Also, it is ostensibly intended to "discourage" meritless appeals, intended only for delay.eric76 said:
Isn't a large part of the reason for posting bond or escrow for the full amount of the judgment in order to allow the judgment to be collected before the defendant can move his assets outside of the jurisdiction?
I assume that Trump is already trying to find a way to move his assets.
Good catch.aggiehawg said:Confused. Trump applied for a stay of execution with the appellate court, not Engeron's court, correct?Quote:
The question is whether the statute allows it. First, I doubt the statute allows it. Second, if it does, it almost certainly requires court approval, and I don't see Engoron signing-off on that sort of proposal.
1794 pages! Wow!Quote:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT
I've not seen the motion. You may well be correct.aggiehawg said:Confused. Trump applied for a stay of execution with the appellate court, not Engeron's court, correct?Quote:
The question is whether the statute allows it. First, I doubt the statute allows it. Second, if it does, it almost certainly requires court approval, and I don't see Engoron signing-off on that sort of proposal.
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=oor8_PLUS_SyilUVorLgVywrDfQ==Antoninus said:I've not seen the motion. You may well be correct.aggiehawg said:Confused. Trump applied for a stay of execution with the appellate court, not Engeron's court, correct?Quote:
The question is whether the statute allows it. First, I doubt the statute allows it. Second, if it does, it almost certainly requires court approval, and I don't see Engoron signing-off on that sort of proposal.
Even if he wanted to he cannot. His businesses have an internal monitor that would have to approve such transactions.eric76 said:
Isn't a large part of the reason for posting bond or escrow for the full amount of the judgment in order to allow the judgment to be collected before the defendant can move his assets outside of the jurisdiction?
I assume that Trump is already trying to find a way to move his assets.
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cvp/article-55/5519/Quote:
(c) Stay and limitation of stay by court order. The court from or to which an appeal is taken or the court of original instance may stay all proceedings to enforce the judgment or order appealed from pending an appeal or determination on a motion for permission to appeal in a case not provided for in subdivision (a) or subdivision (b), or may grant a limited stay or may vacate, limit or modify any stay imposed by subdivision (a), subdivision (b) or this subdivision, except that only the court to which an appeal is taken may vacate, limit or modify a stay imposed by paragraph one of subdivision (a).
They can? Guess there are some other statutory provisions of which I am unaware.Im Gipper said:
According to this Motion, the Court can stay enforcement during the entire pendency of the appeal.
Ooof! That statute is very confusing, and a vomitous mass of run on sentences.Im Gipper said:
According to this Motion, the Court can stay enforcement during the entire pendency of the appeal.
The Motion cites:https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cvp/article-55/5519/Quote:
(c) Stay and limitation of stay by court order. The court from or to which an appeal is taken or the court of original instance may stay all proceedings to enforce the judgment or order appealed from pending an appeal or determination on a motion for permission to appeal in a case not provided for in subdivision (a) or subdivision (b), or may grant a limited stay or may vacate, limit or modify any stay imposed by subdivision (a), subdivision (b) or this subdivision, except that only the court to which an appeal is taken may vacate, limit or modify a stay imposed by paragraph one of subdivision (a).
Agreed, but it DOES seem to say that either Engoron or the appellate court has the discretion to enter a stay.aggiehawg said:
Ooof! That statute is very confusing, and a vomitous mass of run on sentences.
Antoninus said:Agreed, but it DOES seem to say that either Engoron or the appellate court has the discretion to enter a stay.aggiehawg said:
Ooof! That statute is very confusing, and a vomitous mass of run on sentences.
Will either of them EXERCISE that discretion? Let's just say that I am skeptical.
Are there any statutory or case guidelines on when a stay is appropriate and when it is not appropriate?Im Gipper said:
According to this Motion, the Court can stay enforcement during the entire pendency of the appeal.
The Motion cites:https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cvp/article-55/5519/Quote:
(c) Stay and limitation of stay by court order. The court from or to which an appeal is taken or the court of original instance may stay all proceedings to enforce the judgment or order appealed from pending an appeal or determination on a motion for permission to appeal in a case not provided for in subdivision (a) or subdivision (b), or may grant a limited stay or may vacate, limit or modify any stay imposed by subdivision (a), subdivision (b) or this subdivision, except that only the court to which an appeal is taken may vacate, limit or modify a stay imposed by paragraph one of subdivision (a).
