|
I don't think there's anything particular new in it but the ever reliable EgaleLegal youtube law channel put out a video on Trumps fraud bond and his issues with liquidity in paying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2LqdDnIxV8 Makes a good short primer on the subjects for anyone catching up.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 08:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
Engoron set the undertaking to a level Trump actually couldn't pay. His appeal was not unreasonable and frankly $175 million is half the original award (pre-interest) plus the fact Jones is in charge of the Trump Org means his assets aren't going *anywhere*. His lawyers made a reasonable case for a reduction and the court agreed. The result: If he loses the appeal he'll have to sell assets. If he wins, he isn't irreparably harmed simply by appealing. Nobody, including shitbags named Trump, should be crippled by exercising their right to appeal. I would have thought that was something everyone here could agree on. It's wrong when indigent accused are left to rot in jail for months in criminal cases, and it's (regrettably) wrong here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 08:47
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Engoron set the undertaking to a level Trump actually couldn't pay. His appeal was not unreasonable and frankly $175 million is half the original award (pre-interest) plus the fact Jones is in charge of the Trump Org means his assets aren't going *anywhere*. Here's the thing though, how do we define 'crippled' when it comes to billionaires? Trump's estimated net worth, per Forbes and as of October 2023, was $2.6 billion. Engoron's judgement was a little under 20% of that. An American making $60,000 would probably be crippled if they suddenly had to pay 14 grand, right? But Trump would still have (supposedly) over $2 billion assuming that worth was accurate and somehow hadn't increased or changed at all. Is that difference going to meaningfully alter his life at all? I'll agree that penalties shouldn't have to be paid until appeals have been exhausted but I can't muster up any sympathy for billionaires in this position, especially shitbags named Trump. They're not feeling any pain except to their ego with judgements like this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 09:12
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:His lawyers made a reasonable case for a reduction and the court agreed. No he didn't. They litterally just begged the court to pretty please reduce the amount, made no case for hardship or bankruptcy, him and his lawyers acted like aggressive assholes throughout much of the court proceedings, and Trump has stated publicly he is good for the whole amount at any time. Whether or not the latter is bullshit doesn't matter considering his total paper wealth is probably high enough that he could pay out the whole thing if he really wanted to and still live a life of 1%'er luxury until the day he dies. On top of that Trump's faithful, or the various conservative billionaires who back Right/Fascist assholes like him, will probably end up paying for much if not all of the fine amount anyways. They've already been largely paying all his legal fees to the tune of 10's of millions at least so far! Its obvious bullshit to everyone with more than half a brain and a speck of honesty. Trying to make this sound reasonable and sensible is not going to do you any favors here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 09:19
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Engoron set the undertaking to a level Trump actually couldn't pay. His appeal was not unreasonable and frankly $175 million is half the original award (pre-interest) plus the fact Jones is in charge of the Trump Org means his assets aren't going *anywhere*.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 10:55
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Its obvious bullshit to everyone with more than half a brain and a speck of honesty. Trying to make this sound reasonable and sensible is not going to do you any favors here. Trying to discuss the issue reasonably and sensibly does indeed upset people who aren't interested in reason or sense. I encourage those people to disregard my posts!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 11:13
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:the law might disagree but as a matter of ethics the wealthiest and mightiest in the land should be dealt with in accordance with the worst abuse meted out to the poor and downtrodden, until the abuse stops. They should be treated equally, but "maximizing harm" isn't normally considered much of an ethical principle. Sort of anti-utilitarianism, I suppose? Treating people horribly as means to an end, likewise. Does "Breaking a few eggs to make an omelette" describe your view maybe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 11:26
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Engoron set the undertaking to a level Trump actually couldn't pay. His appeal was not unreasonable and frankly $175 million is half the original award (pre-interest) plus the fact Jones is in charge of the Trump Org means his assets aren't going *anywhere*. The issue is that no one except the wealthy get that kind of justice. Which means it isn't just for them to get it either. Unfortunately. There are two ways to remedy this: one is broad society-wide justice for all, which is prohibitively expensive and will never happen, ever. The other is to treat Trump as if he were a poor and set an example, so that all can perceive equity in the system. A harsh equity, but an equity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 11:35
