Will Trump Lose His Buildings?

Not Monday, he won't... and maybe not ever

So as you almost certainly have been hearing, Monday is a sort of D-Day for Donald Trump in the civil case brought against him by New York’s execrable Attorney General, Letitia James.

Ignore the noise. Here’s what’s going on — and what’s likely to happen.

As of Monday, a 30-day stay imposed by the court expires. At that point, James’s office can begin the proceedings to seize Trump’s properties.

Operative term: “begin.” Because this is going to be a process.

Now, there are two primary ways to enforce a judgment in a case like Trump’s. They are not mutually exclusive — both can be employed until the judgment amount is achieved. They are as follows.

First, James’s office can go after Trump’s bank accounts. James will initially have to “restrain” (freeze) Trump’s accounts, so activity there ceases. James will then have to “execute” (meaning, start withdrawals).

A nuance: Trump will likely be able to continue to do business. Which only makes sense; why stop a target from making money, when you are trying to get money from him?

The second method would be to take Trump’s property. This is indeed done in civil cases — but it can be enormously complicated. And the more encumbered the property, the more complicated this is.

In New York State, this method is actually a version of foreclosure. But in a foreclosure, others who have a claim on the property get to have their say. So: Are there other liens on the property? Almost certainly. And probably mortgages as well. The state will have to honor these.

Further: What about the tenants of, for instance, Trump Tower? Will they consent to having Letitia James and the State of New York as a landlord? They, too, could gum up this process.

The bottom line is that all this takes time — and in fact could take a lot of time. Meanwhile, Trump’s appeal is being “perfected” (meaning, it’s gone up to the appeals court).

But the danger for Trump is if he is forced to fire sale his buildings, and later wins the appeal. At that point — it’s too late. His property is gone.

---

Bond… Donald’s Bond

So what, then, is all this about a “bond” that Trump can’t get?

Normally, when you lose a judgment at the lower court and plan to appeal, you are required to put up the amount of the judgment against you while you pursue the appeal (in New York, you actually have to put up 110% of the judgment).

But if you don’t have enough cash on-hand, you essentially get someone else to guarantee it; that is to say, they will cover it if you ultimately lose all appeals and you still can’t pay. The bond issuer, in return, will generally get property and other assets in return.

In this case, however, the judge issued such a ludicrously (and in this writer’s opinion, arbitrary) judgment against Trump, no one will give the former president a bond.

Now, Trump has a pending motion to the appeals court to lower the judgment amount — which could mean he might well get someone to give him a bond. Or maybe he could come up with the lower amount on his own.

What appears to have really happened here is that the judge issued a judgment amount designed to keep Trump from meeting it, under any circumstances. And to bankrupt him in the process.

---

He’s Got Appeal

So: Will Trump prevail on appeal? In this writer’s opinion — likely.

Now, full disclosure: This sort of civil enforcement is not my natural bailiwick. So I consulted with other lawyers who I know are far more experienced in such matters than I. And they make a compelling case.

In sum: James used the wrong statute to pursue Trump here; she is applying a consumer law to a commercial transaction. This is not Big Bank vs. The Little Guy. This is two sophisticated businesses in a commercial deal (for the detail-oriented among you, it’s NYS Executive Law 63 [12]).

(NYS AG Letitia James)

Now, this sounds complicated, but it’s really not. Consumer protection laws are designed to allow the government to enforce, whether or not there is a demonstrable victim. That’s to stop predatory practices before the public gets hurt.

James likely used this law because there was no victim here; the banks Trump did business with got paid back and were perfectly happy.

The problem for James is that this was not a consumer transaction; this was a commercial transaction, between two business entities. There are other laws covering this — ones James should’ve used.

In sum: James used a law that was more convenient for her — but it didn’t really apply to the facts.

(Not NYS AG Letitia James)

Judge Engeron apparently chose to ignore this (I’m sure Trump’s lawyers raised this at some point. I don’t know under what theory Engeron allowed the case to go forward).

Now, this will be the first time this issue will ever make it to the appeals court in New York. But under the above analysis, I’d say Trump has a more-than equal chance of prevailing.

That is, if he gets a fair shake.

---

The Man Destroying the NYPD

Right now, there is a single person doing more than perhaps anyone else to hinder the cause of safety in New York City — and he happens to be an elected official. If you don’t believe us: Click here, to read our own Chris Flanagan’s recounting of recent actions by NYC’s lunatic “Public Advocate.”

This is a story Chris broke — and you’ll only see it here. It is truly jaw-dropping.

(And for those with podcast access: we’ll be going deeper into what Chris unearthed in a podcast coming tomorrow. I thought I was tough to surprise by now…).

---

---

Is Crime Really Down?

So the FBI preliminary numbers for 2023 are out — and progressives are touting “historic” crime drops. Is it true?

We’ve examined this before — and will do a more thorough scrub in the coming days. But we can’t resist pointing out this one telling fact:

Somehow, the FBI missed 53 murders from New York City?

I mean, c’mon. That’s not even close.

(If you’re interested: here is the link to the NYPD numbers… and here’s where you can find the FBI’s. Sam Antar is right).

---

And Historically Speaking….

Here’s another tremendously telling tweet, from another New York crime-watcher who’s too smart to buy the happy talk:

No! It’s working. Working, I tell you…!

---

And finally….

Click on the image below to go to the video that sums up the current state of Congress (it’s worth it for the comments alone).

Clown World, indeed.

---