Fogbow

bob wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 6:22 pm

Uninformed wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:10 am So as to not over-anticipate the outcome of the upcoming deadline for payment to pause enforcement action, can anyone confirm that the payment must be made by the end of today (Sunday 24th March) not by the end of (working?) day tomorrow?

In general, unless specified otherwise, court deadlines occurring on a non-work day (i.e., weekends and holidays) automatically are bumped to the next working day.

So, for example, a court deadline for today would not kick in until COB tomorrow (Monday).

There's no court deadline. The NYAG has apparently said that she would forbear from executing the judgment for 30 days. And IMO she would rather have some kind of a deal to put Trump's real estate into escrow than to embark on lengthy complex foreclosure proceedings. Her judgment execution campaign will likely be calculated to give Trump an incentive to overcome his reluctance towards such a deal.

This of course presumes that

A. Don Donnie can stump up $175 million........
B. the Klown Kar Lawyers can perform teh act of "The aforesaid stay is conditioned on defendants-appellants perfecting the appeals for the September 2024 Term of this Court."

Mr brolin wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:33 am Relevant verbiage....


It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of staying enforcement of
those portions of the Judgment (1) ordering disgorgement to the Attorney General of
$464,576,230.62, conditioned on defendants-appellants posting, within ten (10) days of
the date of this order, an undertaking in the amount of $175 million dollars; (2)
permanently barring defendants Weisselberg and McConney from serving in the
financial control function of any New York corporation or similar business entity; (3)
barring defendants Donald J. Trump, Weisselberg and McConney from serving as an
officer or director of any New York corporation for three years; (4) barring defendant
Donald J. Trump and the corporate defendants from applying for loans from New York
financial institutions for three years; and (5) barring defendants Donald Trump, Jr. and
Eric Trump from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation in New
York for two years. The aforesaid stay is conditioned on defendants-appellants
perfecting the appeals for the September 2024 Term of this Court. The motion is
otherwise denied, including to the extent it seeks a stay of enforcement of portions of the
judgment (1) extending and enhancing the role of the Monitor and (2) directing the
installation of an Independent Director of Compliance.

Would laugh if he can't even find the 175 million in ten days.

So, how long is the appeal likely to take?

Now, the stay means Don Donnie and the rest of the Crime Family are able to continue to run a business in New York.

Trouble is, no rational bank is going to lend them fresh money or re-up any old loans whilst this is still in effective unresolved limbo and debts are coming due IIRC......

Turned MSNBC on just as this was announced. It's the perfect example of a two-tiered justice system.

much ado wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:37 am So, how long is the appeal likely to take?

Ordinarily, between 1-2 years. The First Department might expedite this appeal somewhat. OTOH, the record is voluminous, and the court has a crushing workload.

My first reaction was WTF but on reflection it seems only proper that the judiciary do not prejudice the rights of the future President.

He'll pout until it's zero.

And then he'll try to get mileage out of his negotiating skills.

Trump has a long history of getting out of financial binds. Something or someone always comes along to rescue him. It's no surprise to me at all that once again he's getting away with something that few others would get away with.

RVInit wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:29 pm Trump has a long history of getting out of financial binds. Something or someone always comes along to rescue him. It's no surprise to me at all that once again he's getting away with something that few others would get away with.

Yep. A friend paid the entire $25 million trump university fraud penalty for him.

I'm still convinced he'll slither out from under any actual consequences.

John Thomas8 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:02 pm I'm still convinced he'll slither out from under any actual consequences.

I agree that is very highly likely. It ain't over till a certain lady sings, so they say. I am not putting any stock in the idea that he will suffer any consequences at all. I will believe it when and if I see it.

“Trump insists he’s “allowed” to take foreign money to pay his bond.”

a potential emolument?

Chilidog wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:59 pm a potential emolument?

An emolument is a profit obtained from employment; the U.S. Constitution refers to those accepting a profit while in office.

What is interesting is it is illegal for foreigners to make federal campaign contributions. But the FEC takes a very laissez faire (read: lazy) as to what is acceptable campaign spending, which is why PACs are paying for his criminal legal bills.

But I would not be surprised, if there's evidence that a foreign entity covers the bond, that someone will file a FEC complaint alleging this was a backdoor campaign contribution.

Chilidog wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:59 pm “Trump insists he’s “allowed” to take foreign money to pay his bond.”

a potential emolument?

Since he took money from foreign governments while in office and got away with it… why shouldn’t he take more to get back into office..
So what if the US President is owned by foreign governments???

If the trial and the verdict are election interference, then paying the bond should be a campaign contribution.

I kid, but only just.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:06 pm

Which is why he needs to face plant permanently, the sooner the better. Of natural causes, of course.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 8:58 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:06 pm

Which is why he needs to face plant permanently, the sooner the better. Of natural causes, of course.

NB The faceplant may be in the form of Self-Destruction by verbal gaff. He can't speak for a minute without obvious confusion, which, i would argue is very different from 2016, 2020. Average voters haven't heard him live lately.

So, about the order partly granting Trump's stay application: meh.

I'm not surprised, and only slightly disappointed.

(i) It's notable that Trump offered to post a $100 Million bond without disclosing his cash position or the amount of equity available for raising additional funds. I'm a smidge disappointed that the First Department didn't hold his feet to the fire a bit, but in truth, appellate courts don't engage in the kinds of interactive fact finding that happen in trial courts.

(ii) The First Department is a busy, overworked, and relentlessly pragmatic court. They don't decide matters based on points for good conduct and style. Stay applications in particular are dealt with cursorily and with little or no (usually no) explanation. (That's one reason why Michael Popok's blathering about "unclean hands" posted upthread was such complete baloney.)

(iii) I don't believe that the ruling represents special treatment for Trump the candidate or Trump the VIP. However, the courts in New York, and particularly the courts sitting in Manhattan, have strong pro-business instincts, particularly for businesses like finance and real estate that are key to the NYC economy. It's baked into their DNA.

Although the NYAG pointed out correctly that Trump should have been transparent about his finances and could have done more to come up with alternate forms of security, they didn't seriously challenge Trump's contention that raising the full amount of the collateral necessary for a surety bond created the risk of an irreversible "fire-sale" liquidation. I'm confident that the court was concerned about that, and for defensible reasons: appeal bonds are for security, not for additional punishment.

(iv) The court evidently concluded that Trump could afford more than he offered, and set the bond at nearly twice that amount. It's really not a bad deal for the NYAG, because $175 million is likely more than she would have been able to recover through multiple labor-intensive judgment enforcement proceedings during the course of the appeal.

Also, and very notably, the court emphatically denied the stay with respect to an Independent Director of Compliance and Judge Jones's enhanced powers as monitor.

(v) A number of experienced attorneys have noted that in big judgment cases it's not unusual for the court to grant a stay based on a bond significantly less than the full judgment amount.

(vi) I speculate that the court might have been a little concerned about the appearance of fairness. Judge Engoron has consistently ruled strongly against Trump's positions, and it may be that the motion panel saw no reason to anticipate that the judgment would be substantially overturned by the merits panel. The motion panel might have felt that it wouldn't be a bad thing to cut Trump some slack on a procedural point.

He can't come up with a $175 million bond.