[W:778] (Bloomberg Law) Trump Bond Reduced to $175 Million as He Appeals NY Fine

[Rogue Valley]

One thing is obvious. Trumpers will try and bend the law 1000 different ways to excuse Trump's criminality.

The Law and Order party

 

[stealthycat]

I haven't ignored a single thing you've said, though that might change shortly.

ok then, have I not SPECIFICALLY said to find Trump for fudging numbers? that's not excusing anything

so you are either baiting which is against the rules or intentionally ignoring what I've said - which is it ?

 

[hooligan]

ok then, have I not SPECIFICALLY said to find Trump for fudging numbers? that's not excusing anything

so you are either baiting which is against the rules or intentionally ignoring what I've said - which is it ?

Fining someone $500K for hundreds of millions of dollars earned through fraud is essentially excusing, yeah.

So, it's neither.

 

[stealthycat]

Fining someone $500K for hundreds of millions of dollars earned through fraud is essentially excusing, yeah.

So, it's neither.

no, its not excusing it all

its a reasonable fine for fudging numbers. Nobody was frauded.

what your side is arguing is that banks could have gigged other people for higher interest rates - talk about fraud !

 

[AZRWinger]

Just to set the record straight and put to rest some really stupid arguments - this is a civil action. It's called "restitution" - the return of ill-gotten gains. It is not a fine. It is not a penalty. The 8th Amendment doesn't apply. It's not bail (a la Bernie Madoff). This is an APPEAL bond. No correlation to a bail bond, except to guarantee that the malfeasor doesn't skip.

Just to set the record straight, it's civil disgorgement not restitution. Disgorgement means

Disgorgement is a remedy requiring a party who profits from illegal or wrongful acts to give up any profits they made as a result of that illegal or wrongful conduct.

Per the judge's statement the disgorgement had to be large enough to discourage future repetition of the offense. The judgement far exceeds the amount of the loan which was successfully repaid on time. There are no actual damages or even financial loss which is why a jury was not allowed.

As you wrote the purpose of the appeal bond is to insure the defendant doesn't skip town. Guess the hanging judge forgot he'd required the appointment of an ovetseer and compliance board that would have blocked mass liquidation prior to fleeing. But in this case the judge demanded the entire arbitrarily determined the full disgorgement be paid just to appeal. Oh check that, the wildly inflated judgement was giving the prosecutor who promised to get Trump in her campaign what she demanded.

 

[hooligan]

no, its not excusing it all

its a reasonable fine for fudging numbers. Nobody was frauded.

what your side is arguing is that banks could have gigged other people for higher interest rates - talk about fraud !

Yes, it most certainly is.

Also, Trump did significantly more than "fudge numbers". Your continued dishonesty on this front tells me everything I need to know about your integrity on this topic.

 

[stealthycat]

Yes, it most certainly is.

Also, Trump did significantly more than "fudge numbers". Your continued dishonesty on this front tells me everything I need to know about your integrity on this topic.

Trump shouldn't pay anything for fudging - THAT is excusing

Trump should pay a hefty fine for fudging numbers - lets go with $1 million - there, THAT is a hefty fine and reasonable

If there were victims here, if the bank had lost money, had the loans not been repaid .... something like that? than I'd say yes, heavier fines needed

But there were no victims, the banks made money, everyone was happy


This entire thing is about election interference and trying to stop Trump from winning in 2024 - that's the honest truth that everyone knows

 

[hooligan]

Trump shouldn't pay anything for fudging - THAT is excusing

Trump should pay a hefty fine for fudging numbers - lets go with $1 million - there, THAT is a hefty fine and reasonable

If there were victims here, if the bank had lost money, had the loans not been repaid .... something like that? than I'd say yes, heavier fines needed

But there were no victims, the banks made money, everyone was happy


This entire thing is about election interference and trying to stop Trump from winning in 2024 - that's the honest truth that everyone knows

Your continued dishonesty on this front tells me everything I need to know about your integrity on this topic.

 

[stealthycat]

Your continued dishonesty on this front tells me everything I need to know about your integrity on this topic.

I'm giving you all I got buddy. Trump fudged numbers, he should be fined. That's it. The banks were happy, the loan/deal was paid in full, there were no victims. The AG/Judge are extensions of the Democrat party who are attempting election interference of a rival candidate. All that is CRYSTAL clear.

That's honest and truthful - just because you hate Trump and love seeing the attack doesn't make my view any less honest and truthful

 

[DrewPaul]

Don’t you mean the car we’d buy for 10,000 we’d sell for 200,000?

If it was owned by Taylor Swift yes.

Perhaps you are new to this thread or just haven’t been paying attention. Valuing something at 20 times what it is worth is not “a degree of puffery.”

You know people can just as easily devalue something (especially when their case depends on it) as over value.

