Looks like Trump found a new delaying tactic.
If the bond hearing (When is it again? I’ve lost track) determines that this doesn’t pass muster, shouldn’t Trump immediately be found to have failed to post the bond, and therefore be subject to immediate asset forfeiture?
But whaddaya wanna bet, the hearing will find this “bond” insufficient but give Trump another 10-day extension?
All it’s missing is a footnote saying:
“In the certain event Trump does not pay, we will all have a hearty laugh at the expense of New York State.”
Thanks. So even if this “bond” is nothing but bullshit, he bought himself almost a month’s delay.
I just looked at a supersedes bond we got last week in one of our cases. Both the surety and the principal promised that the payment would be made. In Trump’s case, the surety is promising that Trump will pay. Slightly different. Maybe that’s the NY way. I don’t know.
The Daily Beast article appears to be paywalled, but here’s an excerpt:
So, unless the Daily Beast really screwed up on their homework here …
Maybe promising that “Trump will pay” means they’re on the hook if he doesn’t. As I stated, it’s not the type of appeal bond I’ve seen before. Looks fishy, but we’ll need a New York lawyer to weigh in (and I don’t think we have one of those here). I guess the Judge will set us straight soon enough.
ETA: If this is a sham “bond,” then I’m without words. Major screw up or intentional deception. You choose.
Literally the opposite of what a bond actually is, right?
I would have thought, regardless of the agreement between a bond company and their client, the agreement between the bond company and the courts would still require the bond company to pay if/when the time comes.
I wonder if Trump got this wording into the agreement specifically so that if/when he loses, it’ll start another round of lawsuits to decide who has to pay whom. Knowing nothing about how these work, I feel like Knight is going to be on the hook for the full amount and it’ll be their problem to collect it.
This appears to be at least part of the language from the (Chubb) Bond in Trump’s E. Jean Carroll case:
This … is what I would expect it to look like.
This what we see in our cases. Now, the Carroll verdict was Federal Court. Maybe, just maybe, New York state courts like it different. We’ll see.
Very good point.
Trump sounds like he doesn’t relish the idea of his day in court, where the prosecution has the grand burden of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Odd. Seems odd.
Almost like he… knows something.
Can’t it be both?
Major screwup of their intentional deception. Sounds right to me.
I would think - and hope - so. IMO generally court deadlines are pretty rigid. I mean, you can readily request extensions ahead of time, and in the courts I practiced they were generally granted. At least the first one of limited time. And other courts would accept filings a day or 2 late - instanter. But that was just for filing pleadings. And only certain pleadings. For others, a day late is SOL.
But I have a hard time imagining a court saying it is just fine and dandy for someone to attempt a shady maneuver around a clear requirement, and just give them more time to make it right. You’ve got the blowhard claiming he had enough cash in the cushions of his couch! And it ain’t as tho he NEEDS to be allowed to post a bond to protect his rights.
Besides, there is another party whose rights warrant consideration…
But they already have! This bond was due a week ago, but now nothing happens until April 22 at the earliest.
Unless some sort of additional penalty is levied for the failed bond (and not being a lawyer, I have no idea if that’s even a thing), Trump will have earned yet another free delay.
Yep. They already gave him 10 days after the first botched bond submittal.
It appears that the bond posting was fraudulent. You can often get away with a certain amount of fraud in the business world, especially if you can threaten complainers with scary-looking lawyers. Defrauding a court is probably another matter entirely, and Individual-ONE’s lawyers are more pathetic than scary. I would expect Knight and Mr. Hankey are in a perilous position.
Question born of ignorance: is there any way for Engoron to say something along the lines of, “Okay, people, forget the 22nd: in light of the latest revelations I want everyone in court Wednesday, 8 am sharp, to show cause why forfeiture proceedings should not commence forthwith.”?