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

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Good news! Trump doesn't need to sell off any properties. He's announced publicly that he has more than enough ready cash to pay the whole amount.

Trump Claims He Has Nearly $500 Million In Cash—As His Lawyers Insist He Can’t Pay NY Fraud Judgement

The statement marks a reversal from Trump’s statements Monday that he does not have the cash to pay the bond and can’t find any companies to secure it for him.

www.forbes.com

That's probably sarcasm, but let's take it at its face value. As you noted, that would be great news. James can simply clean out his bank account, and Carroll can go after the rest of Trump's assets with a third defamation lawsuit, which she may go ahead with anyway just to step on and humiliate the man she most loathes in the world, but how sweet if she could take $200 million more from him. I say $200 million because they'd have to increase the punitive fraction, since the $83.3 million judgment wasn't sufficient disincentive for him to stop defaming her.

 

[Laniakea]

As Republican President Abraham Lincoln once said, our government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Money paid to the government goes to fund public business.

Then we should all feel patriotic when we get fined, right? Even if the fine is so high that it takes everything we got?
A wealthy guy named Klaus Schwab once said, "You will own nothing and be happy".
Small wonder we're on our way there.

 

[Laniakea]

Show me the math. I can link the judges decision for you again. Do you realize that this was not a fine. It was not a punishment for breaking the law. This has been explained to you multiple times. The judges decision will also explain it to you. You should read it. I have not read the whole thing, long and legalese and I will probably fall asleep. But I can pick some areas to read and understand.

It's a fine. This has been explained to you multiple times.
Would you like it explained to you again? I'd be willing to do so if you ask politely.

 

[Laniakea]

Really? Since when did you get to be an expert in the law? Your turn to support your claim. You need to show that a disgorgement is a fine if the money goes to the government. Your source has to specifically mention disgorgement since the sources I have found indicate that it is not a fine.

Don't worry about what I'm an expert in. It's not your business.
A fine is when money is paid to the government as a penalty (which is what the $454 million is being called).
If you don't agree, show your evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a fine. This has been explained to you multiple times.
Would you like it explained to you again? I'd be willing to do so if you ask politely.

No, you have made unsupported claims many times. I refuted those claims and provided sources. You had no answer except to repeat your unsupported claim.

 

[metis]

Actions have consequences, including dishonesty.

Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't worry about what I'm an expert in. It's not your business.
A fine is when money is paid to the government as a penalty (which is what the $454 million is being called).
If you don't agree, show your evidence.

I already showed you the evidence. You did not respond to it. I even explained to you how this was not a fine. And gave you the source where the amounts were calculated so that you could see if the judge made any errors. I have done so several times. You cannot keep demanding to see that which has been shown to you.

 

[Laniakea]

No, you have made unsupported claims many times. I refuted those claims and provided sources. You had no answer except to repeat your unsupported claim.

Are you now claiming to not want evidence?

 

[Laniakea]

I already showed you the evidence. You did not respond to it. I even explained to you how this was not a fine. And gave you the source where the amounts were calculated so that you could see if the judge made any errors. I have done so several times. You cannot keep demanding to see that which has been shown to you.

Repeating a claim that you cannot support after having been told to support it does not help you.

 

[Pogo]

It's a fine. This has been explained to you multiple times.
Would you like it explained to you again? I'd be willing to do so if you ask politely.

"disgorgement​

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. The purpose of this remedy is to prevent unjust enrichment and make illegal conduct unprofitable."


"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 terms “fine.” “forfeiture,” and “penalty” are often used loosely, and even confusedly; but. when a discrimination is made, the word “penalty” is found to be generic in its character, including both fine and forfeiture. A “fine” is a pecuniary penalty, and is commonly (perhaps always) to be collected by suit in some form. A “forfeiture” is a penalty by which one loses his rights and interest in his property. Gosselink v. Campbell, 4 Iowa, 300. 3. The term also denotes money recoverable by virtue of a statute imposing a payment by way of punishment"

A fine is a monetary penalty for violating a regulation/law. The amount is determined with the purpose of discouraging the behavior.
Disgorgement is a remedy to recover monies that were gained illicitly and the amount is that which is determined to have been gained by specific action.

These are the legal meanings of disgorgement and fine, they are not necessarily the imprecise colloquial meanings.

In the case of DJT vs NYS the amounts are specifically the profits that were made due to his misrepresentation and the remedy is to recover those monies, it is not an arbitrary amount designed to discourage and penalize behavior. Thus it is a disgorgement not a fine.

If you wish to continue to insist on your description of the court documents as a fine, please provide a rational at least as in depth as the above.

 

[F1fan]

Trump may be in for a windfall. He has a shady stock deal that could possibly net him billions. Looking at the evaluation it appears to be another scam:

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/22/1240116446/trump-truth-social-dwac-stock-listing-legal-troubles

But saying that he will have the money on Monday would be a gross overstatement.

There’s more analysis and commentary about this deal and everyone says it’s vastly overvalued at the moment. They look at revenue which is only 3 million and compared it to other social media companies and their revenue, and Truth Social should be about 60 million. The 3 billion the stock price is on paper and not a real market value. If Trump were to dump stock it will sink the value fast. So this asset is pretty irrelevant for over a year from now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There’s more analysis and commentary about this deal and everyone says it’s vastly overvalued at the moment. They look at revenue which is only 3 million and compared it to other social media companies and their revenue, and Truth Social should be about 60 million. The 3 billion the stock price is on paper and not a real market value. If Trump were to dump stock it will sink the value fast. So this asset is pretty irrelevant for over a year from now.

