Trump ordered to pay nearly 355 million in NY fraud case.

[Riders]

I hope so

 

[Laniakea]

Some of his properties could be seized and possibly sold.

Before he even has a chance to appeal?
Then what do they do if his properties are sold, and then he wins the appeal?
Or does due process not apply in this case?

 

[Pogo]

Before he even has a chance to appeal?
Then what do they do if his properties are sold, and then he wins the appeal?
Or does due process not apply in this case?

That is the reason for a bond, it guarantees to the court that the defendant is able to pay the judgement without the defendant putting his own cash.
If he can't put up the guarantee, then he still has the right to appeal but he has to pay the full judgement immediately. If he wins under appeal, the judgement will be returned. This is not anything new and applies to everybody in similar situations, It is what is considered "due process".
Donald Trump is the one who is asking for something that is not due process, he wants exceptions made for him ... because.

 

[Laniakea]

That is the reason for a bond, it guarantees to the court that the defendant is able to pay the judgement without the defendant putting his own cash.
If he can't put up the guarantee, then he still has the right to appeal but he has to pay the full judgement immediately. If he wins under appeal, the judgement will be returned. This is not anything new and applies to everybody in similar situations, It is what is considered "due process".
Donald Trump is the one who is asking for something that is not due process, he wants exceptions made for him ... because.

Yes, "because" he doesn't have nearly a half billion dollars in cash to pay, and would have to sell properties just to appeal a ruling. Even if he were to win the appeal and not end up having to pay anything, whatever property he sold to get the money would still be gone.

 

[McBell]

Yes, "because" he doesn't have nearly a half billion dollars in cash to pay, and would have to sell properties just to appeal a ruling. Even if he were to win the appeal and not end up having to pay anything, whatever property he sold to get the money would still be gone.

Which is how it works for all people who have to sell off property in order to cover the costs of the bond so they can appeal.
Why is it you think Trump should be given special treatment?

 

[Pogo]

Yes, "because" he doesn't have nearly a half billion dollars in cash to pay, and would have to sell properties just to appeal a ruling. Even if he were to win the appeal and not end up having to pay anything, whatever property he sold to get the money would still be gone.

Yup Dems de rulz. Maybe the appeals court will lower the amount of bond necessary though the court already refused his offer of
$100 million. He is just a businessman who has been convicted of fraud, he is not a reason to rewrite the law just for him.
There is a simple way he could have avoided this situation, Not Done what he did in the first place.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Before he even has a chance to appeal?
Then what do they do if his properties are sold, and then he wins the appeal?
Or does due process not apply in this case?

Yep, that's what happens to regular people. He's a regular person now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, "because" he doesn't have nearly a half billion dollars in cash to pay, and would have to sell properties just to appeal a ruling. Even if he were to win the appeal and not end up having to pay anything, whatever property he sold to get the money would still be gone.

Tough luck.

A regular person in the same situation, would probably have to mortgage their house just to pay their lawyers. It happens all the time.
Trump isn't entitled to special treatment.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, "because" he doesn't have nearly a half billion dollars in cash to pay, and would have to sell properties just to appeal a ruling. Even if he were to win the appeal and not end up having to pay anything, whatever property he sold to get the money would still be gone.

Question for you since you obviously think so. Given that in the U.S. we are all considered to be equal before the law, why do you think exceptions should be made for one person?
Should the exceptions be different depending on a persons name or how much money they have?
How does "Justice" work in your mind?

 

[Laniakea]

Question for you since you obviously think so. Given that in the U.S. we are all considered to be equal before the law, why do you think exceptions should be made for one person?
Should the exceptions be different depending on a persons name or how much money they have?
How does "Justice" work in your mind?

Innocent unless proven guilty would be a good start.
Making someone spend all their money and give up all their property to get due process isn't justice, no matter who you are.

 

[fantome profane]

Innocent unless proven guilty would be a good start.

Dude, he had the trial, he was found liable.

 

[Pogo]

Innocent unless proven guilty would be a good start.
Making someone spend all their money and give up all their property to get due process isn't justice, no matter who you are.

He already went to court and was found guilty. Do you have no clue how the justice system works or what is going on in this country?.

Here is page 1 from the trial finding

 

[Laniakea]

Dude, he had the trial, he was found liable.

Still doesn't make excessive fines ok.
Nor does it make the process of filing an appeal nearly impossible ok either.

 

[fantome profane]

Still doesn't make excessive fines ok.
Nor does it make the process of filing an appeal nearly impossible ok either.

They are following the same procedures that they follow for every one else. Everyone needs to guarantee payment before they can get an appeal.

It has to be this way because so many defendants have tried to weasel out of paying, so many use the time to move and hide assets. This is a way to prevent that.

 

[Pogo]

Still doesn't make excessive fines ok.
Nor does it make the process of filing an appeal nearly impossible ok either.

It is not a fine it is a disgorgement of ill gotten gains.
There have been no changes to the appeals process.
Again, why should the law be different for DJT than everyone else?

 

[Laniakea]

It is not a fine it is a disgorgement of ill gotten gains.
There have been no changes to the appeals process.
Again, why should the law be different for DJT than everyone else?

If it's not a fine, then who would get that money, if not the government (which makes it a fine)?
It certainly won't be the banks since they never claimed to have been defrauded, and said they'd do business with Trump in the future.

 

[Pogo]

If it's not a fine, then who would get that money, if not the government (which makes it a fine)?
It certainly won't be the banks since they never claimed to have been defrauded, and said they'd do business with Trump in the future.

In this case it is considered to be the people of the state of New York who brought the suit against Trump and his organization.
The relevant laws and statutes are listed in the judgement that I linked for you.
Again, it is not a fine which is a penalty, this is not a penalty it is only a judgement for the return of monies that were fraudulently acquired.
It is returning stolen property (money).

A fine is a penalty that requires the convicted person to pay to the public treasure a sum of money fixed by law after an offense has been committed. The fine may be increased if the payment deadlines are not respected.

 

[Laniakea]

In this case it is considered to be the people of the state of New York who brought the suit against Trump and his organization.
The relevant laws and statutes are listed in the judgement that I linked for you.
Again, it is not a fine which is a penalty, this is not a penalty it is only a judgement for the return of monies that were fraudulently acquired.
It is returning stolen property (money).

A fine is a penalty that requires the convicted person to pay to the public treasure a sum of money fixed by law after an offense has been committed. The fine may be increased if the payment deadlines are not respected.

In this case, "The People" is the government, which means it's a fine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It proves that the judgement was unconstitutional.

How so?

Making a guy put up more money than is possible as bond as a precondition to appeal is excessive.

Why would it be more money than is possible?

The amount was calculated based on the amount of fraud that Trump committed. He ought to be good for it.

The fact that Trump doesn't have that much in liquid cash is irrelevant. So is Trump's horrible reputation as a borrower.

The judge basically removed Trump's constitutional right to appeal the verdict.

How so? The amount is still well less than what Trump claims is his net worth and well less than the value of investment assets he can sell.

All that's happening here is that Trump's reputation for not paying back loans is biting him in the ***. It's hardly the judge's fault that nobody wants to loan Trump money anymore.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, "because" he doesn't have nearly a half billion dollars in cash to pay, and would have to sell properties just to appeal a ruling.

So he has properties to sell. What's the issue?

Even if he were to win the appeal and not end up having to pay anything, whatever property he sold to get the money would still be gone.

That's correct. Why would this be an issue?