Clock is ticking for Trump to post bonds worth half a billion dollars

Yakuda said:
This is a great question. You know the leftist mongrels don't give a shit about what's just.
Click to expand...

It is a stupid question which is why you think it is great.

If any person who LOST and owed the person his last dollars, as Rudy Giuliani does, for example, and they know the appeal would last years, they have a super high motivation to just go blow every penny in vegas trying to win enough to pay the judgement or lose every penny and just declare the same bankruptcy they were going to have to file anyway.

If you know your last $x are going to the winner and you will end up broke after, but you have a few years before the money leaves you, you will try everything possible, to turn that money into more money, so you can pay the judgement and yet still have money left over. If you lose it all, you lose nothing, as you were going to have nothing if you did not try.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Who did he defraud? How much were they defrauded by? Let's say he does liquidate some assets. Will he get a good price or will they be sold at rock bottom prices because everybody knows he needs cash? If the later, then he is suffering harm by being forced to sell assets at below market value. Will the sale of these assets harm his future earning potential?

What happens if he is absolved of the charges on appeal? Does the state have to pay him back with interest the way he's being forced to pay them?

But, the question remains: Who was defrauded and by how much?
Click to expand...

LIE.

No question remains and it has been asked and answered many, MANY times. You just ignore the answer and keep posing the same question as if unanswered.

Read the Judgement and you can answer them yourself if you want.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The ruling, like the use of the law he was prosecuted under, are unprecedented exceptions. That doesn't change my question however.
Click to expand...

Stupidity and LIES.

He was prosecuted under what are called the Bread and Butter cases of most State AG's and particularly NYS AG. Documents fraud, are the MOST COMMON thing prosecuting in that office.
 
QP! said:
You can enter an appeal without placing a bond or any money (Rudy did) but then it does not 'stay' the collection of the money and the winner of the case can immediately get orders to walk over to your banks, clean out any cash, and begin the process of seizing and selling your property.


Trump just did, just that with E Jean $83MM case, as is being reported. He filed the appeal but provided no bond and thus there will be no stay.

And no there is nothing unjust about it.

Think of it this way. YOu are fighting with someone over a hundred dollar bill you both believe is yours. It is in your possession.

In court you lose, and they say it is the other persons. You plan to appeal., fine, but the current ruling is that it is HIS (not your) property. So he should be the one holding it in the appeal and not you, so you do not blow it, out of anger before the next case. It is HIS until ruled otherwise so he should hold it.
BUt the courts allow you to escrow it instead (post it as security or a bond instead) to ensure you do not pay it to the person, and then you win in the appeal and the other person has blown it all and cannot repay you.
So the ONLY FAIR and JUST thing to do is to make the person who lost put the entire amount in escrow to protect it. The second best thing, is to give it to the winner. Last would be letting the loser keep it as appeals play out over years as they have the highest motivation to then make sure it is all spent before handing it over.
Click to expand...

Your example is flawed.

In the loans case, it is you have $100 and someone says the $100 belongs to them. That person asks their best friend--who openly hates you--if the money belongs to them. The friend says it does and they take your $100 bill. You go to a real court and sue. The courts says the money doesn't belong to them and gives you back that $100 several months later.

Because the state not an individual or company, is getting this judgement, there is no reason the state needs to impose payment immediately. The state, unlike an individual or company has the power to enforce the ruling at their leisure. The state can wait for payment. It is even more so that the state can wait as neither the state nor any other party suffered a loss as a result of Trump's actions. Forcing payment enriches the state unfairly. The payment can wait until the court case is fully settled.
 
QP! said:
LIE.

No question remains and it has been asked and answered many, MANY times. You just ignore the answer and keep posing the same question as if unanswered.

Read the Judgement and you can answer them yourself if you want.
Click to expand...

How is a question a lie?

Aside from that, no one was harmed by Trump's actions, no one.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Your example is flawed.

In the loans case, it is you have $100 and someone says the $100 belongs to them. That person asks their best friend--who openly hates you--if the money belongs to them. The friend says it does and they take your $100 bill. You go to a real court and sue. The courts says the money doesn't belong to them and gives you back that $100 several months later.

Because the state not an individual or company, is getting this judgement, there is no reason the state needs to impose payment immediately. The state, unlike an individual or company has the power to enforce the ruling at their leisure. The state can wait for payment. It is even more so that the state can wait as neither the state nor any other party suffered a loss as a result of Trump's actions. Forcing payment enriches the state unfairly. The payment can wait until the court case is fully settled.
Click to expand...
Or overturned... there's been many reasons given why he shouldn't have to pay considering he was unjustly fined...oh, these two sets of rules...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Your example is flawed.

In the loans case, it is you have $100 and someone says the $100 belongs to them. That person asks their best friend--who openly hates you--if the money belongs to them. The friend says it does and they take your $100 bill. You go to a real court and sue. The courts says the money doesn't belong to them and gives you back that $100 several months later.

