Quote:

---

NYC's budget analysts and a growing number of CRE analysts are projecting that the office vacancy rate in Manhattannow at a record 22.7%will continue to languish above 20% through 2026.

---

Also worth noting that Biden has rolled out a program to subsidize conversion of office to residential.

We've now got a situation where building owners are walling off the interior-core of high rise office buildings with no windows.

Meh, so is Houston and Dallas

Another reminder" Engeron's is a state court. There is nothing prohibiting having a camera feed in his courtroom such as CourtTv being the pool feed. Minimal disruption if any. Not like federal court where there are actual rules prohibiting them.

Yet Engeron refused to allow cameras when court was in session but he did allow them in the mornings before they went into session. And Engeron made sure he was onthe bench mugging for the cameras. See, the normal way court begins their session is when the bailiff says, "All rise!" and then the judge comes in, stits down on the bench and immediately gets to business. If the judge is on the bench, it is in session. But that's not what had happened here. The only way to follow the proceedings was on twitter feeds from some reporters allowed in the courtroom, an imperfect type of transcript, at best. (Which I did follow through Gouvia's streams.)

Had this trial been fully live streamed and televised, people's opinions on what happened here would be much different, in my view.

Jonathan Turley Pours Cold Water On Letitia James' Plans To Seize Trump's Assets pic.twitter.com/94VCC5ihpe

— Illinois girl Desi (@d_ewinger) March 23, 2024

I guess he was smart enough to know not to put his kangaroo court on live TV.

VegasAg86 said:

---

I guess he was smart enough to know not to put his kangaroo court on live TV.

---

Smart? Or exercising bias and bad faith? It really bothered me that he was on the bench during the morning media availability with reporters allowed to shove cameras in Trump's face while the judge is yukking it up from the bench. Highly unprofessional and making a mockery of his own courtroom. Add to that James not even sittin at counsel table but glaring at Trump from the gallery was just kabuki theater.

CourtTv has been doing unobtrusive courtroom feeds for years. Yes they occasionally screw up and inadvertently show a juror or two but this was a bench trial. No jury.

bobbranco said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

What did the prosecutor argue in terms of ill-gotten gains figures? I assume that Trump's team said there were zero. But did Trump's team argue that even if you use the logic that the judge is using, the numbers should be X? A much smaller number? Trump's lawyers don't really seem to be all that bright, after all. Sexy, yes. Bright, no.

---

Because you seem dead set on the idea of ill-gotten gains we presume you did the research. Why don't you read the transcript and let us know if the judge ignored testimony to the contrary? You won't because all you want to do is trot out your mistruths.

---

So you don't know either.

aggiehawg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

I guess he was smart enough to know not to put his kangaroo court on live TV.

---

Smart? Or exercising bias and bad faith? It really bothered me that he was on the bench during the morning media availability with reporters allowed to shove cameras in Trump's face while the judge is yukking it up from the bench. Highly unprofessional and making a mockery of his own courtroom. Add to that James not even sittin at counsel table but glaring at Trump from the gallery was just kabuki theater.

CourtTv has been doing unobtrusive courtroom feeds for years. Yes they occasionally screw up and inadvertently show a juror or two but this was a bench trial. No jury.

---

Smart enough to not put his bias and bad faith on tape for the whole world to see.

This WP article has more information about how the fine figure was reached by the judge. It wasn't paywalled for me:

"New York Attorney General Letitia James's lawsuit against Trump, the Trump Organization and the others said they produced false financial statements that were incorrect by as much as $2.2 billion a year from 2011 to 2021."

"Engoron found that Trump benefited from ill-gotten gains in three major categories including the sale of the government lease for the former Trump International Hotel at the historic Old Post Office in Washington, sale of his rights to operate the Ferry Point golf course in New York City and interest savings that Trump obtained by portraying himself as less of a financial risk than he was."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/25/trump-354-million-penalty-judgment/

Judge is saying he won the bid because of a false application.

Unwinding all of Trump's transactions over the past 10-years on the basis that he portrayed himself as less of a financial risk than he actually was;

Classifying the money he wrongfully saved as ill gotten profits on the basis that this money should have been paid to the banks;

All of the proceeds from this action going to the State of New York rather than back to the banks as restitution.

The State of New York can't seize Trump's property directly but used the banks as the strawman.

Banks are being used here like that brown paper bag they give you to legally walk out of the U-totem with a tall-boy.

You made the claims now back them up.

aggiehawg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

What did the prosecutor argue in terms of ill-gotten gains figures? I assume that Trump's team said there were zero. But did Trump's team argue that even if you use the logic that the judge is using, the numbers should be X? A much smaller number? Trump's lawyers don't really seem to be all that bright, after all. Sexy, yes. Bright, no.

