...riffing off of another thread....James' seizing property....

[Fort Fun Indiana]

tell us just who did Trump injure in the James case to cause a 500 mil penalty ?

No, your mommy doesn't work here. There was a trial. Go read up on it.

 

[yidnar]

I am not interested in your cult fantasies.

so prices haven't risen dramatically eh ? are all homosexuals as oblivious to reality as you are ?

 

[yidnar]

No, your mommy doesn't work here. There was a trial. Go read up on it.

so all trials and penalties are fair eh ?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

so prices haven't risen dramatically eh ? are all homosexuals as oblivious to reality as you are ?

Damn you are dense. Just, duuuuuuh

You really are too stupid to figure out the lie was democrats causing that. Or you are too dishonest to have an honest discussion.

Either way, you're beneath me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

so all trials and penalties are fair eh ?

This is what people who went to college call a "non sequitur".

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes, MAGAitry is the gateway to election interference.

 

[Rambunctious]

Interesting take.

That is an angle many people forget about.

I wonder if Trump feels even a little bad for the disaffection he caused all the employees that are getting screwed over Trump's fraud.

It isn't fraud.... he at best over valued his holdings something people do all the time... Have you ever sold a home?... you say the value is say $300,000 the buyer offers less and says its worth $250,000 and on any bank loan where property is involved people will always over value and its up to the lender to do their own evaluation... this isn't fraud... look into the Biden crime family if you want to see fraud...

 

[Rambunctious]

And you're too stupid to breathe.

You must of lost another debate....

 

[Rambunctious]

That's all you got?... guess I won again...

 

[SeaMajor7]

What fine?

It was disgorgement.

It is the money estimated trump garnered from his fraud with interest.

How much of the fraudulently earned money do you think Trump should get to keep?

And no, it doesn't require a victim.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It isn't fraud

Sorry, trial's over. It's fraud.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's all you got?... guess I won again...

Haha... if declarations of victory were actual victories, every one of you halfwits would be a 27 star general.

 

[Lisa558]

In a nearby thread (revived from years ago)...the thread 'Why Trump Should Not Be President', there is post #13 that offers a headline suggesting that Trump won't pay on Monday, March 25th the money he owes for pursuing an appeal of the $450,000,000+ judgement against his corporation, himself, and his two sons.

The headline suggests that instead of paying he'll simply let the State of New York seize Trump Tower.

Personally, I'm not so sure that is the way it would play out.
But, if he refuses to pony up the bond money, what then?

[This could be a useful thread to inform us all on how the machinations of big money, big court judgements, can possibly play out. It'll be a high-stakes chess game, IMO. Most especially, if no financial-angel drops in to fund the surety bond(s). And USMB may have informed contributors here who are familiar with such judgments and are willing to share their insights?]

I welcome other's opinions on how this can play out this upcoming week.

Here is what I could possibly envision:

1. Trump refuses to pay on Monday. In short, challenging the State to back up the threat to seize assets.
   
   
   
2. So, the State begins to seize. But they don't go after iconic 'Trump Tower'...with the public-'splashiness' that would entail. Nor do they go after all assets.
3. Instead they go after less well-known properties. But those that are known to be profitable. The more profitable the more likely to be seized. Of course, the details and messiness of managing any real-estate property will be part of the calculus too. After all, who wants to immerse themselves in the weeds of 'Tee-Times' and golf-cart maintenance?
   
   
   
4. So then, the State could most likely go after this 'stated' $400,000,000+ in cash (or cash equivalents) that Don Trump revealed he had in a deposition to the State in 2023. THOSE funds would be relatively easily secured.....just order the bank to lock the accounts, and turn the cash over to the State Treasurer or Court, whichever is applicable. Minimum 'hands-on management' of that cash would be required. Most certainly a lot less than seizing an office building with it's tenants, tax-generation burden, and maintenance.

So, get the cash first. And if that is not enough.....go for the most profitable/easily managed pieces.

Anyway, if I was sitting in the decision-maker's seat......I'd look first at those avenues.

You?

 

[Lisa558]

Just heard Frank Linz say that if the vindictive, SOROS AG steals Trump’s properties over a bogus, victimless “crime,” it will prove that he is right about the Swamp and he will win the election.

 

[Chillicothe]

"...steals Trump’s properties..."

"Steals'??
After a years-long investigations and months of evidence, testimony, trial, and deliberations, and an extensive period of time to forestall any seizure by posting the legally mandated surety bond...... you, or Frank Luntz, interpret such as "stealing"?

You may wanna re-think that one good poster Lisa.
If you truly believe what Luntz is trolling with....then I, for one, would think you are either misinformed or uninformed.

Google is your friend. You can quickly find responsible credible reportage that can offer you extensive background on the case and the issues.
We expect posters here to do a modicum of due-diligence.

Good luck.

 

[Lisa558]

"Steals'??
After a years-long investigations and months of evidence, testimony, trial, and deliberations, and an extensive period of time to forestall any seizure by posting the legally mandated surety bond...... you, or Frank Luntz, interpret such as "stealing"?

You may wanna re-think that one good poster Lisa.
If you truly believe what Luntz is trolling with....then I, for one, would think you are either misinformed or uninformed.

Google is your friend. You can quickly find responsible credible reportage that can offer you extensive background on the case and the issues.
We expect posters here to do a modicum of due-diligence.

