in some other part of Hobbesian America.

---

So all the claims that nothing like this has ever happened before is a big fat lie?

I thought so.

Ag with kids said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Quote:

---

As I read the statute, those hypothetical revenues would be an irrelevancy under Texas law. Who knows what New York law might be, however?

---

Fair enough.

Although, doesn't that seem like "irreparable harm"?

---

I hope this doesn't sound like a smart ass, but it actually sounds absolutely nothing like "irreparable harm" from a legal perspective.

That concept is tied closely to injunctive relief, and only really comes to play when money damages could not make a person whole.

Lost revenues are almost a textbook example of a situation when money damages CAN make a person whole.

---

Oh no...I'm just trying to understand the technical parts...

You're saying money damages CAN make a person whole for "lost revenue".

But the only money damages that would be returned would be value of the asset and NOT the lost revenue.

---

Are you thinking that if the Appeals Court remands the case for a new trial or something, then the state owes Trump damages?

They would be returning the value of the assets received and that value would have been set by the selling price of the assets, not some esoteric evaluation of their value.

I guess Trump might be able to file suit against the state for damages, but that would just be a lot of extra legal fees, I think, with no legal basis for any monetary award.

eric76 said:

---

Claverack said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

This is a decent article that explains a few things that have been severely misrepresented by several posters

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

---

Quote:

---

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump's case stands apart in a significant way: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

---

One rule for Trump, potentially the same rule applying to any Republican businessman or investor who decides to run (or even exist) in New York or in some other part of Hobbesian America.

---

So all the claims that nothing like this has ever happened before is a big fat lie?

I thought so.

---

Reading comprehension not your strong suit?

"…and Trump's case stands apart in a significant way: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses."

Reality Check said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Claverack said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

This is a decent article that explains a few things that have been severely misrepresented by several posters

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

---

Quote:

---

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump's case stands apart in a significant way: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

---

One rule for Trump, potentially the same rule applying to any Republican businessman or investor who decides to run (or even exist) in New York or in some other part of Hobbesian America.

---

So all the claims that nothing like this has ever happened before is a big fat lie?

I thought so.

---

Reading comprehension not your strong suit?

"…and Trump's case stands apart in a significant way: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses."

---

They aren't threatening to shut down the business. It may end up that way, but that depends on Trump's business abilities.

eric76 said:

---

Claverack said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

This is a decent article that explains a few things that have been severely misrepresented by several posters

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

---

Quote:

---

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump's case stands apart in a significant way: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

---

One rule for Trump, potentially the same rule applying to any Republican businessman or investor who decides to run (or even exist) in New York or in some other part of Hobbesian America.

---

So all the claims that nothing like this has ever happened before is a big fat lie?

I thought so.

---

Somebody else got a nearly half billion dollar fine for doing nothing?

AggieAL1 said:

---

Doesn't all that imply that Trump owns the properties? That means lien free. Or at least a willingness by bidders to clear the liens.

Seeing that Trump is famous for leveraging assets to acquire more, and that he got into this fix in part by overstating property values to gain bigger loans, could it be that he already owes more on his properties than their current values?

If so, the properties aren't his (and thus the attorney general's) to sell.

---

in post judgment discovery, the state will be entitled to find out what assets are owned and any encumbrance. they can then choose what they want to seize. for example:

building one, $100 lien, $110 market value
building two, $100 lien, $1000 market value

they ignore building one and seize building two.

What the hell is the government going to do with these assets? Liquidate them all? Seems like it will be a huge mess and the people responsible aren't qualified for these types of deals, otherwise they wouldn't be working for the government.

The judgement is just absolutely absurd to begin with.

Quote:

---

What the hell is the government going to do with these assets? Liquidate them all? Seems like it will be a huge mess and the people responsible aren't qualified for these types of deals, otherwise they wouldn't be working for the government.

The judgement is just absolutely absurd to begin with.

---

DJT is going to let them seize the property. He has all the leverage too.

Quote:

---

The judgement is just absolutely absurd to begin with.

---

yes

Quote:

---

What the hell is the government going to do with these assets? Liquidate them all? Seems like it will be a huge mess and the people responsible aren't qualified for these types of deals, otherwise they wouldn't be working for the government.

---

yes, liquidate the properties. hire a firm to sell them.

bmks270 said:

---

What the hell is the government going to do with these assets? Liquidate them all? Seems like it will be a huge mess and the people responsible aren't qualified for these types of deals, otherwise they wouldn't be working for the government.

