Generally, a marshal.
Exactly which marshal service depends on the court and the jurisdiction. In New York City, they are outside companies that are licensed and deputized by the court and they have the legal authority to enforce court orders such as eviction and repossession - if they need extra muscle they can call in the cops.
I can picture people lining up around the block for the privilege. Hehe.
Would depend on the exact terms of the clause. I’m just going by the articles like the one in Forbes that mentions that the clauses exist and could be triggered if Trump Org is indicted.
As for presumption of guilt, the lender can make it a term of the security arrangement that the debtor will comply with all applicable laws in relation to the secured property and will not by its conduct jeopardise its legal interest in the security property. The deal could then go on to state that the following things will constitute breach of that clause, such as attempts by the debtor to sell the asset, the debtor being indicted for activity in the management of the asset, etc.
Banks don’t care whether the debtor is innocent or guilty. They care about anything that jeopardises their security interest.
Filing a lawsuit like that doesn’t normally stay a court order. Failure to comply with the court order would be contempt. Banks get in trouble with regulators if they get found in contempt of court orders. If something like that happened, the bank would file an emergency application to the judge who issued the original order for clarification. I doubt that the second suit would survive for long. Courts are very sensitive to “collateral attacks” on their orders, where an unsuccessful litigant is seeking to avoid the order.
Remember this sweet case where Bank of America erroneously tried to foreclose on a couple that fully owned their home. The court ordered BOA to pay restitution, not even that much. BOA persistently ignored the court order.
The judge finally gave the couple a court order that allowed them (with the assistance of sheriff deputies in this jurisdiction) to rent a moving truck, go to the local BOA branch, and take stuff like computers and furnishings. BOA paid up immediately.
Oh, baby… that is sweet… 
A fraudulent preference, or a fraudulent conveyance, as such things are known. That’s a big no-no as far as the secured asset goes.
No surprise but I’m entirely with ThelmaLou here. Trump has a lifetime of skirting the law and (largely) getting away with it. Why is this time obviously different? Dopers are interpreting and predicting events in the most anti-Trump way, as we are want to do, but a lot of things have to go right before Trump pays any real penalty. The first thing that has to happen is get a conviction against the Trump org, a very complicated affair and by no means a foregone conclusion.
If people are just imagining about what might be, like dreaming about winning the lottery, then I’ll be there with you but I’m not expecting anything earth shattering to come from this.
Not necessarily. The Forbes article, and others that I’ve seen, have suggested that an indictment against the Trump Org may be sufficient to trigger the acceleration clauses. I dunno if that’s the case; all I know is what I read in the papers. Would depend on the exact terms of the security arrangment.
But if it is sufficient to trigger accelerator clauses, and I assume a business mag like Forbes has some idea what it’s talking about, then a conviction may not be necessary.
It’s a “stay-tuned” situation.
ETA: Increasingly, I find that I want to use the abbreviation, the “Trump Borg”.
I tend to agree that this indictment will not likely end with some kind of substantial punishment for Trump himself. I suspect the most likely outcome is a settlement in which the Trump org admits no wrong-doing, has to pay a large but not impossible fine, plus some other provisos about future oversight. Then Trump will send out an email and rake in $100M from his rubes/supporters, most of which will go directly into his pocket.
That said, because this is the first real criminal indictment against the Trump org, it’s not impossible that the prospect of jail time might induce Weisselberg to flip, and then anything could happen. That’s what really different this time.
No matter what else, I would think that the indictments will expose the true organization underneath the Trump Collective. Every time they try to dodge, they will have to detail exactly what the relationship between one part of the Collective and another. The AG will be on every bit of that like a terrier.
Wonder if DJT is a bit more concerned about Deutsche Bank loans that appears to have laundered money from Putin. Putin doesn’t collect by foreclosing on your assets, he forecloses on your ass. The direct approach as it where.
Sadly, this.
No one will care except those of us who already don’t like him and think he’s a crook. His MAGAts and other Republicans will consider him a martyr and victim.
To what end?
Yeah, I realize I’m like a bitter little terrier with a bone myself on this subject.
I’m in a hurry to get out the door just now so can’t find a cite, but I recall not that long ago an article where Deutsche Bank made it clear that they wished to foreclose on Trump’s loans as soon as possible. They felt his reputation on the global stage had made him a liability.
I had the impression they hoped to call the loans if he lost his bid for the presidency. If they haven’t already, I expect they soon will. (stifled chortle)
And I may win the Mass vax lottery. I know we’re all just speculating and working out possibilities but I think we’re setting ourselves up for a Mueller-sized let-down.
Are they overdue?
I though DB was just looking to either have them paid off or sold off to distance themselves from Trump (and all the scrutiny he brings) ASAP. I didn’t think he was delinquent in paying them, although I doubt DB will be inclined to extend any deadlines.
I don’t think this is a likely outcome, mostly because I believe that Vance is going after Trump. My own pulled-out-of-my-ass guess is that this case is leverage to get people like Weisselberg to testify about other things.
This looks a little more extensive than I was expecting based on yesterday, but I’m not entirely sure. Is it all still just about things like giving no-cost apartments to executives? Or is there more?
A couple of non-paywalled sources
and
(Actually I don’t think they add that much to @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness 's post)
j
Can a gag order be far behind? And how quickly would Individual One violate it?
(Thanks to @silenus for the link in the Citizen Trump thread.)