E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)

[Rolodex]

Bad legal takes from the Newsweek article:

In the state of New York,* as previously reported by Newsweek, an individual must pay a court a cash bond that amounts to 110 percent of the judgment to appeal the ruling of a civil case. That means that Trump has until March 9 to pay more than $91 million if he wants to challenge the defamation penalty.**

_________
* This is a federal case, although the requierement of a 110 percent bond appears to be similar in both NYS courts and in SDNY.

** if he wants to prevent execution on the judgment from starting. Has nothing to do with his ability to appeal, the deadline for which won't in any case be until resolution of Trump's post-trial motions. Also, "penalty" is usually used to refer to criminal liabilities. This is a civil liability, including the punitive damages award.

Thanks. That's the article that confused me. So...he has to pay up or post bond by March 7...is that right? And if he does neither, then what happens?

[Reality Check]

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.

[p0rtia]

With good reason.

[chancery]

Under Rule 62, "execution on a judgment and proceedings to enforce it are stayed for 30 days after its entry." The judgment was entered on February 9, so the automatic stay lasts through March 10. But, while I'm speculating here, I doubt that this is a true "do or die" deadline for obtaining a bond, unlike, e.g., the deadline for filing a notice of appeal, which is jurisdictional.

The thing is, the initial steps of executing on a judgment are not like storming a castle with fire and sword, and I suspect -- although I have very little relevant personal experience -- that it would be a while before anything happened that resulted in money changing hands or that couldn't be suspended by posting a bond. Even an event of default under a loan agreement usually has a cure period. And I doubt that Carroll's lawyers will incur the expense of starting the process in a big way before they see what happens with this motion and Trump's actions in response.

So, if Judge Kaplan denies the motion on, say, March 10, I don't think it would make a practical difference if it takes Trump a few extra days to put a bond in place. Or maybe even a couple of extra weeks. Beyond that, I dunno.

[p0rtia]

Tx, chancery, much appreciated

[Slim Cognito]

Yes, that. I much appreciate taking the time (and having the patience) to go over and over and over it until it finally sinks into our IANAL heads.

[northland10]

Umm wouldn't a prudent attorney...

A prudent attorney wouldn't be working for the toddler turnip.

[Sam the Centipede]

Umm wouldn't a prudent attorney...

A prudent attorney wouldn't be working for the toddler turnip.

Indeed, it's difficult (and wholly unnecessary) to have an iota of sympathy for any lawyer wishing for Trump.

I know defense lawyers here and in Teh Rael Wurld get irritated by being asked "how could you defend that monster?" but this is very different, doubly so in the civil cases.

It would be amusing though if no private lawyers would represent Trump and he had to rely on a public defender! Sadly, with over a million lawyers in the US, there will always be hundreds or thousands who are nasty enough and stupid enough to enrol as Agent Orange.

[Dave from down under]

Sure…
Sign up as his lawyer
So long as he hands over the $$$$ in advance
Then defend him professionally
Then when he throws a tantrum and fires you
You walk away with your integrity and his $$$

[AndyinPA]

You might walk away with $$$, but not your integrity.

[chancery]

Alina Habba wrote a letter to Judge Kaplan:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 13.0_1.pdf

On February 23, 2024, President Trump filed his motion and memorandum seeking to stay the execution of the judgment in this case pending the Court’s disposition of his post-trial motions. ECF Nos. 286, 287. Because the judgment becomes final on Monday, March 11, 2024, and time will be needed to finalize bond arrangements if the motion is denied, President Trump respectfully requested that the Court issue a ruling on his stay motion by March 4, 2024. ECF No. 287, at 16. In the alternative, if the Court were not to rule by March 4, President Trump requested that the Court “enter a temporary administrative stay of execution of the judgment pending its ruling on this motion.” Id.



On March 4, 2024, this Court entered an order indicating that its ruling would not issue yet but “will be rendered as promptly as is reasonably possible.” ECF No. 307. Requiring President Trump to post a bond or other security before this Court’s ruling on his stay motion threatens to impose irreparable injury in the form of substantial costs (which may or may not be recoverable). According, President Trump respectfully requests that, to the extent that his stay motion remains under the Court’s consideration through tomorrow, the Court enter a temporary administrative stay of execution until three business days after the Court rules on his stay motion. See Tereshchenko, 2024 WL 195547, at *1 (granting a three-day administrative stay).

