Judge Engeron should be disbarred for judicial misconduct.

[Lisa558]

If the appeals court doesn't cave, Trump should tell them to go pound sand. Let her try to seize the assets. They are all in separate LLC's and there will have to be a judicial foreclosure in the Commercial division for each one.

Each one will have other creditors and stakeholders and lease agreements to contend with, and he can drag those legal procedures out for years, and fight the appeal while that's happening in the background.

He is smart enough not to put all his eggs in one basket, and he has a lot of cash spread out over more than 300 LLC's. She doesn't have the resources to go after them all.

Agree. She doesn’t appreciate the complexity involved, and the side negotiations and agreements required to unravel Trump’s ownership of assets at this level of the game.

 

[para bellum]

Agree. She doesn’t appreciate the complexity involved, and the side negotiations and agreements required to unravel Trump’s ownership of assets at this level of the game.

I predict the appellate court will take the $100 Mn bond that was offered before, and be glad they got that, lol.

 

[Lisa558]

I predict the appellate court will take the $100 Mn bond that was offered before, and be glad they got that, lol.

Even that amount seems excessive in light of the fact that this Is a victimless civil case, but $100m will be no problem with Trump - and keep the Wicked Witch’s hands off his property.

And then he takes this case as far as needed, and the actual penalty will be substantially less. He clearly has been targeted by Democrats to interfere with his campaign.

 

[meaner gene]

Also just to be clear, the $1 Million disgorgement of the lottery winnings would be returned to the lottery or sweepstakes or whoever was the lawful owner.

Again, Trump never stole anything from anyone, so awarding the State a disgorgement that they are not entitled to is not going stand up under scrutiny.

Actually under the "son of sam" laws, the victims would be notified, and given the opportunity to be a plaintiff.

the new law required that victims or their families be notified anytime a convicted person earned more than $10,000 from any source. Then the victims or families could sue to get some of the money.

Deutche bank and others failed to enjoin the case, but are still free to sue Trump separately, but there are limits to the time they have to do so, which may have already expired.

So in this case, the money goes to the state, for the general benefit of the people.

 

[meaner gene]

If the appeals court doesn't cave, Trump should tell them to go pound sand. Let her try to seize the assets. They are all in separate LLC's and there will have to be a judicial foreclosure in the Commercial division for each one.

Each one will have other creditors and stakeholders and lease agreements to contend with, and he can drag those legal procedures out for years, and fight the appeal while that's happening in the background.

He is smart enough not to put all his eggs in one basket, and he has a lot of cash spread out over more than 300 LLC's. She doesn't have the resources to go after them all.

Actually you have a point. James will go after whatever properties he has that are unencumbered. And your tale of tangled LLC's would explain why none of the 30 bonding companies he tried to get a bond from would touch his case.

And more bad news is Trumps claim to have $500 million in cash he was going to use for his presidential campaign, would be subject to judgement enforcement. The bank assets would first be legally frozen, and then the judgement executed against them.

 

[MarathonMike]

No , because it is going against Trump. Anything goes, and anything is forgiven as long as it is going to make sure Trump can't win. Doesn't matter what is done . Why don't deranged democrats just poison him or shoot him . The doj, fbi, will not assest the person that does the deed . It's rather obvious by now that anything at all is fair game when it comes to 45.

It is frightening how easily so many Americans have just accepted this complete corruption of our Justice System as the new normal.

 

[para bellum]

Actually under the "son of sam" laws, the victims would be notified, and given the opportunity to be a plaintiff.

the new law required that victims or their families be notified anytime a convicted person earned more than $10,000 from any source. Then the victims or families could sue to get some of the money.

Deutche bank and others failed to enjoin the case, but are still free to sue Trump separately, but there are limits to the time they have to do so, which may have already expired.

So in this case, the money goes to the state, for the general benefit of the people.

Son of Sam law? LMAO.

Aren't you forgetting the "conviction" part?

p.s. "enjoin" doesn't mean to join something. It means to stop something from happening.

They can sue the State now, since NY claims to have been acting on their behalf, lol.

 

[meaner gene]

Children below the age of consent are NOT CAPABLE of making the decision to have sex or not. That's why laws protect them, pedo lover.

Actually you're half right. They are not capable of giving consent, but they are capable of saying "NO".
And NO means NO. Which means the bringing the more serious charges of child rape, instead of statutory rape.

Rape is non-consensual sex, and is divided into different degrees. First degree rape is the non-consensual sexual penetration, typically committed by threat of harm or force. It can also occur is a person is incapacitated, or unable to give consent. Rape in the second degree is called “statutory rape.” Second Degree rape usually involved legally non-consensual intercourse. A person in this case may give factual consent, but may not give legal consent.

First Degree Rape | Cannon & Associates

Military commands have administrative power to exercise nonjudicial punishment to deal with minor violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”). Nonjudical punishment or Article 15 proceedings can have serious implications in your life and military career.

jpcannonlawfirm.com

 

[para bellum]

And more bad news is Trumps claim to have $500 million in cash he was going to use for his presidential campaign, would be subject to judgement enforcement.

Nonsense. That money is probably sitting in a PAC. Not a party to the suit at all.

Or he is just trolling the left again, lol.

 

[meaner gene]

And that is exactly where his analogy fails. New York is the banking capital of the world, and the bankers in New York are not so naive that they would take Trump's (or anyone else's) numbers and not do their own due diligence.