Quote:
case guidelines on when a stay is appropriate and when it is not appropriate?
eric76 said:
One question I have is about the requirement for the bond/escrow.
The more common statement is that the bond/escrow is required for the case to be appealed.
The less common statement is that the appeal does not require the bond/escrow, but without it there is no stay to prevent the prevailing party from collecting the judgment.
The one with 1794 pages?Im Gipper said:Quote:
case guidelines on when a stay is appropriate and when it is not appropriate?
Yes.
See the Motion YOU LINKED above! lol
how many times has Trump claimed he is a fabulously wealthy billionaire?HTownAg98 said:
He's already posted a $100MM bond, trying to convince the court that's enough. I don't think we're going to see anything else from Trump, and I doubt the court will agree that's enough.
Where do you people GET this nonsense?HTownAg98 said:
He's already posted a $100MM bond, trying to convince the court that's enough. I don't think we're going to see anything else from Trump, and I doubt the court will agree that's enough.
A large number of posters above have assured us that he has dozens of buddies who would gladly front him the money.Rockdoc said:
How many wealthy people do you know who have liquidity like that ($450mm)? I'm sure you have a list with proof.
Antoninus said:A large number of posters above have assured us that he has dozens of buddies who would gladly front him the money.Rockdoc said:
How many wealthy people do you know who have liquidity like that ($450mm)? I'm sure you have a list with proof.
You can bet if Trump calls Steve Wynn, Peter Thiel Carl Icahn or Andrew Beal he can borrow the cash. That bond is petty cash to that groupAntoninus said:A large number of posters above have assured us that he has dozens of buddies who would gladly front him the money.Rockdoc said:
How many wealthy people do you know who have liquidity like that ($450mm)? I'm sure you have a list with proof.
News
— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) February 28, 2024
Trump LOSES bid to pause enforcement of the monetary judgment and monitoring, but for now, an appellate judge allows him to apply for loans.
Full order https://t.co/ix64RN26fB
Background https://t.co/xyq23bzJ3b pic.twitter.com/bDTuxWzJJV
Antoninus said:A large number of posters above have assured us that he has dozens of buddies who would gladly front him the money.Rockdoc said:
How many wealthy people do you know who have liquidity like that ($450mm)? I'm sure you have a list with proof.
Not likely.Foreverconservative said:You can bet if Trump calls Steve Wynn, Peter Thiel Carl Icahn or Andrew Beal he can borrow the cash. That bond is petty cash to that groupAntoninus said:A large number of posters above have assured us that he has dozens of buddies who would gladly front him the money.Rockdoc said:
How many wealthy people do you know who have liquidity like that ($450mm)? I'm sure you have a list with proof.
Okay glad to know you're the spokesperson for a group of people that have done business with Trump for years, funded PACs to help him get elected, and have forgotten more about finance and business than you'll ever know, but carry one with all your expertise.eric76 said:Not likely.Foreverconservative said:You can bet if Trump calls Steve Wynn, Peter Thiel Carl Icahn or Andrew Beal he can borrow the cash. That bond is petty cash to that groupAntoninus said:A large number of posters above have assured us that he has dozens of buddies who would gladly front him the money.Rockdoc said:
How many wealthy people do you know who have liquidity like that ($450mm)? I'm sure you have a list with proof.
If he puts up a bond, the bonding company basically promises that if Trump does not pay, they will. They don't actually give the government the money in advance. Instead, they invest the money.
If they put up the money, they aren't bonding companies and can't just deliver a promise to pay. They would loan the money to Trump who would then put it in escrow, thereby giving up interest on the money while in escrow. That would be a lot of interest for him to give up. In the meantime, the interest he would owe if the judgment is upheld would continue to accrue.
Finally, and perhaps the most important, even if the money is "petty cash" to them, they don't like being scammed of their money. I suspect that any money loaned to Trump would never be paid back. They would surely demand full collateral to cover the debt to avoid being scammed by Trump.
