Trump Must Pay Half a Billion Dollars Before He Can Appeal New York Decision

a reply to: Threadbarer

They even spell it right out for us.

The power, he said, stems largely from a relatively low bar to proving fraud. In these cases, the attorney general’s office does not have to show that defendants intended to defraud anyone or that their actions resulted in any financial loss. It can make a case based solely on significant misrepresentations or deceptive practices.

a reply to: Threadbarer

This is a good point.

Is it Trump himself, as a person, or Trump the brand / organization getting hit with the fine?

The Trump family name is a corporate logo pretty much.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

So the correct process was followed for amending the existing law.

You can say that.

I look at is as another example of "tailor made."

Because we now have 2 instances of the same state doing exactly that...

originally posted by: some_stupid_name

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k
a reply to: Klassified

So a judge ordered him to pay up.
What law is being used againt him for political persecution exactly?

Pay up for what? Who gets the money he is to pay?

zi Zustand gets zi money 😃

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

They even spell it right out for us.

The power, he said, stems largely from a relatively low bar to proving fraud. In these cases, the attorney general’s office does not have to show that defendants intended to defraud anyone or that their actions resulted in any financial loss. It can make a case based solely on significant misrepresentations or deceptive practices.

That's because it's called "fraud" and not "defrauding."

It's always been the same over here. It's all about deception and thereby obtaining a pecuniary advantage


No need for a "victim".

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: some_stupid_name

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k
a reply to: Klassified

So a judge ordered him to pay up.
What law is being used againt him for political persecution exactly?

Pay up for what? Who gets the money he is to pay?

zi Zustand gets zi money 😃

Fantastic!

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Klassified

Trump Is Battling a New York Law Used to Take on Corporate Giants

This article gives a few examples of some of the larger cases involving this law.

Thanks for the link. It was eye opening. A 70 year old law used to target and bilk businesses and corporations out of their money and livelihood by setting the bar unscrupulously low for evidence and conviction, no victim needed. Why am I not surprised?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

They even spell it right out for us.

The power, he said, stems largely from a relatively low bar to proving fraud. In these cases, the attorney general’s office does not have to show that defendants intended to defraud anyone or that their actions resulted in any financial loss. It can make a case based solely on significant misrepresentations or deceptive practices.

That's because it's called "fraud" and not "defrauding."

It's always been the same over here. It's all about deception and thereby obtaining a pecuniary advantage


No need for a "victim".

Which bypasses all our precedent on property rights.

Not to mention the actual fraudulent method the judge used to calculate the property that wasn't Trumps. Then that goes directly to the state that charged him?


Do you see the conflict of interest here?

It's a good thing Gov Hochul let other NY businesses know that they have "Nothing to worry about" regarding this new legal tactic.
You wouldn't want equal application of the law to screw things up now, would you?

a reply to: JinMI

That does indeed spell out what the law is. Same as over here since the Theft Act 1968.

a reply to: Klassified

Actually a victim was named.
Ya can't just tell someone to pay the nothing God of nothing monies.
How about don't defraud entities?
Seems like a good life decision no?

a reply to: JinMI

How so?

What precedent?

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

They even spell it right out for us.

The power, he said, stems largely from a relatively low bar to proving fraud. In these cases, the attorney general’s office does not have to show that defendants intended to defraud anyone or that their actions resulted in any financial loss. It can make a case based solely on significant misrepresentations or deceptive practices.

That's because it's called "fraud" and not "defrauding."

It's always been the same over here. It's all about deception and thereby obtaining a pecuniary advantage


No need for a "victim".

Which bypasses all our precedent on property rights.

Not to mention the actual fraudulent method the judge used to calculate the property that wasn't Trumps. Then that goes directly to the state that charged him?


Do you see the conflict of interest here?

Fraudulent method?
How so?

That is not a troll question but an honest one.

a reply to: Allaroundya4k

Actually a victim was named.

The people of new york?

a reply to: JinMI

To the law

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

They even spell it right out for us.

The power, he said, stems largely from a relatively low bar to proving fraud. In these cases, the attorney general’s office does not have to show that defendants intended to defraud anyone or that their actions resulted in any financial loss. It can make a case based solely on significant misrepresentations or deceptive practices.

That's because it's called "fraud" and not "defrauding."

It's always been the same over here. It's all about deception and thereby obtaining a pecuniary advantage


No need for a "victim".

Which bypasses all our precedent on property rights.

Not to mention the actual fraudulent method the judge used to calculate the property that wasn't Trumps. Then that goes directly to the state that charged him?


Do you see the conflict of interest here?

Fraudulent method?
How so?

That is not a troll question but an honest one.

See my previous comment about the method right in this thread or any of the others involving this case.

I'm not sure why you keep asking me to simplify my already pedestrian takes.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
So honest question...

Who gets the money?

If trump pays and the state takes it and spends it and he wins on appeal then what?

The State won't. The money goes into escrow. If the ruling against Trump withstands all his appeals then the State can transfer it into their account. If the ruling is completely overturned, Trump gets it back. An appeals court could presumably also rule somewhere in between. They could find that he broke the law, but that the penalty was calculated incorrectly, in which case he would get part of it back. Apparently, NY law requires that Trump either put the entire amount or a bond for the entire amount into the escrow account before he can appeal.

That's the decision in front of him right now. For Trump to simply write a check for 355 Million dollars right now might be more cash than he has on hand. If so, he would have to sell something basically right now to make up the difference or find someone to issue a bond on his behalf. Anyone issuing a bond on his behalf would be making their own bet on the odds of this ruling being overturned.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

How so?

What precedent?

Here is a fairly recent one (2015) that has an analog.

The Takings Clause “was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Armstrong, 364 U. S., at 49. A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed. The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.

 Because we find that Tyler has plausibly alleged a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and she agrees that relief under “the Takings Clause would fully remedy [her] harm,” we need not decide whether she has also alleged an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

a reply to: JinMI

You never did fully answer anything.
Just counters that don't amount to anything.
We have all heard the same argument before just as you have ours.
Nothing will change and this specific conversation is dead.

a reply to: Boomer1947

That's how I understand if.

A bond would be expensive. And he'd need to get someone to put their money where his mouth is.