Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34558
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Well. most people at least have to put up cash money in full, plus large fees, to the bonding institution so it's not really OPM. From what we have been reading, it appears Trump can't do much better. Funky shit like pledging real estate and other illiquid assets ain't working for him.
  2. It should probably be pointed out that this is just an interim step to consequences. Bond or no bond, the plaintiffs (both Carroll and the State of New York) will have whatever of their judgments survives appeal and will be free to collect them. Bond is just an extra humiliation for the orange man and makes it that much easier for the plaintiffs to get paid. Carroll, I am reasonably sure, is going to have a nice payday. So should NY, but it may be less than we are currently looking at,and subject to more collections shenanigans because there apparently will be no bond. Because NY isn't paying directly for the collection effort, it should be quite hard on Trump and not so much for the state. Not in the way it would be for a private plaintiff like Carroll and her lawyers. Appeals are overall pretty low percentage deals in terms of complete reversal. But a damages haircut is not that remote.
  3. Even to me, Mr. Leniency in sentencing, tends to agree that is not enough. Most federal crimes have a statutory max of 20 years or less, but they can be stacked. Upon further reading, these are federal civil rights charges, only, not the underlying crimes committed in the course. That explains the statutory max of 20. Also, his plea agreement apparently set the maximum at 20 (maybe pled to just one count at 20 max, so nothing to stack).
  4. He has also been living off of Trump license fees and management fees on the properties. Not a bad way to support a lavish lifestyle, but not so great for building wealth or liquidity. Most of us could do it but he can't. He relies on greater fool theory when he finally sells the property for that.
  5. No. But he filed a motion asking to be relieved of the obligation,thus making it public. In true Trumpian fashion, he says not a word about protecting the plaintiff/creditor during the appeal, but only whines about his own problems. That is the whole purpose of the rule.
  6. They apply in completely different circumstances. C&U is criminal only and very little has been adjudged cruel or unusual. A&C is mostly a term of administrative law and applies to an agency action disconnected from facts or rules/laws. Agency action gets labeled A&C far more often than anything gets labeled C&U. They have in common that there is an element of disproportionality or irrationality to both.
  7. There was no evidence at THIS trial that Trump defrauded anyone of billions. Other people he defrauded over the years are irrelevant to this particular case. I think excessive fine analysis requires some connection to the harm done in the case at bar, which is why it has some life in the context of civil forfeiture.
  8. Jurors are permitted to take into account the wealth of the defendant in calculating punitive damages,because it should be sufficient to punish. But wealth of the defendant is irrelevant for most other forms of damages. As in compensatory damages compensate and the ability to pay is irrelevant.
  9. Yup. Surely it made it into post-trial motions if not briefing on the damages. But with habba Dabba do, who knows. Kise probably got it right.
  10. Agreed. As long as not insanely punitive, probably withstands 8th Amendment challenge.
  11. Here's the verdict form. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18418220/280/carroll-v-trump/ The actual calculation is done by the jury in a black box, but usually by adopting a number proposed by one side or the other. The amounts: General compensatory damages: 7.3M Cost of reputation repair: 11M Punitive damages: 65M
  12. I am worried about one thing on the fine. The basis for it was the difference between loan terms with Trump's personal guarantee and without. A more precise, and unknowable, measure would have been the difference in terms with a personal guarantee with Trump's accurate wealth disclosed versus the inflated wealth. Also, quite a bit of loan activity was outside the statute of limitations, starting with the closing of all of them. The "bad acts" within the statute of limitations were continued submission of false SFC as a loan requirement. So, an even more precise calculation would have been loan terms had Trump not lied on SFC and those that he did. In other words, how would the lenders have adjusted the loan, post-closing, had his true condition been known. Both of these I think may be substantial frailties in the judgment. The part about the 8th Amendment is just woolgathering. The initial post referred only to cruel and unusual punishment, which is probably not the pertinent part of the 8th Amendment, and, as was pointed out, virtually nothing is cruel and unusual. But, in some contexts, the excessive fines portion may have some teeth. Whether that is here or not is a different story.
