will25u said:

---

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

---

Seen the thread but hadn't watched it yet. He's actually kinda pissed that he has to say this and almost sounds like he wants to shake Biden's campaign people to stop this before they push people to vote for Trump when obviously Biden has done such a great job*

*obvious only to dyed in the wool leftists

Bernie Madoff faced a $10 million bond for the largest Ponzi scheme ever with 37,000 victims, while Donald Trump's bond is $455 million despite ZERO victims, everyone was paid with interest, on time and no crime was committed.

If the regime gets away with this WE ARE ALL NEXT! pic.twitter.com/abJlOvWBTB

— Uncensored USA 🇺🇸 (@CarlosSimancas) March 24, 2024

That's an entirely different kind of bond. It is meaningless to try to read anything into the different bond amounts.

GenericAggie said:

---

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.

---

What makes you think that TexAgs ever sees your MAC address?

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.

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.

---

If there is any rent involved or other monies due them, they probably can't just have it paid to a completely different one of his companies.

eric76 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

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.

---

What makes you think that TexAgs ever sees your MAC address?

---

Same condescending smug crap as all the liberals that think they are smarter than everyone. No TA can't see you Mac Address, , but they damn sure can see and log your IP Address, every website you ever visited knows your IP address. It has to, otherwise it can't talk back to you. And don't worry, your IP is not some horrible security issue that anyone can use to "hack" you. It doesn't work like that. That fear mongering is what they use to sell VPNs. So the other poster used the wrong term, and you decided to use his lack of network knowledge to hike up your gstring and act like you're smarter than everyone in the room when we all know you're not. Rock on sista your schtick is more transparent than optical grade glass

eric76 said:

---

That's an entirely different kind of bond. It is meaningless to try to read anything into the different bond amounts.

---

Duh genius, Bernie was charged with a felony crime, with over 30K victims and theft of billions of dollars. And his surety bond was to insure his appearance before the bench. Trump's case is a civil case, and not criminal and victimless. His bond was nothing more than a punitive overreach by two of your fellow liberal hacks. But I promise you Trump will get the last laugh and your party will suffer for the next decade as a result of this.

Bookmark this, Trump in a landslide bigger than Reagan/Mondale, people have had enough of y'all's liberal Marxist crap and Trump has expose the belly of the beast, and a reckoning is coming. Garland laid the blueprint after J6 and when you pink hats start melting down and try that 2020 summer of love BS again the hammer will fall.

Here we've got a situation where the judicial branch and the executive branch of a single US state has bent over backwards to try and dictate the outcome of the US presidential election.

The decision and order in this case effectively shuts down the Trump organization in the sate of New York as it makes it impossible to continue to do business in the State of New York for Trump and anyone associated with Trump. No dancing around that fact.

Also noteworthy is that the order appoints another New York state court judge (Judge Jones) to serve as a judicial monitor for the Trump organization. Trump is required to get her prior approval from the judge for finance deals for the next three years.

In order to assist the Judge Jones in monitoring himself, Trump is required to hire an independent director of compliance. The person hired for this will be picked by the judicial monitor, Judge Jones and willl report independently to judge Jones.

This effectively forces Trump to vacate the state of New York and also do a fire sale of whatever assets he has that is not eventually seized by the state as a result of the order.

The state of New York has effectively seized control of Trump's property and business interest in the state.There might be no dancing around that fact either,

This style of politically motivated attacks will never get reeled back in. Can't unring that bell. Other states will see what NY has gotten away with and do the same exact thing. NY has laid the groundwork.

We are entering a new era of the state simply seizing assets from persons declared to be a political enemy of the state.

Hawg I found another interesting casefrom over forty years ago.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/537/1192/2348358/

State of Ny by Abrams v. Citibank, Na, 537 F. Supp. 1192 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - 537 F. Supp. 1192 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)
May 3, 1982


537 F. Supp. 1192 (1982)


In the Matter of the Application of the STATE OF NEW YORK, by Robert ABRAMS, Attorney General of the State of New York, Petitioner, v. CITIBANK, N. A., Respondent.

Pursuant to Executive Law Section 63, Subdivision 12.

No. 81 Civ. 7273 (ADS).

