Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
53 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Has anyone reminded her that Trump refused to take the stand in his defense?  Does she forget that the judge walked back the part of his granting of summary judgment that was the most difficult to sustain? In the what-do-you-owe phase Habba Dabba Do and Trump kept trying to explain the great disclaimer and why Mar-a-Lago was worth more than the combined real estate of several states.  One of the reasons the judge kept getting pissed was that the morons kept interjecting liability crap into the damages trial.

She may have been too busy shopping and getting mani-pedis to focus on that law stuff.  Folks paying closer attention than me can remind me, but I thought that the appellate review standard was ‘clearly erroneous’.   There is a mountain of documentary evidence supporting the fact that they lied and greatly inflated their assets in some remarkable ways.

They insist on saying because he paid the loans back, there was no crime. I keep hearing that his not defaulting makes no difference because the purpose of the law is to stop people lying to lenders, as getting a lower rate because you lied is not victimless.  

This may not be a perfect analogy, but if you were caught with a firearm with a serial number erased you’re going to get convicted snd maybe sent to federal prison.   It makes no difference if you scratched off the serial number.  It makes no difference if you knew the serial number had been scratched off…or that you bought it in a legitimate purchase from a neighbor and it was sitting in the back of your truck for a month before you had even looked in the box.  Possession of the weapon with the altered serial number means you are guilty.    

Which is all to say, there are crimes on the books where your intent or even the lack of anything resembling a victim is entirely immaterial.  If this is truly one of those statutes, they are Uber fucked.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
15 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

This may not be a perfect analogy, but if you were caught with a firearm with a serial number erased you’re going to get convicted snd maybe sent to federal prison.   It makes no difference if you scratched off the serial number.  It makes no difference if you knew the serial number had been scratched off…or that you bought it in a legitimate purchase from a neighbor and it was sitting in the back of your truck for a month before you had even looked in the box.  Possession of the weapon with the altered serial number means you are guilty.

Suspicious Monkey GIF by MOODMAN

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
11 hours ago, dcbc said:

Didn't she get paid in advance?  I think he's paid her firm nearly $3.5M.  That alone should be a red flag for being in charge of a country, but you know, here we are.

 

She is employed by an actual law firm? 

Fleece, Tick, and Cheatem?

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
 
it could go up to infinity and beyond. He'll never pay a cent. 
 
He won’t. But his cult and /or the RNC will.   I think to get through to the highest appellate court in New York from a trial verdict is normally about 18 months.  
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

So he has filed an appeal on the Engoron NY State stuff, but apparently is also attempting to appeal his need to bond around that pesky half billion dollars.  A bold strategy to be sure.  

  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂😂

 

Wasn't the presidential records act written because of what happened with Nixon???  So they could avoid that situation again???

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
8 minutes ago, speed817 said:

Wasn't the presidential records act written because of what happened with Nixon???  So they could avoid that situation again???

Of course Dotard's takeaway from the presidential records act is "I can take whatever I want and do whatever I want with it!". 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
16 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

So he has filed an appeal on the Engoron NY State stuff, but apparently is also attempting to appeal his need to bond around that pesky half billion dollars.  A bold strategy to be sure.  

He said he had almost $500,000,000 just sitting around the house - what’s the problem?  Check under the cushions.

IMG_2395.gif.932c42c7f8c9b1151e3763541f690f59.gif

- “He says his brand is so strong he doesn’t need to put down money..”

- “What? He’ll pay me when Texas Tech wins the BCS Championship…and the BCS is kaput!!”

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

He said he had almost $500,000,000 just sitting around the house - what’s the problem?  Check under the cushions.

IMG_2395.gif.932c42c7f8c9b1151e3763541f690f59.gif

- “He says his brand is so strong he doesn’t need to put down money..”

- “What? He’ll pay me when Texas Tech wins the BCS Championship…and the BCS is kaput!!”

 

I'm gonna go get some doughnuts.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
On 2/23/2024 at 6:34 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Post judgment interest continues to accrue, supersedeas bond or not. That is why they are usually 120% or so of the face amount of the judgment (which usually includes prejudgment interest, as it seems to here). 


This guy says he didn't need a bond. He appears to be on top of this. He's a good twitter follow. 
 

od 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
50 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:


This guy says he didn't need a bond. He appears to be on top of this. He's a good twitter follow. 
 

od 

Correct.

Bond: NOT needed in order to appeal a judgment.  You can appeal without posting a bond.

Bond: YES needed in order to stay the execution of the underlying judgment while the appeal is ongoing.  The bond is called a "supersedeas bond," because posting it supersedes the effectiveness of the underlying judgment.

