Fogbow

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

He's counting on "HIS" judges to stop payment.

noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 8:04 pm

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

He's counting on "HIS" judges to stop payment.

I guess he thinks they'll walk back anything read into from the Clinton-Jones verdict?

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 9:03 pm

noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 8:04 pm

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

He's counting on "HIS" judges to stop payment.

I guess he thinks they'll walk back anything read into from the Clinton-Jones verdict?

And, yes, I realize that pre-supposes that he *thinks*.

Lisa Rubin wrote:NEW: E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers have notified Judge Kaplan that they don’t oppose Trump’s proposed $91.63 million bond because Trump & his insurer have modified a provision that suggested Carroll could wait 60 days or more after an appellate victory to get paid.

Turnip keeps saying "I don't know that woman I don't know who she is." I actually don't doubt him. Carroll was a NYC figure back in that day, but who knows if she was on his radar. But I suspect he doesn't remember any of the women he's assaulted. They aren't real people to him. They're just body parts.

Q for the IAALs here: if they go after him for a TRO or even get an injunction against him to get him to shut up, what happens if (when) he violates an injunction or RO?

MTN Michael Popok discusses the fine print on the bond for appeal

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:38 am MTN Michael Popok discusses the fine print on the bond for appeal
<snipped video>

Popok's main point is that Trump posting a bond is fantastic for Carroll because the funds are now readily available from the bond, Carroll just has to collect when the court says that it's ok to do so.

If the bond were not posted, Carroll would have the problem of collecting the judgement against Donald J. Trump, the person. But Donald J. Trump the person probably has few personal assets, it's his companies and trusts that own valuable assets. And it would be Carroll's problem to (as Popok phrases it) "pierce the corporate veil".

I imagine this was discussed upthread, but who can keep straight the details of all of Trump's civil and criminal in state and federal courts?!

Assuming that tfg loses his appeal could the recently repeated defamation be used to show that the “damages” were not excessive?

https://x.com/joshgerstein/status/17679 ... 64079?s=20

Josh Gerstein @joshgerstein wrote: NEW: Insurance giant Chubb issues letter to customers defending $91.6 bond for Trump to facilitate his appeal in Carroll libel case. Company calls itself 'part of the justice system plumbing' & says bond 'fully collateralized' if verdict is upheld. Stmt:

The letter: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... nd-3132024

Sounds like their customers don't want their premiums used to pay trump's legal bills. Who can blame them?

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 4:02 pm Sounds like their customers don't want their premiums used to pay trump's legal bills. Who can blame them?

Yeah we know Trump is a lying sack of sh-- but we can collect if he tries to abscond with the money. Someone is going to make a percentage on this so it might as well be Chubb. It's what we do.

Reality Check wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 4:09 pm

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 4:02 pm Sounds like their customers don't want their premiums used to pay trump's legal bills. Who can blame them?

Yeah we know Trump is a lying sack of sh-- but we can collect if he tries to abscond with the money. Someone is going to make a percentage on this so it might as well be Chubb. It's what we do.

that's a good read of it

Thanks. I was translating from corporate speak.

I love the part in the letter where he points out that his motivation was really to benefit EJC, doncha know, because she's spared the expense and time of trying to seize property. It's all about the nobility.

Farros Cousins points to the fine print in the submitted bond and that Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan wants answer from the court. Essentially the fine print gives the defendant 30 days to pay Chubb, then Chubb gets another 30 days to pay Carroll.

part may have been mentioned before

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 4:33 am Farros Cousins points to the fine print in the submitted bond and that Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan wants answer from the court. Essentially the fine print gives the defendant 30 days to pay Chubb, then Chubb gets another 30 days to pay Carroll.

part may have been mentioned before

Yes, that was mentioned and I believe the language was changed before Carroll's attorney would sign off on the bond. It all happened without a hearing.

Reality Check wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 9:17 am

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 4:33 am Farros Cousins points to the fine print in the submitted bond and that Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan wants answer from the court. Essentially the fine print gives the defendant 30 days to pay Chubb, then Chubb gets another 30 days to pay Carroll.

part may have been mentioned before

Yes, that was mentioned and I believe the language was changed before Carroll's attorney would sign off on the bond. It all happened without a hearing.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but I thought the point of the bond was to hold the money in escrow while the appeal moves forward, and that Carroll wouldn’t see any cash until the appeal is done.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 10:55 am

Reality Check wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 9:17 am

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 4:33 am Farros Cousins points to the fine print in the submitted bond and that Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan wants answer from the court. Essentially the fine print gives the defendant 30 days to pay Chubb, then Chubb gets another 30 days to pay Carroll.

part may have been mentioned before

Yes, that was mentioned and I believe the language was changed before Carroll's attorney would sign off on the bond. It all happened without a hearing.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but I thought the point of the bond was to hold the money in escrow while the appeal moves forward, and that Carroll wouldn’t see any cash until the appeal is done.

He's talking about the delay in paying out to Caroll AFTER A JUDGMENT in the appeal. Originally it was going to be 60 days, but Caroll's lawyers, from their position in the driver's seat, got it knocked down to 30 days before agreeing not to oppose the bond.

Cousins makes it sound ominous ahat Trump has not actually "paid" the money to Chubb. OK, but he must have pledged some collateral. If Trump loses his appeal, Caroll gets a check from Chubb with almost no muss, no fuss. So what if Trump hasn't literally put funds in escrow? Collecting from Trump becomes Chubb's problem, not Caroll's. As others have pointed out, that's majorly to her benefit.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 10:55 am

Reality Check wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 9:17 am

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 4:33 am Farros Cousins points to the fine print in the submitted bond and that Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan wants answer from the court. Essentially the fine print gives the defendant 30 days to pay Chubb, then Chubb gets another 30 days to pay Carroll.

part may have been mentioned before

Yes, that was mentioned and I believe the language was changed before Carroll's attorney would sign off on the bond. It all happened without a hearing.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but I thought the point of the bond was to hold the money in escrow while the appeal moves forward, and that Carroll wouldn’t see any cash until the appeal is done.