They explained all that, but it makes no difference because Trump had already lost before he ever entered the courtroom.

This is where there are limits. Without a bank having both Trumps business and income tax records to do their due diligence on. Essentially a forensic audit of the company.

A forensic audit/examination is designed to focus on reconstructing past financial transactions for a specific purpose, such as concerns of fraud
Forensic Audit Guide - Definition, Steps, Reasons
In a forensic audit, while investigating fraud, an auditor would look out for: Conflicts of interest – When a fraudster uses his/her influence for personal gains detrimental to the company. For example, if a manager allows and approves inaccurate expenses of an employee with whom he has personal relations.

 

[meaner gene]

I predict the appellate court will take the $100 Mn bond that was offered before, and be glad they got that, lol.

Trump just "tweeted" that he has the $500 million in cash.
The court can't legally accept a lesser amount if the defendant has the cash assets.

 

[Lisa558]

Actually you have a point. James will go after whatever properties he has that are unencumbered. And your tale of tangled LLC's would explain why none of the 30 bonding companies he tried to get a bond from would touch his case.

And more bad news is Trumps claim to have $500 million in cash he was going to use for his presidential campaign, would be subject to judgement enforcement. The bank assets would first be legally frozen, and then the judgement executed against them.

Sounds like the Democrats just came up with the number they figured would wipe Trump of his cash and make the money he was planning to use for his election campaign - outreach, advertising buys, oppo research, etc. - unavailable and thus impede his campaign.

Selective prosecution. Excessive fines in violation of his rights. Election interference. I mean, I know you hate the guy, but how many dirty and undemocratic tactics are Democrats planning to take?

 

[para bellum]

This is where there are limits. Without a bank having both Trumps business and income tax records to do their due diligence on. Essentially a forensic audit of the company.

A forensic audit/examination is designed to focus on reconstructing past financial transactions for a specific purpose, such as concerns of fraud
Forensic Audit Guide - Definition, Steps, Reasons
In a forensic audit, while investigating fraud, an auditor would look out for: Conflicts of interest – When a fraudster uses his/her influence for personal gains detrimental to the company. For example, if a manager allows and approves inaccurate expenses of an employee with whom he has personal relations.

Seriously. Just stop making shit up. Banks know how to run their banks, they don't need your help.

They said they were not defrauded.

They said that because they were not defrauded. They loaned money to Trump because he was a good credit risk, and a "whale" investor, who offered "high-yield" opportunities.

 

[para bellum]

Trump just "tweeted" that he has the $500 million in cash.
The court can't legally accept a lesser amount if the defendant has the cash assets.

Please just stop. The court has the discretion to do whatever they think is reasonable.

They also cannot just seize any old bank account that they think Trump might have control over. There is a process for that sort of thing.

 

[meaner gene]

Nonsense. That money is probably sitting in a PAC. Not a party to the suit at all.

Or he is just trolling the left again, lol.

It depends on the PAC

Yes, Trump’s PACs really can pay his legal fees

Trump-aligned political action committees have paid lawyers for the former president tens of millions of dollars. Are there any limits on how much, or on what, they can spend?

theconversation.com

 

[meaner gene]

Sounds like the Democrats just came up with the number they figured would wipe Trump of his cash and make the money he was planning to use for his election campaign - outreach, advertising buys, oppo research, etc. - unavailable and thus impede his campaign.

Selective prosecution. Excessive fines in violation of his rights. Election interference. I mean, I know you hate the guy, but how many dirty and undemocratic tactics are Democrats planning to take?

Only problem is the timeline.

Following a three-year investigation, in September 2022 Attorney General James filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump, a number of Trump Organization companies, and senior executives for engaging in years of financial fraud and illegal conduct.

This was well before Trump could run for president. And was based on the legal window of opportunity.

 

[meaner gene]

Seriously. Just stop making shit up. Banks know how to run their banks, they don't need your help.

They said they were not defrauded.

They said that because they were not defrauded. They loaned money to Trump because he was a good credit risk, and a "whale" investor, who offered "high-yield" opportunities.

The fact they said they were not defrauded, means they didn't do their due diligence. Or they would have known they were being given false business records. Banks like most institutions rely on the criminal law to prevent from being taken. Such as it's a crime to write a bad check, or to forge a check.
So banks don't do signature verification on checks under a certain amount.

 

[Lisa558]

Only problem is the timeline.

Following a three-year investigation, in September 2022 Attorney General James filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump, a number of Trump Organization companies, and senior executives for engaging in years of financial fraud and illegal conduct.

This was well before Trump could run for president. And was based on the legal window of opportunity.

So? She expected him to run again, and wanted to make sure he didn’t. And the best she could come up with was a victimless civil action where nobody suffered damages?

 

[Lisa558]

The fact they said they were not defrauded, means they didn't do their due diligence. Or they would have known they were being given false business records. Banks like most institutions rely on the criminal law to prevent from being taken. Such as it's a crime to write a bad check, or to forge a check.
So banks don't do signature verification on checks under a certain amount.

Na. They knew Trump was a whale and they would make $100 million on the deal, and were eager to close it. They also figured he was a good credit risk, and they figured right. He paid in accordance with the contract.

There’s no victim.

 

[Leo123]

New York state was defrauded by Trumps fraudulent business records.

Trump did not get a loan from NY State.