Normally, yes, but this is Donald Trump. I’ve known a few surety bondsmen, and knowing them and how their business works, none of them would touch him with a ten-foot-pole. If one did, they would ask for their fee up front, in cash (no negotiation, sorry Donnie), and they would warn him that if he caused them to pay out, they would come after him with everything they had. And they can be vicious, if they need to be, when subrogating.
Best for the surety underwriters to just stay away. Sorry, Donnie.
So, how does the seizing assets thing work, exactly? If I seize something that an independent appraiser says should be worth $10 million, but due to circumstances, I can only sell it for $5 million, does that count as 10 or 5 against the balance owing?
Because you know anything Trump-related is going to go for steep discounts at this point.
EJC gets money. Stuff gets seized and sold until she gets that amount of money. If Trump wants to prioritize what gets sold off to pay EJC, he can put forward a proposal. What he can’t do is “not pay”.
Obviously if he is negotiating with bonds people he is going to be negotiating from a position of severe weakness and they would be demanding eyewatering funds and securities, but that to me Is all the more reason why three extra days trying to set it all up might conceivably be useful.
I’ve wondered before, but it apparently never came up, so I just kept kicking the query to the back of my mind–back porch of it, really. Now that we have someone as low as Trump polluting the realm of jurisprudence, that question shot straight to the front step.
If someone wants a lawyer but cannot afford one, the court appoints a lawyer. If a person can afford a lawyer, he hires one. Trump, though, has entered a new twilight zone here. What if someone wants a lawyer, can afford one, but no lawyer will accept him as a client? Does the court order one of the attorneys admitted to the bar in that jurisdiction to take the case?
For criminal cases, probably. For civil, no. A federal judge once called me up (quite a shock) and asked me to represent a guy who had 26 co-defendants. Almost everyone in town had a conflict of some sort. The judge was happy to have the gov’t pay for my services, even though the defendant was not technically indigent. He just wanted the case to keep moving.
In a criminal case the court will appoint a lawyer if, and only if, the defendant provides sufficient proof that s/he is indigent.
Outside of some narrow exceptions, such as cases involving potential loss of a civil right (e.g., mental health commitment), I don’t believe courts appoint attorneys. In any case, I can’t see Trump being able or willing to prove indigency.
ETA: Procrustus beat me to it but I’ll leave this up anyway.
But Jackson is no longer a retired admiral. The Navy demoted him in July 2022 following a damaging Pentagon inspector general’s report that substantiated allegations about his inappropriate behavior as a White House physician
Jackson is now a retired Navy captain, those people said — a demotion that carries significant financial burden in addition to the social stigma of stripped rank in military circles.
Only in criminal cases, and only if the defendant is at any risk of prison or jail, if convicted.
I find it impossible to believe that in this great republic, with plenty of ambitious and/or unprincipled lawyers yearning for their moment in the media spotlight, Trump won’t be able to find someone who’ll represent him, even given his well-established past unwillingness to pay for services rendered.
As for quality of counsel, though, all bets are off.
Well, just one level, from rear admiral (lower half)(the goofiest rank in the entire U.S. military IMHO; they used to be called commodores) to captain, from O-7 to O-6. But it’s a world away in terms of prestige, and probably his pension, too.