https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4554204-trump-says-hell-pay-175m-bond-set-by-court/

Quote:

---

Former President Trump said Monday he will pay a $175 million bond set by a New York appeals court in his civil fraud case.

"We will abide by the decision of the Appellate Division, and post either a bond, equivalent securities, or cash," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

..............

A spokesperson for the New York attorney's office noted in a statement that the $464 million, plus interest, judgment against Trump and his business still stands.

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Any word if Trump was able to secure a bond in that amount?

---

I thought I read in one of Trump's filings that they said they felt a bond of $175MM was appropriate.

For the idiots in the room questioning SoL violation claims, Last June the NY court of appeals that the statute of limitations in this case is set at 2014. All the claims relating to alleged conduct are from before July 13, 2014 can't come into the case, which by the way have Engoron two extra years from the standard 6 years by law, Engoron still blew off the ruling saying that evidence from before that time could still be used to help prove newer claims if any arise during the trial. James set on this case since 2019 so the timing would fall into the election cycle which was the goal to begin with. If you look at the claims she brought forward they were from 2012-2013. Engoron accepted her claims and moved forward, Trump appealed and asked for the state appellate court to dismiss it because the SoL had run out.

When the clown was mugging fot the cameras before the trial started the next day he said on camera, "If you were here for yesterday's excitement, welcome back,"

Then a pool reporter shouted out, "What about the appellate court ruling on the statute of limitations?" and the clown replied. "As I stated yesterday, the statute of limitations bars claims, not evidence."

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Engeron goes into an extensive discussion of disgorgement and categorizes the damages as 'disgorgement.' Classification of damages is overlooked but is important here because it may affect any argument Trump has based in the 8th amendment regarding excessive fines.

As we know, disgorgement is an equitable remedy and not based in law, but in equity. An equitable remedy allows the judge to do what he or she thinks is just under the circumstances. In other words, an equitable remedy is whatever the judge says it is.

Typically fines and damages are straightforward as the law has been largely settled in that area, but it appears that they went to great lengths to classify the damages in this case as disgorgement rather than a fine or some other category of damages based in law.

The judge mentions disgorgement 17 times and goes in to a discussion on the issue and his reasoning. At first glance this was a strange tack and much discussion has been had about the bizarre reasoning that money saved equates to ill gotten profits and disgorgement of those profits is justified.

I say all that to say this.

It stands to reason that the AG and the judge did all this to curb Trump's argument tht $355 million in damages with no victim was considered an excessive fine. It's crafted in such a way to survive 8th amendment scrutiny.

So the AG and the Judge have collaborated here and gone to great lengths to also disgorge Trump of his constitutional rights and make these damages stick. They may have managed to muck this up just enough where it gives any appellate court that looks at it an out.

So Letitia and the judge really deserve some credit here for thinking this all through. Outstanding work. Letitia campaigned on the single issue of getting Trump, and she did.

---

Who was disgorged?

Who should receive these 'disgorged' funds?

---

Per Investopedia, "Disgorgement is the legally mandated repayment of ill-gotten gains imposed on wrongdoers by the courts. Funds that were received through illegal or unethical business transactions are disgorged, or paid back, often with interest and/or penalties to those affected by the action."

So to answer your question, Trump is the individual that the judgement is attempting to have disgorged of "ill gotten profits". ie. profits gotten and business done due to the existence of loans received due to valuations of property that the court disagreed with - even though it is entirely likely and has been stated by lenders that those valuations were not instrumental in the securing of any loans.

But since the loans were paid back and there are no victims, the State is alleging that "everyone" is a victim, and therefore, the State of New York is to receive the funds.

Funny how that is working, isn't it?

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Engeron goes into an extensive discussion of disgorgement and categorizes the damages as 'disgorgement.' Classification of damages is overlooked but is important here because it may affect any argument Trump has based in the 8th amendment regarding excessive fines.

As we know, disgorgement is an equitable remedy and not based in law, but in equity. An equitable remedy allows the judge to do what he or she thinks is just under the circumstances. In other words, an equitable remedy is whatever the judge says it is.

Typically fines and damages are straightforward as the law has been largely settled in that area, but it appears that they went to great lengths to classify the damages in this case as disgorgement rather than a fine or some other category of damages based in law.

The judge mentions disgorgement 17 times and goes in to a discussion on the issue and his reasoning. At first glance this was a strange tack and much discussion has been had about the bizarre reasoning that money saved equates to ill gotten profits and disgorgement of those profits is justified.