  13. The excessive fines portion of the 8th actually has a bit of vitality these days in the context of civil forfeiture.
  14. It's also "excessive fines," so not quite as foolish as it initially seems. Still foolish af, though.
  15. If the playing field was level, sure. But in a criminal case where the parties are roughly equally resourced, the field is tilted against the government, which has the burden of proof and a tall one at that. And, you can't say at this point whether this favors or disfavors Trump. She has made multiple CIPA decisions, all under seal, none of which the government has appealed, so they are presumably in the government's favor. Let's hope she didn't fuck those up in a way that gives Trump a solid appeal. This latest is just stupid. For now, it's neither here nor there, pro or con. Just stupid. It may be a precursor to a giant mistake/attempt to favor Trump or it may work out in the end.
  16. Well if they spend a lot of effort "seizing" a multi million dollar property and get 10k out of it that tends to suck.
  17. One of the kind of unfortunate things about execution in most states is that the judgment creditor rarely/never takes possession of the executed-upon property. The sheriff or other official seizes it for a "Sheriff's sale," which is quite similar to a foreclosure auction. So the judgment creditor doesn't have a lot of control over things. A lot of things can go wrong to prevent it from turning into a lot of liquid cash in a hurry.
  18. There's nothing wrong with this per se. Jury instructions will have to be done regardless. But this evidences that she has no understanding whatsoever of the interplay between the PRA and 18 USC 793,which is none. She is trying to manufacture nuances where there are none, much like she did earlier because she's a fuckin dumbass. She has at least one clerk to help her make sense of this because she can't figure it out on her own and still fucks it up.
  19. It's more that than anything else.
  20. She is officially dumb as fuck.
  21. The only place that works is in a petition for bankruptcy. In most cases, the judgment creditor plaintiff is entitled to pursue whatever post-judgment remedies the law provides to collect whatever percentage of the judgment it can. That would include verifying that the judgment creditor/defendant is too poor to pay. For example, In a shitass consumer loan or credit card debt suit, where it is highly likely the defendant doesn't have a pot to piss in, the creditor may seek a "writ of execution" in which the sheriff or constable goes to the defendant's home, gains lawful entry, and surveys the property to see if the defendant has any obviously non-exempt property (up to 60k personal in Texas and the homestead). Usually that writ comes back, sorry ain't got shit. But the plaintiff can keep after them if they want.
  22. I am referring to attempting to execute the judgment pending appeal if Trump doesn't secure a bond. Many or most plaintiffs won't do it unless they're holding a bloody stump and really need the money, or just to fuck with the defendant. This situation is to be differentiated from that in which either a) there is no appeal or b) the appeal is concluded with the judgment still at least partially affirmed. In that case, the plaintiff is free to execute regardless of motive. Also to be differentiated from the situation in which a bond is posted and the appeal concludes affirming all or part of the judgment in favor of plaintiff, in which case the court releases the proper amount of the bond to the plaintiff. It's just that interregnum where the judgment could get reverse partially or entirely that poses a risk for plaintiffs.
  23. This is a principle of general application. Unless my client direly needed a portion of the judgment amount, say less than half, and the execution was going to be easy, I would advise holding their water until the appeal is concluded. But commence diligence on asset "tracing." The NY AG doesn't need the money. They'd mostly be doing it to fuck with Trump. And that is a recipe for being on the wrong end of a wrongful execution suit, if the judgment is reversed.
  24. So only asking for a stay of the monetary portion. Good luck with that. About the only reason for the appeals court to do that is that the judgment is so obviously infirm that it will clearly be reversed in whole or in part. Seems unlikely but may offer a preview.
  25. Certainly a possibility. However, many or most plaintiffs are motivated to wait out an appeal before attempting to execute on a judgment if there is any possibility of reversal or alteration of the judgment. They have to weigh that against the possibility of the defendant wasting or hiding assets, for which there are other remedies. I suspect trump may ask the appeals court to stay the non-monetary portions of the judgment pending appeal because that is the most immediate threat. That would be a legally plausible thing to do.
×
×
  • Create New...