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

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k
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.

I'm sorry. I'm a moron.

If you're not able to understand my postings, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't have the ability to dumb them down any further. I literally don't.

a reply to: JinMI

Not seeing any "analog"?

Or relevance.

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".

So when companies use images of Easter bunny around Easter to increase sales of products to deceive children into believing that they got something by pure freaking magic(PFM), Are you saying that parents are not buying into a money making deception?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

Not seeing any "analog"?

This is my problem how?


Have any analog to counter?

a reply to: some_stupid_name

No I'm not.

Because that's just silly.

a reply to: JinMI

If you insist on posting some random and irrelevant "precedent" at me, you own it.

What "analog" do you want from me?

The law is clear and I and others have explained it to you.

If you don't like it, the problem is yours.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

You don't think it's analog when SCOTUS makes a ruling to indicate to states that they can only levy what is lost and no more.

Even when a state uses the market acceptance of valuation?


You don't get to have it both ways.

The law is clear and I and others have explained it to you.

If you don't like it, the problem is yours.

Which is even further indication of your deference and preference for authoritarianism.


So long as you agree with the authority at the time.....


These are also called political hacks by the way.

An AG is supposed to protect the citizen of NY. There was not one NY citizen who was affected or deceived.

No victim. You can all point to what the MSM tells you but NY did this because they did not have a real case, civil or criminal.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

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.

You say the state won't get the money but then turn around and say the sate will transfer the money to their account if the amount is upheld. So as it sits the state stands to make 355 million. That's a lot of money. Do people who earn their income from the state get to make the final determination if the state gets awarded this money?

a reply to: JinMI

"Which is even further indication of your deference and preference for authoritarianism."

Actually, us lawyers deal with the law because that's our job.

What an inane comment.

Much like your "analog" which, with the greatest respect, is more like an "anal log".

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Yet you have nothing but anecdotes and rhetoric in response.


Hack away Carp, hack away.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: some_stupid_name

No I'm not.

Because that's just silly.

So is this ruling against Trump.

I think they have better cases against him and this one was pursued as an attempt to interfere with his run for office. (no reason given)

a reply to: matafuchs

I have explained the law to you several times to answer your point about a "victim" so this really is like Groundhog Day.

a reply to: matafuchs


What ? Do you mean Trump is innocent ?

There was obvious fraud....Trump lied .

a reply to: Kenzo

Innocence has nothing to do with this case.....


But don't let that stop you I guess.

a reply to: JinMI

Anecdotes?

Like what the actual law is?

You call that nothing?

I'd stick to your day job, if I were you.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

The argument isn't what the law is.

The argument is that the law may be unconstitutional for starters.

Tangentially, we now have two tailor made laws, by extension of statute and widening of scope.

I've not once argued what the law says.

What I am also arguing is what precedent has been set. That by the judges calculations, based on tax assessed valuation, every person in New York who obtained a mortgage is ripe for suite by the state.

a reply to: JinMI

So a guilty verdict is what you are against?
The law can be manipulated for political reasons clearly. Has been done in the past and it would be unwise to think it doesn't happen now.
Either way the law is the law.
Trump IS going to pay the piper.

Affluenza is most likely his true way out but such a claim will come with much political backla

a reply to: Allaroundya4k

Don't all you Trump haters want a real win?

I mean something that almost cannot be argued against?


Or are you satisfied that all the S thrown at the wall will eventually lead to something, anything that you can cling to?

a reply to: JinMI

You know I absolutely dislike Trump.
Yet I don't appreciate the justice system going after someone for political reasons.
With that said, he did put himself in this position to be attacked due to his rhetoric.
Let's be honest here....he did this to himself at a certain point by being so brash.