Those who earned their fortunes themselves did not earn them by throwing away money --- they are going to want it back. Perhaps their heirs might be throwing money around when they eventually inherit it, but there are limits to what people who made their fortunes instead of inheriting them are willing to do.
The best thing for Trump would be to find a bonding company who will bond him out on this. That way, he could continue to earn interest on his money. But it is difficult to imagine a bonding company doing that without collateral. From what I've read, they don't want property as collateral, either.
Foreverconservative said:Okay glad to know you're the spokesperson for a group of people that have done business with Trump for years, funded PACs to help him get elected, and have forgotten more about finance and business than you'll ever know, but carry one with all your expertise.eric76 said:Not likely.Foreverconservative said:You can bet if Trump calls Steve Wynn, Peter Thiel Carl Icahn or Andrew Beal he can borrow the cash. That bond is petty cash to that groupAntoninus said:A large number of posters above have assured us that he has dozens of buddies who would gladly front him the money.Rockdoc said:
How many wealthy people do you know who have liquidity like that ($450mm)? I'm sure you have a list with proof.
If he puts up a bond, the bonding company basically promises that if Trump does not pay, they will. They don't actually give the government the money in advance. Instead, they invest the money.
If they put up the money, they aren't bonding companies and can't just deliver a promise to pay. They would loan the money to Trump who would then put it in escrow, thereby giving up interest on the money while in escrow. That would be a lot of interest for him to give up. In the meantime, the interest he would owe if the judgment is upheld would continue to accrue.
Finally, and perhaps the most important, even if the money is "petty cash" to them, they don't like being scammed of their money. I suspect that any money loaned to Trump would never be paid back. They would surely demand full collateral to cover the debt to avoid being scammed by Trump.
Those who earned their fortunes themselves did not earn them by throwing away money --- they are going to want it back. Perhaps their heirs might be throwing money around when they eventually inherit it, but there are limits to what people who made their fortunes instead of inheriting them are willing to do.
The best thing for Trump would be to find a bonding company who will bond him out on this. That way, he could continue to earn interest on his money. But it is difficult to imagine a bonding company doing that without collateral. From what I've read, they don't want property as collateral, either.
Rockdoc said:
All dems are experts at everything don't ya know.
You may actually be right about that. Trump thinks he's the world's greatest expert on everything.Rockdoc said:Foreverconservative said:Okay glad to know you're the spokesperson for a group of people that have done business with Trump for years, funded PACs to help him get elected, and have forgotten more about finance and business than you'll ever know, but carry one with all your expertise.eric76 said:Not likely.Foreverconservative said:You can bet if Trump calls Steve Wynn, Peter Thiel Carl Icahn or Andrew Beal he can borrow the cash. That bond is petty cash to that groupAntoninus said:A large number of posters above have assured us that he has dozens of buddies who would gladly front him the money.Rockdoc said:
How many wealthy people do you know who have liquidity like that ($450mm)? I'm sure you have a list with proof.
If he puts up a bond, the bonding company basically promises that if Trump does not pay, they will. They don't actually give the government the money in advance. Instead, they invest the money.
If they put up the money, they aren't bonding companies and can't just deliver a promise to pay. They would loan the money to Trump who would then put it in escrow, thereby giving up interest on the money while in escrow. That would be a lot of interest for him to give up. In the meantime, the interest he would owe if the judgment is upheld would continue to accrue.
Finally, and perhaps the most important, even if the money is "petty cash" to them, they don't like being scammed of their money. I suspect that any money loaned to Trump would never be paid back. They would surely demand full collateral to cover the debt to avoid being scammed by Trump.
Those who earned their fortunes themselves did not earn them by throwing away money --- they are going to want it back. Perhaps their heirs might be throwing money around when they eventually inherit it, but there are limits to what people who made their fortunes instead of inheriting them are willing to do.
The best thing for Trump would be to find a bonding company who will bond him out on this. That way, he could continue to earn interest on his money. But it is difficult to imagine a bonding company doing that without collateral. From what I've read, they don't want property as collateral, either.
All dems are experts at everything don't ya know.