I say all that to say this.

It stands to reason that the AG and the judge did all this to curb Trump's argument tht $355 million in damages with no victim was considered an excessive fine. It's crafted in such a way to survive 8th amendment scrutiny.

So the AG and the Judge have collaborated here and gone to great lengths to also disgorge Trump of his constitutional rights and make these damages stick. They may have managed to muck this up just enough where it gives any appellate court that looks at it an out.

So Letitia and the judge really deserve some credit here for thinking this all through. Outstanding work. Letitia campaigned on the single issue of getting Trump, and she did.

---

Who was disgorged?

Who should receive these 'disgorged' funds?

---

Letitia I guess.

Conducting lawfare against Trump cost money.

Maybe she'll take the entire office to Hawaii or Vegas on a cle retreat or something. We just don't know.

It's hard to believe that the author of Taking Down Trump has such an irrational view of Donald Trump's win today. https://t.co/m3g0GGYuSg

— Karol Markowicz (@karol) March 25, 2024

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Engeron goes into an extensive discussion of disgorgement and categorizes the damages as 'disgorgement.' Classification of damages is overlooked but is important here because it may affect any argument Trump has based in the 8th amendment regarding excessive fines.

As we know, disgorgement is an equitable remedy and not based in law, but in equity. An equitable remedy allows the judge to do what he or she thinks is just under the circumstances. In other words, an equitable remedy is whatever the judge says it is.

Typically fines and damages are straightforward as the law has been largely settled in that area, but it appears that they went to great lengths to classify the damages in this case as disgorgement rather than a fine or some other category of damages based in law.

The judge mentions disgorgement 17 times and goes in to a discussion on the issue and his reasoning. At first glance this was a strange tack and much discussion has been had about the bizarre reasoning that money saved equates to ill gotten profits and disgorgement of those profits is justified.

I say all that to say this.

It stands to reason that the AG and the judge did all this to curb Trump's argument tht $355 million in damages with no victim was considered an excessive fine. It's crafted in such a way to survive 8th amendment scrutiny.

So the AG and the Judge have collaborated here and gone to great lengths to also disgorge Trump of his constitutional rights and make these damages stick. They may have managed to muck this up just enough where it gives any appellate court that looks at it an out.

So Letitia and the judge really deserve some credit here for thinking this all through. Outstanding work. Letitia campaigned on the single issue of getting Trump, and she did.

---

Who was disgorged?

Who should receive these 'disgorged' funds?

---

Letitia I guess.

Conducting lawfare against Trump cost money.

Maybe she'll take the entire office to Hawaii or Vegas on a cle retreat or something. We just don't know.

---

Whatever. Another useless reply.

"gross miscarriage of justice" for reducing a fine that was applied following an actual "gross miscarriage of justice"

eff you "Tristan"

We fixed the keg said:

---

"gross miscarriage of justice" for reducing a fine that was applied following an actual "gross miscarriage of justice"

eff you "Tristan"

---

NOTE: the fine/judgment amount was but reduced!

Just the amount of bond to stave off collection while the appeal is pending!

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Engeron goes into an extensive discussion of disgorgement and categorizes the damages as 'disgorgement.' Classification of damages is overlooked but is important here because it may affect any argument Trump has based in the 8th amendment regarding excessive fines.

As we know, disgorgement is an equitable remedy and not based in law, but in equity. An equitable remedy allows the judge to do what he or she thinks is just under the circumstances. In other words, an equitable remedy is whatever the judge says it is.

Typically fines and damages are straightforward as the law has been largely settled in that area, but it appears that they went to great lengths to classify the damages in this case as disgorgement rather than a fine or some other category of damages based in law.

The judge mentions disgorgement 17 times and goes in to a discussion on the issue and his reasoning. At first glance this was a strange tack and much discussion has been had about the bizarre reasoning that money saved equates to ill gotten profits and disgorgement of those profits is justified.

I say all that to say this.

It stands to reason that the AG and the judge did all this to curb Trump's argument tht $355 million in damages with no victim was considered an excessive fine. It's crafted in such a way to survive 8th amendment scrutiny.

So the AG and the Judge have collaborated here and gone to great lengths to also disgorge Trump of his constitutional rights and make these damages stick. They may have managed to muck this up just enough where it gives any appellate court that looks at it an out.

So Letitia and the judge really deserve some credit here for thinking this all through. Outstanding work. Letitia campaigned on the single issue of getting Trump, and she did.

