ADDED: "Elon Musk says Trump ‘came by’ while he was eating breakfast, did not ask for money" (CNBC).
“I was at a breakfast at a friend’s place, and Donald Trump came by. That’s it,” Musk said in an interview with former CNN anchor Don Lemon, which aired Monday morning....
Musk told Lemon he did not go to Florida with the express purpose of meeting with Trump. Rather, Musk said he was staying at a friend’s house when he was asked if it would be all right if Trump stopped by for breakfast....
“Let’s just say he did most of the talking,” Musk said of the former president.... “President Trump likes to talk. And so, he talked. I don’t recall him saying anything that he hasn’t said publicly. And that was it, just a breakfast.”...
“I’m not paying his legal bills in any way, shape or form … and he did not ask me for money,” said Musk....
पोस्ट्स
५८ टिप्पण्या:
Given that size of the judgment, where posting a full bond would be ruinous, it seems to me that he has an 8th Amendment argument for a lower bond.
IMO New York committed economic suicide at precisely the wrong time with this case. What was once the "Empire State" and financier of the world is now run by weirdos in kangaroo courts.
Let Trump turn over any random piece of commercial real estate (much of it is worthless with remote work), but put a $1,000,000,000 sticker on the door. This case would be absurd without Trump, and the NY bankers are likely screaming at the state government behind closed doors. The rest of the world sees this and will plan their future investments accordingly.
See Costar:
https://www.costar.com/article/1226032889/in-world-of-distressed-new-construction-these-apartments-sell-for-almost-half-of-cost-to-build-new
https://www.costar.com/article/1328050268/nearly-half-the-47-trillion-property-debt-market-matures-by-2026
NY ain't seizing **** any time soon. He is doing the proper method of exhausting all other options before filing a lawsuit in federal court alleging constitutional violations.
The bonding companies aren't giving Trump's properties (which he is using as collateral) the valuations that he insists they are worth. That's because some of them aren't really marketable since they are deed restricted, like Mar-a-lago.
it seems to me that he has an 8th Amendment argument for a lower bond
The 8th Amendment applies to fines. No fine was imposed against Trump. Instead a judgment of disgorgement was entered.
Let Trump turn over any random piece of commercial real estate (much of it is worthless with remote work), but put a $1,000,000,000 sticker on the door
Sure - do the same fraudulent thing he did in valuation of his properties that he did to have the current judgment against him.
The potential fees are beyond juicy. If the equity value were there, a way would be found to collateralize it. That's what they do in New York. (Or London for even juicier fees if intermediating some Arab money for the benefit of Le Patron were in the cards).
So no one's interested in being First Lien holder on the next Trump administration? Interesting.
US Supreme Court rejected constitutional argument in Penzoil/Texaco case.
Enigma said...
Let Trump turn over any random piece of commercial real estate (much of it is worthless with remote work), but put a $1,000,000,000 sticker on the door. This case would be absurd without Trump, and the NY bankers are likely screaming at the state government behind closed doors. The rest of the world sees this and will plan their future investments accordingly.
--------------
Won't work. Judge has already put ludicrous low valuations on Trumps properties. Judge knew what he was going to do with his ruling and made sure they would seize as many buildings as possible.
America in Trouble... thank the Founders for partial State relief through electoral boundaries.
If the appellate court doesn't stay enforcement, then the NY judicial system is totally corrupt.
That case, on the merits, should be reversed and dismissed on the due process/statute of limitations/bill of attainder issue.
Speaking of remote work and commercial real estate, the third tallest building in downtown Omaha is mostly empty. It is being converted to apartments
Enigma
Not to mention real estate brokers. I don't see investers running in anytime soon without some sort of guarantee from the state. New York real estate was already on shakey ground before this fiasco.
Mark said...
"The bonding companies aren't giving Trump's properties (which he is using as collateral) the valuations that he insists they are worth. That's because some of them aren't really marketable since they are deed restricted, like Mar-a-lago."
Gee, Mark. You don't think that's because the decision just put every New York City property owner on notice that they too can bee sued. Nah.
Judge has already put ludicrous low valuations on Trumps properties
Actually, it is the exact opposite. Trump overvalued his properties knowing that they could not be sold for that amount.
Case in point: Mar-a-Lago. Trump valued the property as if he could subdivide and sell the entire property with a housing development on it. Normally that would not be a problem except that in this case, Mar-a-Lago is deed restricted to be maintained as a private club. Trump deed restricted it himself in order to get some tax breaks on it. That restriction precludes him from selling it as if houses could be built on it - they can't. That drastically reduces the market value of the property. And the County Assessor said the same thing.