---

Because you seem dead set on the idea of ill-gotten gains we presume you did the research. Why don't you read the transcript and let us know if the judge ignored testimony to the contrary? You won't because all you want to do is trot out your mistruths.

---

So you don't know either.

---

But I do know. As I have explained multiple times on this thread, disgorgement is an equitable remedy to combat another equitable doctrine called unjust enrichment. That is where one party has wronged another to achieve ill-gotten gains bit ill gotten gains is defined as profits, not proceeds. So Engeron delieratly blew it when he used proceeds and not profits first. They he applied a multiplier to wrong number and came up with an even more absurd number and both were incorrectly calculated, precisely to get to number that the appeal bond would be so high as to be confiscatory, a/ka/a violative of the 8th amendment.

No one was harmed here. No wrong was done to gain Trump more profits at the expense of anyone else. And if you really want to go down the equitable doctrine route, look at the person who brought the case, Letitia James. Her personal animosity against Trump is prosecutorial misconduct with te number of times she made public statements that she that was going to get Trump by any means necessary. The is called unclean hands. And under equitable doctrine she would be barred from any remedy.

---

"Too male, too pale, and too stale." I wonder if she has any racial or sexual bias in the cases she chooses. That could be a fun route to look down

What happens if James doesn't chain up Trump Tower or 29 Wall tomorrow? She still has to foreclose on the judgment liens on file before she can take possession, I believe.

I think she tries to seize bank accounts first, try being the operative word. Even that is not as simple as waving a magic wand and POOF she has them. She has made too many promises that she cannot keep on a timeline she set for herself.

I starred your post because I hope the law is obeyed starting now.
But the NY Democrats have turned into Nasticrats
(as in National-Socialist-Crats)
whose terroristic activities will have so cowed the banks
that freezing Trump's bank accounts may be easy.

Whats the most complicated part for her regarding the bank accounts?

Real liberals would have the sense to know this is crazytown. Anybody applauding this bull**** should go live in another country.

Also let's keep in mind that there's no better jurisdiction to be in when you are talking about seizing bank accounts or money flowing through banks than the State of New York and particularly Manhattan. That's their rice bowl.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Also let's keep in mind that there's no better jurisdiction to be in when you are talking about seizing bank accounts or money flowing through banks than the State of New York and particularly Manhattan. That's their rice bowl.

---

Are his bank accounts there?

Barnyard96 said:

---

Whats the most complicated part for her regarding the bank accounts?

---

Trump has over 500 different LPs, LLCs and other various forms for ownership of those. Meaning there are other people besides just him. The reason there are limited partnerships and limited liability companies is so oher people's money is not taken due to a problem caused by another. Their personal liability is limited from outside creditors.

Another reason why the disgorgement theory doesn't work well as to those other partners and shareholders in an LLC. There will be challenges and James will find herself in court a lot over them.

Another way to put it is what is termed piercing the corporate veil. When a judgment against a corporation can be enforced against individual shareholder's assets. The required showing is that a corporation was actually being used as an alter ego of the person being sued to be able to execute against shareholders thus found.

That really was not actively pursued by James. There was not a finding of that as applied to others than Trump and his sons and even then not spelled out how.

Bottomline, execution on a judgment is not really easy nor quick in the most straightforward of cases. Here? Massively complex business organizational structure. Trumps' name be on the account but that doesn't mean other people's money is not in that account.

For instance, I had a corporation that was the operational arm of a business but the entity that owned the asset that allowed for operation was in an LLP and leased to the corp. Corp fails, lease is terminated but the main asset could still be leased or sold to another. Not a complete loss.

They may seize other non real estate assets but they'll need at least one photo of a Trump building with chains on the door.

No way any of this gets resolved without a PR photo of Letitia standing in front of a Trump owned property with chains on the door.

In fact, SMR commits to bumping this post when it happens, just for good measure.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

They may seize other non real estate assets but they'll need at least one photo of a Trump building with chains on the door.

No way any of this gets resolved without a PR photo of Letitia standing in front of a Trump owned property with chains on the door.

In fact, SMR commits to bumping this post when it happens, just for good measure.

---

58th degree chess dictates Trump get his own ChatTrump AI to generate said photo and use it to his advantage.

So Trump smells what Letitia is cookin' and steals her thunder by way of meme warfare?

58th degree chess indeed and now you may have willed this into existence.

TA-OP said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

They may seize other non real estate assets but they'll need at least one photo of a Trump building with chains on the door.

No way any of this gets resolved without a PR photo of Letitia standing in front of a Trump owned property with chains on the door.

