Example of someone tried on the same charges - with no victim - (the banks testified they wanted to do business with him again) - who paid the debts in full - who had in their contract that the banks should do their own assessment of the values of the property - then get fined half a billion dollars and have to come up with it in total in cash before they could appeal the decision.
Please - name one.
Indeed yes - the lesson is that Donald is being very differently treated - thank Goodness for the Appellate court bringing some sanity into the mix.
The conditions placed on my query are ridiculous. Same charges? No victim? First off that condition is moot. The law used to fine Donald did not require a 'victim' as you say.
12. Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law 3 or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term “persistent fraud” or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term “repeated” as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.
In connection with any such application, the attorney general is authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and rules. Such authorization shall not abate or terminate by reason of any action or proceeding brought by the attorney general under this section.
Here are a few of the NY lawsuits where the bond was set higher than Donalds's, which makes his son Eric a liar, or ignorant at minimum, for claiming nobody else had to pay such a large bond.
Moreover, contrary to the assertions in Mr. Giulietti’s reply affirmation
(see Giulietti Affirm. ¶¶ 16, 22), there is nothing unusual about even billion-dollar
judgments being fully bonded on appeal. See, e.g., Supersedeas Bond, Sony Music
Entertainment v. Cox Communications, Inc., No. 18-cv-950 (E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2021),
ECF No. 731 ($1 billion); Supersedeas Bond, Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No.
11-cv-1846 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2014), ECF No. 3028-1 ($1 billion); Supersedeas Bond,
Carnegie Mellon, No. 09-cv-290 (W.D. Pa.), ECF No. 955 ($1.54 billion); Supersedeas
Bond, Oracle, No. 07-cv-1658 (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 1076-1 ($1.33 billion).
eddsa.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net
www.nbcnews.com
A state appeals court ruled that Donald Trump and his co-defendants in the New York civil fraud case have 10 days to post a $175 million bond, down from the $464 million judgment that was originally due Monday.The 11th-hour ruling from a panel of state Appellate Division judges, all appointed by Democratic governors, is a major victory and relief for the former president, whose attorneys had said coming up with the larger bond was a “practical impossibility.” The ruling also means state Attorney General Letitia James’ office cannot yet begin collecting on the judgment.
