There has to be some sane people left in NY that see ramification of this beyond Trump? perhaps not.

Good, she needs to go eat a bowl…

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Hardest workin button in the lawfare game.

---

Nice!

pacecar02 said:

---

There has to be some sane people left in NY that see ramification of this beyond Trump? perhaps not.

---

No, there are mostly the big time business people who screamed like scalded cats over that judgment.. Am surprised that there was some sanity at the appellate division though.

Having said, there is a slim possibilty they don't accept Trump's appeal or James tries to appeal the reduction in bond amounts (which woould go nowehere in my view.) Courts order bond reductions quite often, in fact.

One thing that struck me is by how much they reduced it. They are already looking at the factual findings to reach that decision.

Quote:

---

No, there are mostly the big time business people who screamed like scalded cats over that judgment.. Am surprised that there was some sanity at the appellate division though.

Having said, there is a slim possibilty they don't accept Trump's appeal or James tries to appeal the reduction in bond amounts (which woould go nowehere in my view.) Courts order bond reductions quite often, in fact.

One thing that struck me is by how much they reduced it. They are already looking at the factual findings to reach that decision.

---

I thought the same thing. I still can't seen how any of this withstands an 8th Amendment challenge though.

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.

---

Who would be the recipients of the 455 million? Does that money go to a vacuum or to those who were harmed? How would that work. There are no harmed peeps so the money goes to ???? DNC ? state of new your for Roads....

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

No, there are mostly the big time business people who screamed like scalded cats over that judgment.. Am surprised that there was some sanity at the appellate division though.

Having said, there is a slim possibilty they don't accept Trump's appeal or James tries to appeal the reduction in bond amounts (which woould go nowehere in my view.) Courts order bond reductions quite often, in fact.

One thing that struck me is by how much they reduced it. They are already looking at the factual findings to reach that decision.

---

I thought the same thing. I still can't seen how any of this withstands an 8th Amendment challenge though.

---

Does calling it "disgorgement" instead of a "fine" really change the substance of what is happening? Strikes me as mere semantics.

agAngeldad said:

---

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.

---

Who would be the recipients of the 455 million? Does that money go to a vacuum or to those who were harmed? How would that work. There are no harmed peeps so the money goes to ???? DNC ? state of new your for Roads....

---

At this point, who knows? There were no individuals harmed in the traditional sense. Engoron and James are alleging "the people" were harmed in order to classify the judgement as a disgorgement to try to get around the 8th Amendment.

But what the State of NY would do with the money? No earthly idea. Perhaps "contribute" it to the Engoron and James reelection efforts. (They might have to take their campain staff & families to Switzerland to strategize and stuff...)

Very bold of 'em.

They brazenly trying to skirt Trump's 8th amendment rights here.

Constitution supposed to limit the power of the government, and here they are gettin cute with semantics.

agAngeldad said:

---

Layne Staley said:

---

not too many have won the long game against Trump. My prediction is eventually Engoron and and James by violating the 8th amendment were acting beyond the course and scope of their duties and will be subject to personal damages in doing so.

they should get a taste of their own medicine.

---

If Trump wins his appeal, he should sue them all for everything his attorneys can think of. including penalties for loss interest on money they are holding.

---

Sovereign immunity is a problem on that score. However there is a federal law about conspiring to violate someone's due process rights under color of law. Most commonly applied against cops but can apply to prosecutors and on rare occasions, a judge. But who the hell would prosecute that case? DOJ won't.

Maybe a 42 USC 1983 action? Honestly don't know which avenues are available, if any.

jrdaustin said:

---

agAngeldad said:

---

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.

---

Who would be the recipients of the 455 million? Does that money go to a vacuum or to those who were harmed? How would that work. There are no harmed peeps so the money goes to ???? DNC ? state of new your for Roads....

---

At this point, who knows? There were no individuals harmed in the traditional sense. Engoron and James are alleging "the people" were harmed in order to classify the judgement as a disgorgement to try to get around the 8th Amendment.

But what the State of NY would do with the money? No earthly idea. Perhaps "contribute" it to the Engoron and James reelection efforts.

---

Probably fund projects that big NY Dem supporters profit off of before they make even larger contributions back into the Dem pot.

aggiehawg said:

---

agAngeldad said:

---

Layne Staley said:

---

not too many have won the long game against Trump. My prediction is eventually Engoron and and James by violating the 8th amendment were acting beyond the course and scope of their duties and will be subject to personal damages in doing so.

they should get a taste of their own medicine.

---

If Trump wins his appeal, he should sue them all for everything his attorneys can think of. including penalties for loss interest on money they are holding.

---

Sovereign immunity is a problem on that score. However there is a federal law about conspiring to violate someone's due process rights under color of law. Most commonly applied against cops but can apply to prosecutors and on rare occasions, a jusge. But who the hell would prosecute that case? DOJ won't.

Maybe a 42 USC 1983 action? Honestly don't know which avenues are available, if any.

---

Would immunity still apply if they could prove they "knew" they were negligent in filing suit? Might not be asking this the right way.

Fat stacks yo!

agAngeldad said:

---

Layne Staley said:

---

not too many have won the long game against Trump. My prediction is eventually Engoron and and James by violating the 8th amendment were acting beyond the course and scope of their duties and will be subject to personal damages in doing so.

they should get a taste of their own medicine.