In fact, SMR commits to bumping this post when it happens, just for good measure.

---

58th degree chess dictates Trump get his own ChatTrump AI to generate said photo and use it to his advantage.

---

Really? That's your team's game.

aggiehawg said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Whats the most complicated part for her regarding the bank accounts?

---

Trump has over 500 different LPs, LLCs and other various forms for ownership of those. Meaning there are other people besides just him. The reason there are limited partnerships and limited liability companies is so oher people's money is not taken due to a problem caused by another. Their personal liability is limited from outside creditors.

Another reason why the disgorgement theory doesn't work well as to those other partners and shareholders in an LLC. There will be challenges and James will find herself in court a lot over them.

Another way to put it is what is termed piercing the corporate veil. When a judgment against a corporation can be enforced against individual shareholder's assets. The required showing is that a corporation was actually being used as an alter ego of the person being sued to be able to execute against shareholders thus found.

That really was not actively pursued by James. There was not a finding of that as applied to others than Trump and his sons and even then not spelled out how.

Bottomline, execution on a judgment is not really easy nor quick in the most straightforward of cases. Here? Massively complex business organizational structure. Trumps' name be on the account but that doesn't mean other people's money is not in that account.

For instance, I had a corporation that was the operational arm of a business but the entity that owned the asset that allowed for operation was in an LLP and leased to the corp. Corp fails, lease is terminated but the main asset could still be leased or sold to another. Not a complete loss.

---

If I remember correctly, some of Trump's companies were found along with Trump to be jointly and severally liable.

aggiehawg said:

---

Really? That's your team's game.

---

I have no game; ask my wife.

eric76 said:

---

If I remember correctly, some of Trump's companies were found along with Trump to be jointly and severally liable.

---

Judgment was entered against Trump, his kids, two executives and ten Trump companies.

In anticipation of a writ of garnishment, it is a fair bet that no bank account in the name of any of those persons or entities currently has a balance exceeding 17 cents.

For the companies under court supervision, they just pay bills in the ordinary course and do not replenish. Trump's OTHER thousand companies are not obligated to provide these ten with money. They have had a month in which to allow those accounts to empty themselves. This is not rocket science, despite snarky comments to the contrary. It is simply good tactics.

I understand that Ms.Snark is an attorney, and I suspect that she would advise clients not to add funds to accounts likely to be subject to garnishment. But admitting that does not earn blue stars here, I suppose.

Quote:

---

How many times do you enjoy being completely wrong? because you sure seem to enjoy it.

---

So hostile.

MarquisHenri said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If I remember correctly, some of Trump's companies were found along with Trump to be jointly and severally liable.

---

Judgment was entered against Trump, his kids, two executives and ten Trump companies.

In anticipation of a writ of garnishment, it is a fair bet that no bank account in the name of any of those persons or entities currently has a balance exceeding 17 cents.

---

How many times do you enjoy being completely wrong? because you sure seem to enjoy it.

Forget about that court monitor who can prevent transfers of funds wheneevr she feels like it? She has no supervision. But what she says goes and there is zero recourse in Engeron's court. Crooked judge from the get go.

BTW, you are new poster I see. Recently banned? Perma?

MarquisHenri said:

---

eric76 said:

---

If I remember correctly, some of Trump's companies were found along with Trump to be jointly and severally liable.

---

Judgment was entered against Trump, his kids, two executives and ten Trump companies.

In anticipation of a writ of garnishment, it is a fair bet that no bank account in the name of any of those persons or entities currently has a balance exceeding 17 cents.

---

Another sock. I wish the site would not allow 2 accounts from the same MAC address.

Quote:

---

I understand that Ms.Snark is an attorney, and I suspect that she would advise clients not to add funds to accounts likely to be subject to garnishment. But admitting that does not earn blue stars here, I suppose.

---

That's Mrs. Snark to you or you can call me HBIC or CIB.

Do you need a translation?

ETA: Thought better. And deleted something.

NEW: Frank Luntz Warns CNN Seizing Donald Trump's Properties Will Backfire: "You Are Going to Elect Donald Trump"

"He’s going to go up in the polls just like he went up every single time they indicted him."

"If the New York Attorney General starts to take his homes away, starts… pic.twitter.com/HwyPiO5fGP

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) March 22, 2024

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

They may seize other non real estate assets but they'll need at least one photo of a Trump building with chains on the door.

No way any of this gets resolved without a PR photo of Letitia standing in front of a Trump owned property with chains on the door.

In fact, SMR commits to bumping this post when it happens, just for good measure.

---

If she's not crossing her arms trying to look tough it's not worth it. Bonus points for a sledgehammer