Assuming the state seizes Trump's assets, I wonder how many New York City Trump employees would lose their job? I don't know how that stuff works.
It would be a lot easier if, instead of shooting off at the mouth or relying upon media reports of the case, people would simply read the partial summary judgment on liability entered against Trump, et al. (where both sides agreed that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact on the issue).
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991876/trump-ny-fraud-ruling.pdf
As well as the judgment issued after the trial,
https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/02/Judge-Engoron-ruling-in-Trump-New-York-civil-fraud-case.pdf
Make an informed argument if you must, rather than one made out of ignorance.
The right to appeal an unjust decision can be removed by that very unjust decision.
What, he can't get his buddies in Saudi Arabia to cough up the money?
Trump can only win this in the federal court system. There will be no judge in the entire state of New York court system who is willing to go against the state government on this one. As I have predicted many times, he will eventually prevail in this and the crazy Jean case, but only at the federal level. The violations of his constitutional rights in both cases are egregious.
Fuck that AG and the hog she rode in on. That such scum would be elected says all I need to know about the state of New York.
tim maguire said...
Given the size of the judgment, where posting a full bond would be ruinous, it seems to me that he has an 8th Amendment argument for a lower bond.
Trump's fraud trial was conducted under the rules imposed by New York's False Claim Act and the entire civil trial was designed to identify the extent of damages incurred by the people of New York plus appropriate penalties. Research has already been done to determine the extent of Trump's assets. Under the act, you are not permitted to steal and keep that which you stole. Defendant has known for an extensive period that he would have to pay but he has squandered (i.e, the $83 million he incurred needlessly in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit) and/or removal of cash from the state ($40 million for sure). The lawyers for Trump made no attempt to disprove the court findings and even permitted Allen Weisselberg to lie to the judge.
The first thing our ex-president has to do is pledge sufficient property to come back to court to appeal what he believes to be errors in the judgment. NY Attorney General James is prepared to put legal documents in front of Trump to sign, but he is only willing to talk about James but never to her.
Minority interests in real estate JVs backed up with New York leveraged offices. Can’t see why anyone would have a problem with that. ;^)
Leftist fascist courts are corrupt.
“it seems to me that he has an 8th Amendment argument for a lower bond”
“The 8th Amendment applies to fines. No fine was imposed against Trump. Instead a judgment of disgorgement was entered.”
Disgorgement of what, exactly? His ill gotten gains? No one lost money on those deals. The judge is playing with paper money.
“Let Trump turn over any random piece of commercial real estate (much of it is worthless with remote work), but put a $1,000,000,000 sticker on the door”
“Sure - do the same fraudulent thing he did in valuation of his properties that he did to have the current judgment against him.”
Except that it wasn’t fraudulent. The judge used assessed value, which everyone involved in real estate knows is ludicrous. You want it low, to minimize the taxes you have to pay every year. We appeal every three years, almost as a matter of course.
@Dave Begley; I think it's been pretty well documented that office-to-residential conversion really only works economically for aging prewar office buildings (like One Wall St) that have smaller floor plans with better interior access to light and ventilation, and whose current commercial tenant roster is comprised of marginal tenants paying below market rents. There just aren't that many of those (outside Lower Manhattan). For most postwar buildings, the unappealing football-field floorplan, the high cost of converting the building systems, and the anticipated drop in revenue (since A grade commercial space generates more income than residential tenants) makes residential conversion unappealing or unfeasible. Maybe zoning flexibility and tax breaks could help on the margins, but one assumes if those were all it took, real estate companies would be the ones pushing for them, rather than urban visionaries.
Some calculations here by someone who knows the field:
https://twitter.com/alexgroundwater/status/1700279420823429180
If the NYC building market is so depressed, if Tish seizes them and can’t sell them, how will she pay to maintain them? Also, when she sets the asking price for sale, will she be committing the same fraud she indicted Trump for?
As an ex-lawyer, I remain convinced that our law is not irrational. In fact, it is pretty darned rational. Thus, I do not expect that a judge setting an award far above what a defendant could ever hope to raise could work to make appeal impossible.
It's time to view, again, this little investigation into Letitia James' campaign fundraising. (link)
Did I miss this. If he has to put up property in the neighborhood of half a billion, who is the appraiser? Certainly not Trump. He is a crooked appraiser. Would it be someone without bias, who would that be? Everyone has a bias,
It's almost as if those who wield power are doing everything they possibly can (legal or otherwise) to drive Trump out of the public square.
NY can double down on stupid by sending SWAT teams into Trump's buildings to take them over.
