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.bob wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 6:22 pmIn 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.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?
So, for example, a court deadline for today would not kick in until COB tomorrow (Monday).
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
-
- Posts: 466
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:59 pm
- Occupation: Chief Blame Officer
- Verified: ✅ as vaguely humanoid
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
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."
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."
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
Would laugh if he can't even find the 175 million in ten days.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.
Philly Boondoggle
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
So, how long is the appeal likely to take?
-
- Posts: 466
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:59 pm
- Occupation: Chief Blame Officer
- Verified: ✅ as vaguely humanoid
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
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......
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......
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
Turned MSNBC on just as this was announced. It's the perfect example of a two-tiered justice system.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
-
- Posts: 2220
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:13 pm
- Location: England
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
My first reaction was WTF but on reflection it seems only proper that the judiciary do not prejudice the rights of the future President.
If you can't lie to yourself, who can you lie to?
- bill_g
- Posts: 6757
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:52 pm
- Location: Portland OR
- Occupation: Retired (kind of)
- Verified: ✅ Checked Republic ✓ ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
He'll pout until it's zero.
And then he'll try to get mileage out of his negotiating skills.
And then he'll try to get mileage out of his negotiating skills.
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
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.
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
Yep. A friend paid the entire $25 million trump university fraud penalty for him.
Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest. - Mark Twain
- John Thomas8
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:42 pm
- Location: Central NC
- Occupation: Tech Support
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
I'm still convinced he'll slither out from under any actual consequences.
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
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.John Thomas8 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:02 pm I'm still convinced he'll slither out from under any actual consequences.
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
“Trump insists he’s “allowed” to take foreign money to pay his bond.”
a potential emolument?
a potential emolument?
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
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.
-
- Posts: 4412
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
- Location: Down here!
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
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???
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
If the trial and the verdict are election interference, then paying the bond should be a campaign contribution.
I kid, but only just.
I kid, but only just.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
- Slim Cognito
- Posts: 7277
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
- Location: Too close to trump
- Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
- Verified: ✅
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
Which is why he needs to face plant permanently, the sooner the better. Of natural causes, of course.
x5
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 8:58 pmWhich is why he needs to face plant permanently, the sooner the better. Of natural causes, of course.
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
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.
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
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.
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.
- Foggy
- Dick Tater
- Posts: 10977
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
- Location: Fogbow HQ
- Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
- Verified: Inventor of flag baseball
State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization
He can't come up with a $175 million bond.
I'm Foggy and I forget if I approved this message.