Appellate court rules in Trumps favor

[Fantine]

he doesn't have to play the martyr or victim

He is that, regardless.

Really sickening how our "justice system" has been highjacked by the Politics First elite democrats

Have you seen the Tibetan-sized mountainous volumes of evidence?
The victims of the judicial system are generally poor, often people of color. In execution-happy states like Texas, developmentally delayed prisoners have often been executed on scant evidence, even when their IQ's are 60--and it would be nigh impossible for them to have committed the crime.
There are people on death row whose DNA evidence now exonerates them--while Appeals courts quibble over whether to accept it or not.

Then there is Trump.
With the best defenses money can be--$50 million worth so far. Much of it collected from his supporters who have misplaced faith in his honesty and integrity.
Who has been impeached twice and, if you had watched the hearings, you would have realized that only Republican Senators with "primary opponent" threats hanging over their heads would be willing to vote "innocent."
Whose blatant lies and flame-fanning about election fraud resulted in 60 different investigations and court cases---100% of which showed there was absolutely no evidence of fraud.

I admit. I and many others are waiting to see him experience the consequences of his actions, simply because he has played the system for at least four decades. And instead, we have seen justices like Aileen Cannon horrifying the appellate court in her district by her ridiculously blatant favoritism of Trump. We have seen the Appellate Court in NY reduce his bond (money which has been awarded to the long-suffering taxpayers of NY he cheated) on the very day his Truth Social stock made him $4 billion richer.

Looking for a victim? Look around you. Then look in the mirror. We are the victims.

 

[rambot]

I actually think lowering the bond amount while in the appeals process (to within the realm of things he can cover with more liquid assets) actually does make some sense.

I know people were hoping he'd be sent through the wringer on this one...but my personal negative feelings about Trump aside, I don't think it's great thing for bond amounts to be set so high that people have to sell off non-liquid assets at "fire sale prices" to cover it while in an appeal process.

Here's why:

Let's say I have a judgement against me and I'm appealing it. The judge sets the bond amount so high that I have to sell off my car and my house at 10% below market value (or even right at market value if I'm extremely lucky on such short notice) in order to cover it.

I go through the appeal and win. Now, how do I get my house and car back (that I was forced to sell) from the people who bought them?

While not quite as bad as full blown civil asset forfeiture, it's the next worst thing in my view.

Call me ignorant but isn't this kind of thing (high bonds or bails) done allllllllll the time to poor people?

 

[rambot]

You also don’t hear much about rigged elections anymore.

Well you do from some former presidents but not....other people.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Call me ignorant but isn't this kind of thing (high bonds or bails) done allllllllll the time to poor people?

Excessive bonding can be an issue in some places, but it's usually in amounts that local bail bondsman are more than happy to assist with. (provided the person hasn't burned bail bondsmen in the past).

Here's a sample bond schedule for a random city I pulled up from my home state of Ohio

Portsmouth Municipal Court

The high dollar amounts don't typically kick in until you get to the really serious crimes. (or numerous repeat offenses)

Given that the main purpose of bonding it to make sure the person doesn't skip out on the legal process...a former president (who's constantly being tailed/monitored by secret service 24/7) obviously isn't much of a flight risk.


But ultimately, my main concern is the one I mentioned before, which is that if you set a bond so excessive that no bail/bonding agency will be able to cover, and force liquidation of assets at below market values (or assets they can claim a sentimental attachment to). What happens if the person should happen to win the appeal? Now the taxpayers are on the hook for compensating that person for their losses.


If I make you sell a $200k family home for $140k in a rush sale to cover a $140k bond, and you win (or appeal and win), what's the process for un-doing that? (you lost $60k and future gains on an appreciable asset, and perhaps a family heirloom)


Or put more succinctly, bonding is the mechanism by which to try to bind the person to seeing the legal process through to its conclusion, not a mechanism to be used as a preemptive strike.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Call me ignorant but isn't this kind of thing (high bonds or bails) done allllllllll the time to poor people?

