NY AG says she may seize Trump's buildings if he can't pay his $354M civil fraud fine

[surada]

Trump is said to be cash poor, but property rich. What you say indicates that his debts are greater than his assets, and that he is not a billionaire at all. I would not be surprised if he owes money on his jet.

How much does he own? Is he selling his brand or is he managing the hotels and resorts?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, it's a fine!

Correct! And relatively small, compared to the appreciation of his ill gotten gains.

And equitable relief is a broad term. Yes, it can include fines. It can include just about anything, I think.

Do you think you just singlehandedly got Trump out of paying his fine?

 

[Clipper]

These laws were all on the books long before Trump slithered down the escalator.

And he knew he was breaking them. And you know he knew.

It's probably not a good idea to go on a 30 year crime spree, and then willingly become the most scrutinized person on the planet.

Trump thinks he's above the law. The slogan on those red MAGA hats should be changed to read: "I'M WITH STUPID".

 

[para bellum]

Correct! And relatively small, compared to the appreciation of his ill gotten gains.


And equitable relief is a broad term. Yes, it can include fines. It can include just about anything, I think.

Do you think you just singlehandedly got Trump out of paying his fine?

No, I just like watching you guys talk in circles and contradict yourselves.

Equitable relief is when all parties are made whole, or at least attempted to be made whole. The justification for finding Trump liable for damages without a trial is that the court was only seeking equity. The reason they could reach back further than the 5-year statute of limitations on civil suits is because there is no statute of limitations or dollar caps on equitable relief. Equitable relief cannot be punitive. It can only seek to restore the parties to the same condition they were in before the "fraudulent acts".

But if it's a fine, and none of the money goes to the supposed "victims of fraud", then it is a tort brought by NY against Trump for a violation of business practices. The State cannot reach back further than 5 years, and the fine has to be compatible with the 8th amendment and statutory limits.

In which case Trump was denied due process, because he was not afforded a jury trial, which he is entitled to in a civil tort action. The only witnesses he was allowed to offer were other defendants, and one representative each from the counter-parties (who testified they were not defrauded). That is a violation of due process. He did not have the time to develop a proper defense, he could not offer expert testimony to refute the State's expert, he was not allowed to appeal the judge's rulings on motions- the list is practically endless.

You see, there is a reason NY brought the case in this way. They could not win in a tort action or a criminal case, because there was no person or company that said they were defrauded. In fact, they said the exact opposite, as you well know.

This suit was brought entirely on the initiative of the NY AG, for her political benefit and the financial gain to the State of New York. To put it mildly, it was crooked as hell and totally banana republic.

Trump will prevail eventually, but it will take a few years to work it's way to the SCOTUS unless the NY Court of Appeals reverses to save face.

I am still waiting for the felony indictment, are you retracting that statement now? Or is your accusation sufficient for you to call him guilty of felonies without a trial- just wondering...

 

[Cellblock2429]

Irrelevant. Also: it took an investigation to find the evidence and uncover the successful fraud.

You must think criminals get off, if they get away with the initial crime. That's not how it works.

/——/ I’m not buying it. You’re too smart to actually believe that a crime was committed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Equitable relief is when all parties are made whole, or at least attempted to be made whole.

Which when stated broadly as Engorn did, can mean fines are imposed first as part of the process.

In this case, the peope of new york are bring made whole.

Dude, you have a LOT of catching up to do. You're barely at square one.

I promise you didn't outsmart the judge and Trump's.lawyers.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

/——/ I’m not buying it. You’re too smart to actually believe that a crime was committed.

That's because you don't know anything about the case or the law, because you haven't read about it. That's a you problem.

 

[Cellblock2429]

That's because you don't know anything about the case or the law, because you haven't read about it. That's a you problem.

/—-/ The case is bogus and selective prosecution against a political candidate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

/—-/ The case is bogus and selective prosecution against a political candidate.

Yeah, too bad you have not a shred of argument or evidence for that.

You can say any nonsense you want, on a message board. In court? Not so much.

 

[para bellum]

Which when stated broadly as Engorn did, can mean fines are imposed first as part of the process.

Bullshit. Fines are not part of disgorgement. Nothing in the ruling says what you claim.

In this case, the peope of new york are bring made whole.

If the people of New York were harmed, the suit should have been brought as a class-action tort.

But they were NOT harmed, the projects benefited them greatly in jobs and revenue to the City and State.

Dude, you have a LOT of catching up to do. You're barely at square one.

I promise you didn't outsmart the judge and Trump's.lawyers.

Pfft. I am light-years ahead of you, and have been making a consistent argument throughout. You don't know the difference between law and equity, and you can't make one true argument that supports this judgement. You bounce from "he defrauded the banks with multiple felonies" to some vague "he harmed the people of New York" BS.

When this case gets in front of a real court, it will be torn to shreds just like the phony Colorado election case.

What an embarrassment to the Rule of Law.

If it's a disgorgement (equity), the banks have to be made whole and there is no statute of limitations. If it's a fine, it has to be brought as a tort action, with a 5-year statute of limitations, and Trump is entitled to a trial by jury.

Very straightforward, you can't spin it into something it's not.

 

[para bellum]

/—-/ The case is bogus and selective prosecution against a political candidate.

Of course it is. It's so clear and obvious no rational person could conclude otherwise.

These people are NOT rational, they are consumed by their hatred. It just doesn't matter what damage is done in their crusade against one man- they will burn down the entire house without blinking an eye.