That's always been my understanding. If Trump's loses on appeal or the Appellate Court trims the amount awarded Carroll then Chubb has to pay her and start proceedings to collect from Trump by liquidating assets Trump put up with Chubb. Now Chubb's letter is a little vague on when Carroll would be paid. However, they do not have to wait on Chubb to collect from OSG. I also assume that the appeal process can go higher up the chain. Hower interest would continue to accrue.

Any chance there will be a point where Chubb says "No more appeals, we're tired of seeing the amount rise" and revokes the bond? I can't imagine they'll just sit back and watch the total climb higher and higher from interest if trump gets shot down on appeal more than once.

The bond and the associated stay don't apply to appeals beyond the Second Circuit, i.e., to the Supreme Court. If Trump were to lose the appeal, he'd have to arrange separately to bond a continuation of the stay.

In any event, Chubb can't revoke the bond, no matter how long it takes for the appeal to be resolved. It is "held and firmly bound," unless, of course, the judgment is reversed.* However, its liability is capped at $91,630,000, referred to in the bond as the "Maximum Penal Sum." Thus Chubb doesn't need to worry about how much interest will accrue if the appeal lasts an unusually long time.

The $91,630,000 figure comes from what is apparently the practice of judges in the Southern District of New York to require a bond amount that is 110 percent of the judgment amount, as a rough allowance for the amount of interest that will accrue until the appeal is concluded. I imagine that sometimes this allowance is larger than necessary, sometimes not enough. Presumably the judgment creditor (here Carroll) can apply to the court for relief if it seems likely that a bond of 110% of the judgment amount will be seriously insufficient.

________
* There might be certain kinds of fraud that would excuse Chubb from its obligation, but I can't offhand imagine what they could be. The whole point of the surety bond is to prevent the judgment creditor from having to worry about the debtor's shenanigans. The Treasury Department regulates the list of approved sureties, to make sure that their staff has the expertise not to get hoodwinked by phony collateral and that their financial resources are sufficient to pay the liability if they do get hoodwinked (or if they accept insufficient collateral deliberately, for the sake of currying favor with Trump).

See SDNY Local Rule 65.1.1 ("every bond, undertaking or stipulation must be
secured by ... the undertaking or guaranty of a corporate surety holding a certificate of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury"). Federal Insurance Company (Chubb's surety business subsidiary) is listed by the Treasury Department as an acceptable surety on federal bonds, see https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/surety- ... anies.html.

Interestingly, Federal Insurance Company's underwriting limitation is shown in the list as $409,281,000. According to Bureau of Fiscal Services Circular 570 https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/surety- ... r-570.html,

the underwriting limitation published herein is on a per bond basis but this does not limit the amount of a bond that a company can write. Companies are allowed to write bonds with a penal sum over their underwriting limitation as long as they protect the excess amount with reinsurance, coinsurance or other methods as specified at 31 CFR 223.10-11.

This appears to mean that Chubb would not be allowed to write a bond for Trump's liability to NYS without enlisting a reinsurance company.

Thanks. After I posted that, it occurred to me that it would probably require a second bond for a second appeal, and the revocation question was probably in my head because I'm only familiar with relatively low criminal bonds. Thank you for the extended explanation.

https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/17 ... 7427575963

Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby
NEW from me and @GaryGrumbach: FL public records confirm that Trump used a Schwab brokerage account as collateral to obtain his $91.63 million bond through Chubb’s Federal Insurance Co. in the E. Jean Carroll case. 1/

Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby
The record — a Uniform Commercial Code filing dated March 7, 2024 — was filed by Chubb’s outside counsel, Akerman LLP, and lists two debtors: the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust (into which Trump’s assets roll up) and Donald J. Trump, Jr., one of the trustees. 2/

Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby
While the form does not indicate the value of the brokerage account, it does specify that all “financial assets credited to the account” are part of the collateral and invites any creditor to contact Akerman for more information.

Napoleon (the pig)
@Mark_in_Ohio
How do you know he is one of the trustees? in any event he is not listed as it here. When I do these on loans it would have specified he is the trustee (I understand you didn’t complete it).


Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby
Trump Jr.’s status as a trustee was discussed at length in the civil fraud trial, and since Allen Weisselberg’s resignation as a trustee, he is reportedly the sole trustee.

There's an image of the financing statement here: https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/17 ... 78/photo/1

UCC!!!

Are there red THUMBPRINTS?

IANAL, so please forgive me if this is a stupid question.

I sort of understand how a bail bond works in a criminal case. The defendant or a bail bond company puts up some or all of the amount of bail set by the judge. The defendant is released from custody. If the defendant shows up for trial, whoever posted the bond gets their money back or the asset pledged is released.

In a civil judgement like this, it appears to be a little different. I assume that the bond must be posted to assure that the judgement creditor (Ms. Carroll, in this case) can actually collect the amount owed.

If (when) TFG loses his appeals and actually has to pay the judgement, does Chubb pay it, or does TFG?

Is it more like an insurance policy that Trump took out, and, if he loses, the policy from Chubb will pay, and he is just out the premium he paid?

Or does Trump have to pay the judgement from his own assets, letting Chubb off the hook and pocketing the premium he paid.

For that matter, did Chubb have to actually deposit the $94M with the court, or is it just a binding contract to pay, in the event the OSG loses?