 

[hooligan]

I'm giving you all I got buddy. Trump fudged numbers, he should be fined. That's it. The banks were happy, the loan/deal was paid in full, there were no victims. The AG/Judge are extensions of the Democrat party who are attempting election interference of a rival candidate. All that is CRYSTAL clear.

That's honest and truthful - just because you hate Trump and love seeing the attack doesn't make my view any less honest and truthful

This is FAR MORE than "fudged numbers".

Trump Tower Triplex
Actual square footage: 10,000 sq ft
Claimed square footage: 30,000 sq ft
Overvaluation on SCFs: $114 million to $207 million
After Forbes outed him for lying about the size of the apartment, in 2017 he reduced the amount on future SFCs to 10,000 square feet with a value of $116 million.
Excuse: Determinations of square footage are "subjective."
Fraud: 100-200%

Seven Springs
Assessments by entities hired by Trump Org valued it around $30 million to $50 million.
Trump Org claimed on SFCs it was worth $260 million to $290 million.
Fraud: 480%

Trump Park Avenue
12 rent-stabilized units assessed at $750,000 total in 2010. Note, rent stabilization lowers the value, because by law the owner basically can't raise the rent. It's very difficult, by the way, to remove rent stabilization in NY; the rent stabilization can even be inherited by one's children.
A second assessment in 2020 valued the building at $22 million.
TO treated the value of these units as though they were not rent stabilized. They overvalued the building by 700% in 2010, and 64% in 2020.
Excuse: "The rent-stabilized units have the potential at some point in the future to be converted into unencumbered units." (Note: SCFs required current value, not a theoretical future value based on different conditions.)
Fraud: 64% to 700%, depending on the year

40 Wall Street
TO has the ground lease to this building.
Appraised by Cushman & Wakefield in 2011 at $220 million; TO claimed on SCFs that it was worth $527 million.
Appraised in 2015 at $540 million; TO claimed on SCFs it was worth $735 million.
Fraud: 35% to 100%

Mar-A-Lago
MAL is a historic site, meaning that it basically needs to be permanently maintained in its current state. E.g. it can't be knocked down, only employees are supposed to reside there etc.
Palm Beach County assessor valued it at $18 million (2011) to $27 million (2021).
TO valued it at $426 million (2011) and then $612 million (2021) -- a 2,300% overstatement. Also far beyond residential comps (let alone highly restricted commercial, which is lower).
Excuse: They claimed they could just ignore the restrictions. See above re: current/hypotheticals.
Fraud: 2,300%

Aberdeen Golf Course
TO got permission to build 1,486 rental units on the site. They later reduced this to 500 units.
TO claimed in SFCs that it had approval to build 2,500 homes, and used that to create an inflated value on the SFCs.
Fraud: 100-300%

More Golf
TO simultaneously claimed that the Trump brand increased the value of 7 golf courses by 15-30%, while denying they applied a brand premium.
Fraud: 15-30%

More Golf: Briarcliff
Appraised at $14 million.
TO listed it as $74 million in SCFs.
Excuse: TO claimed they could value it based on what it cost to purchase and maintain the property, not fair market value.
Fraud: 428%

Membership Liabilities
When he bought some golf courses, he assumed millions in liabilities for membership deposits. TO listed the liabilities as $0.

Vornado
TO has a 30% stake in Vornado, but he can't use or withdraw funds. Despite this, TO listed it as a liquid/cash asset.

Licensing Deals
TO fraudulently included intra-organizational deals as assets.
Fraud: $100 million - $200 million per year.

Credit to @Visbek for the summary.

 

[Ambig]

That's the hilarious part. They're trying to convince us that the amounts whether it's $18 million or even $27 million is valid somehow a reasonable "lesser value" assessment on a property supposedly worth $1.5 Billion.

I heard one of them claim that MaL is worth $300M.

Maybe they're not good with numbers and don't realize they'd admitting that Trump 5Xed its value.

 

[Ambig]

ya'll hate Trump and that blinds you to the injustice

Y'all worship Trump, and that blinds you to his criminality.

 

[Ambig]

what your side is arguing is that banks could have gigged other people for higher interest rates - talk about fraud !

Are you seriously arguing that people with crappy credit should get the same loan deals as people with sterling credit?

Would you mind answering whether that is your view?

 

[hooligan]

Are you seriously arguing that people with crappy credit should get the same loan deals as people with sterling credit?

Would you mind answering whether that is your view?

He's just throwing every misrepresentation under the sun in order to paint Trump as the victim.

 

[SkyFox76]

ok then, have I not SPECIFICALLY said to find Trump for fudging numbers? that's not excusing anything

so you are either baiting which is against the rules or intentionally ignoring what I've said - which is it ?

You've consistently made an absurd suggestion that a $500,000 fine would be a sufficient penalty for fraudulently obtaining over $354 million plus the interest.

Maybe you've forgotten Trump wasn't deterred over the $5 million amount in the Carroll case and continued his defamation. He wasn't laughing so hard when the $91 million was reached in the second trial though was he?