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

May 3, 1982.

*1193 Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City, for petitioner; Melvyn R. Leventhal, Asst. Atty. Gen. In Charge, Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection, Stephen Mindell, Herbert Israel, Sara E. Nathan, New York City, of counsel.

Shearman & Sterling, New York City, for respondent; Danforth Newcomb, Mark P. Zimmett, New York City, of counsel.

Did the State of New York ram this thing through and go JG Wentworth on Trump's ass before the feds and Georgia got to him first?

Cant get blood out of a turnip.

Letitia wants her money and she want it now!

I read case Engeron relied upon. It has NOTHING TO DO with the Trump case. SEC vs Razmilovic, the defendant was accused of accounting fraud to rig stock option, stealing from shareholders. (Trump case has no victims.) Engeron issued a truly lawless ruling.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/12-0357/12-0357-2013-11-26.html

Quote:

---

The SEC's complaint alleges that from at least 1998 until early 2003, Symbol and the other defendants engaged in numerous fraudulent accounting practices and other misconduct that had a cumulative net impact of over $230 million on Symbol's reported revenue and over $530 million on its pre-tax earnings.

---

Could Jared " invest " part of his Saudi Sovereign wealth fund to put up the bond for the appeal to go forward ?

Foreverconservative said:

---

Hawg I found another interesting casefrom over forty years ago.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/537/1192/2348358/

State of Ny by Abrams v. Citibank, Na, 537 F. Supp. 1192 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - 537 F. Supp. 1192 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)
May 3, 1982


537 F. Supp. 1192 (1982)


In the Matter of the Application of the STATE OF NEW YORK, by Robert ABRAMS, Attorney General of the State of New York, Petitioner, v. CITIBANK, N. A., Respondent.

Pursuant to Executive Law Section 63, Subdivision 12.

No. 81 Civ. 7273 (ADS).

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

May 3, 1982.

*1193 Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City, for petitioner; Melvyn R. Leventhal, Asst. Atty. Gen. In Charge, Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection, Stephen Mindell, Herbert Israel, Sara E. Nathan, New York City, of counsel.

Shearman & Sterling, New York City, for respondent; Danforth Newcomb, Mark P. Zimmett, New York City, of counsel.

---

I'm puzzled.

How does this case have anything to do with Trump's? I'm not saying that it doesn't, just that I don't see the applicability.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Bookmark this, Trump in a landslide bigger than Reagan/Mondale,

---

what will your username be then roscoe?

---

Lol - he may sneak through if Biden stays in but zero percent chance of that kind of win. Maybe somewhere close if we nominated DeSantis or even Haley since Biden is such a bad candidate and is losing his base, but unfortunately we decided to nominate a divisive clown that will drive them to still show up.

double

How much of the judgment against Trump were fines? My understanding is that it was a disgorgement. Regardless of whether the amounts were too little or to much does not make them magically become fines?

Like it or not, there have been judgments that dwarfed this one.

eric76 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Hawg I found another interesting casefrom over forty years ago.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/537/1192/2348358/

State of Ny by Abrams v. Citibank, Na, 537 F. Supp. 1192 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - 537 F. Supp. 1192 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)
May 3, 1982


537 F. Supp. 1192 (1982)


In the Matter of the Application of the STATE OF NEW YORK, by Robert ABRAMS, Attorney General of the State of New York, Petitioner, v. CITIBANK, N. A., Respondent.

Pursuant to Executive Law Section 63, Subdivision 12.

No. 81 Civ. 7273 (ADS).

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

May 3, 1982.

*1193 Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City, for petitioner; Melvyn R. Leventhal, Asst. Atty. Gen. In Charge, Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection, Stephen Mindell, Herbert Israel, Sara E. Nathan, New York City, of counsel.

Shearman & Sterling, New York City, for respondent; Danforth Newcomb, Mark P. Zimmett, New York City, of counsel.

---

I'm puzzled.

How does this case have anything to do with Trump's? I'm not saying that it doesn't, just that I don't see the applicability.

---

Shocker, I would guess you wake up puzzled every day

It doesn't genius, that's the ENTIRE POINT! Your TDS leaves you with little to no common sense or perception. You are such a legal scholar you figure it out. I bet Hawg understands the point of my post.