There's risks both ways: 1) the winner executes on the judgment, but LOSES the appeal.  Now, they have to make the now-winning party whole.  So, don't go burning up that money you collect.  You may need to pay it back to the former loser, but now winner, of the case.  And 2) there's a risk in not posting bond (your shit could get collected on), but there's also a risk in posting a bond if you're anywhere close to bankrupt because of the judgment.  If you lose the appeal, then that bond pays off the winner.  They don't have to go through any collection effort, and you can't later claim bankruptcy and try to reduce the amount you already paid into the bond.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.

Bond: NOT needed in order to appeal a judgment.  You can appeal without posting a bond.

Bond: YES needed in order to stay the execution of the underlying judgment while the appeal is ongoing.  The bond is called a "supersedeas bond," because posting it supersedes the effectiveness of the underlying judgment.

There's risks both ways: 1) the winner executes on the judgment, but LOSES the appeal.  Now, they have to make the now-winning party whole.  So, don't go burning up that money you collect.  You may need to pay it back to the former loser, but now winner, of the case.  And 2) there's a risk in not posting bond (your shit could get collected on), but there's also a risk in posting a bond if you're anywhere close to bankrupt because of the judgment.  If you lose the appeal, then that bond pays off the winner.  They don't have to go through any collection effort, and you can't later claim bankruptcy and try to reduce the amount you already paid into the bond.

So in what scenario would you want to post a bond and stay the execution of the judgement - you're afraid the other party is going to spend your money or otherwise make it more difficult to recover?

The more I learn about the law, the more I want to ensure I never have to deal with it beyond reasonable.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, dieucla98 said:

So in what scenario would you want to post a bond and stay the execution of the judgement - you're afraid the other party is going to spend your money or otherwise make it more difficult to recover?

The more I learn about the law, the more I want to ensure I never have to deal with it beyond reasonable.

You post bond because you don't want the other party seizing your shit (usually, you don't have cash sitting around that they can go execute on -- they can seize assets, which messes with your business/life).  It functionally gives you a measure of control.  That said, in an ordinary collection situation, with a solvent defendant, the plaintiff's lawyer is going to make a call and say "you wanna pay up the easy way, or the hard way?", so you do have an option to avoid having assets seized.

That said, the bottom line is that you post the bond to have some control.  If you're gonna have to pay the judgment eventually (because your appeal is a loser), then it's generally no harm, no foul, so long as you are actually solvent.  If you got a $1,000 judgment against me, and I appealed, I would absolutely put $1,000 into the registry of the court to avoid you messing with my assets and such, or even letting you have the money, which maybe you blow and I can't recover because you're insolvent by then.  If I win, I get my $1k back.  If I lose, I'm out the $1k that I was going to be out anyway.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

OK.  I sunk a double old-fashioned at lunch today already, so I’m asserting my stupid defense:

What if that agreement Trump signed in 1993 saying that Mar-a-Lago is not his residence - but a club - is still enforceable?   If that is true, then the Florida exemption on your residence that deprives creditors of that asset would no longer be viable.

Just for fun E. Jean’s attorneys should try to seize Mar-a-Lago if Trump owns ‘the club’.  I mean, for the laughs and whining….

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

OK.  I sunk a double old-fashioned at lunch today already, so I’m asserting my stupid defense:

What if that agreement Trump signed in 1993 saying that Mar-a-Lago is not his residence - but a club - is still enforceable?   If that is true, then the Florida exemption on your residence that deprives creditors of that asset would no longer be viable.

Just for fun E. Jean’s attorneys should try to seize Mar-a-Lago if Trump owns ‘the club’.  I mean, for the laughs and whining….

 

According to Palm Beach County Property Appraiser.  No Homestead exemption (or any exemption)

MAR A LAGO CLUB INC

PROPERTY DETAIL

LOCATION 1100 S OCEAN BLVD
MUNICIPALITY PALM BEACH
PARCEL NO. 50-43-43-35-00-002-0390
SUBDIVISION  
BOOK/PAGE /
SALE DATE  
MAILING ADDRESS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE C/O 1100 S OCEAN BLVD

PALM BEACH FL 33480 5004
USE TYPE 7700 - CLB/LDG/UN HALL
TOTAL SQUARE FEET 76821

SALES INFORMATION

SALES DATE PRICE
MAR-1995 $12,000,000
DEC-1985 $5,000,000
MAR-1981 $100

APPRAISALS

TAX YEAR 2023
IMPROVEMENT VALUE $0
LAND VALUE $0
TOTAL MARKET VALUE $37,000,000
All values are as of January 1st each year

ASSESSED/TAXABLE VALUES

TAX YEAR 2023
ASSESSED VALUE $33,396,000
EXEMPTION AMOUNT $0
TAXABLE VALUE $33,396,000

TAXES

TAX YEAR 2023
AD VALOREM $524,632
NON AD VALOREM $74,602
TOTAL TAX $599,234
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, locodos said:

According to Palm Beach County Property Appraiser.  No Homestead exemption (or any exemption)