But yeah, it's brilliant to think Trump would definitely sit up and act right over a stupid $500,000 after making millions.

 

[trixare4kids]

Because I evidently know our Constituion better than you, apparently.

The 8th Amendment doesn't apply here; its a civil judgement.

Where did you come up with this? Curious.
I didn't know so I searched and this is what I found. (see the second paragraph) Looks like the 8th can apply to excessive fines imposed in civil judgments.

Amdt8.1 Overview of Eighth Amendment, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
The Eighth Amendment prohibits certain types of punishment: excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.1 As discussed in more detail in the following essays, these prohibitions were intended to protect persons convicted of crimes from government abuses of power.2 Viewed broadly, the Eighth Amendment responded to these historically grounded concerns about disproportionate or cruel punishments by attempting to ensure that punishment is “proportioned to both the offender and the offense.” 3 What is excessive is also determined by reference to modern standards; the Supreme Court has suggested proportionality may evolve over time.4 Out of the Eighth Amendment’s three clauses, the bar on cruel and unusual punishment has been most frequently interpreted by the Supreme Court, likely in part due to inherent ambiguities in determining what qualifies as cruel or unusual.5

The Eighth Amendment generally applies in criminal proceedings, as the most common locus of government punishment, but the Supreme Court has held the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines can apply in civil forfeiture proceedings, noting that the text of the amendment is not limited to “criminal” cases.6 Instead, the Court said the relevant constitutional test is whether the government is imposing “punishment,” focusing on the purpose of a sanction.7 In addition, although the Eighth Amendment (like the rest of the Bill of Rights) was understood originally to apply only to the federal government, the Supreme Court has held its prohibitions were incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, making them applicable to states.8

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-8/overview-of-eighth-amendment-cruel-and-unusual-punishment

 

[SkyFox76]

no, its not excusing it all

its a reasonable fine for fudging numbers. Nobody was frauded.

what your side is arguing is that banks could have gigged other people for higher interest rates - talk about fraud !

First of all, why do you keep using the stupid term "fudging"? It was flat out fraud. And no, the fine you're suggesting is a joke.

 

[hooligan]

First of all, why do you keep using the stupid term "fudging"? It was flat out fraud. And no, the fine you're suggesting is a joke.

It's an obvious attempt at de-escalating the reality of the fraud Trump engaged in.

 

[SkyFox76]

Trump shouldn't pay anything for fudging - THAT is excusing

Trump should pay a hefty fine for fudging numbers - lets go with $1 million - there, THAT is a hefty fine and reasonable

If there were victims here, if the bank had lost money, had the loans not been repaid .... something like that? than I'd say yes, heavier fines needed

But there were no victims, the banks made money, everyone was happy


This entire thing is about election interference and trying to stop Trump from winning in 2024 - that's the honest truth that everyone knows

So when you're fined $10 for doing 80 mph in a school zone you'd never speed again right?

 

[SkyFox76]

It's an obvious attempt at de-escalating the reality of the fraud Trump engaged in.

It comes across like they don't want to use the "adult" words of what was actually done.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Where did you come up with this?

I didn't come up with it. The money Trump is expected to fork over is not a "fine", it's a damage assessment.

If this were a fine, you would also need to justify why you feel it is excessive. Trump is, reportedly, a billionaire.

 

[trixare4kids]

I didn't come up with it. The money Trump is expected to fork over is not a "fine", it's a damage assessment.

If this were a fine, you would also need to justify why you feel it is excessive. Trump is, reportedly, a billionaire.

After doing even more research I found that you are correct. I confused a damage assessment with a fine.

The Supreme Court’s Evolving Views on the Constitutionality of Punitive Damages

The first major case in which the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of punitive damages was in 1989, in Browning-Ferris v. Kelco. In that case, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution (which is most commonly known for its Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, but which also contains a clause prohibiting “excessive fines”) does not apply to punitive damages awards in civil lawsuits to which the United States is not a party.

The Constitution and Punitive Damages: A Ten-Year Anniversary Discussion of State Farm v. Campbell

For the ten-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in State Farm v. Campbell, Justia columnist and attorney David Kemp provides an overview of the Court’s jurisprudence on the constitutional...

verdict.justia.com

 

[SkyFox76]

I didn't come up with it. The money Trump is expected to fork over is not a "fine", it's a damage assessment.

If this were a fine, you would also need to justify why you feel it is excessive. Trump is, reportedly, a billionaire.

Not just a billionaire, a MULTI billionaire.

One that had 30+ top lenders rushing to draw the curtains and lock their doors when Donny came knocking for help.

 

[Ambig]

Trump should pay a hefty fine for fudging numbers - lets go with $1 million - there, THAT is a hefty fine and reasonable

So if a fraudster can steal $2M, then it's a good deal for him... not to mention stealing $450M.

You want to live in a country where people have an incentive to steal?

Not me.