You just concentrate on getting Biden out of the basement

eric76 said:

---

How much of the judgment against Trump were fines? My understanding is that it was a disgorgement.

---

Disgorgement of what?

Foreverconservative said:

---

eric76 said:

---

That's an entirely different kind of bond. It is meaningless to try to read anything into the different bond amounts.

---

Duh genius, Bernie was charged with a felony crime, with over 30K victims and theft of billions of dollars. And his surety bond was to insure his appearance before the bench. Trump's case is a civil case, and not criminal and victimless. His bond was nothing more than a punitive overreach by two of your fellow liberal hacks. But I promise you Trump will get the last laugh and your party will suffer for the next decade as a result of this.

Bookmark this, Trump in a landslide bigger than Reagan/Mondale, people have had enough of y'all's liberal Marxist crap and Trump has expose the belly of the beast, and a reckoning is coming. Garland laid the blueprint after J6 and when you pink hats start melting down and try that 2020 summer of love BS again the hammer will fall.

---

LMAO

can we please bet $500,000 on your assertion that Trump is going to win in a "landslide bigger than Reagan / Mondale"?

I really need a summer home on the Jersey shore.

MarquisHenri said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

That's an entirely different kind of bond. It is meaningless to try to read anything into the different bond amounts.

---

Ahh. So as long as the target is named "Trump", then the 8th Amendment cannot apply.

---

Eighth Amendment:

Quote:

---

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

---

Of course it applies to both of them. Madoff's was a criminal bond, so his case would have been governed only by the boldface language. Trump was not charged with a crime, so his case is governed only by the italicized language.

The two concepts are not closely related to one another, and each gave rise to a completely independent line of case law. They were just both shoehorned into the same Amendment, just like a number of unrelated issues were all shoehorned into the First Amendment..

for Trump, there appear to be two separate arguments under the eighth amendment.

The first argument is that the monetary award contain within the judgment constitutes and "excessive fine," because it is larger than necessary to accomplish the goal of the 63 (12) enforcement action… discouraging fraudulent representations in loan applications.

The second argument is that the bonding requirement is an "excessive fine" in and of itself, because it is larger than necessary to accomplish the underlying purpose of an appellate bond… assuring that assets will be available to satisfy the judgment.

personally, I think that the first argument may have some merit, because the monetary award found in the judgment does seem to be of been calculated to include elements not made part of 63 (12). It seems reasonably clear that he did not in fact gain favorable interest rates through his misrepresentations

---

apologies for edits, but as a new member I can make only a few posts per day.

as an aside, it is difficult to take seriously the poster claiming that this election will resemble the 1984 election in any way. however it turns out, the margin of victory this year will be much more like Bush/Gore than Reagan/Mondale.

MarquisHenri said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

That's an entirely different kind of bond. It is meaningless to try to read anything into the different bond amounts.

---

Ahh. So as long as the target is named "Trump", then the 8th Amendment cannot apply.

---

Eighth Amendment:

Quote:

---

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

---

Of course it applies to both of them. Madoff's was a criminal bond, so his case would have been governed by the boldface language. Trump was not charged with a crime, so his case is governed by the italicized language.

The two concepts are not closely related to one another, and each gave rise to a completely independent line of case law. They were just both shoehorned into the same Amendment, just like a number of unrelated issues were all shoehorned into the First Amendment..

---

Actually, they ARE related to each other. The amendment rises out of a realization and understanding that courts can - and sometimes will - massively overreach for reasons completely unrelated to the issue at hand.

Such as prosecuting a political trial in a courtroom judged by a fellow political ally using a novel legal theory resulting in levying an unreasonable fine against a political opponent that disagrees with your worldview.

Your entire argument requires that one dismiss that this prosecutor campaigned on targeting this single individual; utilized a unprecedented application of the law to accuse fraud where no one was harmed, much less defrauded; secured an outrageous judgement from a friendly judge; and is presently using that judgement to a.) interfere in a national election, and b.) make it difficult, if not impossible for the accused to appeal the decision without significant loss of assets.

I'm what world - prior to Trump - would anyone be justified to be financially destroyed for overstating an asset on a loan application?

