GOP fat cats trying to help Trump, but may run afoul of campaign donor laws:
Trump is selling ‘God Bless the USA’ Bibles
Are they printed upside down, or will he be holding them right way up this time?
Lawyers and courts work to deadlines.
James gave him 30 days to post the bond. She didn’t have to do that, apparently, but at the same time, public officials are required to consider procedural fairness. Trying to post a bond of half a billion dollars is not trivial. She gave him a reasonable amount of time to try to do so.
As a matter of due process, he was entitled to appeal the order to the court of appeals. He did so in a timely fashion, and James in turn filed her own submissions.
Drafting legal briefs on complex matters is not something that can be done easily overnight. Applicant files their brief, respondent gets to have time to review it and file their brief.
Then the court needs to take it under consideration. They don’t want to make a hasty decision, because there is a lot riding on it. They want to do what they think is the fairest result in the particular case, taking all the facts into account.
They in turn have to produce reasons in support of their decision, as a matter of due process. The parties and the public are entitled to know why the decision was reached, and also in case the matter goes on further appeal.
Taking 30 days to get a decision of this sort briefed, argued, and decided, strikes me as quick.
As for the merits of the decision, I don’t know anything about supersedeas bonds in the States. However, the one comment that I saw from Trump’s lawyers that I saw that made sense to me was that if he had to sell real estate to make bond, and then was successful on appeal, either entirely or in part, then he couldn’t just get those properties back. If he wins on appeal, he shouldn’t be in a worse financial position.
Neil Pedersen, the owner of the surety-bond agency Pedersen & Sons, told Business Insider that in his company’s 30-year history, he and his employees had handled thousands of bonds.
In that time, he’s heard of only about a couple dozen instances when a New York appeals court reduced an appeal bond — and those involved far lower judgments.
“It’s extremely rare,” Pedersen said.
I wondered about this very thing. Seems to me she could possibly just take a few token shares and probably send the stock plummeting as rumors and conspiracy theories swirl in the right wing-o-sphere about how the stock they’re holding onto is going to support the Deep State.
What’s also rare is a privately held company being required to post a bond of half a billion.
Which could be seen as a misuse of her authority as a public figure.
The court order is to punish Trump for his misconduct.
She cannot use that order to punish shareholders in a publicly traded company, by trying to damage the value of their shares and possibly the company’s long-term viability.
in listening to the podcast Prosecuting Donald Trump on Apple Podcasts ups and downs in new york. i learned the following:
he has 10 days to pay the lower bond. then team trump has to get the main brief in by july 8th, with the hearing in september.
this is considered wicked fast for the court. in the carroll case main briefs are due in 9 months.
speculation is that appellate court is thinking to keep the company (s) intact and fast track the appeal.
so by september this may be inches from conclusion.
That makes sense to me.
This stock is almost certainly going to crash all on its own, which is why NY State should stay as far away from it as possible. The value is entirely based on stupid people believing nonsense, and as you say, as soon as they stop believing in it, it will be worthless.
As encumbered as his properties may be, at least a physical building has some actual value, that they can eventually access.
Would there be any logical reason to assume that acquiring a few shares of Trump’s SPAC would cause a panic? Rational shareholders would never succumb to wild conspiracy theories and unfounded rumors. That wouldn’t be rational investor behavior one would expect to see in the market.
That was your hypothetical.
Right, and I’m no stock expert. The intent of the order is to punish Trump. So seizing some of his shares in that SPAC would certainly seem to satisfy the intent of that order - to the extent of whatever value that stock may have. James certainly doesn’t control the markets and if the stock coincidentally plummets she can always claim she was simply trying to satisfy the court’s mandate to, you know, punish Trump.
FWIW, I’ve started discussions of shorting DWAC/DJT via put options in two other threads, here and here.
I can see the class action from Truth Social shareholders already.
It would be fun to see in this specific instance, but a government actor willfully tanking a public stock to punish a single individual is a horrifying prospect.
Agreed. But you must admit the schadenfreude of seeing so many other bad actors hurt in the process would be quite satisfying…until the class action lawsuit NP references gets filed. Probably best to avoid it, though.
A gentle request: as much fun as it is to fantasize about drinking booze in celebration of Trump’s downfall, or to fantasize about the super funny things that the government could do to humiliate him, is there any chance those posts could be in a separate thread? This one is mostly interesting to me for legal analyses and news updates, and I’d love for that signal-to-noise ratio to be a little higher.
That’s an interesting point. I’m assuming it’s not a new argument, so maybe there’s a way to handle that situation, but if not, could he work out the deal to sell the property and put the money and property in escrow until the case is over, at which point either he gets his house back and the buyer gets their money back or if he doesn’t win the appeal the buyer gets the house and James gets the money?
That would be about as good as a bond, right?
I know nothing of these procedures, but I assumed that this situation was specifically what a bond was used for. In order to appeal, Trump could just post cash, if he has it; however, if he doesn’t have the cash, he arranges a bond with the real estate as collateral. In this way, only if he loses his appeal (appeals?) does he lose the real estate. If he wins on appeal, the real estate is untouched.
I suspect there’s at least one point I’m failing to understand here (if the Carroll bond was backed by cash, why would he need the bond?); but can I ask our experts, is the basic assumption a million miles off?
j