Trump can’t secure $454 million appeal bond in New York fraud case, his lawyers say

I brought up the Carroll case to demonstrate that Trump found the money(albeit with a bond) to fund 90 million dollars. Showing that if a fine is in proportion, it probably gets paid.

No other reason to bring it up. I'm arguing that both amounts(but definitely this $454 million dollar shame on NY) is obscene, absurd and almost definitively in violation of constitutional norms.

If allowed to stand, it'll chill a lot of people moving forward.

 

....and NO-ONE is exempt from it, ill conceived or otherwise?

 

This half a billion is nowhere near the highest reward stemming from court cases.

Claiming it is too high is nonsense. It's clawing back the profit of the crime. If the crime had been smaller, there would be less to claw back.

And, as the money is in Trump and his companies possession, he owes interest - the interest he is accruing from his ill gotten gain.

 

I still remember the debate between him and Hillary.

He said the system is rigged in the moderator asked him to provide evidence...... He said I know the system is rigged because I use it.

And then Hillary tried to hit him in the taxes. He said this man doesn't pay taxes.

And he told her if you want me to pay taxes then change the law. He said me not paying taxes according to the law makes me smart.

He told her if you want me to pay taxes then change the law but you won't do that because you yourself and your friends and donors benefit from the same system that I do.

He shut that bitch right up.

He can do the same thing with this lawfare bs

 

I'll retract my claims if you can find a case where another individual is hit with at least a 100 million decision.

 

Congratulations. You have found that disgorgement has been considered to be a penalty for one very specific interpretation of one specific statute. It remains fundamentally different from a penalty or punishment.

If you stole $1,000 from petty cash of your company, placed it on a 1,000 to 1 shot in Vegas and ended up winning $1,000,000, would it be unfair to ask for that millions?

That’s essentially what this is. Ordering Trump to hand over the profits he would not have earned, if he had not misrepresented his wealth on his financial statements.

 

He lost. Suck it up.

 

He told the truth. Suck that up.

 

Yes, because the victim isn't entitled to that million. He's only entitled to the 1,000(I also contest with the idea of calling it stealing, since it's not the bank gave it under duress. The 'false' valuation(speculative gains deals in...speculation) is where the fraud occurred, not what he earned after it.

And it's not 'for one specific interpretation for one statute'. It's period. It's a penalty, you already learned this in the failed 14th Amendment gambit. You can't read clauses separately.

The moment SCOTUS called it a penalty, it's a penalty. What are damages/rewards to the payee? A penalty. Like, this isn't rocket science.

 

What qualifications do you have to State this?
What do you know about the American legal system?

 

So in your view it’s ok to be dishonest and earn profits off that dishonesty? Wow.

 

Yes, dishonesty per se is not a crime. If you're not taking advantage of a rule or two, you're not doing it right. The speculative gains market is there to earn on speculative gains. You can also lose on speculative gains.

The bank understood that in its dealings with Trump, recall that it was Leitita James and NY that brought the case. Without which, no case would've existed.

But beyond that, the only fraud is the money lost. Not money you never had to begin with LOL.

 

Well that is not the way the law sees it. Disgorgement is a long standing principle in the law.

 

Ummm…you conveniently overlook Alex Jones’ defamation payout to the Sandy Hook families…? $1.5 BILLION…!

 

Wow, this is what trump supporters have been reduced to.
How sad to see.

 

Not a Trump supporter, but I'm not reduced to anything(funny, how all of a sudden out of nowhere it becomes an indictment on me. Laughable though, because no one on PF can indict my character).

I am a realist, a pragmatist. I don't see pie in the sky, I predicted 9-0 by SCOTUS before most. As a realist and pragmatist, you have to look for advantages. If you don't, other people WILL walk all over you.

You can hate that the world's that way, but you can't deny that it is.

 

That case had a lot of powerful circumstances that justified the penalty(death threats, etc). The Carroll case is the two old farts having a public shouting match and the state of NY is involved because, smh lol.

But as promised, you did provide one huge sum against an individual. I don't think the cases quantify to this case, but it does show that you can penalize at a exorbitant amount.

 

It's also a penalty imposed XD. The question is, whether the penalty actually fit the circumstances of this case. And I don't think it does. Even submitting that Trump is guilty, not to the tune of 450 million.

I predict the penalty will be lowered eventually. As an example, Trump Tower is only presumed to be as valuable as it is, because of the Trump Brand. What those nitwits in NY didn't get, is that by seizing the property in liquidation, the property loses its value.

"New York Governor Tower" sounds a lot less appealing, doesn't it?

 

Except 2 republican senate committees found you are in denial.

 

Sounds like the cardboard self proclaimed billionaire better start buying the mega lottery tickets

 

I'm curious about your reasoning. @bx4 did an excellent job with this example. However, I believe a few clarifications need be made:

1) The "victim" isn't actually a victim since, presumably, after the fraudster won the $1 million, the $1000 was returned.
2) The law applied here requires that the $1 million be "disgorged" to the government prosecuting the case i.e. New York State.
3) This can't be "excessive" under any Constitutional definition because these are "ill gotten" gains to which the fraudster was never entitled. Therefore, the fraudster has not been deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

The amount of the judgement in this case is a combination of many counts, which is why it is so large.
For example, looking at 1 specific count:

"Similarly, Donald Trump, the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, the Trump Organization, Inc.,
and Trump Organization LLC are jointly and severally liable for disgorgement of the windfall
profits of $60 million attributable to selling Ferry Point to Bally’s. By maintaining the license
agreement for Ferry Point, based on fraudulent financials, Donald Trump was able to secure a
windfall profit by selling the license to Bally’s Corporation. Quintel Corp., N.V. v Citibank,
N.A., 596 F Supp 797, 804 (SDNY 1984) (“defrauders will be required to disgorge windfall profits”). "

This $60 million is only one part of the combined judgement, including interest. This is entirely proper and specifically designed to discourage fraudulent
activity which might result in a benefit to the criminal. Consider, if the "penalty" was less than the amount gained by the fraud ( for example, $30 million) then
there is, in fact, an incentive to continue perpetrating frauds knowing that even if you are caught you will only have to give up 50% of your ill gotten gains.
Without a punitive interest rate, the same scenario would be possible. Defraud someone of a large sum of money, use it to make even more money, return the original sum and earn interest on the net proceeds of the fraud over an above any interest on a judgement against you.

If anything, the huge amount of the judgement shows that Trump is a long-time(decades) , persistent criminal. That does not require any adjustment in the law.
It does suggest that law enforcement be stepped up. If the first crime was prosecuted, perhaps the next 6 wouldn't have been economically possible.

 

"that bitch"

 

Results speak for themselves. Care to discuss income inequality under Dem control?

The wealthiest fifth of Manhattanites earned an average household income of $545,549, or more than 53 times as much as the bottom 20 percent, who earned an average of $10,259, according to 2022 census data, released earlier this month. Social Explorer, a demographic data firm, analyzed the data for The Times.Sep 28, 2023

 

Only he can't.
Because he actually committed the fraud. He admitted it. "He said I know the system is rigged because I use it."

He'd better come up with the bond because the appeal won't even be heard without one.

What an utter fool he is to think that with a massive vulnerability like committing financial fraud repeatedly over a long period of time that one or all of his opponents wouldn't use it against him.

 

If you had been paying attention, I've never said anything regarding Putin and Trump that is remotely controversial, even to the extreme right. Anything to actually add or is this just the usual "Can't think of anything, just say Russia" Trump supporter programming?