ETA: I responded before your edit.

Foreverconservative said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Hawg I found another interesting casefrom over forty years ago.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/537/1192/2348358/

State of Ny by Abrams v. Citibank, Na, 537 F. Supp. 1192 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - 537 F. Supp. 1192 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)
May 3, 1982


537 F. Supp. 1192 (1982)


In the Matter of the Application of the STATE OF NEW YORK, by Robert ABRAMS, Attorney General of the State of New York, Petitioner, v. CITIBANK, N. A., Respondent.

Pursuant to Executive Law Section 63, Subdivision 12.

No. 81 Civ. 7273 (ADS).

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

May 3, 1982.

*1193 Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City, for petitioner; Melvyn R. Leventhal, Asst. Atty. Gen. In Charge, Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection, Stephen Mindell, Herbert Israel, Sara E. Nathan, New York City, of counsel.

Shearman & Sterling, New York City, for respondent; Danforth Newcomb, Mark P. Zimmett, New York City, of counsel.

---

I'm puzzled.

How does this case have anything to do with Trump's? I'm not saying that it doesn't, just that I don't see the applicability.

---

Shocker, I would guess you wake up puzzled every day

It doesn't genius, that's the ENTIRE POINT! Your TDS leaves you with little to no common sense or perception. You are such a legal scholar you figure it out. I bet Hawg understands the point of my post.

You just concentrate on getting Biden out of the basement

---

So you had no point you were trying to make?

And that causes you to make stupid insults?

When are you going to become a Conservative?

LMCane said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

eric76 said:

---

That's an entirely different kind of bond. It is meaningless to try to read anything into the different bond amounts.

---

Duh genius, Bernie was charged with a felony crime, with over 30K victims and theft of billions of dollars. And his surety bond was to insure his appearance before the bench. Trump's case is a civil case, and not criminal and victimless. His bond was nothing more than a punitive overreach by two of your fellow liberal hacks. But I promise you Trump will get the last laugh and your party will suffer for the next decade as a result of this.

Bookmark this, Trump in a landslide bigger than Reagan/Mondale, people have had enough of y'all's liberal Marxist crap and Trump has expose the belly of the beast, and a reckoning is coming. Garland laid the blueprint after J6 and when you pink hats start melting down and try that 2020 summer of love BS again the hammer will fall.

---

LMAO

can we please bet $500,000 on your assertion that Trump is going to win in a "landslide bigger than Reagan / Mondale"?

I really need a summer home on the Jersey shore.

---

I have to admit I was snookered by your DeSantis schtick back in the day.

Congratulations. You had me fooled there for a bit.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

eric76 said:

---

How much of the judgment against Trump were fines? My understanding is that it was a disgorgement.

---

Disgorgement of what?

---

Apparently of what the judge considered to be unearned and unjustified profits resulting from his representations of the value of his wealth resulting in lower interest rates.

Look, the whole thing seems rather suspicious. I would be surprised if the judge didn't make some errors there. However, it is in the court system and there are rules that must be followed. It doesn't matter how much everyone whines about it, the rules of the court system govern this.

It wouldn't be very surprising if the appeals court vacated the judgment and remanded it to the lower court for a do-over. The point is that being in the court system, Trump cannot magically kick it out of there.

This case strikes me as quite possibly the weakest of the cases against Trump. I can't say that Trump isn't reaping what he has spent his entire life sowing, though.

eric76 said:

---

How much of the judgment against Trump were fines? My understanding is that it was a disgorgement. Regardless of whether the amounts were too little or to much does not make them magically become fines?

Like it or not, there have been judgments that dwarfed this one.

---

Who was disgorged? Or are you letting hate and envy cloud your judgement and foolishly taking the judges imbecilic opinion as sacrosanct?

eric76 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

eric76 said:

---

How much of the judgment against Trump were fines? My understanding is that it was a disgorgement.

---

Disgorgement of what?

---

Apparently of what the judge considered to be unearned and unjustified profits resulting from his representations of the value of his wealth resulting in lower interest rates.

Look, the whole thing seems rather suspicious. I would be surprised if the judge didn't make some errors there. However, it is in the court system and there are rules that must be followed. It doesn't matter how much everyone whines about it, the rules of the court system govern this.