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:They should be treated equally, but "maximizing harm" isn't normally considered much of an ethical principle. Sort of anti-utilitarianism, I suppose? Treating people horribly as means to an end, likewise. We stand knee deep in broken eggs whose names you’ll never hear, and you ask me if my desire to see Trump dealt with as though he were poor reflects the belief that you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. How does your current omelette taste?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 12:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The issue is that no one except the wealthy get that kind of justice. It's been pointed out that others have had their supersedeas bonds reduced on appeal, when it was shown to be beyond their means. So your fundamental premise is in error.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 12:23
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:We stand knee deep in broken eggs whose names you’ll never hear, and you ask me if my desire to see Trump dealt with as though he were poor reflects the belief that you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. You just want Trump to get hurt. That's understandable, but it's not a moral or ethical position, so don't try to dress it up as one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 12:29
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:It's been pointed out that others have had their supersedeas bonds reduced on appeal, when it was shown to be beyond their means. This whole category of post-appeal bond is only for the wealthy class; it only applies in large civil judgement cases. You're talking about actual temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Everyone subjected to this kind of bond has been a member of the wealthy class, whether they were wealthy at that precise moment or not. Rust Martialis posted:You just want Trump to get hurt. . . . not a moral or ethical position, so don't try to dress it up as one. This is not a valid premise at all! Wanting people to suffer can absolutely be a moral or ethical position! Most of our legal system is premised on the idea that vengeance and the infliction of suffering on the deserving is just, moral, and ethical. You might disagree that such a position is moral, but that's not the same thing, precisely. Even an incorrect position is still a position. If, for example, you believe that Trump has caused untold suffering and must in turn suffer to preserve justice, that's a moral and ethical position. Similarly, if you believe that Trump is a threat to societal stability and must be seen to suffer in order to preserve societal stability and the general societal belief that justice is rewarded and sin punished, that also is a moral and ethical position. In this instance, it's perfectly valid to believe that precisely because of Trump's exalted position, he should be held to a higher standard and punished more stringently than others and afforded less leeway and stricter terms, so that we preserve the perception that the legal system is not unduly biased towards the rich and powerful. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Mar 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 12:36
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Trying to discuss the issue reasonably and sensibly does indeed upset people who aren't interested in reason or sense. I encourage those people to disregard my posts! There is no way to call Trump's (or the richie riches) continued ability to delay delay delay and/or worm out of punishment reasonable or sensible though. Its a obviously farcical situation and that is why you're not going to convince anyone otherwise and why others aren't going to respect what you have to say on this issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 13:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:In this instance, it's perfectly valid to believe that precisely because of Trump's exalted position, he should be held to a higher standard and punished more stringently than others and afforded less leeway and stricter terms, so that we preserve the perception that the legal system is not unduly biased towards the rich and powerful. I'm going to surface from lurking to point out that the above is my personal position; Those who have amassed wealth and the power that inevitably follows with it, or simply reached the lofty heights of influence and position where their decisions can impact the lives of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of people should absolutely be held to a higher standard than your neighborhood grocer. I'm not saying that Trump hasn't suffered any consequence at all - if nothing else E. Jean Carrol has held him to account to the tune of 90 million usd - but compared to those suffered by your average dude being done for speeding by the wrong cop or seeing the wrong judge? The consequences he's suffered thus far are, correctly, seen as minuscule. Whether right or wrong, the perception is that he's not being held to a higher standard, he's not being held to any standard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 14:03
|
|
|
e: some AP article that's old nm Dissolving Trump's business empire would stand apart in history of NY fraud law mawarannahr fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Mar 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 14:13
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:AP has an article which indicates he is being held to an exceptionally high standard overall, not an exceptionally low one by the relevant law. If the article is accurate, he is being held to a pretty high standard. That article is from January and i believe the decision it discusses has been stayed by the appeals court as part of the ruling currently under debate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 14:16