---

Who was disgorged?

Who should receive these 'disgorged' funds?

---

Letitia I guess.

Conducting lawfare against Trump cost money.

Maybe she'll take the entire office to Hawaii or Vegas on a cle retreat or something. We just don't know.

---

Whatever. Another useless reply.

---

Give us something to reply to. What u got?

Lay it on us. We all here.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Engeron goes into an extensive discussion of disgorgement and categorizes the damages as 'disgorgement.' Classification of damages is overlooked but is important here because it may affect any argument Trump has based in the 8th amendment regarding excessive fines.

As we know, disgorgement is an equitable remedy and not based in law, but in equity. An equitable remedy allows the judge to do what he or she thinks is just under the circumstances. In other words, an equitable remedy is whatever the judge says it is.

Typically fines and damages are straightforward as the law has been largely settled in that area, but it appears that they went to great lengths to classify the damages in this case as disgorgement rather than a fine or some other category of damages based in law.

The judge mentions disgorgement 17 times and goes in to a discussion on the issue and his reasoning. At first glance this was a strange tack and much discussion has been had about the bizarre reasoning that money saved equates to ill gotten profits and disgorgement of those profits is justified.

I say all that to say this.

It stands to reason that the AG and the judge did all this to curb Trump's argument tht $355 million in damages with no victim was considered an excessive fine. It's crafted in such a way to survive 8th amendment scrutiny.

So the AG and the Judge have collaborated here and gone to great lengths to also disgorge Trump of his constitutional rights and make these damages stick. They may have managed to muck this up just enough where it gives any appellate court that looks at it an out.

So Letitia and the judge really deserve some credit here for thinking this all through. Outstanding work. Letitia campaigned on the single issue of getting Trump, and she did.

---

Who was disgorged?

Who should receive these 'disgorged' funds?

---

Letitia I guess.

Conducting lawfare against Trump cost money.

Maybe she'll take the entire office to Hawaii or Vegas on a cle retreat or something. We just don't know.

---

Whatever. Another useless reply.

---

Give us something to reply to. What u got?

Lay it on us. We all here.

---

Whatever. Another useless reply.

bob, I think you might be a little off-track, here.

The banks didn't do anything wrong, and therfore would never have to disgorge anything. Disgorgement is not sometheing that is done to you. Disgorgement is the penalty imposed. Engeron is alleging that virtually half of the value of Trump's assets was "ill gotten" due to the fact that he received loans that he used to become successful, and that the only reason he got those loans was because he "lied" on his financial statements. He is arguing that the $355 million +~$100 million is to be a disgorgement + interest rather than a fine.

It's a novel theory used in this one instance, that has never been used before as far as I'm aware in the State of New York, or elsewhere in the US as far as I'm aware.

In addition, Engeron has used another novel theory of arbitrarily coming to a penalty amount, and then applying interest to that arbitrary penalty from the date at which the "investigation" began. So the "disgorgement" is not of profits that can be readilly calculated as a result of a specific fraud. It is a nebulous "fuzzy math" arguing that pretty much 1/2 of everything Trump has ever done was fraudulent, and for good measure, let's add interest onto that dreamed-up number so that we can destroy him.

The state was never entitled to any profits. The bank was the sole beneficiary. The bank had no complaints.

If and only if the claim is paid to the banks then NYS could claim disgorgement. Bank has not asked to be paid.

A kangaroo court it is.

ETA: If you think that I believe the banks did anything wrong then you are completely mistaken.

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Engeron goes into an extensive discussion of disgorgement and categorizes the damages as 'disgorgement.' Classification of damages is overlooked but is important here because it may affect any argument Trump has based in the 8th amendment regarding excessive fines.

As we know, disgorgement is an equitable remedy and not based in law, but in equity. An equitable remedy allows the judge to do what he or she thinks is just under the circumstances. In other words, an equitable remedy is whatever the judge says it is.

Typically fines and damages are straightforward as the law has been largely settled in that area, but it appears that they went to great lengths to classify the damages in this case as disgorgement rather than a fine or some other category of damages based in law.

The judge mentions disgorgement 17 times and goes in to a discussion on the issue and his reasoning. At first glance this was a strange tack and much discussion has been had about the bizarre reasoning that money saved equates to ill gotten profits and disgorgement of those profits is justified.

I say all that to say this.

