2093 sats \ 15 replies \ @siggy47 21 Feb \ parent \ on: What does SN think of the Trump/NYC verdict? news
A couple of things. First of all, it's not criminal. It is a civil case. Second, the judge granted summary judgment, before any witnesses were called. What he basically ruled was that there were no triable issues of fact. Summary judgment denies a litigant their day in court, so should only be granted in extreme cases. Applying it here seems ridiculous to me.
Also, I have been involved in commercial real estate financing in NY and other states. I have literally had bank representatives offer to play with the values of property to get larger loans. The banker would then get a larger commission. This is the way real estate financing works. It is a political ruling. Complete bullshit, IMO. For the record, I don't like Donald Trump.
The state and the judge used the assessment value of his Mar lago estate. 18 million vs market value which is at least 400 million.
The attorney general and judge do not understand how assessment works
reply
The attorney general and judge do not understand how assessment works
I think they do...and that's worse.
reply
Rule of law is about the law not the person or his politics.
Why do we have public defenders? If you look at most felons you should hate them
Why do we have due process?
reply
So, appealing the decision is the only recourse, right?
But, I heard something about Trump being required to put up 10% of the judgement before he can move forward with an appeal. That seems preposterous, unless I badly misunderstood what I overheard.
I'm guessing that it will be very difficult to actually seize his buildings as they've threatened to do.
reply
I haven't looked into that, but he probably can post a bond or undertaking.
I just remembered something else. In law school we used to use the old basketball phrase "no harm, no foul" in the context of civil damages. The liability wasn't enough. You needed to prove damages. There were none here. These cases are typically brought only after a borrower defaults on a loan. Then you have damages.
reply
I think they were saying the bond would have to be for 10%. If so, that's a crazy tool for a tyrant to be able to wield. They can make an egregiously unjust ruling and set the penalty so high that you can't even afford to appeal.
Where do you think this is going? Not the Trump element specifically, but this kind of weaponized politically motivated prosecution.
reply
reply
it will be tit for tat
Where are all the frivolous charges and suits against Democrats, then?
Most states have Republican administrations and those DA's don't seem inclined to follow the Democrats' lead. They don't even seem inclined to prosecute cases of real wrongdoing. Maybe that will change, but for now I'd say the situation is extremely asymmetrical.
Btw, like you, I'm no fan of Trump in particular or Republicans in general.
reply
reply
I can see that too, but it's still very asymmetric.
Trump is the current champion of the right and he's been under attack continuously since he came down that escalator nine years ago. Biden is a used up husk that has absolutely no significance to the left or the regime anymore.
reply
Jonathan Turley made the same exact point.
reply
400 million or a bond
reply
Executive law 63-12 precludes trial by jury because it’s about disgorgement not damages
reply