Meanwhile shoplifters pass by under crushing loads unimpeded.
He's gotta Go Fund Me. Put your money where your filthy sewers are.
Mark. Curious to know which of Trump’s properties are deed restricted as you claim.
Mark said...The 8th Amendment applies to fines. No fine was imposed against Trump.
Here’s the text: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
The “unless Mark says so” clause didn’t make the final cut.
"NY Attorney General James is prepared to put legal documents in front of Trump to sign, but he is only willing to talk about James but never to her."
The fact that he refuses to lick the fascist boot is Trump's most appealing characteristic. Most of us can't afford to show these Soviet swine the contempt they deserve, so we're thrilled when someone who can, does.
Mark doesn't see anything wrong with the workings of the law in New York. This is the way Mark thinks the laws should work.
Come on NY, don't let us down. Start jailing business leaders for engaging in normal commerce. Nothing will happen to your economy. Letitia James has promised she will use these new powers to go after others. Just make sure Hochul sends the military to search possessions and disarm citizens lest they get uppity.
I think one of today's cases in front of the Supremes is about NY state telling banks not to do business with the nra.
I understand there is no dispute about the facts.
If they're so it once, they'll do it again.
Insurance is highly regulated by a variety of state and federal agencies.
What are the odds that the insurance companies have been told not to issue the bond?
Nil to zero i would guess.
John Henry
It’s not really a bond, It’s more like a letter of credit.
Such that if Trump loses his appeal then the insurance company pays out automatically and then seeks recovery from Trump.
Of course good luck trying to recover from a vindictive president who doesn’t respect legal/commercial norms.
Hence why nobody wants to touch this -- I suspect even if the bare economics of it are attractive.
That case, on the merits, should be reversed and dismissed on the due process/statute of limitations/bill of attainder issue.
From what I have read, the state of New York asserts the power to do this to any entity that borrows money to buy a piece of property and values the asset at anything other than the latest property tax assessment, but has never used it against anyone except Donald Trump.
I refuse to believe the Supreme Court would ever countenance such obvious politically-biased selective prosecution, lack of due process, grossly disproportionate fines, and interference with the right to appeal.
New York is a shithole and deserves the calamities that are coming their way. I want the morons who voted for a state government made up of such scum and filth to suffer the gravest possible consequences of their stupidity. Not one penny from the rest of us to bail them out!
His ill gotten gains? No one lost money on those deals.
Apparently you can't grasp that the one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The judgment - IF ANYONE WOULD BOTHER TO READ IT - disgorges Trump et al. of the profit that they made arising from the fraudulent valuations they asserted and repeatedly included in annual financial statements. That no one lost money is irrelevant under the state statute. It is the enrichment from the FRAUD that is being taken away under the state statue, which - like the people here - Trump thought that he did not need to read or comply with. That no other company has ever been sued under that statute is also irrelevant because it was on the books for years and Trump had a duty to read it, not simply ignore it.
Instead, as is typical, Trump thought that he could do whatever the hell he wanted, including slapping values on properties that were not supported by reality. That includes not only Mar-a-Lago, but the apartments he owned which he valued at unrestricted market value when, in fact, they were encumbered by rent control, which meant that any buyer could not get the rents that Trump was representing they could get if they were sold. WHICH ANYONE COULD LEARN IF THEY BOTHERED TO INFORM THEMSELVES.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - St. Karl
Mark (no! not That one!! The OTHER Mark) said..
The 8th Amendment applies to fines
Mark's got a point! remember ALL THOSE TIMES, that capital punishments were claimed to be "cruel and unusual" and the Supreme Court said: "OH NO! 'The 8th Amendment applies to fines' ???
Come do think of it.. i don't remember Any of those either
So weird that though there were two entities involved in the bank loan deals, Trump is the only one indicted. If the allegations were true, the lending banks would be complicit, since they did due diligence and participated in the agreements. If she were consistent, she would be indicting the banks too.
The NY court is calling this fine a "disgorgement" but it's not. Since there were no damages to anyone, any profits Trump made (even under the absurd calculation of such by the prosecution) were not illegitimate or at anyone's expense and as such not a disgorgement.
You can call an elephant a giraffe, but that doesn't give it a long neck! You can call a fine a disgorgement but that doesn't insulate it from the 8th Amendment. Things are what they are, not what you call them.
The debasement of the legal and political world is a sight to see. They will also go up against the wall eventually. They will not be immune to the firestorm, as the true believers found out in the past. vVva the revolution!
Go for it, New York! Apply this law to everyone who is guilty, which is pretty much everyone who has ever taken a loan in the history of the state! Watch as your economy completely collapses and New York City becomes Snake Plissken land!