He's not really a flight risk. I saw it as pure vindictiveness. Let us see how the appeal goes.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Well you do from some former presidents but not....other people.

It's talked about all the time in my circles.

 

[Hans Blaster]

He's not really a flight risk. I saw it as pure vindictiveness. Let us see how the appeal goes.

It is my understanding that in NY *ALL* civil penalties or awards must be bonded before filing an appeal. This is done to ensure the winning party gets their money if the appeal fails.

 

[JustOneWay]

It is my understanding that in NY *ALL* civil penalties or awards must be bonded before filing an appeal. This is done to ensure the winning party gets their money if the appeal fails.

Indeed. In this case, if Donald only puts up 175 million and loses the appeal (expected), then they will have to try to get the rest from him.

Or, this bond reduction could be an indication that the appellate court may drop the fine down to the 200 million level.

 

[JustOneWay]

He's not really a flight risk. I saw it as pure vindictiveness. Let us see how the appeal goes.

vindictiveness? Is this how you view all people who are taken to task by a state for their fraudulent actions? Or just in Donald's case?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

It is my understanding that in NY *ALL* civil penalties or awards must be bonded before filing an appeal. This is done to ensure the winning party gets their money if the appeal fails.

I did not know that. Apparently the higher court saw this particular bond as extortion. The ol' "sure, you can appeal, if you bankrupt yourself first" ploy. At least, that is how this came across.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

vindictiveness? Is this how you view all people who are taken to task by a state for their fraudulent actions? Or just in Donald's case?

I'm just talking about this particular case. As I've said before, I liken it to a truck drive ticketed for doing 71 in a 70. i.e. EVERYBODY does it, and it is obvious vindictiveness. In this case it's worse. Because what he was charged with is conducting business the way everybody does it in NY and a lot of investors are done with doing business there. They don't want to be next. Of course, if this was just a political witch hunt, they have nothing to worry about. But that brings up another problem.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the appeal. As I've said many times, his MO is to lose in the lower courts and win in the higher courts. Higher courts have a bit more on the line, regarding the quality of their decisions.

 

[DaisyDay]

Given that the main purpose of bonding it to make sure the person doesn't skip out on the legal process...a former president (who's constantly being tailed/monitored by secret service 24/7) obviously isn't much of a flight risk.

It might also be to preserve the assets so they don’t get siphoned off to offshore accounts and to his wife and children.

 

[JustOneWay]

I'm just talking about this particular case. As I've said before, I liken it to a truck drive ticketed for doing 71 in a 70. i.e. EVERYBODY does it, and it is obvious vindictiveness. In this case it's worse. Because what he was charged with is conducting business the way everybody does it in NY and a lot of investors are done with doing business there. They don't want to be next. Of course, if this was just a political witch hunt, they have nothing to worry about. But that brings up another problem.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the appeal. As I've said many times, his MO is to lose in the lower courts and win in the higher courts. Higher courts have a bit more on the line, regarding the quality of their decisions.

No. Everybody does not do it, but I understand why you say that because it minimizes Donald's decade long fraud.

He was not charged. This was a civil case, and he was fined and must refrain from doing business in NY for three years.

Don't be too sad when the appeal is denied.

 

[rambot]

I'm just talking about this particular case. As I've said before, I liken it to a truck drive ticketed for doing 71 in a 70. i.e. EVERYBODY does it, and it is obvious vindictiveness. In this case it's worse. Because what he was charged with is conducting business the way everybody does it in NY and a lot of investors are done with doing business there. They don't want to be next. Of course, if this was just a political witch hunt, they have nothing to worry about. But that brings up another problem.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the appeal. As I've said many times, his MO is to lose in the lower courts and win in the higher courts. Higher courts have a bit more on the line, regarding the quality of their decisions.

Isn't it interesting when rich white men commit crimes and get prosecuted for it, the response by some is "everyone does it so he shouldnt be prosecuted".

Not "we should prosecute all these rich white men".

 

[discombobulated1]

Have you seen the Tibetan-sized mountainous volumes of evidence?
The victims of the judicial system are generally poor, often people of color. In execution-happy states like Texas, developmentally delayed prisoners have often been executed on scant evidence, even when their IQ's are 60--and it would be nigh impossible for them to have committed the crime.
There are people on death row whose DNA evidence now exonerates them--while Appeals courts quibble over whether to accept it or not.

Then there is Trump.
With the best defenses money can be--$50 million worth so far. Much of it collected from his supporters who have misplaced faith in his honesty and integrity.
Who has been impeached twice and, if you had watched the hearings, you would have realized that only Republican Senators with "primary opponent" threats hanging over their heads would be willing to vote "innocent."
Whose blatant lies and flame-fanning about election fraud resulted in 60 different investigations and court cases---100% of which showed there was absolutely no evidence of fraud.

I admit. I and many others are waiting to see him experience the consequences of his actions, simply because he has played the system for at least four decades. And instead, we have seen justices like Aileen Cannon horrifying the appellate court in her district by her ridiculously blatant favoritism of Trump. We have seen the Appellate Court in NY reduce his bond (money which has been awarded to the long-suffering taxpayers of NY he cheated) on the very day his Truth Social stock made him $4 billion richer.

Looking for a victim? Look around you. Then look in the mirror. We are the victims.

Sorry, I watch a lot of news and I have not found this (that you say) to be true. It appears to me that people who believe this kind of thing are those who watch CNN, which has been sued successfully more than once for lying.

In any case, I stay clear of things that do not appear to be true, or completely true or whatever so I will mosey along

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It might also be to preserve the assets so they don’t get siphoned off to offshore accounts and to his wife and children.

Yes, I can see that being a consideration.

However, that still supports the noting of bonding based on liquid assets rather than making someone sell their non-liquid assets to come up with the bond. (as obviously things like houses, cars, and properties aren't something that can be shipped to off shore accounts like cold hard cash can)

 

[DaisyDay]

Yes, I can see that being a consideration.

However, that still supports the noting of bonding based on liquid assets rather than making someone sell their non-liquid assets to come up with the bond. (as obviously things like houses, cars, and properties aren't something that can be shipped to off shore accounts like cold hard cash can)

No, properties cannot be shipped offshore, but title can be transferred somewhat easily, providing they are not over leveraged.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

No. Everybody does not do it, but I understand why you say that because it minimizes Donald's decade long fraud.

He was not charged. This was a civil case, and he was fined and must refrain from doing business in NY for three years.

Don't be too sad when the appeal is denied.

Yeah. Everybody does it. I've been following this story for a while. It's why I use the truck driver example. I understand that perhaps literally everybody may not do it, just as there may be three or four truck drivers in the world that have never sped.

In all the court cases against Trump, I usually like to wait until the SCOTUS has made their decision. They usually get that far, and he usually wins. We'll see if this one is an outlier. Having worked in commercial real estate myself, I highly doubt it.

 

[Fantine]

Sorry, I watch a lot of news and I have not found this (that you say) to be true. It appears to me that people who believe this kind of thing are those who watch CNN, which has been sued successfully more than once for lying.

In any case, I stay clear of things that do not appear to be true, or completely true or whatever so I will mosey along

It is likely Fox and Newsmax didn't cover it.
But good news! There are transcripts. You tube hearing videos.
The Mueller Report, even edited.
The truth is out there, transcribed by court reporters, even for watchers of stations covering Hillary's emails on the big news days.
If you love the truth, as I do, i can find links to the transcripts somewhere.

 

[rambot]

Sorry, I watch a lot of news and I have not found this (that you say) to be true. It appears to me that people who believe this kind of thing are those who watch CNN, which has been sued successfully more than once for lying.

In any case, I stay clear of things that do not appear to be true, or completely true or whatever so I will mosey along

What about NPR?What about reputable foreign news sources? They are all reporting almost the same thing.

Fox, OAN and algorithmic Facebook is not a wide variety or reputable news sources and yet these are pretty much the only 3 sources that trumpnsupporters get their news from.

"Things that do not appear to be true", is the modern "things that I agree with"