Good luck.

Yes….steals. What other real estate developer (or any rich businessman) has had the state of NY looking at his paid-off loans - and thus the lender was happy and there was never a victim - in an effort to ruin him? The lender themselves wanted to testify on behalf of Trump!

And we expect posters not to be so blinded and brainwashed by Trump-hate that they don’t recognize selective prosecution against an individual they are trying to ruin. This isn’t North Korea.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Yes….steals. What other real estate developer (or any rich businessman) has had the state of NY looking at his paid-off loans..."

Ah, good poster Lisa, the defendant had plentiful opportunity to provide exculpatory evidence that would negate the State's case. They could have brought in more and better experts, more credible witnesses, less tainted testimony. That is what high-priced lawyering is for. Not to mention competent and diligent voire dire during jury selection.

And we can presume they did all that. After all, they are the best money could buy. After all, they were defending a very very rich man, a multi-billionaire. Accordingly, we must conclude those top-of-the-game top-drawer expensive defense lawyers presented the very best, the most competent, most creative and insightful arguments.

But even with all that, it wasn't enough to overcome the State's own evidence.

So, having confidence in our American system of jurisprudence and the experience and wisdom of the courts.....we all gotta think, 'they got their man', a fraudster. Rightfully. And righteously.
Karma comes.
And sometimes she's pissed.


IMHO
--------------------------------------------

ps......and too Lisa, out of curiosity, what is your take on this "I got it/ No I don't/OK, I do" rope-a-dope charade with the $400+ millions?

What in the world is going on there? He says in a deposition he's got $400+ millions in cash. Then says in court.....no I don't and I can't raise it. Then communicates to the world...well, yes...I really do have it!

Ummm, WTH?
You got an idea on the strategy behind those tactics?
I'm curious.
As it seems somewhat different than the way I would approach such a situation if it was me.
Would you do it that way, Lisa?

 

[Lisa558]

Ah, good poster Lisa, the defendant had plentiful opportunity to provide exculpatory evidence that would negate the State's case. They could have brought in more and better experts, more credible witnesses, less tainted testimony. That is what high-priced lawyering is for. Not to mention competent and diligent voire dire during jury selection.

And we can presume they did all that. After all, they are the best money could buy. After all, they were defending a very very rich man, a multi-billionaire. Accordingly, we must conclude those top-of-the-game top-drawer expensive defense lawyers presented the very best, the most competent, most creative and insightful arguments.

But even with all that, it wasn't enough to overcome the State's own evidence.

So, having confidence in our American system of jurisprudence and the experience and wisdom of the courts.....we all gotta think, 'they got their man', a fraudster. Rightfully. And righteously.
Karma comes.
And sometimes she's pissed.


IMHO
--------------------------------------------

ps......and too Lisa, out of curiosity, what is your take on this "I got it/ No I don't/OK, I do" rope-a-dope charade with the $400+ millions?

What in the world is going on there? He says in a deposition he's got $400+ millions in cash. Then says in court.....no I don't and I can't raise it. Then communicates to the world...well, yes...I really do have it!

Ummm, WTH?
You got an idea on the strategy behind those tactics?
I'm curious.
As it seems somewhat different than the way I would approach such a situation if it was me.
Would you do it that way, Lisa?

You ignored that this is a case of selective prosecution, in which there was no victim, and has never been tried before, and was done specifically to ruin the target.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ah, good poster Lisa, the defendant had plentiful opportunity to provide exculpatory evidence that would negate the State's case. They could have brought in more and better experts, more credible witnesses, less tainted testimony. That is what high-priced lawyering is for. Not to mention competent and diligent voire dire during jury selection.

And we can presume they did all that. After all, they are the best money could buy. After all, they were defending a very very rich man, a multi-billionaire. Accordingly, we must conclude those top-of-the-game top-drawer expensive defense lawyers presented the very best, the most competent, most creative and insightful arguments.

But even with all that, it wasn't enough to overcome the State's own evidence.

So, having confidence in our American system of jurisprudence and the experience and wisdom of the courts.....we all gotta think, 'they got their man', a fraudster. Rightfully. And righteously.
Karma comes.
And sometimes she's pissed.


IMHO
--------------------------------------------

ps......and too Lisa, out of curiosity, what is your take on this "I got it/ No I don't/OK, I do" rope-a-dope charade with the $400+ millions?

What in the world is going on there? He says in a deposition he's got $400+ millions in cash. Then says in court.....no I don't and I can't raise it. Then communicates to the world...well, yes...I really do have it!

Ummm, WTH?
You got an idea on the strategy behind those tactics?
I'm curious.
As it seems somewhat different than the way I would approach such a situation if it was me.
Would you do it that way, Lisa?

The deadline is Monday. If FPOTUS#45 fails to post the supersedeas bond/escrow...

The Judge should schedule a hearing for Tuesday and require FPOTUS#45 be present along with his lawyers. Let them explain how:

• In April (2023) he said he had the cash.
• In March (2024) his lawyers said he didn't have the cash.
• Then after his lawyers said to the court he didn't have the cash, he tells the world that he does in fact have the cash.

WW

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Sounds like you feel those with money just have cash laying in their secret cash drawer...WTF, are you 12?

The macista types think people like musk are just loaded down with trillions at their fingertips.