---

If Trump wins his appeal, he should sue them all for everything his attorneys can think of. including penalties for loss interest on money they are holding.

---

18 USC 241 and 242 certainly come to mind here.

Again, Trump might consider hiring a team of law professors to construct an argument on that basis.

Willful deprivation of rights under color of law

and also conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights under color of law.

Quote:

---

18 USC 241 and 242 certainly come to mind here.

Again, Trump might consider hiring a team of law professors to construct an argument on that basis.

Willful deprivation of rights under color of law

and also conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights under color of law.

---

Hopefully Trump's team of law professors knows you can't sue someone for a criminal statute!

aggiehawg listed the way to proceed here: 42 USC 1983, but that is going to be a tough row to hoe!

Are we now depriving Trump of the right to shop a prosecutor to prosecute that claim?

Does that cut both ways here?

Appeals Court just reduced Trump's fine to 175 million

aggiehawg said:

---

agAngeldad said:

---

Layne Staley said:

---

not too many have won the long game against Trump. My prediction is eventually Engoron and and James by violating the 8th amendment were acting beyond the course and scope of their duties and will be subject to personal damages in doing so.

they should get a taste of their own medicine.

---

If Trump wins his appeal, he should sue them all for everything his attorneys can think of. including penalties for loss interest on money they are holding.

---

Sovereign immunity is a problem on that score. However there is a federal law about conspiring to violate someone's due process rights under color of law. Most commonly applied against cops but can apply to prosecutors and on rare occasions, a judge. But who the hell would prosecute that case? DOJ won't.

Maybe a 42 USC 1983 action? Honestly don't know which avenues are available, if any.

---

Current DOJ, for sure. But with a Trump AG? Could be a different story.

But knowing how the press would scream at the tables being turned, would Trump allow his DOJ to go after them?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

the statute of limitations bars claims, not evidence.

---

Except in the 30-year old case of E Jean Caroll where the sol doesn't bar claims or evidence.

You see, in New York the statute of limitations is fluid depending on the political persuasion of the victim and the defendant.

Non binary / SOL fluid is the term they use in NY.

---

Democrats in the state legislature and the Democrat governor literally passed a law to allow this one fabricated claim to be brought before the civil court.

If that's not a 14th Amendment equal protection violation, I don't know whatever could be.

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.

---

She does get credit for not calling Engoron over for 1 a.m. booty calls, and subsequently not having to lie her ass off about it in court, though. Surpassing the high bar established by Team DEI in Atlanta.

Quote:

---

I take my oath as a lawyer seriously. It really pains me to see so much unethical conduct by judges and prosecutors here.

---

That is becoming all too rare. It is sickening. Our Constitution and the rule of law (and God's favor) have been what made America the greatest, most benevolent country in world history. We are now slouching toward Gomorrah and doofuses cheer it on.

We be missing some posters that were nonstop on here. I certainly hope everything is ok.

Exactly. And thank you.

Might as well give it a shot… after all, the process has been the punishment in all of this b.s. against Trump.

Reality Check said:

---

Might as well give it a shot… after all, the process has been the punishment in all of this b.s. against Trump.

---

Absolutely!

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?

---

The premise of "disgorgement" under the common law is that a malfeasor should not profit from his malfeasance, even if no other person suffers monetary harm. In this case, assume for purposes of discussion only, that Trump did knowingly, affirmatively and intentionally lie about asset valuations. Disgorgement that would mean that Trump should not retain the profits from transactions in which he made false representations in violation of 63(12). Think of it as being a bit like civil asset forfeiture, in that there need not be a direct causal link.

The first problem with applying "disgorgement" here is that 63(12) does not provide "disgorgement" as a remedy. It provides four specific types of potential remedy: injunction against the offending behavior, cancelation of certificates of authority, restitution and damages.

As most everyone has acknowledged, there are no legal "damages" here, because there was no reliance. That lack of reliance is irrelevant to the question of whether there was a 63(12) violation, but it is very relevant to the question of legal damages. No bank lost money on an interest rate differential, and no one lost money because Trump earned a profit buying and selling real estate.

Unlike "damages," restitution is an equitable remedy, but it is distinct from disgorgement. Restitution is "victim focused," in that it involves repayment of the person who was harmed, which does apply here as set forth above. Disgorgement is "malfeasor focused," in that it exists to "punish" the malfeasor. You cannot have "restitution without a "victim" who was harmed. You CAN have disgorgement at the common law without a harmed victim, but AGAIN 63(12) does not provide "disgorgement as a remedy.

As I read the statute, the net result is that NY could definitely enjoin Trump's future actions, and it can definitely revoke certificates od authority, but there does not appear to be statutory authority for the monetary "remedies" awarded by Engoron.

bobbranco said:

---

Who was disgorged?

---

People are not disgorged. Ill-gotten gains are disgorged at common law. Again, however, I see no statutory basis for disgorgement as a remedy under 63(12).

jrdaustin said:

---

overstatement of value on a single loan application

---

The allegations are that there were many intentional and knowing misrepresentations on multiple loan applications over a period of many years.

The banks were not gorged. No reason to disgorge Trump if you will. I stand corrected and will get with the vernacular.

Combining law and equity here like crossing the streams in ghostbusters.

Letitia ordered a couple of beers on Trump's tab with an equatable remedy chaser.