Donald Trump was ordered to pay more than $450 million in damages in a civil business fraud lawsuit lodged by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
    • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
      301·
      7 months ago

      So can we all use this as precedent to skirt the law? "See mister Trump got a reduction on his bond, can I get it too?

      They’ll laugh in our face, because those laws are only for the poor.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
        121·
        7 months ago

        can we all use this

        You can certainly try. Bond reductions are rare, but this is not the first time it’s happened

        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.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        11·
        7 months ago

        Good lawyers can be good at stalling. If that’s your only priority, they can do a decent job of it. Even better if you can find any kind of complications for the court to deal with. A particularly good complication is being the Republican nominee for president, if you can manage that.

        He’s just trying to stall until election season to claim it’s all politically motivated and use it in his campaign.

        • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
          5·
          7 months ago

          Yeah and that’s the annoying thing. If you or I are in trouble in court it’s likely in our benefit if things are settled quickly, if only to minimise billable hours for our lawyer. It’s only the very rich that really benefit from drawn out procedures.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
      561·
      7 months ago

      Letitia James challenged the validity of the bond roughly two weeks ago.

      The challenge does not harm Trump’s bond but makes it so that the insurance company will need to show proof that they can pay it.

      Trump’s lawyers responded last week.

      Now she is preparing to argue before a judge that their response is inadequate.

      The hearing will be on Monday.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
          61·
          7 months ago

          No, he is only required to attend criminal trials.

          The appeal bond is part of a civil case, not criminal. And appeals are not trials, so attendance is not required.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        331·
        7 months ago

        Well, I mean…they’ve committed fraud at this point by submitting a false bond to the court. I don’t see how they could stall at all.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
          151·
          7 months ago

          they’ve committed fraud at this point

          Not quite. At this point Letitia James is arguing that the bond is no good, but a judge hasn’t yet ruled on whether she is right.

          If and when that happens, there will be less room to stall.

  • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
    27·
    7 months ago

    How does one get a 175 million fake bail bond? Like, the magnitude of scale alone is insane, but they tried to fake it?!

    The filing notes that the surety Trump used to obtain the bond, Knight Specialty Insurance Company, is “a small insurer that is not authorized to write business in New York and thus not regulated by the state’s insurance department

    I can see why they are concerned. Nearly 200 million is no joke. This would wreck a smaller company if 200 million was needed immediately. And Trump doesn’t exactly owe this company his alliance.

    Even though “Hank” the owner of the company, is a billionaire in CA from car loans and rental properties. Most of his assets are tied to properties that will not be easy to sell on the spot (Eviction usually takes at least a month), or on car loans that take time to accumulate in value.

    On a non logical note: He isn’t exactly the most trustworthy either…

    In October 2015, Westlake Financial (Owned by Hank) was ordered by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to provide $44.1 million dollars in consumer relief for engaging in illegal debt collection practices. Westlake Financial and its affiliate Wilshire Consumer Credit deceived borrowers into thinking they were being called by repossession companies, other third parties, or even the borrowers’ own family and friends. The Bureau also found that the companies unlawfully disclosed information about borrowers’ debts to employers, family, and friends.

    So lying to get what they want isn’t off the table in this case either.