That failure may have violated ethics rules, legal experts say.
Throw it on the pile.
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
334 points (98.0% liked)
News
23413 readers
2606 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I feel like I’ve seen a million of these “oh he might have done this” and none of them have been a “gotcha” moment. Agreed throw it on the pile. This is going to be a god awful election year.
This is a potential "gotcha" moment for his lawyers, because they may face disbarment. Plenty of Trump's lawyers have actually faced disbarment, he leaves behind him a perpetual wake of disbarment.
Faced? Several have been disbarred, with more in the pipeline.
The court system could just follow our ex president around. Anyone and everyone he talks to more than a few seconds should immediately be investigated because the odds that they're committing notable crimes is really high. They're just all criminals because no one else will give this traitorous sex offender the time of day.
I would never be more happy to be proven wrong!
Notable that this is the lawyers being in trouble here for breaking ethics rules that they agreed to follow prior to beginning law school.
Another unexplored angle would be getting multiple, smaller bonds.
Oh, nobody will loan you $464 million? How about finding 4 lenders at $116 million? Can you do that?
Thats not how loans necessarily work though. If I go to a bank and ask for $100m, but they see I already owe $350m to other lenders, they'll say no, because they know they arent getting paid back until after the other 3. So if they think trump has $450m in assets, just give him whole amount, and if they don't think he has that much, any money theyre giving him is just being thrown away.
This is a guy notorious for lying about his assets and not paying debts. Even giving him $125m is a bad idea, but the odds of getting paid back get even worse if you arent first in line.
But this isn't a loan. Federating together a large bond is a normal practice in the court system with high value bonds. All of the big bonding agencies are willing and able to do that kind of piece & part together a bond to distribute the risk.
Now, whether even that kind of distributed risk would work is another story. You don't do anyone for this person unless he pays up front. His entire business strategy is to get someone else to do the work or front the resources for a venture, then fail to pay up followed by suing everyone to make it too painful to work with him. He just burns through business relationships because he's nothing more than a leech that kills hosts that are foolish enough to touch his business operations in any way shape or form.
That’s why you put them under an NDA and do them all at the same time!
This guy gets it!
That's valid, but even then, a $120m bond is less risk that 4x companies supplying $120m bonds. When the time comes to pay out and you need to get your collateral, if there is only $150m available to actually pay out, you get yours, vs having to split it multiple ways, or otherwise not getting a payout at all.
And that's assuming you can get 4x companies to even throw in $120m. He is so unreliable that had to get an unlicensed company to even get that much, so I doubt he's going to find 4x legit companies to team up.
But then again, requiring the full amount should still just be enforced. If no one wants to provide bond, thats his problem, not the court's. I certainly don't get to say "Well I can't get bond" and get to have the amount lowered. If I say that, I just don't get to appeal.
edit: ~~That absolutely IS how it works and it has been done many times before, how the fuck is this upvoted so much~~? I misunderstood the actual premise of your reply.
He can syndicate the bond.
This is Ben Meiselas, who is a Kaepernick Partner, Geragos Global Partner, Aliu & Co. Partner, USC Law Lecturer: https://youtu.be/BiJRKrhp7B8?t=682
In fact, New York attorney general, Letitia James submitted what you and I predicted she would do this week after Donald Trump filed that brief last week saying it was impossible to be able to post a bond and that this is so unprecedented. New York attorney general, Letitia James filed a surreply Starting point is 00:13:40 which was accepted by the appellate division and she's showed numerous companies that are real companies with real assets in cases that have posted bonds the same size or slightly less or some that were larger. She talked about in her brief how, you know, one of the things you can do, you don't have to go to one surety, you can go to a syndicate of sureties who come together so that the risk is minimized and you have a tower of sureties. And she also said Donald Trump's brief provided not a scintilla of evidence of the steps he even went through in order to secure a surety bond. All Donald Trump's brief did was his lawyer said he just doesn't have the cash or the means to do it.
This is Michael Popok, who is a NY trial lawyer/strategist talking about how it can be broken up https://youtu.be/N8VnxKT6ezA?feature=shared&t=372
Judge Angoron issued an enhanced monitoring order giving the monitor, who is a former federal judge, Barbara Jones, enhanced superpowers over the corporation, over Donald Trump's business affairs, including the ability to both monitor all compliance and financial reporting and interactions with counterparties, interactions with bonding companies, insurity companies, that's already in place. And that has not been stayed by this order, meaning that Trump is gonna have to go through the monitor and report to the monitor about his interactions with bonding companies in order to raise the $175 million. But with Donald Trump bragging that he has $500 million cash in the bank, combined with the other assets we know he has in real estate and the ability to either get a irrevocable letter of credit from a bank ability to either get a irrevocable letter of credit from a bank or to syndicate the bond beyond just one bonding company, use two or three surety companies, each taking, let's say, a $50 or $75 million piece to total up to $175 million
Sorry, my phrasing of "not how it works" is more about willingness from the lender side and not "allowed" to. He couldn't even get a bond for for the reduced amount without going through a shady company. He's certainly not going to get 4 bonds.
use two or three surety companies, each taking, let’s say, a $50 or $75 million piece to total up to $175 million.