It wouldn't be very surprising if the appeals court vacated the judgment and remanded it to the lower court for a do-over. The point is that being in the court system, Trump cannot magically kick it out of there.

This case strikes me as quite possibly the weakest of the cases against Trump. I can't say that Trump isn't reaping what he has spent his entire life sowing, though.

---

Again, if you were truly conservative, conservative philosophy and the rule of law - Especially equal protection - would govern your thinking. You would be outraged at this judicial malfeasance.

Yet you allow your own personal hatred of a man to outweigh your judgement.

Disgorgement of profits? How in your world would it ever be possible that 1/2 of the value of a multigenerational family business with world wide holdings be considered the profit from overstatement of value on a single loan application?

Do you even realize what you're saying?

Who was disgorged?

Who should receive these 'disgorged' funds?

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

eric76 said:

---

How much of the judgment against Trump were fines? My understanding is that it was a disgorgement.

---

Disgorgement of what?

---

Apparently of what the judge considered to be unearned and unjustified profits resulting from his representations of the value of his wealth resulting in lower interest rates.

Look, the whole thing seems rather suspicious. I would be surprised if the judge didn't make some errors there. However, it is in the court system and there are rules that must be followed. It doesn't matter how much everyone whines about it, the rules of the court system govern this.

It wouldn't be very surprising if the appeals court vacated the judgment and remanded it to the lower court for a do-over. The point is that being in the court system, Trump cannot magically kick it out of there.

This case strikes me as quite possibly the weakest of the cases against Trump. I can't say that Trump isn't reaping what he has spent his entire life sowing, though.

---

Again, if you were truly conservative, conservative philosophy and the rule of law - Especially equal protection - would govern your thinking. You would be outraged at this judicial malfeasance.

Yet you allow your own personal hatred of a man to outweigh your judgement.

Disgorgement of profits? How in your world would it ever be possible that 1/2 of the value of a multigenerational family business with world wide holdings be considered the profit from overstatement of value on a single loan application?

Do you even realize what you're saying?

---

There are people every day who find it onerous to post a bond or the money in escrow to forestall seizures during an appeal. Trump is just a better known case. Other than that, the same rules that would apply to you or me in a similar case should also apply to him.

Was this about a single loan application? My impression is that it is about many loan applications and other statements of his wealth.

And I don't actually hate Trump. I don't trust him at all and wish he would just go away and behave as if he were an honest citizen. If he did that, I probably wouldn't think of him any more often than I do Obama, Bill, or Hillary. I would never vote for any of them, but I don't hate them. I just wish they would go away like I wash Trump would go away.

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

eric76 said:

---

How much of the judgment against Trump were fines? My understanding is that it was a disgorgement.

---

Disgorgement of what?

---

Apparently of what the judge considered to be unearned and unjustified profits resulting from his representations of the value of his wealth resulting in lower interest rates.

Look, the whole thing seems rather suspicious. I would be surprised if the judge didn't make some errors there. However, it is in the court system and there are rules that must be followed. It doesn't matter how much everyone whines about it, the rules of the court system govern this.

It wouldn't be very surprising if the appeals court vacated the judgment and remanded it to the lower court for a do-over. The point is that being in the court system, Trump cannot magically kick it out of there.

This case strikes me as quite possibly the weakest of the cases against Trump. I can't say that Trump isn't reaping what he has spent his entire life sowing, though.

---

Again, if you were truly conservative, conservative philosophy and the rule of law - Especially equal protection - would govern your thinking. You would be outraged at this judicial malfeasance.

Yet you allow your own personal hatred of a man to outweigh your judgement.

Disgorgement of profits? How in your world would it ever be possible that 1/2 of the value of a multigenerational family business with world wide holdings be considered the profit from overstatement of value on a single loan application?

Do you even realize what you're saying?

---

Whether or not the disgorgement is proper is up to the courts.

It seems to me that what you and others are arguing is special protection for Trump that is denied to nearly everyone else. I don't know how you can imagine that to be "equal protection".

What good does it do to spend all day whining about them? Trump has lived by lawfare most of his adult life -- if he comes out on the short end because of lawfare, that is his problem, not mine.