NY Fraud cost will cost Trump over $350 miillion

[GMDino]

(03-21-2024, 08:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am not sure if it is the law or, if so, what the law states. I am sure that varies by state. Anyway, the usual case is that the full amount must be covered so that if the appeal fails the funds can be immediately claimed by the plaintiff. It is intended to prevent the hiding of assets during the delay caused by the appeals process.

And, as been stated, if he doesn't have it now how can he say he'll have it if he loses the appeal?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-21-2024, 08:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am not sure if it is the law or, if so, what the law states. I am sure that varies by state. Anyway, the usual case is that the full amount must be covered so that if the appeal fails the funds can be immediately claimed by the plaintiff. It is intended to prevent the hiding of assets during the delay caused by the appeals process.

It just seems like an easy way to prevent appeals, set a fine large enough to prohibit a bail bond and then start seizing assets.  Not being able to appeal without meeting an arbitrary bail set by the government, especially when the plaintiff is the government just reeks of impropriety.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-21-2024, 08:20 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: No gotcha. Just a decades worth of property appraisal values which is how I think the legal system probably would have came up with their figures.

Now could Trump find a buyer for more? Sure it’s a possibility. How much did the Bears think they were going to get for Justin Fields? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Now if we drop some sanctions on Russia I’m sure he would find a wealthy Russian investor to bail him out.

https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/27/news/donald-trump-russian-deal-mansion/index.html

You're ignoring the elephant (donkey?) in the room.  The court stated Mar A Lago is worth 18-33 million.  It's a key part of the fraud case.  Now you have a CNN pundit directly stating he could immediately sell the same property for "hundreds of millions" (BTW in a fire sale type atmosphere).  The logical disconnect not registering with you at all here?

[*Nately120*]

(03-21-2024, 09:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It just seems like an easy way to prevent appeals, set a fine large enough to prohibit a bail bond and then start seizing assets.  Not being able to appeal without meeting an arbitrary bail set by the government, especially when the plaintiff is the government just reeks of impropriety.

Probably, it's just that usually this stuff happens to people that tens of millions of people aren't obsessed with so it falls under "Tough shit, you shouldn't have done criminal stuff."

[*pally*]

How Justice Engoron’s numbers add up for Trump’s penalty in the N.Y. fraud trial

Remember this money isn't fine money.  He loses the profit that he obtained via fraud plus interest


https://wapo.st/3TLreMQ

Quote:Engoron found that Trump benefited from ill-gotten gains in three major categories including the sale of the government lease for the former Trump International Hotel at the historic Old Post Office in Washington, sale of his rights to operate the Ferry Point golf course in New York City and interest savings that Trump obtained by portraying himself as less of a financial risk than he was.



For the Old Post Office, Engoron said Trump’s profits from the 2021 sale amounted to $126,828,600 and that the Trump family would not have gotten the lease and operational rights to that hotel  had it not provided false information to the Government Services Administration in the bidding process. By presenting the federal agency with a steeply inflated picture of Trump’s finances, he unfairly obtained the lucrative contract ahead of other candidates, according to the New York attorney general.

Trump also owes $168,040,168 to cover savings he obtained in reduced interest rates by committing fraud, and he owes another $60 million in profits for the sale of the lease and management rights to the Ferry Point golf course in New York City, another contract that Engoron found the Trump Organization obtained through deception.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-21-2024, 09:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're ignoring the elephant (donkey?) in the room.  The court stated Mar A Lago is worth 18-33 million.  It's a key part of the fraud case.  Now you have a CNN pundit directly stating he could immediately sell the same property for "hundreds of millions" (BTW in a fire sale type atmosphere).  The logical disconnect not registering with you at all here?

I don’t know if anything has changed. But from my understanding there are deed restrictions that help drag the price down. It can’t just be a personal residence or split off in to separate parcels, it has to be a club. The upkeep is costly. And the real estate taxes will explode if/when someone pays hundreds of millions for it.

I see real estate getting the asking price lowered on a daily basis because the seller overvalued the property and didn’t get what they wanted. They can say it’s worth whatever they want. Doesn’t mean they find a buyer.

The property appraiser in the area has assigned the value and Trump has paid taxes on that value for decades. That’s why the court says it’s worth that much.

Do you want the court to go by recorded history and documented proof? Or the pathological lying salesman with the orange spray tan?

[GMDino]

(03-21-2024, 10:19 PM)pally Wrote: How Justice Engoron’s numbers add up for Trump’s penalty in the N.Y. fraud trial

Remember this money isn't fine money.  He loses the profit that he obtained via fraud plus interest


https://wapo.st/3TLreMQ

Yes,yes.  But this is Trump so he must be being treated "unfairly" and it must be something that "has never happened before"! 

