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)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-PrivilegeReducing 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 isnt heading into bankruptcy today. That doesnt mean the decision was a bad one.
Putting up a bond during appeal is to make sure the losing party (or their money) doesnt 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 isnt 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 cant 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 Generals 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 wouldnt 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.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
38 replies, 2522 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (41)
ReplyReply to this post
38 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gawker was required to have a full bond in its verdict and thus was forced to go under
dsc
Mar 26
#4
Hmmmm.... that doesn't explain why the Appeals Court reduced the amount of the bond.
Goodheart
Mar 26
#7
The 5 Judge panel that reduced the bond are all Democrats appointed by a Democratic governor
MichMan
Mar 26
#36
Didn't know that the court had to approve every single expenditure including a roll of toilet paper
MichMan
Mar 26
#10