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This whole category of post-appeal bond is only for the wealthy class; it only applies in large civil judgement cases. You're talking about actual temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Everyone subjected to this kind of bond has been a member of the wealthy class, whether they were wealthy at that precise moment or not. I would also note that as far as I have seen, and please correct me if I am wrong, but there is no precedent for reducing these bonds under New York State Law, only other state and federal law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 14:17
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That article is from January and i believe the decision it discusses has been stayed by the appeals court as part of the ruling currently under debate. Thanks for the additional context, I misread the date as being this Monday and was very confused. Mea culpa
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 14:19
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:AP has an article which indicates he is being held to an exceptionally high standard overall, not an exceptionally low one by the relevant law. If the article is accurate, he is being held to a pretty high standard. The original decision has already been amended by the same judge who massively cut the bond amount and all of that "exceptionally high standard" stuff got rolled back and then some. Also incredible amounts of fraud, as Trump did, over many years again and again SHOULD get you straight up no holds barred from running a business or owing one by default. IOW its not a exceptionally high standard at all and that it hasn't happened basically ever at all in NY is a sign of the courts in that state failing to do their duty and not how Trump is being unfairly prosecuted here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 14:24
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:The original decision has already been amended by the same judge who massively cut the bond amount and all of that "exceptionally high standard" stuff got rolled back and then some. Yeah, I evidently had some catching up to do. Feel free to carry on. woke up in the middle of the night and couldn't sleep, so not firing on all cylinders
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 14:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This is not a valid premise at all! Wanting people to suffer can absolutely be a moral or ethical position! Most of our legal system is premised on the idea that vengeance and the infliction of suffering on the deserving is just, moral, and ethical. You might disagree that such a position is moral, but that's not the same thing, precisely. Even an incorrect position is still a position. The purpose of the undertaking isn't to punish Trump, it's to ensure the state gets paid if he loses. The lowered bond amount does not materially impact that, does it? His assets are going precisely nowhere with Jones at the helm of the Trump Org. The original penalty is the bit that is supposed to punish Trump, right? Not the undertaking. Excuse me if I continue to regard the OP's accelerationism in low regard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 14:40
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:The purpose of the undertaking isn't to punish Trump, it's to ensure the state gets paid if he loses. The lowered bond amount does not materially impact that, does it? His assets are going precisely nowhere with Jones at the helm of the Trump Org. The state's payment is the punishment, and the appeal bond guarantees that the payment will be made. If he can dodge payment he dodges punishment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 14:48
|
|
|
Requiring the bond in order to stop collecting on a judgment during appeal is basically front-loading the collection work while the appeal proceeds. It's to prevent someone spending down during the appeal process and ensuring the plaintiff is guaranteed their recompense. In Trump's specific case his wealth is tied up in heavily leveraged real estate under the control of a court ordered supervisor, so it's not like he can escape with his wealth if his appeal fails. Collections on the judgment is basically guaranteed, so reducing the bond to the direct monetary damages of the fraud to $175M is a reasonable compromise, even if it's unfair bullshit only granted because Trump is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. I still hate it though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 14:52
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 14:57
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:
"This thing that happens all the time is bad and so is this thing that didn't happen"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 15:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If you do it in the courtroom, yes. If you make vaguely mean tweets on social media, absolutely loving not. yes, we should be fair and impartial and respect trump, i agree, i think that should be the case for everyone. but it's not. "we can't do irreparable harm" is great and good and true and not a reality for billions of us. "we can't put him in handcuffs and march him to a cell that would embarrass him" is not true for the entire state of florida who go out of their way to smear anyone who gets near a crime. the answer to "i want trump treated like anyone" is NOT "this is how everyone should be treated" great. good. i agree. thank you for criminal justice theory 101. we're not fighting or even disagreeing on anything. i'm pointing at one aspect of the situation making one point and you pounce in on giant kitten paws pointing to a completely different aspect of the same thing making a completely different point. "carrots are delicious" *probation* "THE HEALTHIEST SNACK IS KALE!!" (and it's "you" as a general thread person that participates in these things, you just happen to be the last person i quoted) also, for me it's a "let them fight" situation. let the judges, who are given powers of life and death with little or no oversight on a handshake and pact with god, try that poo poo on someone who can fight back and the press is paying attention to. and let trump try that poo poo with someone who can fight back. instead it's trump being a rich prick and the courts, for the first time in history since solomon grundy split that baby in half, are completely behaving as they should.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 16:08
