Letitia James Issues 10-Day Ultimatum to Company That Guaranteed Trump’s $175M Bond

Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
and all the banks got bailed out to the tune of billions just a few years ago.

what;s your point?

the credit business is crooked?
Click to expand...

My point was clear. Yours was ridiculous. They are committing to an enormous bond. Can you understand that much? The court merely requires that they show they actually have the money. Is that hard for you to follow? They also have to do the paperwork meeting binding requirements. Take time and think about it. Perhaps you can find someone to explain it to you.
 
Nordberg said:
My point was clear. Yours was ridiculous. They are committing to an enormous bond. Can you understand that much? The court merely requires that they show they actually have the money. Is that hard for you to follow? They also have to do the paperwork meeting binding requirements. Take time and think about it. Perhaps you can find someone to explain it to you.
Click to expand...

didn't they already accept it?
 
QP! said:
NO.

Every bonding company in NYS (any State) MUST provide certain documents PROVING they are sufficient liquid, to provide a Bond, so that any loss in Appellate Court where the bond is to paid is not met with a bankruptcy claim by the Bond company.

This company put up the Bond, which is solely a piece of paper (promissory note) that they can and will pay, but DID NOT provide ANY of the required documentation substantiating it.

This is why E Jean's lawyer got to review and approve the Bond provided by Chubb Insurance, as the WINNER in the case always gets the burden put on them to review and dispute the bond,m if insufficient, to protect their winnings.

Of course with a giant Insurance company like Chubb, who is in the business of doing Bonds in NYS regularly, your diligence need is small. With a derp firm, like the one backing Trump here, who does NOT have a history of doing bonds in NYS, Letisha has to push them to provide all diligence, or if they do not and declare bankruptcy when it is time to pay, that is on her.
Click to expand...

i'm going to ask again. If the COURT ordered that the bond be paid before appeal and the bond needs to be paid to the court, why is it not incumbent upon the court to confirm that the bond supplier is legal?
 
LurchAddams said:
And yet James is on the job now. What are you going to do about it?
Click to expand...

in other words, you don't care if the law is being followed or not, just that a Democrat is weaponizing the government to go after trump.

It's a shame you have all this hate for someone who is never going to know that you existed.
 
signalmankenneth said:
Former President Donald Trump narrowly avoided having his assets seized by New York Attorney General Letitia James last month after posting a $175 million bond at the last minute. But now, James is demanding clarity from the company that guaranteed it.

Axios reported Thursday that James' office recently filed a motion to compel either Trump's lawyers or the Knight Specialty Insurance Company (KSIC) to prove that it is financially able to comply with the conditions of the bond. Her motion gives both entities a 10-day deadline to "justify the surety" of the bond, or prove it can actually pay the bond amount. It remains unclear what actions James would take after the 10-day deadline. Presumably she could demand the court revoke the previous agreement and demand the full $464 million bond.

According to CBS News, KSIC is not registered with the state's Department of Financial Services, and the bond paperwork notably did not include a power of attorney authorization for the bond provider, nor did it include a financial statement from KSIC showing it was capable of shouldering the $175 million burden.

"In all the years I've been doing this, you always have to have a certificate from the Department of Financial Services saying that you're licensed to issue a surety bond," attorney Bruce Lederman, who has experience filing bonds in the Empire State, told CBS.

The chairman of KSIC is Don Hankey, who is a billionaire Trump supporter involved in the subprime auto loan industry. the New Republic reported this week that Hankey "carved out his $7.4 billion fortune" through "predatory practices, targeting low-income customers with high-interest auto loans." And the New York bond is not the first time Hankey has used his wealth on the former president's behalf.

"Hankey is also believed to be the largest shareholder in Axos Financial, according to MSNBC’s Lisa Rubin — a financial institution that, in 2022, refinanced more than $50 million of Trump's loans on Trump Tower and Trump National Doral Miami, according to documents filed with the Office of Government Ethics," the New Republic's Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling wrote.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread...-to-company-that-guaranteed-trump-s-175m-bond

4lgwas.jpg
Click to expand...

Using the justice system to butt fuck people. How leftist of her
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
didn't it accept the bond already?

isn't this outside the standards and norms?
Click to expand...
NO.

Iti s a conditional acceptance, just like your offer on a HOuse is accepted conditionally.

Then the diligence begins to verify what you put forth.

The Court requires certain documentary proof to be filled which they will review, and if it is not the court will demand that proof and reject the bond, if not provided.

SmarterthanYou said:
i'm going to ask again. If the COURT ordered that the bond be paid before appeal and the bond needs to be paid to the court, why is it not incumbent upon the court to confirm that the bond supplier is legal?
Click to expand...
See above. As yes the court does tick certain boxes based on documentation submission only. Meaning they trust what it is filled with them to be accurate and true as it would be criminal fraud to lie to them.

BUt what the Court DOES NOT do any diligence, beyond trusting the documents, about the lender. That burden is pushed on to the WINNER of the case. They get the last sign off that they either accept the Bond Providing company or they do not trust them. If they do not trust them, they can dispute it and fight for more info.

Remember the majority of bonds are not giant ones provided by big insurance companies. Many are provided by small local Pawn Shops and other such businesses. I think the majority of bonds, across middle america are by Pawn shops and Pay Day lender type operations.
 
QP! said:
NO.

Every bonding company in NYS (any State) MUST provide certain documents PROVING they are sufficient liquid, to provide a Bond, so that any loss in Appellate Court where the bond is to paid is not met with a bankruptcy claim by the Bond company.

This company put up the Bond, which is solely a piece of paper (promissory note) that they can and will pay, but DID NOT provide ANY of the required documentation substantiating it.

This is why E Jean's lawyer got to review and approve the Bond provided by Chubb Insurance, as the WINNER in the case always gets the burden put on them to review and dispute the bond,m if insufficient, to protect their winnings.

Of course with a giant Insurance company like Chubb, who is in the business of doing Bonds in NYS regularly, your diligence need is small. With a derp firm, like the one backing Trump here, who does NOT have a history of doing bonds in NYS, Letisha has to push them to provide all diligence, or if they do not and declare bankruptcy when it is time to pay, that is on her.
Click to expand...

Don't you just LOVE how the MAGA morons are soiling their diapers over this? They don't know shit about bonds and the justice system so they make shit up.
At least they're consistent.

tenor.gif

iu
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so the court can order all kinds of things to happen, but relies on other entities to do the legwork?
Click to expand...

Correct.

Just because the Court decided who is right or wrong, does not mean they want to administer every single step. And they should not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top