[Belsnickel]

(03-21-2024, 09:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It just seems like an easy way to prevent appeals, set a fine large enough to prohibit a bail bond and then start seizing assets.  Not being able to appeal without meeting an arbitrary bail set by the government, especially when the plaintiff is the government just reeks of impropriety.

There are a lot of ways you can say that Trump is unfairly targeted with things in his treatment with these legal cases compared to the average citizen, there are also ways you can say he receives much more leeway. This is actually one of the things where he is being treated the same as anyone else at this point and that is what is important to me. He has been found liable for the funds by a judge and the penalty is not arbitrary in any way.

[*pally*]

(03-22-2024, 01:07 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I don’t know if anything has changed. But from my understanding there are deed restrictions that help drag the price down. It can’t just be a personal residence or split off in to separate parcels, it has to be a club. The upkeep is costly. And the real estate taxes will explode if/when someone pays hundreds of millions for it.

I see real estate getting the asking price lowered on a daily basis because the seller overvalued the property and didn’t get what they wanted. They can say it’s worth whatever they want. Doesn’t mean they find a buyer.

The property appraiser in the area has assigned the value and Trump has paid taxes on that value for decades. That’s why the court says it’s worth that much.

Do you want the court to go by recorded history and documented proof? Or the pathological lying salesman with the orange spray tan?

A new buyer is further restricted by the fact the building is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places which means they have to jump through hoops to do any remodeling

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-22-2024, 06:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There are a lot of ways you can say that Trump is unfairly targeted with things in his treatment with these legal cases compared to the average citizen, there are also ways you can say he receives much more leeway. This is actually one of the things where he is being treated the same as anyone else at this point and that is what is important to me. He has been found liable for the funds by a judge and the penalty is not arbitrary in any way.

Maybe, but that's not the point.  A system in which the judge can set a fine large enough to prevent you from posting bond to appeal the verdict seems inherently corrupt.  The ability to appeal what you believe to be an unjust verdict is a cornerstone of our legal system.  Human beings are fallible, some are corrupt.  The courts can get it wrong. Being able to set unmeetable barriers to appeal seems contrary to our system of justice.  What an easy way to weaponize the criminal justice system.  Imagine a death row inmate being denied an appeal because they can't dig up X amount of money.  I get the difference, but the inherent concept is the same.  I don't think an appeal should have any financial barriers to it, for anyone, under any circumstances.

[GMDino]

(03-22-2024, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Maybe, but that's not the point.  A system in which the judge can set a fine large enough to prevent you from posting bond to appeal the verdict seems inherently corrupt.  The ability to appeal what you believe to be an unjust verdict is a cornerstone of our legal system.  Human beings are fallible, some are corrupt.  The courts can get it wrong. Being able to set unmeetable barriers to appeal seems contrary to our system of justice.  What an easy way to weaponize the criminal justice system.  Imagine a death row inmate being denied an appeal because they can't dig up X amount of money.  I get the difference, but the inherent concept is the same.  I don't think an appeal should have any financial barriers to it, for anyone, under any circumstances.

What about a bail that prevents you from being a free person before you even go to trial? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-22-2024, 12:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: What about a bail that prevents you from being a free person before you even go to trial? 

Not the same thing, which I would think would be obvious.  But in those circumstances you can find a bondsman who will post bail for you in return for a percentage of the total amount.  It used to consistently be 10%, but I've heard of as low as 4%.  Unless you committed a serious crime your bail isn't going to be high enough to be cost prohibitive.  But I'd certainly be in favor of alternative methods such as electronic monitoring.


Now, care to address the actual point being made or do you want to think of your next failed attempt to put me in a contradictory position?

[Belsnickel]

(03-22-2024, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Maybe, but that's not the point.  A system in which the judge can set a fine large enough to prevent you from posting bond to appeal the verdict seems inherently corrupt.  The ability to appeal what you believe to be an unjust verdict is a cornerstone of our legal system.  Human beings are fallible, some are corrupt.  The courts can get it wrong. Being able to set unmeetable barriers to appeal seems contrary to our system of justice.  What an easy way to weaponize the criminal justice system.  Imagine a death row inmate being denied an appeal because they can't dig up X amount of money.  I get the difference, but the inherent concept is the same.  I don't think an appeal should have any financial barriers to it, for anyone, under any circumstances.

I agree with your last point there, but I also could go more into how our judicial system favors the wealthy in general. Of course, this isn't the criminal justice system as it is a civil case. I do just want to point out, though, that none of this amount is a fine. Trump was not fined for his fraudulent activities.

[*pally*]

(03-22-2024, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Maybe, but that's not the point.  A system in which the judge can set a fine large enough to prevent you from posting bond to appeal the verdict seems inherently corrupt.  The ability to appeal what you believe to be an unjust verdict is a cornerstone of our legal system.  Human beings are fallible, some are corrupt.  The courts can get it wrong. Being able to set unmeetable barriers to appeal seems contrary to our system of justice.  What an easy way to weaponize the criminal justice system.  Imagine a death row inmate being denied an appeal because they can't dig up X amount of money.  I get the difference, but the inherent concept is the same.  I don't think an appeal should have any financial barriers to it, for anyone, under any circumstances.

are you equally concerned about "fines" levied that are way above the means of poor people?  Because you and  both know that happens each and every day.  And those excessive fines are used, for instance, for keeping people who have otherwise paiid their debt to society for receiving their rights to vote resotored.