Because the state not an individual or company, is getting this judgement, there is no reason the state needs to impose payment immediately. The state, unlike an individual or company has the power to enforce the ruling at their leisure. The state can wait for payment. It is even more so that the state can wait as neither the state nor any other party suffered a loss as a result of Trump's actions. Forcing payment enriches the state unfairly. The payment can wait until the court case is fully settled.
Click to expand...

What a stupid reply Terry.

Trump lost the court case. COURT CASE. Not a friend 'openly hates you'.

Trump lost, so that money is not his in the courts eyes. It belongs to the other person. So why would Trump, (Anyone) get to keep a hold of the other persons money during a multi year appeal?

Give them their money and if you win the appeal then ask for it back or sue them to get it back.

or do what it is best for both and post that disputed money in escrow, so the person who won it, knows it safe.


Rudy owes over $100MM and is worth something like $5-6MM and to let him keep and hold all $6mm, and SPEND AND BLOW IT, while appeals take years to play out would just be stupid. he might blow it all out of spite, since he is will be forced to go bankrupt regardless. Or he takes it to Vegas with the hope of winning enough to pay them off and keeping some and if he loses... oh well. He is no worse off.


The system does not work the way you want FOR ANYONE and never would as it would be stupid. Losers would have too high incentive to blow the money.
 
The decision against President Trump was because people hated him... not because he did anything wrong...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
How is a question a lie?

Aside from that, no one was harmed by Trump's actions, no one.
Click to expand...

the lie is saying 'the question remains' when it has been answered many times.

Terry why won't you answer you this question no matter how many times i ask it?

'If you start a Mortgage Broker company tomorrow and submit your first batch of Mortgages to a number of banks trying to sell them, and it is found out 100% of those loans you submitted are fraudulent (NINJA loans) and the banks report you and you are charged with Fraud, do you believe they are wrong to charge you and shut you down because they did not get funded and none of them defaulted (yet)?'

Do you think you should be left alone and allowed to keep submitting them to other banks or buyers, and ONLY WHEN some default, then you can be charged?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Which is a greater injustice? Trump having to put up the entire amount to appeal this ruling, or this amount keeping him from appealing this ruling?
Click to expand...

You are passing along incorrect information. He is allowed to appeal, regardless.
 
Jarod said:
You are passing along incorrect information. He is allowed to appeal, regardless.
Click to expand...

Yup, just are Rudy is appealing without posting the $100MM+ bond he needs to.

It just does not 'stay' the collection, as it should not. Rudy should not get to keep the money that belongs to those women as he chases a no hope appeal, that he will also lose, if even shows up to fight it.

Those two ladies, like E Jean can, will be able to move immediately to collecting since neither Rudy nor Trump is posting the bond.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Speeding tickets come with a fixed, known, penalty not one made up out of thin air by the judge. Second, the way the law Trump was charged under was 100% up to now only applied against persons who had committed and were convicted of an actual property or money crime and caused monetary loss as a result of that crime. It is similar to how NY state changed their laws to allow E. Jean Carol to sue Trump, and after winning, they changed it back.

E. Jean Carroll, a writer for Elle magazine, Thursday filed an amended lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, minutes after New York’s Adult Survivor’s Act went into effect.

Survivors now have a one-year window to file the allowed civil actions for cases of sexual assault for which they previously could not file suit past the time limitation placed on the crime.
https://www.jurist.org/news/2022/11...of-limitations-in-sexual-assault-civil-cases/
Click to expand...

You should read the final order issued by the judge, nothing was made up out of thin air.
 
TOP said:
Or overturned... there's been many reasons given why he shouldn't have to pay considering he was unjustly fined...oh, these two sets of rules...
Click to expand...

What two sets of rules? Others have been prosecuted in the exact same way as Trump was prosecuted. You just want Trump to get special treatment.
 
Jarod said:
What two sets of rules? Others have been prosecuted in the exact same way as Trump was prosecuted. You just want Trump to get special treatment.
Click to expand...

No they haven't... I expect prosecutors and courts of law to address the issues... not vow to take down an individual...
 
TOP said:
No they haven't... I expect prosecutors and courts of law to address the issues... not vow to take down an individual...
Click to expand...

They addressed the issues, it was the prosecutor who vowed to take Trump (a known criminal) down. This happens, but without a Trial and a judge finding that the law was broken... it would not have been possible. Checks and Balances. You just don't like the results or the facts that led to this verdict.
 
If anyone wants Terry to leave a thread and not reply for a while pretending he did not see the question, just ask him this.


... 'If you start a Mortgage Broker company tomorrow and submit your first batch of Mortgages to a number of banks trying to sell them, and it is found out 100% of those loans you submitted are fraudulent (NINJA loans) and the banks report you and you are charged with Fraud, do you believe they are wrong to charge you and shut you down because they did not get funded and none of them defaulted (yet)?'

Do you think you should be left alone and allowed to keep submitting them to other banks or buyers, and ONLY WHEN some default, then you can be charged?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top