Not a surprise. Judge Kaplan might do it.

[chancery]

People on twitter who are gloating about Carroll's lawyers commencing judgment execution on March 11 don't know what they're talking about, IMHO (and subject to the same disclaimers as upthread).

Sure, the threat to his assets is real, and that's why Trump is scrambling, and that's why Habba is begging for a short stay, but Carroll's lawyers would much rather be able to collect from a bonding company than be forced mix it up with lenders and co-owners and Rabbit's Friends and Relations in a foreclosure proceeding.

True, there may be some bank accounts that they could go after, but even that isn't as easy as you might think.

A bond is better, and in fact it wouldn't surprise me if Carroll's lawyers extended some courtesies to Trump's lawyers, if they were persuaded that Trump was actually making good faith efforts to put a bond in place.

[Sam the Centipede]

From my point of near total ignorance I think you're right. Squeezing cash out of anything connected with Trump is non-trivial and rarely 100% successful. As you (I think it was you, apologies if not) reported, successful claimants with large awards will often accept a steeply discounted cash offer from the listing side of it avoids expensive and uncertain pushback in the collection process.

So a bond for any significant fraction of the 80+ million must be very attractive to Carroll's side. Even 25% of the award is $20M, a serious wedge.

[Rolodex]

And I don't know that he's had to do this before. When he settled Trump University, a pal paid the $25 million settlement. No cash out of hand for him.

[pipistrelle]

I'm waiting for Musk's billions to save him.

[Rolodex]

I'm waiting for Musk's billions to save him.

I'm kinda terrified about that. He was out at MAL last week.

[noblepa]

A bond is better, and in fact it wouldn't surprise me if Carroll's lawyers extended some courtesies to Trump's lawyers, if they were persuaded that Trump was actually making good faith efforts to put a bond in place.

How can you use the words Trump and "good faith" in the same sentence, and keep a straight face?

[p0rtia]

[chancery]

Good point, but remember, it's very much in Carroll's interest to have a bond in place. If you have a good relationship with with opposing counsel, and they say, look, our client has signed the deal, and we've figured out where the cash is coming from, but there are lots of moving pieces and we need five days, you probably say yes.

The thing is, I don't know what the relationship is like. I suspect that Joe Tacopina, lead counsel in the first trial was the kind of stand-up guy whose representations would be accepted by opposing counsel. Habba ... I dunno. And the midwestern guy, Sauer, has just shown up, and his pro hac vice motion hasn't been granted yet.

[Flatpoint High]

And I don't know that he's had to do this before. When he settled Trump University, a pal paid the $25 million settlement. No cash out of hand for him.

going out on imo, musk was 'invited' to MaL in order for thump to ask him to be a "buddy ol'palnfren' o' mine" and pay his debt(s) for him. To which Musk said "

ABBDA162-116D-4CF9-8DC5-2DCD8B5D70AE 2.png (114.38 KiB) Viewed 491 times

[chancery]

Some musings by lawyers who have more experience in collections that I do. Raffi Melkonian's thoughts are similar to mine, some other people have a different take.

https://twitter.com/RMFifthCircuit/stat ... 4527380883

Raffi Melkonian
@RMFifthCircuit
Honestly, Habba is probably just wrong about what will happen if Trump doesn't post a bond before the federal 30-day automatic stay runs out and before Kaplan rules. Most of the time nothing at all happens. It takes a little while for the enforcement engine to get moving.

John Q A
@JohnQAdams11

In theory, you might be right. But I assume Robbie Kaplan is geared up to cause Trump as much pain as possible as quickly as possible. She probably has writs of execution ready to be signed and then served on the defendants' banks, etc.

Raffi Melkonian
@RMFifthCircuit

She probably is, but I guess I'm influenced by the idea that there's no way Judge Kaplan is going to grant the stay anyway.

John Q A
@JohnQAdams11

I would be shocked if he granted it.

@PhilipTKingston

I don't know. I've done collection work for many years, and practitioners in that field do not let grass grow when there's a solvent debtor

[Chilidog]

Solvent Debtor

[chancery]

Busy, don’t have time to do more right now.

[MN-Skeptic]

Here's a link - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .315.0.pdf

[andersweinstein]