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

[Into the Night]

Citation?

There is no citation for a negative, Sock. Attempted force of negative argument fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

And he will never produce any facts



He’s lying

Learn what 'fact' means. 'Fact' does NOT mean 'proof' or 'Holy Link'.

 

[Into the Night]

Donnie is fucked



He had to fake posting bond to revisit the case he lost

He hasn't lost.
He did not fake anything. DEMOCRATS did!

 

[Into the Night]

He rattled your Russian petticoat huh Natasha

I am not Russian, Sock. Putin supports DEMOCRATS.

 

[Walt]

The Bonding company has already verified this

It is not a standard bonding company, so not already verified.

The court has no authority to select the bonding company

The court has every right to reject a bonding company.

She has no legal action she can take.

She can reject the bond, and then the judge has to decide. The lack of providing evidence would weigh heavily against trump.

 

[Kamala Trump]

No, the but insurance company is required to show they can cover payoffs before getting licensed.
Same with bond companies.

they do?

what's that process?

 

[Kamala Trump]

They don’t have the authority to do bonds in Ny you moldy ass insect

they're not a bond company or what, douchegranny?

 

[Kamala Trump]

My insurance company is registered to do business in my state and they attest they have the assets to cover those they insure and the state also has a fund in case the insurance company can't pay like they claim. The AG of my state also has the ability to charge them with fraud if they lied about their assets. It would be illegal for an insurance company not registered in my state to sell me insurance.

In this case, the bond company is not registered to do business in NY so there is no way for the state to know if they meet the legal requirements of the state laws and regulations.

I don't think they have those assets.

got a link?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The world is desperately trying to get its money to New York. Anyone with money in China is trying to figure out a way to get that money to New York. Heck, anyone with money and a brain in Texas is moving that money to New York.

no one wants their money in New York......the fact the stock exchange has its offices in New York doesn't mean the money is there.....what do you think would happen if NY tried to tax stock transfers just because it was traded on Wall Street?.......

 

[Kamala Trump]

no one wants their money in New York......the fact the stock exchange has its offices in New York doesn't mean the money is there.....what do you think would happen if NY tried to tax stock transfers just because it was traded on Wall Street?.......

walts become either a complete idiot or completely morally compromised.

his evil is pure.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

@everybody, most of you. Thank you for the information. I'm pretty solid on gun laws and property law, but this is new ground and I appreciate those that gave information without any of the insults or derogatory assumptions.

 

[Into the Night]

It is not a standard bonding company, so not already verified.

Yes it is, Sock.

The court has every right to reject a bonding company.

No, they don't, Sock.

She can reject the bond,

No, she can't, Sock.

and then the judge has to decide.

The judge has no authority to, Sock.

The lack of providing evidence would weigh heavily against trump.

Attempted negative proof fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

they do?

what's that process?

Part of the licensing process in the State the operate from.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't think they have those assets.

got a link?

 

[Into the Night]

walts become either a complete idiot or completely morally compromised.

his evil is pure.

You just now noticed that?

 

[Into the Night]

@everybody, most of you. Thank you for the information. I'm pretty solid on gun laws and property law, but this is new ground and I appreciate those that gave information without any of the insults or derogatory assumptions.

Certainly.

Bonding companies (like insurance companies) have to show they have a way to cover claims for what they cover as part of the licensing process in most States. That is also true in the SDTC (at the moment). They may issue insurance or bonds in any State after that. The bonding company that Trump used is located in the SDTC.

Some States require a representative operating in that State to sell insurance in that State, but the proof of coverage liability from the original filing is sufficient to show it again for another State.
A bond is a specialized type of insurance.

The coverage liability can be shown by using available assets, or by showing coverage by an insurance company for insurance companies. Lloyd's of London is such a company. Lloyd's itself issues policies that are based on underwriters (collections of people willing to pay up if the insurance value is claimed). Underwriters make money if the insurance value is not claimed. In other words, they are investors. Many insurance companies have their own underwriters, and possibly a Lloyd's account that covers anything that's left.

The same is true with a bonding company. If they can show an underwriters, or insurance coverage that in turn shows underwriters, they are good to go and can obtain their initial license. After that, they may offer bonds in any State (or the SDTC or SOTNY), since they are still 'States' for this purpose.

No court has the authority to select a bonding company or insurance company. No plaintiff nor defendant has any authority to select the bonding company for the other party either.

In the case of Trump's bond, it is covered for the full price should the bond default. However, because Trump is plenty rich enough to pay the entire 'penalty' (tax?) of ordered by the kangaroo court, and in cash, the bond itself won't default.

In insurance (including bonding companies), it's all about actuary. How much does the company make if the claim is not made vs the risk of paying a claim.
This is why insurance companies will tend to limit claims to a set value, and are aggressive against fraudsters trying to claim a 'loss' that never took place or that they themselves caused in violation of contract. Bonding companies, of course, are no different here.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Certainly.

Bonding companies (like insurance companies) have to show they have a way to cover claims for what they cover as part of the licensing process in most States. That is also true in the SDTC (at the moment). They may issue insurance or bonds in any State after that. The bonding company that Trump used is located in the SDTC.

Some States require a representative operating in that State to sell insurance in that State, but the proof of coverage liability from the original filing is sufficient to show it again for another State.
A bond is a specialized type of insurance.

The coverage liability can be shown by using available assets, or by showing coverage by an insurance company for insurance companies. Lloyd's of London is such a company. Lloyd's itself issues policies that are based on underwriters (collections of people willing to pay up if the insurance value is claimed). Underwriters make money if the insurance value is not claimed. In other words, they are investors. Many insurance companies have their own underwriters, and possibly a Lloyd's account that covers anything that's left.

The same is true with a bonding company. If they can show an underwriters, or insurance coverage that in turn shows underwriters, they are good to go and can obtain their initial license. After that, they may offer bonds in any State (or the SDTC or SOTNY), since they are still 'States' for this purpose.

No court has the authority to select a bonding company or insurance company. No plaintiff nor defendant has any authority to select the bonding company for the other party either.

In the case of Trump's bond, it is covered for the full price should the bond default. However, because Trump is plenty rich enough to pay the entire 'penalty' (tax?) of ordered by the kangaroo court, and in cash, the bond itself won't default.

In insurance (including bonding companies), it's all about actuary. How much does the company make if the claim is not made vs the risk of paying a claim.
This is why insurance companies will tend to limit claims to a set value, and are aggressive against fraudsters trying to claim a 'loss' that never took place or that they themselves caused in violation of contract. Bonding companies, of course, are no different here.

sounds like market strangling regulation to me.....

 

[Kamala Trump]

You just now noticed that?

I've been noticing it, fucktoid.

you wanna step?

let;s talk about fascism and your denial.

 

[Into the Night]

When asked to put up assets for a government bond, especially after consideration has been offered, you really want to provide full proof. It is a huge mistake to duck out on that.

Already provided, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

The world is desperately trying to get its money to New York. Anyone with money in China is trying to figure out a way to get that money to New York. Heck, anyone with money and a brain in Texas is moving that money to New York.

Money is fleeing New York, Sock. Investors (particularly real estate investors) want nothing to do with a place that just takes property on a whim.