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:The original decision has already been amended by the same judge who massively cut the bond amount and all of that "exceptionally high standard" stuff got rolled back and then some. It should get him jail time. Marilyn Mosby was a democratic DA for Baltimore. She was recently convicted of filing a false mortgage application and is expected to spend a couple of years in federal prison for: Perjury for claiming she suffered covid related financial hardship that allowed her to take out pension money without tax. Lying that she recieved a $5000 financial gift from her husband which allowed her to claim a lower interest rate on a mortgage. Now those are bad, but if a former prosecutor faces prison time for (comparatively) petty thefts, the idea that trump only faces a fine (albiet a large one) for decades of financial fraud resulting in half a billion in Ill gotten gains is loving ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 16:50
|
|
|
Caros posted:It should get him jail time. You left out some important details here about the 2 cases: - Marilyn Mosby is a black, woman, and a Democrat. - Donald Trump is white, male, Republican AND a former president. So it's pretty obvious why they get treated the way they do by the judicial system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:36
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:saying "trump will wiggle out of this" is forbidden but "trump will wiggle out of this, on appeal" is just cast in stone To be clear, I'm not saying "Trump would wiggle out of that on appeal". I'm saying "the thing you're proposing very obviously violates both the letter and meaning of the law, and there's absolutely no way any other judge would allow such a violation of legal standards and abuse of judicial powers to stand". The gag order doesn't cover the judge or his family, so jailing him for tweeting about the judge's family would be nonsensical. Avoiding unnecessary irreparable harm tends to be a thing in the civil court system, not the criminal court system. It's probably good that you're mad about people being perp-walked in handcuffs, but no one's getting perp-walked in a civil case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
well, thats a thing. Like, fraud is a crime. But it is also a tort. So far convicting Trump criminally has been too hard so all that has stuck has been civil complaints about his criminal activity (fraud and rape, or rather lying about rape and assault, respectively). But people still want criminal justice and they aren't wrong to want it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:To be clear, I'm not saying "Trump would wiggle out of that on appeal". I'm saying "the thing you're proposing very obviously violates both the letter and meaning of the law, and there's absolutely no way any other judge would allow such a violation of legal standards and abuse of judicial powers to stand". The gag order doesn't cover the judge or his family, so jailing him for tweeting about the judge's family would be nonsensical. but others wouldn't. you or i or anyone would absolutely get slapped with fines and jail time and cuffs. i linked to you two videos of defendants getting contempt charges for words, violating their first amendment rights and you, yet again, smugly point out that that's not how it's supposed to work. and yet it did. for THEM. thank you. i know. thank you. oh? "if those people had donald trump's means they wouldn't have seen the same repercussions and, again, neither of them should but only one ever will"? i know. thank you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
plogo posted:I would also note that as far as I have seen, and please correct me if I am wrong, but there is no precedent for reducing these bonds under New York State Law, only other state and federal law. I'm no expert in New York cases one bit, but from my understanding as part of the request for bond reduction, Trump's lawyers actually found several other cases where the bond was indeed reduced because it'd cause "irreparable harm". And to the court, having to sell property to cover the bond would be 'irreparable harm'. Note: Irreparable harm is perfectly fine as the final punishment, just not the appeal bond. Hobologist posted:No, the purpose of the appellate bond is to preserve the status quo created by the judgment against the appellant, so he can't hide assets or just waste them on expensive lawyers. Based on my research, it takes more than just saying "I'll have to sell some stuff for potentially less than fair market value" to justify varying the bond. Forcing a large business into bankruptcy will potentially do it, or in the Texaco-Pennzoil case the reason was "this judgment is literally 10 times the amount of surety bonds available on the entire planet," or "the case under appeal is the confirmation of a chapter 11, where assets will be distributed to 15,000 claimants and it will be a colossal pain in the rear end to track it all down again." Other options include placing assets in escrow other than via a surety bond, or the defendant being a publicly traded company whose audited financial statements show a net worth of several times the value of the bond, or the defendant being the state of New York, which can just tax all the money it needs. (These are all from cases that were cited by Trump's lawyers in favor of reducing the bond). Correct about your first sentence, but the bond is not allowed to cause irreparable harm. Which having to sell