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

in post judgment discovery, the state will be entitled to find out what assets are owned and any encumbrance. they can then choose what they want to seize. for example:

building one, $100 lien, $110 market value
building two, $100 lien, $1000 market value

they ignore building one and seize building two.

---

given the nature of the claims in the lawsuit (fraud regarding values), it seems highly likely that all of this information is already in the possession of the judgment creditor (plaintiff/state).

I suspect that they already have a prioritized list ready to go.

fc2112 said:

---

---

Dude, you are way too excited about this!

Have you considered seeing a doctor? I suspect the blood flow is over 4 hours on this one!

Antoninus said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

in post judgment discovery, the state will be entitled to find out what assets are owned and any encumbrance. they can then choose what they want to seize. for example:

building one, $100 lien, $110 market value
building two, $100 lien, $1000 market value

they ignore building one and seize building two.

---

given the nature of the claims in the lawsuit (fraud regarding values), it seems highly likely that all of this information is already in the possession of the judgment creditor (plaintiff/state).

I suspect that they already have a prioritized list ready to go.

---

You seem to have a childlike trust in the NY State government.

techno-ag said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

given the nature of the claims in the lawsuit (fraud regarding values), it seems highly likely that all of this information is already in the possession of the judgment creditor (plaintiff/state).

I suspect that they already have a prioritized list ready to go.

---

You seem to have a childlike trust in the NY State government.

---

quite the opposite. I suspect that Leticia James is foaming at the mouth in anticipation of seizing Trump properties.

She probably had her list prepared before the judgment was signed.

that is not a question of "trust" in the government of the state of New York. Is an understanding of the personalities and motivations of the players.

eric76 said:

---

Claverack said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

This is a decent article that explains a few things that have been severely misrepresented by several posters

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

---

Quote:

---

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump's case stands apart in a significant way: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

---

One rule for Trump, potentially the same rule applying to any Republican businessman or investor who decides to run (or even exist) in New York or in some other part of Hobbesian America.

---

So all the claims that nothing like this has ever happened before is a big fat lie?

I thought so.

---

Show us who this novel approach, charging someone with fraudulent behavior with no one involved in the transactions stepping forward to claim such violation against their person or business, has been used against before Trump.

You can't. But it doesn't matter to you as you go for anything from piss tapes to Vindman to get Trump.

Meanwhile, Representative Donalds proves Mr.Ten Percent got his cut from the Chinese Communist Party, something Trump never did.

But here you are, cheerleading political persecution and prosecution while the most corrupt President in American history continues getting a free ride.

It doesn't matter to Eric what Biden and the rest of the dems do. As long as he can scream about Trump, he's happy. Screw the country.

Quote:

---

That was a rhetorical question asked because of the confusion of some who think that disgorgements and fines are the very same thing.

---

The confusion came directly from Engeron's conflation of the two in the manner he calculated these damages.

Disgorgement is an equitable remedy for unjust enrichment, gains acquired through dirty hands. But it is the profits, not all of the proceeds. Engeron used the wrong method to calculate the 'gains" from Trump buying, rennovating and then selling the old US Post Office building in DC. He used the entire proceeds of the sale, not the profit. *FTR, I am not sure there was even a causal connection to that transaction to beging with, but that will addressed on appeal.)

He did that as well on his own calculation of the interest rates on recourse versus non-recourse loans. He pulled that one out of thin air, since the testimony from the bank was that they set the interest rates on these recourse loans.

So as night follows day, when you start with the wrong number and then apply a multiplier for punitives, you get another unsupportable number.

Quote:

---

Disgorgement is a remedy requiring a party who profits from illegal or wrongful acts to give up any profits they made as a result of that illegal or wrongful conduct. The purpose of this remedy is to prevent unjust enrichment and make illegal conduct unprofitable.

---

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/disgorgement

I agree with about 99% of what you just posted. A part of the problem, IMO is that too many people (including lawyers) have fallen into the trap of describing the award as "damages." using that terminology has a tendency to influence people (again, including lawyers) to evaluate the award based upon preconceptions regarding legal "damages."

The statute authorizes "relief" beyond just legal money "damages." I suspect that that choice of language was entirely intentional.

But I do agree with you that Engeron calculated the "relief" entirely incorrectly. Both as to the (incremental interest) and the "unjust enrichment" for lack of a better term.