Even with split up bonds to reduce risk in a normal situation, the bonding company is going to assess risk based on the full cost of the bond. They personally only have to put up less money, so the "how much do i lose if everything goes wrong" scenario is less, but "how likely is it something goes wrong" involves "the person on trial for lying about finances doesn't actually have enough to cover the full bond, so perhaps that increases the odds of me getting my money back"
Why would you throw away $50 million dollars. It's "less risk" only because it's less money. But if you think he's shady enough that likely you never see the money again, then why put up any money, especially if you have to compete with others to get the payout.
If someone said "You can gamble $50 million or $400 million. If you win you get 5%, but the odds of winning are only 10%, and if you lose you only get back $10 million." You would obviously opt to gamble the $50 million. You want to lose less money. The payout isn't worth it given the odds. If you were then told "oh, you can just opt out and avoid the dumpster fire of a deal", you are going to choose to opt out. No amount of "it's less risk" will make this a good deal for a bonding company.
So yes, syndicating the bond is an option, no smart bonding company is going to touch this, which means even with syndicating it will be hard for him to find enough incompetent, shady, unlicensed bonding companies.
And to be clear, this is not me arguing in favor of why any amount of money was unfair to expect Trump to acquire. This is me pointing out why he's never going to get the money from legit sources because he's a financial dumpster fire, and they should just throw the book at him instead of continuously going easy on him.
edit:
But with Donald Trump bragging that he has $500 million cash in the bank, combined with the other assets we know he has in real estate
Trump bragging about made up numbers don't make anyone more confident about his assets. Both the value of his assets and how much stake in those assets is actually his is a thing he notoriously lies about. He's even been found guilty about lying about his finances I think.
If he actually had that money money just in the bank, none of this would be an issue, but the thing is... it's not true.
okay yes I was thrown by the phrasing, thanks for expanding on things, great points!
YES he absolutely can by syndicating the bond. Letitia James said he could:
This is Ben Meiselas, who is a Kaepernick Partner, Geragos Global Partner, Aliu & Co. Partner, USC Law Lecturer: https://youtu.be/BiJRKrhp7B8?t=682
In fact, New York attorney general, Letitia James submitted what you and I predicted she would do this week after Donald Trump filed that brief last week saying it was impossible to be able to post a bond and that this is so unprecedented. New York attorney general, Letitia James filed a surreply Starting point is 00:13:40 which was accepted by the appellate division and she's showed numerous companies that are real companies with real assets in cases that have posted bonds the same size or slightly less or some that were larger. She talked about in her brief how, you know, one of the things you can do, you don't have to go to one surety, you can go to a syndicate of sureties who come together so that the risk is minimized and you have a tower of sureties. And she also said Donald Trump's brief provided not a scintilla of evidence of the steps he even went through in order to secure a surety bond. All Donald Trump's brief did was his lawyer said he just doesn't have the cash or the means to do it.
This is Michael Popok, who is a NY trial lawyer/strategist talking about how it can be broken up https://youtu.be/N8VnxKT6ezA?feature=shared&t=372
Judge Angoron issued an enhanced monitoring order giving the monitor, who is a former federal judge, Barbara Jones, enhanced superpowers over the corporation, over Donald Trump's business affairs, including the ability to both monitor all compliance and financial reporting and interactions with counterparties, interactions with bonding companies, insurity companies, that's already in place. And that has not been stayed by this order, meaning that Trump is gonna have to go through the monitor and report to the monitor about his interactions with bonding companies in order to raise the $175 million. But with Donald Trump bragging that he has $500 million cash in the bank, combined with the other assets we know he has in real estate and the ability to either get a irrevocable letter of credit from a bank ability to either get a irrevocable letter of credit from a bank or to syndicate the bond beyond just one bonding company, use two or three surety companies, each taking, let's say, a $50 or $75 million piece to total up to $175 million.
Why did they reduce the bond? Isn't the rule normally: you can't pay, you go to jail?
Don’t be silly, those rules are for the peasants.
No jail in civil trial, he should have had to pay the bond or have his assets forfeit after a short stay period. An appeal court with a Judge that Trump appointed reduced his bond because they're a fucking shill.
That has not been the rule. Debtor's prisons were abolished a long time ago.
Edit: For those unaware, this is about Trump's civil fraud trial, there is no bail or bond to get out of jail. There is no jail. He has the option to post a bond to stay execution of the civil judgment.
Needing to pay bond to be released from jail is unrelated to the practice of debtors'prisons.
I don't think this a bond to stay out of jail. It's a bond to substitute for payment of a fine while awaiting appeal.
The comment I replied to said if you can't pay go to jail. The subject of this story is the civil fraud trial of Donald Trump in New York. There is no bail and there is no bond to be released from jail in a civil matter. That would be a criminal trial, which this is not. His bond is only to stay the execution on the judgment while he appeals.
That's why I mentioned a debtors prison, where people who can't pay debts would go to jail.
After ProPublica reached out to Trump’s representatives, Hankey called back and revised his account. He said he had heard “indirectly” about ProPublica’s subsequent inquiries to Trump’s lawyers. In the second conversation, he said that accepting the real estate as collateral would have been complicated and that he wouldn’t have been able to “commit” to providing a bond in the full amount “until I evaluate the assets.”
Don Hankey is such a great cartoon character name.
Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo! Is that you?