Trump can't secure the $454 million bond

[Harpy Eagle]

I haven't heard one legal expert say it wasn't excessive and it will be over ruled eventually by a higher court...

that is because all you listen to is Fox and OANN who put nothing but far right "legal experts" on their shows

 

[para bellum]

What are the 7 misdemeanors?

NY Penal Law 175.05 or 175.45 for each SFC for the years 2016 to 2022.

 

[para bellum]

Except he needs to put up the bond in order to appeal. Or they can start seizing his assets to pay the fine levied against him.
That's the way it works.

No, the bond buys him an automatic stay. The First Dept. can stay without the bond, or they can decline to stay and the AG can begin the process of enforcement.

Trump will still appeal in all 3 scenarios.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I haven't heard one legal expert say it wasn't excessive and it will be over ruled eventually by a higher court...

This is a corporate judgement. Judgments against corporations wherein profits are being disgorged are not uncommon and the amount in comparison to size is not uncommon. A reminder, the corporations were not dissolved. Given this level of fraud - not objected to by the defense - the chances of companies surviving are low. They get dis-incorporated and usually their management goes to prison at Club Fed.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yeah, so long as your "opinion" is in line with the far Left bullshit.

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. You appear to be in possession of two.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

He has no one to blame but himself for not being able to post bond. He's skated on his name and the smoke and mirrors of him being a business tycoon for years...when he was a corrupt fraud. So no one is gonna front him the money because they know he doesn't pay his bills and he isn't a good risk.

Then they can start seizing assets of the Trump Corporation to pay the fine.
And there's nothing he can do about it.

"when he was a corrupt fraud?"

Wong.

He is a corrupt fraud.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

No, the bond buys him an automatic stay. The First Dept. can stay without the bond, or they can decline to stay and the AG can begin the process of enforcement.

Trump will still appeal in all 3 scenarios.

They'll proceed with seizing his assets if he can't put up the bond.
The bond buys him the appeal...which is what gives him the stay

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who gets the $500m?

There are no victims.

Did you read the state law/rule? No, of course you didn't. Otherwise you'd be left with nothing to argue.

63(12): The statute does not require intent to commit fraud or anyone to be harmed by the fraud, and it does not give Trump the inherent right to a jury trial, with legal experts noting to CNN that while civil lawsuits that request monetary damages are entitled to a jury trial, cases seeking other “equitable relief”—meaning penalties that force the defendant to take or refrain from taking some kind of action, rather than just paying money—can be decided by a judge alone, which is more common with 63(12) violations and is the case in this trial.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No you ignorant jackass. James is in more hot water for now backing up the "Board" of one of the Irish Historical Societies which INFLATED the value of their property. And James has come out defending them and stonewalling requests for documents. Just another reason this whole thing against Trump will get tossed entirely. As you bray like the jackass you are.

nonsense

but expected

 

[para bellum]

They'll proceed with seizing his assets if he can't put up the bond.
The bond buys him the appeal...which is what gives him the stay

You have it backwards. The bond only buys the automatic stay. Absent the bond or a discretionary stay, enforcement can begin.

The appeal is the appeal. The lower court decision will stand or be struck or something in between.

The appeal is months out. Right now they are only considering the motion to stay.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

So many things wrong with this idiotic meme.

First, a lot of those "deaths" were due to famine, not executions. A gun doesn't help if you are starving due to a crop failure.

Second, even if you go with the utter bullshit numbers of 60 million dead in China and 20 million dead in Russia (let's all concede 12 million for Nazi Germany), where do you get the other 168 million from? I'd be kind of interested in the math on that one.

Third, Nazi Germany did not ban guns. The Nazis rolled back the gun restrictions passed by the previous Weimar Republic.

So, um, no, I'm not worried that I'm going to starve during a famine, so that's why I have to tolerate Joker Holmes having an AR-15 and a 100 round magazine, because that would be stupid.

I am for banning the Crazy Radical Left Extremist Democrat Cultists from owning guns.
Russia and China purposely caused famines.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

You have it backwards. The bond only buys the automatic stay. Absent the bond or a discretionary stay, enforcement can begin.

The appeal is the appeal. The lower court decision will stand or be struck or something in between.

The appeal is months out. Right now they are only considering the motion to stay.

Maybe. But it doesn't look like anyone's willing to back the bond. So he's in a bit of trouble.

 

[para bellum]

Did you read the state law/rule? No, of course you didn't. Otherwise you'd be left with nothing to argue.

63(12): The statute does not require intent to commit fraud or anyone to be harmed by the fraud, and it does not give Trump the inherent right to a jury trial, with legal experts noting to CNN that while civil lawsuits that request monetary damages are entitled to a jury trial, cases seeking other “equitable relief”—meaning penalties that force the defendant to take or refrain from taking some kind of action, rather than just paying money—can be decided by a judge alone, which is more common with 63(12) violations and is the case in this trial.

The problem lies in the term "equitable relief". A disgorgement that is not a disgorgement is not "equitable relief". There are certain elements to qualify a monetary penalty as a disgorgement, and they are not met.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The problem lies in the term "equitable relief". A disgorgement that is not a disgorgement is not "equitable relief". There are certain elements to qualify a monetary penalty as a disgorgement, and they are not met.

The legal requirements are indeed met.

 

[Godboy]

Then they can start seizing assets of the Trump Corporation to pay the fine.
And there's nothing he can do about it.

Not true. He can appeal it. He can also take it to the Supreme Court as a violation of the 8th Amendment.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not true. He can appeal it. He can also take it to the Supreme Court as a violation of the 8th Amendment.

The can start siezing his assets on 3/26.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The problem lies in the term "equitable relief". A disgorgement that is not a disgorgement is not "equitable relief". There are certain elements to qualify a monetary penalty as a disgorgement, and they are not met.

Many legal minds disagree with your -- would you call it opinion?

 

[Godboy]

Maybe. But it doesn't look like anyone's willing to back the bond. So he's in a bit of trouble.

Incorrect. Its not a matter of willingness, its a matter of the size. No bonding agent can float that bond. It was set higher than any company or man has ever received from a NY court.

You shouldnt be cheering this on. This behavior is a nation destroyer. It wont stop now. Both sides WILL be doing this to the other side going forward.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Not true. He can appeal it. He can also take it to the Supreme Court as a violation of the 8th Amendment.

He is appealing it. But he needs to put up the 454M to prevent his assets from being seized.
The Supreme Court will have nothing to do with this civil case.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No bonding agent can float that bond.

They of course could, if trump.could properly collateralize it. When Trump said such a bond could not be written, he was lying.