 

[Hector12]

How much does he own? Is he selling his brand or is he managing the hotels and resorts?

Bill Gates founded Microsoft. Jeff Bezos founded Amazon. What has Trump achieved to earn the wealth he claims to have?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Bullshit. Fines are not part of disgorgement. Nothing in the ruling says what you claim.

That's nice. But disgorgement is indeed part of this penalty. News outlets will just call it all a fine. Take it up with them.

Again, no, you did not read some right wing goober blog and outsmart the judge and Trump's lawyers and the code of law. Sorry.

 

[para bellum]

That's nice. But disgorgement is indeed part of this penalty. News outlets will just call it all a fine. Take it up with them.

Again, no, you did not read some right wing goober blog and outsmart the judge and Trump's lawyers and the code of law. Sorry.

You haven't rebutted a single thing I have said. The rule of law is exactly why this judgement will be shot to pieces in appeals.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You haven't rebutted a single thing I have said.

I sure have. And the code of law and the courts agree with me. Meanwhile you sit there and scratch your head and wonder why reality has once again not recognized or aligned with your Trump U legal advice.

 

[para bellum]

I sure have. And the code of law and the courts agree with me.

No it doesn't. Your assertions to the contrary mean nothing.

You have not cited one single statute or case in any of your claims. You made the false statement that the penalties were imposed for felonious acts. You claim that the banks were defrauded, but you cannot explain why they are not receiving any restitution.

You have no clue what the law says, and you have demonstrated over and over again that you don't understand the difference between equitable relief and punitive sanctions.

8th Amendment applies, and Statute of Limitations:

Sotomayor writing for the majority in Kokesh:

‘A civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment, as we have come to understand the term.’ " Id., at 621, 113 S.Ct. 2801 ; cf. Bajakajian,524 U.S., at 331, n. 6, 118 S.Ct. 2028 ("[A] modern statutory forfeiture is a ‘fine’ for Eighth Amendment purposes if it constitutes punishment even in part"). Because disgorgement orders "go beyond compensation, are intended to punish, and label defendants wrongdoers" as a consequence of violating public laws, Gabelli,568 U.S., at 451–452, 133 S.Ct. 1216 they represent a penalty and thus fall within the 5–year statute of limitations of § 2462.
Kokesh v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 137 S. Ct. 1635, 1645 (2017)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No it doesn't. Your assertions to the contrary mean nothing.

You have not cited one single statute or case in any of your claims. You made the false statement that the penalties were imposed for felonious acts. You claim that the banks were defrauded, but you cannot explain why they are not receiving any restitution.

You have no clue what the law says, and you have demonstrated over and over again that you don't understand the difference between equitable relief and punitive sanctions.

8th Amendment applies, and Statute of Limitations:

Sotomayor writing for the majority in Kokesh:

‘A civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment, as we have come to understand the term.’ " Id., at 621, 113 S.Ct. 2801 ; cf. Bajakajian,524 U.S., at 331, n. 6, 118 S.Ct. 2028 ("[A] modern statutory forfeiture is a ‘fine’ for Eighth Amendment purposes if it constitutes punishment even in part"). Because disgorgement orders "go beyond compensation, are intended to punish, and label defendants wrongdoers" as a consequence of violating public laws, Gabelli,568 U.S., at 451–452, 133 S.Ct. 1216 they represent a penalty and thus fall within the 5–year statute of limitations of § 2462.
Kokesh v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 137 S. Ct. 1635, 1645 (2017)

You are wasting your time. No , you did not get a law degree from reading a blog and then outsmart the judge and the code of law and trump's lawyers.

 

[para bellum]

You are wasting your time. No , you did not get a law degree from reading a blog and then outsmart the judge and the code of law and trump's lawyers.

Meh. You can't address the points so you attack the poster. Typical lefty- can't support your statements, deflect, deflect, deflect.

News flash. Trumps lawyers are well aware of the law, they just haven't had the chance to be heard yet. That's why we have appeals courts.

The Appellate Division has already stayed everything but the fine, and they haven't even started to hear the appeal! That should tell you something...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can't address the points

I don't need to sift through your Trump U gish gallop. Nobody has to do that. The trial was already held.

You seem confused. Let me clear up for you a little bit about how the world works:

Nobody has to lift a finger to rebut any of your dimestore lawyerin'. You can take your act to a courtroom, or accept reality. Your call. We already had a trial.

 

[para bellum]

I don't need to sift through your Trump U gish gallop. Nobody has to do that. The trial was already held.

You seem confused. Let me clear up for you a little bit about how the world works:

Nobody has to lift a finger to rebut any of your dimestore lawyerin'. You can take your act to a courtroom, or accept reality. Your call. We already had a trial.

It's an internet board dummy, I can post whatever is on my mind. Recommend you take up your grievance with the management...

No one asked you to rebut me, I asked you why, if the banks were defrauded (your statement), the State is keeping the money? You couldn't answer that, so you switched to "the people of New York" are the "victims", and tried to claim that the fine is punishment for some imaginary felony.

You just make it up as you go along, because there is no real legal basis for this judgement. Just some vague statute that can mean whatever the prosecutor wants it to mean. Now she's using it to go after the beef industry cuz "muh global warming"...

Oh, and there was no trial. It was a kangaroo court that found Trump guilty before the "trial" even started. Welcome to the third world- Maduro would be proud of you.