MAR A LAGO CLUB INC

PROPERTY DETAIL

LOCATION 1100 S OCEAN BLVD
MUNICIPALITY PALM BEACH
PARCEL NO. 50-43-43-35-00-002-0390
SUBDIVISION  
BOOK/PAGE /
SALE DATE  
MAILING ADDRESS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE C/O 1100 S OCEAN BLVD

PALM BEACH FL 33480 5004
USE TYPE 7700 - CLB/LDG/UN HALL
TOTAL SQUARE FEET 76821

SALES INFORMATION

SALES DATE PRICE
MAR-1995 $12,000,000
DEC-1985 $5,000,000
MAR-1981 $100

APPRAISALS

TAX YEAR 2023
IMPROVEMENT VALUE $0
LAND VALUE $0
TOTAL MARKET VALUE $37,000,000
All values are as of January 1st each year

ASSESSED/TAXABLE VALUES

TAX YEAR 2023
ASSESSED VALUE $33,396,000
EXEMPTION AMOUNT $0
TAXABLE VALUE $33,396,000

TAXES

TAX YEAR 2023
AD VALOREM $524,632
NON AD VALOREM $74,602
TOTAL TAX $599,234

Yeah see the problem there is that it's owned by MAL Inc., not Donald personally or any of the defendant entities in the NY case. 

Via execution, you can only seize assets in the name of /titled to one of the defendants liable under the judgment. 

If assets were placed in entities in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to moved around after the liability arose in a fraudulent transfer manner) there is very little you can do to get to them.  About the best you can do is get at income or payments they throw off. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah see the problem there is that it's owned by MAL Inc., not Donald personally or any of the defendant entities in the NY case. 

Via execution, you can only seize assets in the name of /titled to one of the defendants liable under the judgment. 

If assets were placed in entities in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to moved around after the liability arose in a fraudulent transfer manner) there is very little you can do to get to them.  About the best you can do is get at income or payments they throw off. 

Didn't think about that.  I just assumed since that property was used to commit fraud that there may be some recourse.  But I didn't have a double Old Fashion at lunch, so what am I even doing?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
34 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

FOR REAL Just for fun E. Jean’s attorneys should try to seize Mar-a-Lago if Trump owns ‘the club’.  I mean, for the laughs and whining….

 

fixed it for you

Posted
14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah see the problem there is that it's owned by MAL Inc., not Donald personally or any of the defendant entities in the NY case. 

Via execution, you can only seize assets in the name of /titled to one of the defendants liable under the judgment. 

If assets were placed in entities in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to moved around after the liability arose in a fraudulent transfer manner) there is very little you can do to get to them.  About the best you can do is get at income or payments they throw off. 

How many layers of ownership do you think they'd need to dig through to find Dotard owning something that owns/controls MAL?  And is that equity ownership subject to offsetting debt?  It would be worth the shits and giggles to try to figure out if Donald actually owns MAL (given all his bluster about its value), and if he does ultimately own indirectly all or substantially all of MAL, couldn't they seek recourse against that equity?   

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Gap03 said:

How many layers of ownership do you think they'd need to dig through to find Dotard owning something that owns/controls MAL?  And is that equity ownership subject to offsetting debt?  It would be worth the shits and giggles to try to figure out if Donald actually owns MAL (given all his bluster about its value), and if he does ultimately own indirectly all or substantially all of MAL, couldn't they seek recourse against that equity?   

This,

I am just a bit confused how MAL was used to secure massive loans for Trump or Trump co. if they have no ownership or control.  His legal team has been claiming that it's his asset and was properly valued.    

Posted
31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah see the problem there is that it's owned by MAL Inc., not Donald personally or any of the defendant entities in the NY case. 

Via execution, you can only seize assets in the name of /titled to one of the defendants liable under the judgment. 

If assets were placed in entities in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to moved around after the liability arose in a fraudulent transfer manner) there is very little you can do to get to them.  About the best you can do is get at income or payments they throw off. 

Can they not seize the LLC interests held by the defendant directly? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

Can they not seize the LLC interests held by the defendant directly? 

Limited Liability Company 

It limits the liability 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
Just now, Neonmoon said:

Limited Liability Company 

It limits the liability 

I may be missing the sarcasm. 

It limits the liability for the activities of the entity. However, the LLC interests are still the assets of the owner of the LLC and have their own value. Additionally, the ownership of the interests likely convey voting rights which allow the owner to liquidate the property held by the LLC.

If Donald held $400 million of NVDA, I would assume that could be seized to settle the judgement. These LLC interests are no different.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

i also doubt Trump has properly followed the laws keeping his business and personal assets separate. any decent collections attorney could most likely pierce the corporate veil and collect his assets.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

 About the best you can do is get at income or payments they throw off. 

