quote:

In the absence of a stay on the terms herein outlined, properties would likely need to be
sold to raise capital under exigent circumstances, and there would be no way to recover any
property sold following a successful appeal and no means to recover the resulting financial losses
from the Attorney General.

quote:

“Judge Anil Singh of the state’s mid-level appeals court ruled that Trump must post a bond covering the full amount in order to stop enforcement of the judgment”

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
8th amendment? it's a question, not a position

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
uh huh .. opinion .. i do wonder what scotus will make of it...

"disgorgement" .. you like saying that, don't you, kleagle of peckerwood county .. oh, i am sorry, is that your unofficial title?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
I dunno. For all his talk, I wonder what assets trump has that are available for collection on the judgment. I'm sure his properties all have purchase money security interests and the lenders will have first priority. He says he has a ton of cash but I bet that's bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
I dunno. For all his talk, I wonder what assets trump has that are available for collection on the judgment. I'm sure his properties all have purchase money security interests and the lenders will have first priority. He says he has a ton of cash but I bet that's bullsh!t.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
I dunno. For all his talk, I wonder what assets trump has that are available for collection on the judgment. I'm sure his properties all have purchase money security interests and the lenders will have first priority. He says he has a ton of cash but I bet that's bullsh!t.

Mike,
knowing people in trump ALEDGED tax bracket, they are generally always short on cash - i would be SHOCKED if trump, bezos, buffett, or musk had 1/2 billion in ready cash - gates? maybe, but he's really active in a land grap, so i would expect he's cash heavy -

remember grimes talking about musk, and how "bro" wouldn't buy them a new mattress?

But, today, does trump have 1/2 billion in cash? not even close to likely, and if required, he's going to "defraud" more bankers to get cash..

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
I dunno. For all his talk, I wonder what assets trump has that are available for collection on the judgment. I'm sure his properties all have purchase money security interests and the lenders will have first priority. He says he has a ton of cash but I bet that's bullsh!t.

Mike,
knowing people in trump ALEDGED tax bracket, they are generally always short on cash - i would be SHOCKED if trump, bezos, buffett, or musk had 1/2 billion in ready cash - gates? maybe, but he's really active in a land grap, so i would expect he's cash heavy -

remember grimes talking about musk, and how "bro" wouldn't buy them a new mattress?

But, today, does trump have 1/2 billion in cash? not even close to likely, and if required, he's going to "defraud" more bankers to get cash..

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
8th amendment? it's a question, not a position

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
8th amendment? it's a question, not a position

The 8th Amendment applies to all punitive damages and all judicially imposed monetary sanctions in civil cases imposed by a court.

I do not know if disgorgement applies to the above legal principle. Disgorgement is not punitive. Disgorgement is restorative, restitution is closer to the concept. However, it does appear to be a monetary sanction.

Someone more intelligent than I will have to tell us if the Fed Courts have treated disgorgement as a monetary sanction or restitution.

Assuming, the Fed Circuits have not afmddeesed that issue wo conflict, that would be a good Supreme Court case.

Again, the issue is not whether it is a punitive damage. It is not. The issue is is it monetary sanction imposed by a Court in a civil action that the 8th Amendment applies to. It being disgorgement.

The fact the disgorgement is higher, in itself, would not violate the 8th Amendment. The issue is how does it relate to the proven ill-gotten funds. Assuming, the 8th Amendment applies.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
8th amendment? it's a question, not a position

The 8th Amendment applies to all punitive damages and all judicially imposed monetary sanctions in civil cases imposed by a court.

I do not know if disgorgement applies to the above legal principle. Disgorgement is not punitive. Disgorgement is restorative, restitution is closer to the concept. However, it does appear to be a monetary sanction.

Someone more intelligent than I will have to tell us if the Fed Courts have treated disgorgement as a monetary sanction or restitution.

Assuming, the Fed Circuits have not afmddeesed that issue wo conflict, that would be a good Supreme Court case.

Again, the issue is not whether it is a punitive damage. It is not. The issue is is it monetary sanction imposed by a Court in a civil action that the 8th Amendment applies to. It being disgorgement.

The fact the disgorgement is higher, in itself, would not violate the 8th Amendment. The issue is how does it relate to the proven ill-gotten funds. Assuming, the 8th Amendment applies.

Does the term "unjust enrichment" apply here?

quote:

Over their vigorous objections, he accepted the numbers offered by a state witness, investment bank CEO Michiel McCarty, who compared the rate that Deutsche Bank charged the Trump Organization based on Trump's personal guarantee with the rate it proposed for a loan without that guarantee. By McCarty's calculation, the Trump Organization saved a total of about $168 million in interest on loans for four projects.