It stands to reason that the AG and the judge did all this to curb Trump's argument tht $355 million in damages with no victim was considered an excessive fine. It's crafted in such a way to survive 8th amendment scrutiny.

So the AG and the Judge have collaborated here and gone to great lengths to also disgorge Trump of his constitutional rights and make these damages stick. They may have managed to muck this up just enough where it gives any appellate court that looks at it an out.

So Letitia and the judge really deserve some credit here for thinking this all through. Outstanding work. Letitia campaigned on the single issue of getting Trump, and she did.

---

Who was disgorged?

Who should receive these 'disgorged' funds?

---

Letitia I guess.

Conducting lawfare against Trump cost money.

Maybe she'll take the entire office to Hawaii or Vegas on a cle retreat or something. We just don't know.

---

Whatever. Another useless reply.

---

Give us something to reply to. What u got?

Lay it on us. We all here.

---

Whatever. Another useless reply.

---

That's the great thing about these threads. They are self-correcting.

You don't have to sit there and wonder if you are right or wrong.

If you are wrong someone will pop out the woodpile let you know almost instantaneously.

Where else can you get that?

Go away. You are acting like a child and muddying the waters with your tripe.

bobbranco said:

---

The state was never entitled to any profits. The bank was the sole beneficiary. They had no complaints made by the bank.

If and only if the claim is paid to the banks then NYS could claim disgorgement. Bank has not asked to be paid.

A kangaroo court it is.

ETA: If you think that I believe the banks did anything wrong then you are completely mistaken.

---

Oh, but they are claiming disgorgement. To the "people of the State of New York".

An incredible reach, for sure. But that is what they're claiming.

jrdaustin said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

The state was never entitled to any profits. The bank was the sole beneficiary. They had no complaints made by the bank.

If and only if the claim is paid to the banks then NYS could claim disgorgement. Bank has not asked to be paid.

A kangaroo court it is.

ETA: If you think that I believe the banks did anything wrong then you are completely mistaken.

---

Oh, but they are claiming disgorgement. To the "people of the State of New York".

An incredible reach, for sure. But that is what they're claiming.

---

I understand. Complete fascism.

bobbranco said:

---

Go away. You are acting like a child and muddying the waters with your tripe.

---

Me?

I'm over her clarifying the water like a zebra mussel.

Post something substantive and we'll talk about it.

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?

---

FWIW Eric has always claimed to be a classic liberal. So he's not really claiming to be conservative.

fc2112 said:

---

---

Let me fix that for you....



... and probably a LOT more!

jrdaustin said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

The state was never entitled to any profits. The bank was the sole beneficiary. They had no complaints made by the bank.

If and only if the claim is paid to the banks then NYS could claim disgorgement. Bank has not asked to be paid.

A kangaroo court it is.

ETA: If you think that I believe the banks did anything wrong then you are completely mistaken.

---

Oh, but they are claiming disgorgement. To the "people of the State of New York".

An incredible reach, for sure. But that is what they're claiming.

---

Since the disgorgement was based in equity, maybe the equitable thing to do here is for Letitia to take the $355 million and divide it amongst the people of the State of New York.

Everyone in the state gets a check for $17.75.

(Less court costs, settlement administrator and payment systems fees.)

Quick, somebody get Kenneth Feinberg on the line!

This answer is going to be memed everywhere. Trump says he will post his $175 million bond in cash. pic.twitter.com/0SkLEeluvJ

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) March 25, 2024

Whether the idiots on the left will admit it or not the NY Court of Appeals may have saved them from shooting themselvs in the foot over the overall optics of the possibility of James and crew starting to move on Trump assets.

That's where l'm at with this. No chance a NY appellate court or even the supreme court will disturb any finding of fact so Trump's relief lies on constitutional grounds.

fc2112 said:

---

---

Will you come along and post the countdown again? I'm pretty excited for it!

You'll probably get all the way down to 1 again and then...

POOF! Trump has settled the bond with... CASH.

Bernie Madoff - $10 million bond
for the largest Ponzi scheme ever, defrauding 40k investors of billions.

Sam Bankman-Fried - $250M bond defrauded thousands of tens of billions in losses.

Donald Trump - $454M bond, finally reduced to $175M, for civil not criminal, where he…

— Grant Cardone (@GrantCardone) March 25, 2024

Letitia James is big mad. Steer clear because that button is about to give. pic.twitter.com/Xw9TT7XfO6

— LivePDDave 🇺🇸 (@LivePDDave1) March 25, 2024