Appellate court rules in Trumps favor

Always in His Presence · Mar 25, 2024

N.Y. appeals court reduces Trump's bond in his civil fraud case to $175 million, a victory for the former president

The court also gave Trump an additional 10 days to post the bond, which the former president said Monday he would pay.

www.nbcnews.com

A state appeals court ruled that Donald Trump and his co-defendants in the New York civil fraud case have 10 days to post a $175 million bond, down from the $464 million judgment that was originally due Monday.

The 11th-hour ruling from a panel of state Appellate Division judges, all appointed by Democratic governors, is a major victory and relief for the former president, whose attorneys had said coming up with the larger bond was a “practical impossibility.” The ruling also means state Attorney General Letitia James’ office cannot yet begin collecting on the judgment.

iluvatar5150 · Mar 25, 2024

"Maria, they were laughing." - Eric Trump

Fantine · Mar 25, 2024

But the hush money trial will proceed as scheduled, 4/15.

The lower bond is fine. If James had tried to attach assets, he would've played the victim and the martyr. What a pathetic joke.

GoldenBoy89 · Mar 25, 2024

That doesn’t sound like the weaponization of the justice system against him.

7thKeeper · Mar 25, 2024

GoldenBoy89 said:
That doesn’t sound like the weaponization of the justice system against him.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

GoldenBoy89 · Mar 25, 2024

7thKeeper said:
Funny how that works, isn't it?

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

The IbanezerScrooge · Mar 25, 2024

He's still on the hook for the full $450+ million judgement. They just lowered the bond he has to secure to show that he will pay and gave him 10 days to secure it.

Hans Blaster · Mar 26, 2024

The IbanezerScrooge said:
He's still on the hook for the full $450+ million judgement. They just lowered the bond he has to secure to show that he will pay and gave him 10 days to secure it.

It'll be even more funny when he can't get a $150 M bond.

ThatRobGuy · Mar 26, 2024

The IbanezerScrooge said:
He's still on the hook for the full $450+ million judgement. They just lowered the bond he has to secure to show that he will pay and gave him 10 days to secure it.

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.

JustOneWay · Mar 26, 2024

7thKeeper said:
Funny how that works, isn't it?

Indeed. The lesson here is that Donald receives special privileges not afforded to others.

JustOneWay · Mar 26, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
"Maria, they were laughing." - Eric Trump

Of course what he said was a lie. James has hit other corporations for over a billion dollars bond. Why should we expect any child of Donald act any different than Donald with the truth?

BCP1928 · Mar 26, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
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.

Would have been bad PR. It also may be a signal that the Prosecution has confidence that the lower court's judgement will stand up to an appeal.

Always in His Presence · Mar 26, 2024

JustOneWay said:
Indeed. The lesson here is that Donald receives special privileges not afforded to others.

Example of someone tried on the same charges - with no victim - (the banks testified they wanted to do business with him again) - who paid the debts in full - who had in their contract that the banks should do their own assessment of the values of the property - then get fined half a billion dollars and have to come up with it in total in cash before they could appeal the decision.

Please - name one.

Indeed yes - the lesson is that Donald is being very differently treated - thank Goodness for the Appellate court bringing some sanity into the mix.

Always in His Presence · Mar 26, 2024

Fantine said:
The lower bond is fine. If James had tried to attach assets, he would've played the victim and the martyr. What a pathetic joke.

Pssst.... Letita James is a she, not a he. It does not really help a position when you cannot get the gender of the person correct.

I'm not trying to gender assign, but she has never claimed otherwise.

iluvatar5150 · Mar 26, 2024

hislegacy said:
Pssst.... Letita James is a she, not a he. It does not really help a position when you cannot get the gender of the person correct.

I'm not trying to gender assign, but she has never claimed otherwise.

Your respect of others' preferred pronouns is noted.

Always in His Presence · Mar 26, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
Your respect of others' preferred pronouns is noted.

as is your respect or lack thereof - got anything on the topic of the thread?

JustOneWay · Mar 26, 2024

hislegacy said:
Pssst.... Letita James is a she, not a he. It does not really help a position when you cannot get the gender of the person correct.

I'm not trying to gender assign, but she has never claimed otherwise.

He is Donald. You misunderstood the post. Please ask questions before going on the personal attack.

The IbanezerScrooge · Mar 26, 2024

JustOneWay said:
He is Donald. You misunderstood the post. Please ask questions before going on the personal attack.

ouch, lol

ThatRobGuy · Mar 26, 2024

BCP1928 said:
Would have been bad PR. It also may be a signal that the Prosecution has confidence that the lower court's judgement will stand up to an appeal.

I don't know if I'm necessarily a fan of prosecutors making decisions based on PR. That's led to mistakes in the past. (for example: when a prosecutor charges 1st degree murder in cases where they can only prove manslaughter, simply to appease public sentiments, that's backfired and the person walks altogether)

With regards to the purpose of what bond is typically for, it's to ensure that the person is going to comply and make all of their court appearances and hold a certain amount in escrow of sorts while waiting for the official conclusion of a legal process (like impending sentences or an appeal process)

So you want it to be something large enough that it wouldn't be an amount of money they'd simply shrug off and be willing to lose by taking off. It does need to be a means-based system.

But on the other hand, you don't want it to do irreparable damage, because then, if the person should win the appeal, they can come back and sue the state for losses they incurred if they had to sell off property at a discount. (or make an emotional appeal claiming that they had sentimental attachment to the things they were forced to sell and now can't get back)

The legal mechanism of bond shouldn't be leveraged in a way that can do something that can't be "un-done". With liquid assets, that's not an issue...if you pay $50k in bond, and you appeal and win, you get your $50k back at the conclusion. If I'm forced to sell my family home or classic GTO that I've put 8 years worth of work into, to cover the bond amount, and I appeal and win, I can't get those back from the new owner.

Always in His Presence · Mar 26, 2024

JustOneWay said:
He is Donald. You misunderstood the post. Please ask questions before going on the personal attack.

I was unaware that you are a person of authority here - oh, you aren't.

Appellate court rules in Trumps favor

Jesus is the only Way

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

We're Still Here

Venture life, Burn your Dread

We're Still Here

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

On August Recess

Part of the IT crowd

:)

:)

Well-Known Member

Jesus is the only Way

Jesus is the only Way

Well-Known Member

Jesus is the only Way

:)

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Part of the IT crowd

Jesus is the only Way

Similar threads