real estate to pay for it would count as. Since you... can't just be given back real estate once it is sold. It also isn't that far from the Texaco-Pennzoil case, because the Texaco-Pennzoil Case was about 12 billion, so 500m+ is only half the amount of surety bonds available on the entire planet. And apparently he managed to convince the judge that rustling up 500m in 30 days would be too difficult, but 173 million in 40 days is just fine. As far as it goes, being mad about the bond money seems like just wanting to be mad that the judge didn't just start punching and kicking Trump. I'm not saying the judge SHOULDN'T just start punching and kicking Trump. But he's not wiggling out of the jam so easily, even if he can pay the bond. New York is already has someone in control of his businesses so he can't just go hide his assets so easily. He had to have started before all this really kicked off, and well, he's no Alex Jones there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 20:28
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:and, to be clear, i know all that. trump would, rightfully, get any first amendment issue reverse on appeal. i know that. thank you. Somebody already addressed that: Kchama posted:As far as your video goes, yeah getting 30 days for saying 'gently caress' can be a pretty good way to get the sentence overturned on appeal. but the man wasn't just in contempt for saying 'gently caress', he also refused to show up in court and had to be dragged there, which is actually a good way to justify being given contempt. He didn't get 30 days for saying "gently caress". He got 30 days for having to be physically dragged to court to make his appearance. And as I also pointed out, repeatedly, the judge has far more latitude to regulate behavior (including speech) in the courtroom than outside of it. The government can't ban you from saying "gently caress" or ranting about whatever the hell you want on your own time out in the real world, but there's no First Amendment constraint on the judge telling you to shut up when you're being disruptive in the courtroom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 20:34
|
|
|
Here's something to cheer everyone up: a federal judge insulting Rod Blagojevich and tossing his lawsuit out with quotes from Dr. Seuss: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24493660-blagojevich-suit-ruling?responsive=1&title=1 "The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just go. Go. GO! I don't care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Marvin K. Mooney, will you please go now!" Rust Martialis fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Mar 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:00
|
|
|
Hey has anyone pointed out how hosed up it is that judges and their family are exempt from the don't make threats, harass, or intimidate rules? Because that's pretty hosed up
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:05
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Here's something to cheer everyone up: a federal judge insulting Rod Blagojevich and tossing his lawsuit out with quotes from Dr. Seuss: Wildly prescient of suess to rhyme Blagojevich with go die in a ditch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:05
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I'm no expert in New York cases one bit, but from my understanding as part of the request for bond reduction, Trump's lawyers actually found several other cases where the bond was indeed reduced because it'd cause "irreparable harm". And to the court, having to sell property to cover the bond would be 'irreparable harm'. Note: Irreparable harm is perfectly fine as the final punishment, just not the appeal bond. I will have to go back and look in more detail, i think you might be right. However, in my sloppy review it looks to me that they found a bunch of cases where it shows that the court unequivocally has the power to reduce surety bonds, but they did not present any examples where a NY court reduced a surety bond. https://eddsa.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/public/2024_01134_doc_11.pdf
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:08
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Somebody already addressed that: I was a witness in a hit-and-run some years ago. The accused appeared pro se, having announced he had fired his court-appointed lawyer for the second time and demanded a new lawyer. The judge was reading some document as the accused complained the lawyer was rude to him. On looking up, the judge interrupted him to say "take your hands out of your pockets when you address the court" to which the accused said "why?" and it was like the whole court froze as the judge said "because if you don't I'll find you in contempt and you can sit in a cell overnight".
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:09
|
|
|
Questions from someone who knows nothing about trials and such. - Will they go through the whole case again in the appeal, or will they only consider new findings/arguments? - When can we expect it to start & end? - Will he be able to appeal the appeal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
JunkDeluxe posted:Questions from someone who knows nothing about trials and such. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the appeal isn't a redo of the case, but a review of whether the court followed proper procedure. If they rule that proper procedure wasn't followed, they can rule to have a new trial, or some other outcome (including altering the judgement, maybe?) The appeal can be appealed, but again, it's limited to reviewing the actions of the previous appeal, so the original trial isn't even considered. Trump can technically appeal as far as there are higher courts to appeal to, but eventually he'll run out, or one of the higher courts will refuse to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:27
|
|
