|
Meatball posted:
Back On Board
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
dr_rat posted:Deed requires that the land remains a club apparently so there's only so much development that can be done on it, so it's always going to be worth less than land price. How does that work, anyways? Why couldn't *insert non-Trump entity here* seize the property and have the deed redone/land rezoned with the explicit caviat that Mar-A-Lago is being razed to the ground so the property can be
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 14:51
|
|
|
redbrouw posted:Back On Board Ok that's better
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 14:54
|
|
|
Randalor posted:How does that work, anyways? Why couldn't *insert non-Trump entity here* seize the property and have the deed redone/land rezoned with the explicit caviat that Mar-A-Lago is being razed to the ground so the property can be They would have to get the city to agree to whatever zoning, right? Which they might be able to do, but it isn’t necessarily easy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 15:23
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I think Trump tower alone is worth over $300 million. Even if it were, the next question would be “how much of his assets are already pledged as collateral?” If one of his properties has a market value of $300m but he’s got an outstanding mortgage of, say, $250m on the property, then at best he’s only got $50m in equity that can be used to secure a bond like that. (And Trump is famous for leveraging everything he has to the hilt, so how much equity he actually has in his real estate properties is an open question.) dr_rat posted:He apparently only owns 30% and could have issues selling due to rules involving the other owners, also if theirs a lien on it or what not. End of the day I'm not really sure anyone knows what proprieties he even has available to sell and what he could get for them. One thing that’s occurred to me is that, even if he does have half a billion in equity across all his properties, there will be a lot of extra due diligence needed if he has to bundle a bunch of properties together as collateral towards his half-a-billion bond. The amount of research and paperwork you have to do to make sure that Trump is not bullshitting you about his equity goes up with each property he has to add as collateral
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:They would have to get the city to agree to whatever zoning, right? Which they might be able to do, but it isn’t necessarily easy. He made some dubious moves to attempt to shield it, so it's likely his most valuable asset. Legally i think that dubious declaration that it's his residence is severely challenged by its use as a business and a specific deed restriction. It's exact value is a matter for the auction, certainly part of bidders price will depend on whether buyers are speculation they can get new usage approved for the land or have to buy it as a going concern indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
Randalor posted:How does that work, anyways? Why couldn't *insert non-Trump entity here* seize the property and have the deed redone/land rezoned with the explicit caviat that Mar-A-Lago is being razed to the ground so the property can be The city wants Mar-a-Lago to stay pretty much the way it is. They don't want it used for other purposes. That's why they placed substantial restrictions on Trump's use of the property. He wanted to subdivide it and use much of the land for other purposes back when he had his bankruptcies, but it was blocked by the city. That's part of why Trump was able to buy Mar-a-Lago in the first place, in fact. Everyone who wanted to buy it wanted to use the property for other purposes, and the city refused because it didn't want developers loving with a national historic landmark, so the price plummeted and Trump was able to scoop it up cheap. Then he ran into financial difficulties of his own and realized exactly why no one had wanted it - it was super expensive to maintain, an absolute money sink, and the city was very reluctant to let anyone monetize it. That's why he eventually came up with the idea of turning it into a private club, and why the city attached special restrictions to make sure he could never make it into a hotel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 19:13
|
|
|
Oooooh okay, I didn't realize the building was considered a historical building. Yeah, no, that thing isn't worth 90 million, let alone 300 million.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 19:18
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Oooooh okay, I didn't realize the building was considered a historical building. Yeah, no, that thing isn't worth 90 million, let alone 300 million. It's even better - it was bequeathed by the Post estate to the federal government in 1973....WHO GAVE IT BACK in 1981 because it was such a money pit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 21:02
|
|
|
