Trump can't secure the $454 million bond

Judge Arthur Engoron had already found Trump and his company violated 63(12) by fraudulently misstating the value of their assets on financial documents.

Topline: Trump Keeps Attacking This Statute In N.Y. Fraud CaseâHereâs Why His Claims Lack Merit


Former President Donald Trump continued his attacks on the civil fraud case against him in New York on Tuesday as he returned to the ongoing trial, including making claims that the case against him is “rigged” based on the statute it was brought under—which broadly gave state Attorney General Letitia James the power to prosecute Trump for alleged fraud.

No jury, no due process, no trial even.

Show trial, nothing more.
 
Considering the actual verdict say he was found not liable of rape, Trump has a case.
Too funny. The cult is being duped into believing fantasy as fact, yet gain.

Read it:

A jury in a Manhattan civil case last year found Mr. Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Ms. Carroll, but did not find the former president liable for rape. The judge, however, later clarified that because of New York’s narrow legal definition of “rape,” the jury’s finding did not mean that Ms. Carroll “failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’”
 
No jury, no due process, no trial even.

Show trial, nothing more.
note:

"The statute does not require intent to commit fraud or anyone to be harmed by the fraud, and it does not give Trump the inherent right to a jury trial, with legal experts noting to CNN that while civil lawsuits that request monetary damages are entitled to a jury trial, cases seeking other “equitable relief”—meaning penalties that force the defendant to take or refrain from taking some kind of action, rather than just paying money—can be decided by a judge alone, which is more common with 63(12) violations and is the case in this trial."

 
Too funny. The cult is being duped into believing fantasy as fact, yet gain.

Read it:

A jury in a Manhattan civil case last year found Mr. Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Ms. Carroll, but did not find the former president liable for rape. The judge, however, later clarified that because of New York’s narrow legal definition of “rape,” the jury’s finding did not mean that Ms. Carroll “failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’”

It's on the decision plain as day.
 
note:

"The statute does not require intent to commit fraud or anyone to be harmed by the fraud, and it does not give Trump the inherent right to a jury trial, with legal experts noting to CNN that while civil lawsuits that request monetary damages are entitled to a jury trial, cases seeking other “equitable relief”—meaning penalties that force the defendant to take or refrain from taking some kind of action, rather than just paying money—can be decided by a judge alone, which is more common with 63(12) violations and is the case in this trial."


You keep linking the same bullshit, pretending it's fact when it is just a bad opinion.
 
Fact: The way the penalty (minus the interest) was arrived at was not at all unusual.
Fact: "Ill gotten gains" has a legal definition, and proceeds from a sale are not the same thing as profits from a sale. This is basic accounting. Trump had tens of millions in equity in those projects that has to be deducted from the proceeds of the sale before profits can be calculated. The judge failed to do that.

The interest is a whole 'nuther thing- you cannot impose a disgorgement based on the purported interest rate savings and the profits earned based on that lower rate. That is double counting. Disgorgements are equitable relief, and the interest rate savings penalty alone would make any "aggrieved party" whole.
 
Considering the actual verdict say he was found not liable of rape, Trump has a case.
quote:
Mr. Trump, who often galvanizes his supporters by attacking the press, has filed a string of unsuccessful defamation suits against major media organizations. Federal judges have dismissed his suits against CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post.:auiqs.jpg:
 
Trump filed a lawsuit this morning on ABC and Stephanopoulos for libel for saying he was guilty of rape 10 times in one interview of Mace....
I think he may have the bastard this time...
quote:
Federal judges have dismissed Trump's lawsuits against CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post.
 
note:

"The statute does not require intent to commit fraud or anyone to be harmed by the fraud, and it does not give Trump the inherent right to a jury trial, with legal experts noting to CNN that while civil lawsuits that request monetary damages are entitled to a jury trial, cases seeking other “equitable relief”—meaning penalties that force the defendant to take or refrain from taking some kind of action, rather than just paying money—can be decided by a judge alone, which is more common with 63(12) violations and is the case in this trial."
Repeating yourself does not make your argument stronger.

Equitable relief has specific conditions that are not met.
 
No I'm arguing he can appeal without handing over half a billion dollars...
Sure. But then the state can begin realizing on the assets.

can he put his property up as collateral?
He can put up cash or a bond. Bond underwriters will want to be fully secured.

... not really because property value can fluctuate and banks know this... if the penalty was reduced to a more reasonable amount a bank would grant a bond... James and her judge knew this and that is why they set it so high... that alone will weigh heave on appeal.... its lawfare and its election tampering of the worst kind....
Appeal it and lets see if you are correct. Again, you could be correct.
 
quote:
Mr. Trump, who often galvanizes his supporters by attacking the press, has filed a string of unsuccessful defamation suits against major media organizations. Federal judges have dismissed his suits against CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post.:auiqs.jpg:

This time he has a legal document finding him not liable of rape.

Steph said he was found liable of rape.
 
At the time period, I believe rape needed a penis and vagina/ass, now rape is thought of with multiple orifices, and multiple different forced penetraters including broomsticks...

Does the document say he was not found liable of rape, yes or no.
 

Forum List

Back
Top