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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.