Do you think that someone who committed fraud to enrich himself should be allowed to keep his windfall just because it is a lot to pay back?

[GMDino]

Trump knows where that number came from!



Communism! 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-22-2024, 02:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree with your last point there, but I also could go more into how our judicial system favors the wealthy in general. Of course, this isn't the criminal justice system as it is a civil case. I do just want to point out, though, that none of this amount is a fine. Trump was not fined for his fraudulent activities.

We all know the system here favors the wealthy, hence my stressing what I advocated for should apply to everyone.  Criminal or civil, the right to appeal should not be subject to financial barriers, or any barriers for that matter.

(03-22-2024, 02:57 PM)pally Wrote: are you equally concerned about "fines" levied that are way above the means of poor people?  Because you and  both know that happens each and every day.  And those excessive fines are used, for instance, for keeping people who have otherwise paiid their debt to society for receiving their rights to vote resotored.

You're going to have to give me a for instance.  I have zero issues with fines as a concept, but they should not be a barrier to exercising your right to appeal a verdict you believe is unjust.  You're painting with a very broad brush here and asking for a specific answer.

Quote:Do you think that someone who committed fraud to enrich himself should be allowed to keep his windfall just because it is a lot to pay back?

Of course not.  I'm perplexed with both why you'd even ask that and how it pertains to my post.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-22-2024, 01:07 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The property appraiser in the area has assigned the value and Trump has paid taxes on that value for decades. That’s why the court says it’s worth that much.

Tax appraisals aren't that highly correlated with real values.  My HOA taxes go up 20% every 3 years, and we pay a lawyer to appeal and it gets cut in half...and the lawyer takes 1/3 of the savings.

Assessed values for tax purposes are very different from market values. Assessments are almost as arbitrary as Trump's valuations. Good luck if you can figure out the math.

But at issue here is Trump is transacting with sophisticated financial players, who know how the game is played (by everyone - what Trump did is not abnormal, the magnitude of his overvaluations may be).  Those counter parties are free to seek their own valuations, and often do.  Regardless, they take a haircut on whatever you tell them.  Yet that is not the end-all and be-all to the price, which is highly negotiable.  The banks making these loans all said they considered those factors and viewed Trump as a valued client, while acknowledging fair valuations COULD - key operative word because it's a negotiation - result in a higher interest rate (maybe 25-50bps, which seems a long, long way from the damages assessed here).  

Plus the fact I don't think the banks were claiming losses or that they were defrauded, which makes bringing the case unusual before even considering the merit of the exceptional penalty assessed.  Mind you, this all from the DA who on the day she announced this case, said "we've had 60 [SIXTY!!!!] investigations into Trump, and he will finally face [civil] justice".  Sure, that doesn't sound remotely like a politically motivated witch hunt.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-21-2024, 07:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As for the reduction in penalty, I am not so sure. The law does not require victims to be enforced and the calculations were above board from my understanding. The legal analyses I have seen pointing in that direction have been few and far between. Not saying it's not possible, but I don't think it is very likely.

Using assessment values as market values is WORSE than what they accused Trump of.  Mar-a-Lago is reportedly worth $200M or more, but the tax assessment values it at less than $30M.

The two are not remotely the same.  Simple math says even if fair valuations would result in Trump paying a higher interest rate, we are talking 25, 50bps top on maybe $3B of mortgages (guessing, it may be less than that).  That's $10-$15M per year and, again, no actual financial "victims" bringing this case.

So I have no idea how they get $350M or whatever in damages, unless they are using "treble" damages.  Which, again, treble damages seems excessive given no one actually claimed they lost money on Trump's fraud.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-21-2024, 07:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, this is why I make the supposition that he doesn't have enough in unencumbered assets. Essentially it is just a more broad and shortened way of saying what you just did.

What do you mean by "unencumbered"?  I think that's very different from the issue of liquidity here.  You seem to be implying he doesn't have the net worth, and he does it's just illiquid.

Interestingly enough, in bankruptcy cases (not saying Trump is insolvent, just making a point) the courts will usually not approve remedies that A) further destroy values and B) create a potential liability and further destruction of value if a decision is reversed.

We're not talking about a $5k judgement against a deadbeat dad here.  There should be acceptable alternatives to posting a bond, such as putting assets into a trust as I mentioned.

[*pally*]

(03-22-2024, 03:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Trump knows where that number came from!



Communism! 

So he knows his lawyers lied to the court about his financial situation