Fogbow

The question is who funded it.

Personally I think E. Mush has decided to buy fuckhead, as part of his plan to rule the world.

judge Kaplan wrote:

Screenshot 2024-03-08 at 11-41-38 E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!) - Page 56 - Fogbow.png (323.77 KiB) Viewed 1929 times

Someone pointed out something like that the other day but Judge Kaplan said it much better because he's the a Judge after all.

Reality Check wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:29 pm Umm wouldn't a prudent attorney be spending time preliminarily arranging for bond just in case you don't get a free pass? Instead you run to the judge and demand a decision now dammit. Jesus H. Christ they are so arrogant.

I just signed on a small insurance policy with Chubb Group yesterday. I'm sleeping with the enemy! Oh noes!

Insurance company Chubb underwrote the bond for Trump, which the former president signed on Tuesday. Under the terms of the bond, Chubb will only secure the appeal of the $83.3 million judgment, not any future appeals.

The bond size is greater than the judgment because the district court generally requires a party to post 110% of the bond.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/08/politics ... index.html

Questions I have:

1. Do Carroll's attorneys have the opportunity to review the bond agreement to make sure it is kosher and contains no gotchas?
2. I assume Judge Kaplan will also review it unless these are pretty much boilerplate?
3. Would it be wise for Carroll's attorneys to point out Habba or whomever had already arranged for bond when they filed for a stay w/o a bond in place? Or would that not be seen favorably by Judge Kaplan? Maybe Trumps attys were just trying to save their client the cost of a bond? But It certainly was not framed that way.

My understanding of this is limited to teevee shows, so my question is about how bonds work.

My bottom line question is how much is trump actually out of pocket? I hear about bonds for court appearance...but it seems like those folks put up like 10% of the amount. How does it work with bonding for a judgment?

Even if it was "just" $9 million he handed over, it would have stung him like nothing else.

Well that answers questions #1 and #2. Thank you Judge Kaplan.

Reality Check wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 11:46 am

judge Kaplan wrote: Screenshot 2024-03-08 at 11-41-38 E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!) - Page 56 - Fogbow.png

Someone pointed out something like that the other day but Judge Kaplan said it much better because he's the a Judge after all.

Reality Check wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:29 pm Umm wouldn't a prudent attorney be spending time preliminarily arranging for bond just in case you don't get a free pass? Instead you run to the judge and demand a decision now dammit. Jesus H. Christ they are so arrogant.

I was thinking along the same lines, eg a prudent lawyer would have researched the correct path to appeal, and know that a significant bond would be required and advised their client to that point. But I guess tv appearances were mote important. Plus showing up in ketchup splattered dresses is not recommended, so better hide from the client just how bad things could turn out.

Ok so I found the answers to my questions about how bonds work (and easy to understand thorough info). My favorite pull quote:

“Though the illustrious Robbie Kaplan is strong enough to yank a golden toilet out of the floor at Trump Tower and toss it through the window, this bond saves Robbie the trouble of showing up with U.S. marshals on Monday to do so,” Ms Carroll wrote.

Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/08/nyre ... =url-share

MTN Ben Meiselas has been inspecting the docket and has seen a new lawer requesting pro hac visa vice access for Teh Donald. Habba on her way out?

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 11:19 pm MTN Ben Meiselas has been inspecting the docket and has seen a new lawer requesting pro hac visa vice access for Teh Donald. Habba on her way out?

► Show Spoiler

If it’s indeed to handle the appeal, it’s not unusual at all, in fact prudent, to engage an attorney familiar with appeals to handle an appeal of a case.

Oops he did it again.

Trump will not shut up about E. Jean Carroll.

Acyn
@Acyn

Trump again claims E. Jean Carroll made false accusations about him

His mouth keeps writing checks his checkbook can't cash.

Go for it E. Jean. Double the existing punitive damages.

There was a chat on MSNBC this morning. Jennifer Rubin said there's an option to challenge the bond by tomorrow and judge would have a hearing that afternoon. That could be interesting twist.

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 5:34 am His mouth keeps writing checks his checkbook can't cash.

Prior to Trump calling Carroll a liar again, I thought that Trump’s best argument on post trial motion or Appeal was that the punitive damage award was too high. (Often courts limit such awards to some multiple of the compensatory damage award.) Given that the jury reportedly came up with its punitive damage number as a means of making sure Trump did not offend again, Trump’s latest descent into defamation appears to vindicate the jury’s punitive damage determination, or suggest it may have not been large enough.

Kendra wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:07 pm There was a chat on MSNBC this morning. Jennifer Rubin said there's an option to challenge the bond by tomorrow and judge would have a hearing that afternoon. That could be interesting twist.

Yeah, the judge entered that order. I'd say it's unlikely to be challenged.

I don't know if it's legally available publicly but it would be interesting to see if and who a co-signer might be on that bond. I think Carroll can challenge it? Maybe that would open that info to the public.

One of the talking heads on MSNBC mentioned that it might be possible to explore an injunction as what happened with Guiliani in his defamation case re Georgia. Or file a new defamation case. Seems $83 million wasn't enough to shut him up.

realist wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:41 pm

Kendra wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:07 pm There was a chat on MSNBC this morning. Jennifer Rubin said there's an option to challenge the bond by tomorrow and judge would have a hearing that afternoon. That could be interesting twist.

Yeah, the judge entered that order. I'd say it's unlikely to be challenged.

Looking above at the copy of the order, it explicitly invites the plaintiffs to file any opposition within a time window. It's baked into the order itself.