By itself, that estimate accounts for nearly half of the disgorgement that Engoron ordered. He also included nearly $127 million in "net profits" from the 2022 sale of the Old Post Office in Washington, D.C., which Trump had converted into a hotel. That deal, James argued, was facilitated "through the use of false SFCs," without which it would not have happened. She also argued that "without the ill-gotten savings on interest rates, defendants would not even have been able to invest in the Old Post Office and/or other projects."

Taking into account the partnership interest "fraudulently labeled as cash," James said, "Trump would have been in a negative cash situation" by 2017 but for the $74 million or so "saved through reduced interest payments." She noted that "the Old Post office loan itself was a construction loan, and its proceeds were necessary to the construction and renovation of the hotel, which enabled the 2022 sale and resulting profits."

Engoron found these arguments, especially the first, persuasive. The profits from the sale of the Old Post Office, he concludes, "were ill gotten gains, subject to disgorgement, which is meant to deny defendants 'the ability to profit from ill-gotten gain.'"

Engoron also counted $60 million in profits from the 2023 sale of a license to operate a golf course at Ferry Point Park in the Bronx, which Trump had obtained from the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation in 2012. "By maintaining the license agreement for Ferry Point, based on fraudulent financials," Engoron says, "Donald Trump was able to secure a windfall profit by selling the license to Bally's Corporation."

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I did not say the Judge did pull it out of thin air.

I said, “The argument of the 8th Amendment as a limitation this decision has to be filtered through has merit for an appellate court to address assuming the Fed Circuits have not unanimously addressed the application of the 8th Amendment to disgorgement in the negative.”

Now whether President Trump can meet the procedural prerequisites to get the appeal before the courts is another issue. I have no sympathy for his plight.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It applies to lunatics and all monetary sanctions.

Whether this is a monetary sanction, I do not know. I await a case citation that says the 8th Amendment cannot apply to disgorgement.

Barring the Fed Circuit that NY is in having answered that question, the issue makes a good appellate issue.

Just calling it disgorgement will not be sufficient to prevent 8th Amendment filter of this amount. The grand issue will be Whether the judgement overreaches pursuant to the 8th Amendment.

This may be a case of first impression. That being whether a disgorgement amount can become so excessive that the 8th Amendment is triggered. Again, the appellate courts are going to have to answer that question. Or is a legitimate inquiry.

Again, this assumes disgorgement as a matter of law has not been held to not trigger 8th Amendment analysis. I doubt it.

A matter and judgement such as this needs, calls out for appellate review; even if the trial judge was correct. At least, the appellate courts need to rectify there is a matter they need to take a look at. I am fine if review is denied. In KY, you have to post the bond, preform correct pleadings, but those bring satisfied you have a right to one appeal in civil matters.

Now, whether President Trump can procedurally satisfy all prerequisites to advance the appeal is another issue. One he gets not sympathy or leniency from me.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That is fine you and I on face value do not find it excessive as to become punitive.

The reason the Judge took his time and wrote so well was to survive appellate review.

Appellate review is necessary in our system. At least, the option to petition, and the appellate court decide if there is an issue that requires establishing precedent beyond the precedent of the case, or not.

Appellate review is fundamental snd essential. These decisions are too important not to have the option.

Again, provide us a case from the Fed Circuit covering NY that says disgorgement as a class is not subject scrutiny through the 8th Amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
I've always told plaintiffs' lawyers who have a judgment the defendant can't bond, "execute at your peril" if it's reversed. And this one will be reversed.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That is fine you and I on face value do not find it excessive as to become punitive.

The reason the Judge took his time and wrote so well was to survive appellate review.

Appellate review is necessary in our system. At least, the option to petition, and the appellate court decide if there is an issue that requires establishing precedent beyond the precedent of the case, or not.

Appellate review is fundamental snd essential. These decisions are too important not to have the option.

Again, provide us a case from the Fed Circuit covering NY that says disgorgement as a class is not subject scrutiny through the 8th Amendment.

Every case I can find where the 8th came into play involved some degree of "punitive" award above the cited "ill-gotten gains".

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Wanna bet, Jeffie?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I do not think it is getting reversed. Remanded w instructions to reduce, but still be high possible.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Where's the fraud?

1.Representations to the Banks were with disclaimers that they should independently verify:
2.Banks got paid;
3. Noone lost money.

Don't see how they make the elements of fraud. No reliance, and no damages.

This is a Democrat witch hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Why anyone would do business in New York is a mystery, unless of course, you are a Democrat/Socialist and part of the club.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
As I explained, no fraud. Every tort case requires evidence of a duty, a breach of duty, proximate cause and damages.

quote:

Proving "common law fraud," Engoron notes, requires establishing that the defendant made a "material" statement he knew to be false, that the plaintiff justifiably relied on that statement, and that he suffered damages as a result. Section 63(12) of New York's Executive Law, by contrast, authorizes the attorney general to sue "any person" who "engage[s] in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business."