Mark,
Perhaps while you're squarking about people not reading the judgement, you can read up on selective prosecution. The fact the offence is on the books and never prosecuted is very relevant to that.
Trump will be fine after this is over. It's NY that is ruining itself in pursuit of the orange whale.
They will take ownership of a bunch of unsellable commercial real estate in the midst of a CRE meltdown. They will fill the buildings with illegal aliens that they will need to support forever. And the productive citizens will continue to desert the place.
When the next 9/11 occurs the rest of the country won't even notice.
And tomorrow he will be nominated in 4-5 states to Make America Great Again.
The fact the offence is on the books and never prosecuted is very relevant to that.
=================
could also mean selective enforcement waiting to happen at the ripe moment!
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
p. 436 ; Dr. Floyd Ferris to Hank Rearden
Cameron said...
Mark,
Perhaps while you're squarking about people not reading the judgement, you can read up on selective prosecution. The fact the offence is on the books and never prosecuted is very relevant to that.
3/18/24, 9:24 PM
Mark is too dense He can only read approved Progressive text or his head will explode. Oppss...didn't mean to scare you Mark. I know you take every word seriously. I meant he would go crazier.
This whole case is centered on two professionals entering into a contract, that centered on each parties, particularized experience and skill set. A Bank with extensive experience financing real estate development. A Real estate developer with a decades long track record of successful real estate development.
The Governments case claims the contract was centered on a negotiated interest rate below market rates.
The Government failed to produce any documents, proving market rates.
The lender testified they did not use the borrowers valuation on the properties and instead considered the borrower a desirable high profile customer, that would raise the lenders public image.
Those are the facts. Not a single penny was lost by any entity.
Mark bleated,
"Apparently you can't grasp that the one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The judgment - IF ANYONE WOULD BOTHER TO READ IT - disgorges Trump et al. of the profit that they made arising from the fraudulent valuations they asserted and repeatedly included in annual financial statements."
Without getting too deep in the economic theory of markets. Perhaps Mark would care to explain how fraud was committed when ALL THE PARTIES engaged in the transaction agreed to the value of the properties involved in the transaction.
Furthermore. If as you claim there was fraud committed by one party aren't all parties complicit in the fraud since thay all sgreed that no fraud had taken place? Which would make it a criminal conspiracy.
Furthermore. If such is ther case why are not the other parties under indictment for fraud?
Rick67 said...
It's almost as if those who wield power are doing everything they possibly can (legal or otherwise) to drive Trump out of the public square.
3/18/24, 4:54 PM
Exactly this. How to eliminate your political opponents, though any means necessary.
Banks paid fines ranging from $5.3-16bn in settlements for processing and confirming ("robo-sgining") mortgages in a negligent and faulty manner or selling toxic real estate related products. BNP got fined $8.9bn for sanctions evasions. If a real estate company inflates its assets to get larger loans on preferential term and then deflates asset values to pay less tax, then it should also face fines in line. $464m with interest is rather small in that context.
Everything is going to plan.
If New York seizes Trump's assets, he will go even higher in the polls. Plus, I'd be willing to bet you dollars to donuts that if New York seizes his properties that they run them to ruin post haste. You're going to see unemployed people and empty properties. Which Trump will use to hammer the Democrats again. Seriously, if something weird happened and Florida seized Walt Disney World and rebranded it as State of Florida World, just how long do you think it would take for attendance to drop off massively and the properties would be shut down?
Most people in the country see Trump as an egotistical, loudmouth, reality TV star/businessman. But the far left sees Trump as the Antichrist incarnate. One view is rational, the other is not.
I actually knew a guy who, after Trump was elected in 2016, locked himself in his apartment and stopped going to work for several weeks because he was too emotionally devastated. (He ended up losing his job because he had "self-terminated" his employment.) I simply don't see this kind of emotional derangement with my friends who are Trump supporters.
Mark said...
it seems to me that he has an 8th Amendment argument for a lower bond
"The 8th Amendment applies to fines. No fine was imposed against Trump. Instead a judgment of disgorgement was entered."
The problem is that there were no victims here. No one suffered any financial loss because of this. Therefore, the courts might decide that this is not a judgement of disgorgement, but a fine. (That is paid directly to the government.)
"Disgorgement is intended to make victims whole. That means interest on the “ill-gotten gains” (as they’re commonly described) and possibly penalties to be paid directly to the victims (as opposed to the government) are often part of the disgorgement."
Rich @ 10:55
Not the same, Richie. Please pay attention.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा