Re whatever assets put up beyond the cash - Cohen pointed out this week that T doesn't want to sell in part because capital gains will be pretty hefty at that level. (3 different tax fees together are about 58% of the value).
Also checked out - loans on buildings can be transferred (and these have very desirable terms).
2012 assessed value in filings for, say 40 Wall was $220 mil. The leveraging according to filings and testimony were cut off around 50% of the loan.
That would make the unencumbered amt of the collateral avail about $120 mil minus $70+ mil cash... so it would be covered.
Evans not caring for Trump plus the $12-15 mil bond fee plus the value of the building (presuming 40 Wall) will make big bucks for Chubb. Plus if you don't like T it could be fun to chew on.
Not convinced they'd be on the hook for the big bond upcoming but we will see.
I think you glossed over an important point about the equity in 40 Wall Street. It is common for senior lenders to prohibit the borrower from encumbering their equity in the collateral without the lender’s permission. Such requests are typically denied if the loan is held by a group (more than one bank or investor) because granting approval must be unanimous and there is nothing but downside in letting another party have claim on the equity. T pledging the equity as collateral for a bond constitutes one of these prohibited encumbrances.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, the prospect of Trump losing assets directly to Carroll or to NY state shift to him losing them to whatever entity puts up the bond? And that one way or another, he is going to lose some significant assets when these appeals get binned?
So is it Josh, Ken, or Sara that I should blame for the mini-heart-attack I got when "DON'T LIE TO YOUR LAWYER" appears on my phone as the subject line in my email notification?
If you as a client lie to me, and I end up having to say something like "actually, I can't substantiate what I said before" the DA and the Court will act to hammer you of they can.
And I look like an asshole, which means I don't believe you when you say the sky is blue.
But that's no different than any other lie -- getting caught in a lie is always bad.
I mean if your spouse catches you lying it's also bad for you but doesn't mean that (if you are the kind of person who isn't bothered by this) it doesn't benefit you to lie about what happened on that work trip with that hot coworker.
In the episode, when discussing whether Carroll could sue Trump yet again, for his most recent statements denying he assaulted her, Ken basically said yes but her additional damages would likely be so small it might not be worth it. I want to question this a bit. Ken did not mention the prospect of additional punitive damages, despite there being a pretty strong argument that the amount of punitive damages to date has not been adequate to deter Trump from engaging in the harmful conduct and therefore additional damages are justified. I assume a good reason Ken would not go into this is that under existing Supreme Court case law, the amount of punitive damages can't exceed some relatively low multiple of the amount of actual damages, which would tend to limit the amount of additional punitives that could be awarded at this point.
My question is whether, under the unusual and compelling facts of this case (repeated deliberate defiance of the court's prior judgments), there is a viable argument if she sues again that the compensatory damages awarded in the prior case should be added to any additional compensatory damages that are awarded, and the maximum punitive damages calculated by applying the multiplier to that aggregate amount? That approach might be novel -- but again, so are the facts of this case -- and it would seem like a way to advance the policy goals underlying punitive damages while still being consistent with the Eighth Amendment concerns expressed in the BMW case and subsequent federal case law.
The way I understand it, juries are more than happy to pad the actual damages to end up with a big number unless they are ignorant of the multiple rule. This came up about the Alex Jones (Texas) verdict where they actually enforce jury ignorance (how does that work, can you imagine the voir dire question)
It would be great if you fellers could provide some clarity on Robert Hur's testimony before Congress. Is he a political hack, a misunderstood prosecutor, or both? Or neither? And, if he's neither, then what is he?
I had never heard that lying to your lawyer so they pass false information to the prosecution was a crime. A bad idea, maybe, but not a crime. Thanks for the enlightenment, as always.
Don’t you think that the bid about going after Mendez’s lawyers is to further burden his defense and make it even harder for him? Lawyers are used to dealing with train wreck clients, but they are very much not used to and don’t want to become part of the case, seems like this charge is like the feds going after the money and trying to freeze the money that you need to pay a defense lawyer in the first place.
You guys keep saying the activity was before Trump was president in the New York case. The indictment says the false business records were from February 2017 to December 2017. That was when he was president.
Correct. But the alleged criminal activity, the falsification of business records, occurred in 2017. When Trump was president.
Doesn’t mean the immunity argument is any good. It is hot trash. The federal court concluded he didn’t even have a plausible federal defense when he initially tried to remove the case.
I think the question on removal is whether the CLAIMS are federal — under the federal rules of civil procedure, whether he has a federal defense (whatever that is) is irrelevant to the question of removal. Every few years one court of appeal or another has to remind a defendant that the reason their case got kicked back to state court is that their notice of removal was defective because they based it on claims of federal defenses, rather than on the plaintiff’s claims sounding in federal law.
That is not correct. One of the elements of federal officer removal is that the defendant has a plausible federal defense. See Mesa v. California. Immunity for acts undertaken as president is a federal defense because to the extent it exists, it arises under the U.S. Constitution.
Car Talk voice:
"Don't lie to your lawyer"
"And don't lie to YOUR lawyer"
Had some fun this morning poking around stories.
Chubb's leader Evan(s) doesn't like Trump
The Chubb bond included $70-80 million in cash.
Re whatever assets put up beyond the cash - Cohen pointed out this week that T doesn't want to sell in part because capital gains will be pretty hefty at that level. (3 different tax fees together are about 58% of the value).
Also checked out - loans on buildings can be transferred (and these have very desirable terms).
2012 assessed value in filings for, say 40 Wall was $220 mil. The leveraging according to filings and testimony were cut off around 50% of the loan.
That would make the unencumbered amt of the collateral avail about $120 mil minus $70+ mil cash... so it would be covered.
Evans not caring for Trump plus the $12-15 mil bond fee plus the value of the building (presuming 40 Wall) will make big bucks for Chubb. Plus if you don't like T it could be fun to chew on.
Not convinced they'd be on the hook for the big bond upcoming but we will see.
I think you glossed over an important point about the equity in 40 Wall Street. It is common for senior lenders to prohibit the borrower from encumbering their equity in the collateral without the lender’s permission. Such requests are typically denied if the loan is held by a group (more than one bank or investor) because granting approval must be unanimous and there is nothing but downside in letting another party have claim on the equity. T pledging the equity as collateral for a bond constitutes one of these prohibited encumbrances.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, the prospect of Trump losing assets directly to Carroll or to NY state shift to him losing them to whatever entity puts up the bond? And that one way or another, he is going to lose some significant assets when these appeals get binned?
Nice bit of research. Have you got any links that can be posted?
So is it Josh, Ken, or Sara that I should blame for the mini-heart-attack I got when "DON'T LIE TO YOUR LAWYER" appears on my phone as the subject line in my email notification?
Won't you have a bit of a biased sample? Presumably if there were people who lied to their lawyers intelligently you'd never know about it right?
And it sure seems like some of the guys appealing from prison and getting on podcasts are benefiting from lying to their lawyers.
The red marks in this diagram indicate the parts of the plane that need to be reinforced.
At 18:35, Josh says: "...I realize that we have a national audience."
International.
If you as a client lie to me, and I end up having to say something like "actually, I can't substantiate what I said before" the DA and the Court will act to hammer you of they can.
And I look like an asshole, which means I don't believe you when you say the sky is blue.
But that's no different than any other lie -- getting caught in a lie is always bad.
I mean if your spouse catches you lying it's also bad for you but doesn't mean that (if you are the kind of person who isn't bothered by this) it doesn't benefit you to lie about what happened on that work trip with that hot coworker.
In the episode, when discussing whether Carroll could sue Trump yet again, for his most recent statements denying he assaulted her, Ken basically said yes but her additional damages would likely be so small it might not be worth it. I want to question this a bit. Ken did not mention the prospect of additional punitive damages, despite there being a pretty strong argument that the amount of punitive damages to date has not been adequate to deter Trump from engaging in the harmful conduct and therefore additional damages are justified. I assume a good reason Ken would not go into this is that under existing Supreme Court case law, the amount of punitive damages can't exceed some relatively low multiple of the amount of actual damages, which would tend to limit the amount of additional punitives that could be awarded at this point.
My question is whether, under the unusual and compelling facts of this case (repeated deliberate defiance of the court's prior judgments), there is a viable argument if she sues again that the compensatory damages awarded in the prior case should be added to any additional compensatory damages that are awarded, and the maximum punitive damages calculated by applying the multiplier to that aggregate amount? That approach might be novel -- but again, so are the facts of this case -- and it would seem like a way to advance the policy goals underlying punitive damages while still being consistent with the Eighth Amendment concerns expressed in the BMW case and subsequent federal case law.
Thoughts anyone?
The way I understand it, juries are more than happy to pad the actual damages to end up with a big number unless they are ignorant of the multiple rule. This came up about the Alex Jones (Texas) verdict where they actually enforce jury ignorance (how does that work, can you imagine the voir dire question)
It would be great if you fellers could provide some clarity on Robert Hur's testimony before Congress. Is he a political hack, a misunderstood prosecutor, or both? Or neither? And, if he's neither, then what is he?
Something we haven't had cross the desk in a while - https://cdllife.com/2024/three-trucking-companies-sue-a-1s-towing-for-5-million/ "The lawsuit accuses A-1’s Towing and affiliated companies of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)" Is it RICO ?
I had never heard that lying to your lawyer so they pass false information to the prosecution was a crime. A bad idea, maybe, but not a crime. Thanks for the enlightenment, as always.
Don’t you think that the bid about going after Mendez’s lawyers is to further burden his defense and make it even harder for him? Lawyers are used to dealing with train wreck clients, but they are very much not used to and don’t want to become part of the case, seems like this charge is like the feds going after the money and trying to freeze the money that you need to pay a defense lawyer in the first place.
You guys keep saying the activity was before Trump was president in the New York case. The indictment says the false business records were from February 2017 to December 2017. That was when he was president.
Presumably it's business records recording activity before the 2016 election?
Correct. But the alleged criminal activity, the falsification of business records, occurred in 2017. When Trump was president.
Doesn’t mean the immunity argument is any good. It is hot trash. The federal court concluded he didn’t even have a plausible federal defense when he initially tried to remove the case.
I think the question on removal is whether the CLAIMS are federal — under the federal rules of civil procedure, whether he has a federal defense (whatever that is) is irrelevant to the question of removal. Every few years one court of appeal or another has to remind a defendant that the reason their case got kicked back to state court is that their notice of removal was defective because they based it on claims of federal defenses, rather than on the plaintiff’s claims sounding in federal law.
That is not correct. One of the elements of federal officer removal is that the defendant has a plausible federal defense. See Mesa v. California. Immunity for acts undertaken as president is a federal defense because to the extent it exists, it arises under the U.S. Constitution.
Makes sense, thanks.
Thanks. That useful to know.