Of course, it is a scam. And Trump's supporters will be the victim of it. One more point, its revenue is about three million as you said. Its annual costs are about fifty million. By fast tracking it to the stock market he thinks that he is probably hoping for a high initial price that he can capitalize on. If he manages to sell a tenth of his stock without setting off alarms his debt problems will be solved. Oh, and a month ago, without the scam it was valued at a tenth of that price, about five hundred million for the whole company:

Truth Social Statistics 2024: How Does It Compare?

We've put together a list of the latest Truth Social statistics so you can see who uses the platform and whether or not Truth Social is likely to become a dominant social media network in the future.

www.searchlogistics.com

 

[Copernicus]

Then we should all feel patriotic when we get fined, right? Even if the fine is so high that it takes everything we got?
A wealthy guy named Klaus Schwab once said, "You will own nothing and be happy".
Small wonder we're on our way there.

Trump's penalty is disgorgement of gains acquired through fraud against the people of the United States. He broke the law, and he is paying the penalty. I guess it is true that a lot of Trump supporters are very happy with the man, even though he has done everything he could to rob them blind. So maybe Klaus Schwab had a point. People fall victim to grifters like Trump because the crooks make people believe they will be happy if they trust them. That's why the are called "con artists". Trump is now claiming that he actually has the money to pay the amount required of him, and we'll see if that is true on Monday. Trump's disgorgement penalty is high, but it won't take "everything we got". You got that wrong. It will be giving the money back to the people that he stole it from. That's all of us collectively.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Then we should all feel patriotic when we get fined, right?

If you feel patriotic, don't violate your county's laws and earn a fine.

Even if the fine is so high that it takes everything we got?

Fines generally have an upper limit: "Imprisonment for up to [time] and a fine of not more than [dollars]." If you can't afford the dollar amount, then that's another reason not to commit the crime.

It's a fine. This has been explained to you multiple times.

You're still wrong. @Pogo made the case nicely.

Here's a definition of a fine: "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."

Trump's civil judgment includes no fine. The dollar amount he owes was not fixed by law. It was calculated by determining how large the ill-gotten gain was in order to extract it back from him. That's not a punishment like punitive damages and fines, which make one poorer than he would have been had he not committed the offense. Disgorgement is to prevent the perp from being richer from his criminal activity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then we should all feel patriotic when we get fined, right? Even if the fine is so high that it takes everything we got?
A wealthy guy named Klaus Schwab once said, "You will own nothing and be happy".
Small wonder we're on our way there.

One fundamental tenet of justice is that the guilty shouldn't profit from their crimes.

Apparently, you disagree... though I'm not sure if you disagree across the board or only in Trump's case. Either way, why?

 

[Pogo]

Fines generally have an upper limit: "Imprisonment for up to [time] and a fine of not more than [dollars]." If you can't afford the dollar amount, then that's another reason not to commit the crime.

Being the Libertarian Socialist Republican that I am, I find fines terribly regressive, they should reflect ones wealth in order for them to work as intended. Parking tickets are cost of convenience to the wealthy.

Still waiting for @Laniakea 's lesson on meaning.

 

[McBell]

Being the Libertarian Socialist Republican that I am, I find fines terribly regressive, they should reflect ones wealth in order for them to work as intended. Parking tickets are cost of convenience to the wealthy.

Still waiting for Lanaiakea's lesson on meaning.

Long long ago I worked for a cement company who would overload the trucks.
One of the drivers gave the owner a ticket he received for being overweight.
The owner flat out said "I wish they would set me up a tab I could pay at the end of each month"

 

[Laniakea]

If you feel patriotic, don't violate your county's laws and earn a fine.

So it is a fine.
Good to know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Being the Libertarian Socialist Republican that I am, I find fines terribly regressive, they should reflect ones wealth in order for them to work as intended. Parking tickets are cost of convenience to the wealthy.

Still waiting for Lanaiakea's lesson on meaning.

That reminds me of a case I read about in London. Parking is expensive and can be hard to find. One very wealthy individual simply parked his car wherever he wanted to with the knowledge that he would only pay a fine that was probably in the hundred pound range. For him that was far easier and worth the money. So yes, traffic fines need to be based upon ability to pay. When it comes to speeding tickets some European countries do have those based upon wealth and the most expensive on ever was from Switzerland where a Swedish driver earned a fine of $1.2 million. Somehow he got up to a speed of around 120 mph, not all that fast, in a zone where the speed limit was only 20 mph. Wealth and how much one is over the speed limit combine to determine the ticket. This article has a few examples of where the fine is tied to one's wealth:

World's Most Expensive Speeding Ticket | OGN Daily

One of Finland's richest men has been handed an eye-watering £104,000 ($130,000) speeding fine by police. Anders Wiklof, 76, was caught doing 51mph in a 30mph zone along a road on the Aland islands, an autonomous archipelago in the Baltic Sea that is part of Finland.Why so much? Well, Finland...

www.onlygoodnewsdaily.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it is a fine.
Good to know.

Did you read his entire post? Or maybe it was the next one. He pointed out that @Pogo had also shown that it was not a fine. I pointed out that was not a fine and gave you a link to the Judges decision where the math for the various amounts of the disgorgement amounted to. I also posted an article about the Supreme Course case that approved of the method. And that it cannot be used as a "fine". That would be a punishment above and beyond the calculated disgorgement. If you are so sure that it is a fine I gave you all of the tools that you needed to make that case.

EDIT: Oh, I see that you did not read his entire post:

"Trump's civil judgment includes no fine. The dollar amount he owes was not fixed by law. It was calculated by determining how large the ill-gotten gain was in order to extract it back from him. That's not a punishment like punitive damages and fines, which make one poorer than he would have been had he not committed the offense. Disgorgement is to prevent the perp from being richer from his criminal activity.