And Trump looked at that and said "boy loving howdy do I want that":quote:Donald Trump learned about the estate after unsuccessfully trying to purchase and combine two apartments in Palm Beach for his family. He offered the Post family $15 million for it, but they rejected it. Trump purchased the land between Mar-a-Lago and the ocean from Jack C. Massey, the former owner of KFC, for $2 million, stating he intended to build a home that would block Mar-a-Lago's beach view. The threat caused interest in the property to decline, and Trump ended up getting the property for $7 million in 1985. Different sources have put the combined total cost of the purchase at around $10 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar-a-Lago#Trump_ownership Seems the only piece of poo poo Trump doesn't like to slam his name on is Eric.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 21:10
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Eh, it's good, but sounds a bit more early 90's to me. 80's comedies you wanted to keep the title simple and self explanatory. Not Judge Bhoddi?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 00:59
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:And Trump looked at that and said "boy loving howdy do I want that": So Trump is, in essence, windmills in Scotland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 02:33
|
|
|
https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1767919850431672423?s=20
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 15:31
|
|
|
suggest renaming thread Trump Legal Victories
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 15:35
|
|
|
TOTALLY EXONERATED!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 15:40
|
|
|
From what I read, the judge said that the indictments were too vague. Trump et al "violated the Constitution", but didn't say which part. The prosecutors can re-file, but the charges have to be more specific.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 15:44
|
|
|
Amending my filing that stated that trump did a "bad... constitutional... thingy"
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 15:56
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Amending my filing that stated that trump did a "bad... constitutional... thingy" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 16:00
|
|
|
McAfee tossed six of the counts in the case. The gist of the ruling is that Willis did not put sufficient specificity in the indictment. A crime has elements. For drunk driving the elements are basically (1) drunk and (2) driving. The elements of murder are (1) you took someone's life, and (2) you did so intentionally. The elements of manslaughter are (1) you took someone's life, and (2) you did so recklessly. The elements of felon in possession are (1) dude's a felon, (2) dude possessed a gun, and (3) dude knew he possessed a gun. Elements of crimes are important, they're what crimes are made of. If the state fails to prove any one element of the crime, they've failed to prove the crime and the jury must enter a not guilty verdict. In a felony indictment, the state must allege the elements with specificity. They can't just say "dude possessed a gun," they need to charge that on xyz date in abc county, defendant Three Olives, who has a felony mod trolling conviction in 2022, knowingly possessed a Smith and Weston .356 serial number 12345 in his jacket pocket. See how that's much more specific? The purpose of specificity is that the defendant can prepare a defense. Three Olives knows which gun is at issue, which date and place, and can prepare to challenge that. The flip side of the coin is that the government does not want to get too specific. If they allege that the gun was in his left hip pocket, and turns out it was in his right jacket pocket, that's an acquittal. I've seen cases go down in exactly that scenario. I've personally prosecuted cases where I lost counts because I hosed up the charging document's specificity. So prosecutors try to make the charging document specific enough but not too specific. And defendants almost always challenge the charging document saying it's not specific enough. It's a standard challenge that any prosecutor expects, and defense attorney at least thinks about, and any judge knows how to handle Turning to this case, it looks like the charging document alleged conspiracy to commit a felony, but didn't then specifically allege the felony in that same sentence. Instead it alleged the felonious acts elsewhere in the document. The defendants said that's not good enough enumeration of the elements, prosecutor said it was good enough, judge ruled for the defendants and tossed six counts of the indictment. The remedy I would do in this situation is just to recharge the case. If it were a DUI or felon in possession charge, I'd go back to grand jury and reindict with a new and improved indictment, which would use up about half an hour out of my day full of half an hour grand jury presentations. I have no idea what the remedy is in Georgia. Maybe Willis can ask McAfee to amend the indictment or something, which would save another trip to the immense grand jury. Maybe she doesn't recharge it. I have no idea. BigHead fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 16:27
|
|
|
Is the judge/prosecuting team in GA a bunch of clowns or what? Most important trial ever and they gently caress it up left and right and also were loving.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 16:33
|
|
|
Meatball posted:Title is "Surfin' Justice" and "Surfin' justice 2: back in the surf". In the next sequel the judge travels back in time to the old west: "Surfin' Justice 3: Hang Ten".