IMG_2396.gif.367eb6a61e8af28adf7317fca6155051.gif

Edited by Gatorubet
I think the bigger picture here is to get the man to stroke out. Going after things he holds. Most dear is a good way to do that.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

i also doubt Trump has properly followed the laws keeping his business and personal assets separate. any decent collections attorney could most likely pierce the corporate veil and collect his assets.

Talk about a case that would go on forever, assuming he could find someone over at legal aid willing to defend him.

 

 

Posted
39 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

I may be missing the sarcasm. 

It limits the liability for the activities of the entity. However, the LLC interests are still the assets of the owner of the LLC and have their own value. Additionally, the ownership of the interests likely convey voting rights which allow the owner to liquidate the property held by the LLC.

If Donald held $400 million of NVDA, I would assume that could be seized to settle the judgement. These LLC interests are no different.

What they can do, if they can trace it, is take ownership of shares of LLCs or other entities that are in Donalds or one of the defendant entities names. 

But, as neon indicates, the purpose of a legal entity is to limit the liabilities of the owner of the entity to the entity"s assets. 

But it works the other way, too, limiting the liability of the owner. 

You can be reasonably sure that the valuable LLCs have a nested ownership such that it would be difficult for a creditor to obtain a majority interest sufficient to liquidate the entity or direct its profit/income. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.

Bond: NOT needed in order to appeal a judgment.  You can appeal without posting a bond.

Bond: YES needed in order to stay the execution of the underlying judgment while the appeal is ongoing.  The bond is called a "supersedeas bond," because posting it supersedes the effectiveness of the underlying judgment.

There's risks both ways: 1) the winner executes on the judgment, but LOSES the appeal.  Now, they have to make the now-winning party whole.  So, don't go burning up that money you collect.  You may need to pay it back to the former loser, but now winner, of the case.  And 2) there's a risk in not posting bond (your shit could get collected on), but there's also a risk in posting a bond if you're anywhere close to bankrupt because of the judgment.  If you lose the appeal, then that bond pays off the winner.  They don't have to go through any collection effort, and you can't later claim bankruptcy and try to reduce the amount you already paid into the bond.

Confused Threes Company GIF by MOODMAN

Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You post bond because you don't want the other party seizing your shit (usually, you don't have cash sitting around that they can go execute on -- they can seize assets, which messes with your business/life).  It functionally gives you a measure of control.  That said, in an ordinary collection situation, with a solvent defendant, the plaintiff's lawyer is going to make a call and say "you wanna pay up the easy way, or the hard way?", so you do have an option to avoid having assets seized.

That said, the bottom line is that you post the bond to have some control.  If you're gonna have to pay the judgment eventually (because your appeal is a loser), then it's generally no harm, no foul, so long as you are actually solvent.  If you got a $1,000 judgment against me, and I appealed, I would absolutely put $1,000 into the registry of the court to avoid you messing with my assets and such, or even letting you have the money, which maybe you blow and I can't recover because you're insolvent by then.  If I win, I get my $1k back.  If I lose, I'm out the $1k that I was going to be out anyway.

 

Confused Kid Cudi GIF by Apple Music

Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

What they can do, if they can trace it, is take ownership of shares of LLCs or other entities that are in Donalds or one of the defendant entities names. 

But, as neon indicates, the purpose of a legal entity is to limit the liabilities of the owner of the entity to the entity"s assets. 

But it works the other way, too, limiting the liability of the owner. 

You can be reasonably sure that the valuable LLCs have a nested ownership such that it would be difficult for a creditor to obtain a majority interest sufficient to liquidate the entity or direct its profit/income. 

That may be true. But I'd still execute on any such company I could find that Donald had a ownership interest in. At worst, you've gummed up the works for operation of Donald's various businesses and created shareholder liability if those businesses attempt to do something to the detriment of the now seized ownership interests. Ultimately, Donald has control over all of these, so if you pull the thread enough, I think you'd ultimately get everything. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted

Well also, he had Michael Cohen and Michael Cohen-caliber attorneys setting up all his entities for years. The ownership structure probably isn't actually all that difficult to pierce. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
5 hours ago, dieucla98 said:

The more I learn about the law, the more I want to ensure I never have to deal with it beyond reasonable.

The most contact I've had w/ it was a PI in college and traffic tickets.  I want nothing else to do w/ it.  It's a completely fucked up system. 

Posted

So in his argument for appeal against Carroll Trump and his legal team that he was too rich in order to need to pay the bond to appeal.  Five days from now she begin the collection process, even if he continues to appeal.  

I'm too rich to pay this parking ticket, therefore I'm just not going to pay it all.  I bet that works out well for me.

Kaplan shut this down, rightly so.  

He can't pull together enough cash for the 83 million bond, I don't give him a hope in hell at pulling off the 454 million.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 2


×
×
  • Create New...