Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

babylonsister

(171,066 posts)
Tue Mar 26, 2024, 11:18 AM Mar 26

Reducing the Bond was not "Rich Man's Privilege" [View all]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/3/25/2231510/-Reducing-the-Bond-was-not-Rich-Man-s-Privilege

Reducing the Bond was not "Rich Man's Privilege"
Monday, March 25, 2024 at 4:25:00p EDT
Andrew F. Cockburn



I am bummed out that the trump organization isn’t heading into bankruptcy today. That doesn’t mean the decision was a bad one.

Putting up a bond during appeal is to make sure the losing party (or their money) doesn’t disappear during the delay between the initial judgement and losing the appeal. For example, suppose you win a judgement against me for $10,000 (that cocaine was really powdered sugar). If I appeal and skip town you are out of luck without a bond. Instead, I have to come up with enough money that if I lose the appeal you automatically get your award. If I win the appeal I get the bond money back and you get nothing. The point isn’t to screw me; it is to make sure you are protected because the assumption is you have won the case.

Does the State of New York need to have the full amount of the bond to make sure the trumps pay up if they lose their appeal? Could the trumps sell all their property and move the money to a secret Swiss bank account? Absolutely not.

During the trial Judge Engoron appointed a special master, former judge Barbara Jones, to oversee all of the trump businesses. After the judgement he increased her powers. Nothing can be done in the companies without her approval. They can’t sell properties, transfer assets out of state, or buy a spare roll of toilet paper without going through her. She has complete control of the vast bulk of their assets. There is no need for a bond to protect the state.

In addition the Attorney General’s office has also placed liens on several of their properties. That is going to effectively stop them from being sold or mortgaged.

The appellate court did treat the trumps differently than the average person. They wouldn’t have reduced my hypothetical $10,000 bond. But that is because the trumps had already been treated differently by Engoron. He knew he was dealing with a cabal of crooked scumbags and had put the protection in place in advance. If the full judgement holds up on appeal the money will be there for the state to collect.
38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 26 #1
People wanted the bond to be a punishment ripcord Mar 26 #3
Correction: he has a right to appeal even if he doesn't post bond. Goodheart Mar 26 #5
We all wanted to see a padlock on Trump Tower yesterday. Too good to be true! LeftInTX Mar 26 #14
+1. important to emphasize that the purpose of the bond is NOT stopdiggin Mar 26 #17
I disagree... Think. Again. Mar 26 #28
Gawker was required to have a full bond in its verdict and thus was forced to go under dsc Mar 26 #4
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 26 #8
Gawker likely had different assets IbogaProject Mar 26 #21
Thank you for posting this common-sense explanation of a situation Ocelot II Mar 26 #2
Recommend. onecaliberal Mar 26 #6
Hmmmm.... that doesn't explain why the Appeals Court reduced the amount of the bond. Goodheart Mar 26 #7
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 26 #12
+1. also quite relevant. and important to how this perceived. stopdiggin Mar 26 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author MichMan Mar 26 #16
it rather does. stopdiggin Mar 26 #13
No, it really doesn't. Goodheart Mar 26 #20
Bingo, gab13by13 Mar 26 #33
The 5 Judge panel that reduced the bond are all Democrats appointed by a Democratic governor MichMan Mar 26 #36
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 30 #38
Why not $189.95? kiri Mar 26 #27
or $465 million? Think. Again. Mar 26 #29
Taking it down to the last millisecond... lame54 Mar 26 #9
Didn't know that the court had to approve every single expenditure including a roll of toilet paper MichMan Mar 26 #10
weighing in with a "thank you" as well stopdiggin Mar 26 #11
Appreciate this levelheadedness Sympthsical Mar 26 #18
No, it is not. OldBaldy1701E Mar 26 #19
Anyone else in this country MorbidButterflyTat Mar 26 #23
"We hold these truths to be self-evident.. OldBaldy1701E Mar 26 #37
"Crucify me if you wish." I can tell you are a fan of hyperbole. emulatorloo Mar 26 #26
Yeah sure. While the special master was supposedly watching the criminal enterprise, trump laundered $40 million. Comfortably_Numb Mar 26 #22
Link? MorbidButterflyTat Mar 26 #25
Here you go. This has been awhile so I thought it was public domain... Comfortably_Numb Mar 26 #32
I'm not understanding yourproblem ripcord Mar 26 #35
Your explantion makes sense of course. totodeinhere Mar 26 #24
The amount was more in line with the reduction that could be expected on appeal Warpy Mar 26 #30
It is privilege angrychair Mar 26 #31
The explanation doesn't make sense gab13by13 Mar 26 #34
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Reducing the Bond was not...