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Is the judge/prosecuting team in GA a bunch of clowns or what? Most important trial ever and they gently caress it up left and right and also were loving. The judge seems to be fine. I'd probably give them a pass on these being tossed. The Georgia case is extremely complex and in trying to make the indictment easily understood (this case has a ton of public interest for good reason) they didn't double up the details in multiple places where they probably should have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 16:51
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:suggest renaming thread Trump Legal Victories Trump Legal Victories and Jam Wrigglings
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:55
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:Trump Legal Victories and Jam Wrigglings Now I'm picturing MAGAts with Trump hair wriggling in jam and it's almost lunch time 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Is the judge/prosecuting team in GA a bunch of clowns or what? Most important trial ever and they gently caress it up left and right and also were loving. I'd argue that this is probably less of a fuckup and more of trying to get away with something. It is to the prosecutor's benefit to charge with as vague of indictments as possible, it's to the defendant's benefit to be charged with as specific of an indictment as possible. The prosecutors did not lose the case, they were told they pushed it a bit too far and should come back with a more specific indictment. All it cost them was a bit of time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
BigHead posted:McAfee tossed six of the counts in the case. The gist of the ruling is that Willis did not put sufficient specificity in the indictment. A crime has elements. For drunk driving the elements are basically (1) drunk and (2) driving. The elements of murder are (1) you took someone's life, and (2) you did so intentionally. The elements of manslaughter are (1) you took someone's life, and (2) you did so recklessly. The elements of felon in possession are (1) dude's a felon, (2) dude possessed a gun, and (3) dude knew he possessed a gun. Elements of crimes are important, they're what crimes are made of. If the state fails to prove any one element of the crime, they've failed to prove the crime and the jury must enter a not guilty verdict. This is a great post. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
Yeah if that's true this isn't a fuckup, it's a miscalculation that can be remedied
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:37
|
|
|
Harebrained stray thought : 1) Trump needs a lot of money 2) Trump has an unknown but non-zero amount of classified documents still, presumably at Bedminster but  maybe they were behind that secret panel at Mar-a-Lago.What do you think the odds are of Trump getting caught trying to sell documents in the short/medium term? I have zero confidence that he could actually do that in secret, I'm assuming he's very well surveilled by several entities, so it's really a question of how likely he is to try.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 20:10
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Harebrained stray thought :
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 20:38
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Legal knowledge As a non lawyer I really appreciate posts like this to break down what is going on with this stuff. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 20:41
|
|
|
The Islamic Shock posted:It's a possibility but I think he's at least smart enough to try less severely illegal methods of getting cash fast first. Especially since that's one of the very few ways he could gently caress up that would actually cost him votes (mostly military) O yeah, I don't think it's particularly likely. Anyone else and I'd dismiss it out of hand. But Trump is both incredibly stupid and desperate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 20:45
|
|
|
There's still the issue of how you get half a billion dollars to show up without scrutiny That much money is going to leave traces. I have no doubt trump is dumb and desperate enough to sell state secrets for personal profit, but I don't see how it could work in any significant amount
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 20:55
|
|
|
The Islamic Shock posted:It's a possibility but I think he's at least smart enough to try less severely illegal methods of getting cash fast first. Especially since that's one of the very few ways he could gently caress up that would actually cost him votes (mostly military) I think it's less he's smart enough to know better, more he doesn't have the proper venue for this amazing deal yet. Even he realizes that selling classified documents takes set up and middle men, you can't get top dollar just calling Putin on the phone and offering after all. So we should be looking to maybe hear about some clearly shady dude suddenly having appointments with the FBI in a few months or so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 22:31
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Harebrained stray thought :
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 22:41
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:the government should just offer to buy the documents he says he doesn't have and arrest him when they go to buy them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:30
|
|
|
You sure that's not entrapment?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:48
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:You sure that's not entrapment? It would be entrapment if they told him specifically to come and sell the documents, he has to take the initiative to commit the crime If they make a general announcement that they're open to buying classified documents and wait for him to show up, that's just a perfectly legal sting
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 23:58
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:You sure that's not entrapment? They didn't entrap him into having the documents
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 00:08
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:You sure that's not entrapment? haveblue posted:It would be entrapment if they told him specifically to come and sell the documents, he has to take the initiative to commit the crime The Islamic Shock fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Mar 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
The Islamic Shock posted:This. A crime that would have still been otherwise attempted given the opportunity and the nonexistence of the police. If they know you use drugs for instance they don't get to knock on your door and offer you your favorite because it's pretty plausible you're mostly buying out of sheer convenience (or unwanted temptation) there. This, of course, depends very heavily on how white/rich you are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 04:18
|
|
