Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Court Orders NY AG to Withdraw Letter Saying $464 Million Trump Bond Not ‘Impossible’

Posted on 3/23/24 at 4:57 pm
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
118853 posts
Posted on 3/23/24 at 4:57 pm
quote:

Shortly after New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a letter asking the New York Supreme Court to “not consider“ that the $464 million bond former President Donald Trump needs to post to keep his assets from being seized is a ”practical impossibility,” the court ordered her to remove it.
The letter was attached to a request to file a surreply—a reply to a reply—which generally isn’t done unless the court grants express permission.

In a March 21 letter, the defense argued that, predictably, the letter received widespread media coverage even though it was “improperly filed” and taken down the same day, refiled with only the request and no letter.

“The Court may draw its own conclusions about the propriety of this maneuver. In doing so, the Court is ‘not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free,’” the defense wrote, urging the court to deny the attorney general’s request.

In the original letter, Ms. James had asked the court not to accept the testimonies of a Trump attorney and broker who detailed the efforts they'd gone through in trying to obtain a $464 million bond, claiming they were unreliable sources. The defense faulted the state for not providing any “reason to doubt any of their assertions,” however, and only making a blanket statement.

“While attempting to cynically and wrongfully tar the Defendants’ witnesses as ‘unreliable,’ the Attorney General does not actually dispute the truth of a single one of their specific claims,” the defense’s letter reads.


The sworn affidavits submitted revealed that the defense had sought out the large bond since before final judgment was entered—raising the fine from $250 million to more than $350 million during the last days of trial—and that negotiations by four brokers with 30-plus surety companies still resulted in no deal. One of the brokers provided additional context, saying a $100 million bond was considered large and a $464 million bond (which includes the ordered interest) is something few sureties have the ability to issue and would issue only for large publicly traded companies.
The attorney general had argued that these affidavits still didn’t provide enough information on why the defendants had been turned down, suggesting that Trump Organization assets aren’t as valuable as the defense claims.

The defense sought to rebut several such details in the March 21 letter to the court, arguing that the state was wrong in its assertion that the defendants didn’t spend enough time trying to obtain a bond, arguing they had undergone critical negotiations just this past week and that efforts were ongoing even while the defense tried to obtain a stay.




LINK
Posted by idlewatcher
County Jail
Member since Jan 2012
79203 posts
Posted on 3/23/24 at 5:09 pm to
Explain this to me like I’m Mad Maxine’s poolboy
Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
34211 posts
Posted on 3/23/24 at 5:14 pm to
quote:

Explain this to me like I’m Mad Maxine’s poolboy


It would seem as though the letter illustrates her attempt to put something in place that Trump could not possibly do.

Then the court said, hey, take that terminology out, but leave the parameters in place.

So, if I understood this correctly, it is collusion between the court and the AG to get the orange man.
Posted by Amblin
Member since Sep 2011
2570 posts
Posted on 3/23/24 at 5:41 pm to
quote:

So, if I understood this correctly, it is collusion between the court and the AG to get the orange man.


Has been from the beginning.
Posted by TDTOM
Member since Jan 2021
14596 posts
Posted on 3/23/24 at 5:45 pm to
I would like clarification as to what all this means. Preferably not from a TDS ridden attorney.
Posted by SCLibertarian
Conway, South Carolina
Member since Aug 2013
36089 posts
Posted on 3/23/24 at 5:54 pm to
quote:

I would like clarification as to what all this means. Preferably not from a TDS ridden attorney.


quote:

The letter was attached to a request to file a surreply—a reply to a reply—which generally isn’t done unless the court grants express permission.

She essentially filed a surreply without leave of the court. Just further proof that this woman doesn't think the law applies to her.
Posted by TDTOM
Member since Jan 2021
14596 posts
Posted on 3/23/24 at 5:55 pm to
So, this really isn't a big deal?
Posted by SCLibertarian
Conway, South Carolina
Member since Aug 2013
36089 posts
Posted on 3/23/24 at 5:57 pm to
Not a big deal at all imo.
Posted by CajunTiger78
Member since Aug 2017
2528 posts
Posted on 3/25/24 at 8:51 am to
Any news yet on if he will pay the bond?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram