Trump’s Cali repo guy offered to provide “impossible” $454 bond

[pdq]

…and Trump’s lawyers didn’t tell the appellate court.

ProPublica:

Former President Donald Trump’s…lawyers had told the appellate court it was a “practical impossibility” to get a bond for the full amount of the lower court’s judgment, $464 million. All of the 30 or so firms Trump had approached balked, either refusing to take the risk or not wanting to accept real estate as collateral, they said. That made raising the full amount “an impossible bond requirement.”

But before the judges ruled, the impossible became possible: A billionaire lender approached Trump about providing a bond for the full amount.

… In an interview with ProPublica, billionaire California financier Don Hankey said he reached out to Trump’s camp several days before the bond was lowered, expressing willingness to offer the full amount and to use real estate as collateral.

When Hankey realized this put Trump’s lawyers in trouble for presenting a lie to the appeals court, he changed his story, saying well, you know, it would have been complicated, blah, blah, blah…but then he covered the lowered $175M bond amount.

So what? Well,

New York state’s rules of professional conduct for lawyers… dictate that lawyers must “correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made” to the court.

…which they haven’t. Because then they’d have to explain why they had an offer in hand and let the appeals judges think it was “impossible”.

[Said] Ellen Yaroshefsky, a professor of legal ethics at Hofstra Law…“Any judge is going to be furious that this wasn’t corrected,” she said.

Well, this is Trump, so we’ll see if IOKIYT.

But there are more problems, in the next post.

[pdq]

Daily Beast:

First and foremost, the bond posted specifies, in print, something that kind of defeats the whole concept of a bond.

Buried in the typical legalese of the contract is the phrase: “Knight Specialty Insurance Company… does hereby… undertake that if the judgment… is dismissed… Donald J. Trump… shall pay… the sum directed.”

In other words: If Trump loses the case, Trump will pay. But that’s no different than Trump’s obligation before the bond was issued.

Bonds are supposed to be a third party showing that (in exchange for a fee), they will take the risk of paying if forfeiture occurs. This bond says Trump will pay (Good luck squeezing blood out of that onion!) - just don’t expect us to.

Hell, I could write that kind of “bond”.

(That may be why Hankey charged Trump an unusually small amount. How small? Hankey won’t say, but he said it was because it was “low risk”. Which it was, since the bond exempts Hankey from paying if Trump loses!)

Also, the article linked above points out, the bond company isn’t licensed in New York or California, and it’s questionable that the company would be able to pay anyway.

So. A bond the unlicensed issuer might not be able to cover, if he had to pay, which the bond says he doesn’t.

These problems have not gone… unnoticed. Next post.

[pdq]

Legal experts and Newsweek say yes:

Writing on X, formerly Twitter, one-time federal prosecutor Lisann wrote that Knight Speciality might not be able to post the bond for Trump and will be liable for the full amount because it had given a guarantee to the court.

"Looks like there is a real possibility that this Don Hankey-owned Knight Specialty Insurance does not itself have liquidity, and did not get from Trump collateral, sufficient to provide legally cognizable assurance that it can pay $175 million on demand in the event of a judgment-affirming appeal," he said.

… "Understand that Knight Specialty has a problem. This bond cannot be approved. Under the CPLR [Civil Practice Laws and Rules] the surety will remain obligated under the bond until a replacement bond is filed. Trump is unlikely to get a replacement bond. Knight Spec will be liable AND Trump won't have a stay [on enforcement]," [lawyer Dave Kingman] wrote.

Well, I’m not holding my breath on this one. But like most things Trumpian, this bond-that-wouldn’t-pay is just kinda scammy, and that may not be enough to keep Letitia James at bay.

We’ll see.

[Mr645]

Bernie Madoff steals $20 billion, causes foundations, banks to fail, financial devastation for thousand of people.
$10 million bond


Trump takes out mortgages, pays them back, no banks lose money, Banks lawyers testify on Trumps behalf. $450 million bond

Perfect example of fascism

[DeusxMac]

Mr645 wrote:
Perfect example of fascism

Define “”Fascism” (if you can), and explain how this is an “example”.

[JoeH]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=Mr645]
Perfect example of fascism

Define “”Fascism” (if you can), and explain how this is an “example”.
Especially taking into account that most of the examples given for 45 are false.

[GGD]

Mr645 wrote:
Bernie Madoff steals $20 billion, causes foundations, banks to fail, financial devastation for thousand of people.
$10 million bond

On March 12, 2009, Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 federal crimes and admitted to operating the largest Ponzi scheme in history.[5][6] On June 29, 2009, he was sentenced to 150 years in prison, the maximum sentence allowed, with restitution of $170 billion. He died in prison in 2021.

Not much similar between the two at the moment, but maybe as things progress we'll see similarities.

[Mr645]

JoeH wrote:
[quote=DeusxMac]
[quote=Mr645]
Perfect example of fascism

Define “”Fascism” (if you can), and explain how this is an “example”.
Especially taking into account that most of the examples given for 45 are false.
Using the courts, congress and the media to silence political rivals. Ignoring facts and objective views. Changing voting laws to favor one politics party. Calling opposing points of view "Hate speech" and allowing certain groups to be violent without consequences

[Rick-o]

Hey 645, do you think your idol, the orange one, is innocent of all the what, 90 something charges against him? Because, it sure sounds like you think he is innocent with the crap you spew here. :dunno:

[DeusxMac]

Mr645 wrote:
[quote=JoeH]
[quote=DeusxMac]
[quote=Mr645]
Perfect example of fascism

Define “”Fascism” (if you can), and explain how this is an “example”.
Especially taking into account that most of the examples given for 45 are false.
Using the courts, congress and the media to silence political rivals. Ignoring facts and objective views. Changing voting laws to favor one politics party. Calling opposing points of view "Hate speech" and allowing certain groups to be violent without consequences
Nope, that’s NOT the definition of Fascism; which explains why you repeatedly toss the term out without any validity.