1y ago

Letitia James gets bad news hidden in Donald Trump's bond

www.newsweek.com /letitia-james-gets-bad-news-hidden-donald-trumps-bond-1887992

One line buried in the agreement may be cause for concern for James, according to a new report from The Daily Beast, which described the contact as "bizarre" and "shadier than it looks."
The contract includes a line that if the judgment is "affirmed" or the "appeal is dismissed," the defendants in the case "shall pay to Plaintiff...the sum directed to be paid by the Judgment plus interests and costs or any part of it as to which said Judgment is affirmed," without a guarantee the insurance company would pay.
This essentially means that Trump will be required to pay the judgment if he loses the appeal but leaves questions about whether the insurance would pay if he is unable, essentially leaving James in the same position as before Trump secured the bond, according to the report.

26 comments

Looks like a good reason to reject the bond in its entirety. It's obviously a bad faith attempt to get around the rules.
- Yeah, I’m not sure how this is bad news for anyone but Trump.
  
  It's bad news for everyone because he's still getting away with it. Justice delayed is justice denied. James should be two weeks into the process of seizing his assets.
- Maybe thats what that hitch was
Am I reading this correctly? Is this article claiming it’s bad for James and her case if Trump can’t pay?
If he can’t pay doesn’t it just go back to being as if he never got the bond in the first place? So, she can just go after his assets?
Why is this bad? Did I miss something or is this the weakest motherfucking spin I’ve ever read?
- It's bad because if he cannot pay at all, then he cannot appeal.
  The idea is that you aren't able to use the appeals process as a stalling tactic, so in order to appeal, you must either set aside the money or secure a bond for the amount.
  Trump has done neither. His "bond" isn't a bond at all, because the contract states that the insurer will not be responsible for the judgement amount. His application to appeal should be rejected.
  
  It's bad because if he cannot pay at all, then he cannot appeal.
  This is patently false. He does NOT need to post a bond in order to appeal. He can absolutely appeal without posting a bond. The only purpose of the bond is to stay enforcement on the judgment.
- It would be bad for James in that an insurance company isn't going to pay $175m if the judgment is affirmed or the appeal dismissed. It's obviously much easier to cash a check from an insurance company than it is to find assets, domesticate a judgment, and then to levy and sell those assets.
  
  That’s not bad for James if she can just argue to the court that this bond is blatantly invalid.
Yep we already knew this a few days ago. This article just reframed it in the title as a positive for Trump. In all likelihood he's probably going to have to liquefy assets now.
- This article just reframed it in the title as a positive for Trump
  It's Newsweek. So...very much hot garbage yet the site gets referenced here several times a week. Can we please ban the site?
  
  Yeah it’s really a shame what they’ve become.
The whole idea of the bond is that it covered the full amount of the judgment and is held in escrow, and would be turned over to the state when Trump loses his appeal. And it's up to the bond issuer to make sure they have collateral enough from Trump to cover that bond (and full judgement ) should they need to pay up.
The bond issuer not having the collateral to even cover the $175m, let alone the nearly $500m that would be due if he loses his appeal is the whole issue James raised with this bond to begin with (well and the fact that they didn't have the right certification to even issue a bond in NY).
EDIT - extra words 😩
deleted by creator
Bad news for James? If anything this makes it look like Trump/his lawyers/bonding co tried to commmit a fraud on the court by trying to slip in terms that actualy negate the whole purpose of a bond.

26 comments