aggiehawg said:

---

Damn! This judge keeps overstepping and trampling the law.

Quote:

---

A judge ordered Donald Trump's company Thursday to inform a court-appointed financial watchdog about any efforts to obtain an appeal bond.

Judge Arthur Engoron's order came three days after Trump's lawyers in an appeals court filing said it has been "impossible" so far for the former president to get such a bond for a civil business fraud case he lost.

Trump sought the bond to prevent New York Attorney General Letitia James as early as Monday collecting on a $454 million civil fraud judgment against him as he appeals the verdict in Manhattan Supreme Court.

His lawyers have said that more than 30 surety companies rejected writing a bond for Trump because they would not accept real estate as collateral.

Trump has asked the appeals court to pause the judgment from taking effect without having to secure a bond. That court has yet to rule on his request.

In his order Thursday, Engoron told the Trump Organization it must tell its financial overseer, Barbara Jones, "in advance, of any efforts to secure surety bonds."

---

LINK

Due process doesn't apply to Trump, I guess.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What due process should he have received but did not get?

---

Really? You do not understand what is going on here?

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What due process should he have received but did not get?

---

Really? You do not understand what is going on here?

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What due process should he have received but did not get?

---

Really? You do not understand what is going on here?

---

I understand that he can't get a bond and can't round up enough cash for escrow. Are those his only options? Is the court obligated to reduce the judgment to something that he can get a bond to cover?

Or is it perhaps that the monitor is keeping a close eye on what he does?

Or something else?

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What due process should he have received but did not get?

---

Really? You do not understand what is going on here?

---

I understand that he can't get a bond and can't round up enough cash for escrow. Are those his only options? Is the court obligated to reduce the judgment to something that he can get a bond to cover?

Or is it perhaps that the monitor is keeping a close eye on what he does?

Or something else?

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Good argument on 8th
Not on 7th

7th never been incorporated and this was not a case under common law, but statutory action for equitable relief

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Good argument on 8th
Not on 7th

7th never been incorporated and this was not a case under common law, but statutory action for equitable relief

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

He has operations in multiple states.

I don't see how he can get to federal court before exhausting his state court remedies, but happy to consider possibilities people have

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

He has operations in multiple states.

I don't see how he can get to federal court before exhausting his state court remedies, but happy to consider possibilities people have

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

True, but even if it were incorporated tomorrow,doesn't apply here

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

He has operations in multiple states.

I don't see how he can get to federal court before exhausting his state court remedies, but happy to consider possibilities people have

---

If he does try to file in federal court for a temporary injunction, he'll have to do it today. Try to distinguish the Pennzoil case as much as possible.

---

Quote:

---

Could they grant an injunction while they consider it?

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Unless, as she pointed out, they find a distinction

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Unless, as she pointed out, they find a distinction

---

Id love to hear the distinction. Public v private company won't be relevant. I hope they did come up with one, but truth is they mostly likely won't

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Unless, as she pointed out, they find a distinction

---

Id love to hear the distinction. Public v private company won't be relevant. I hope they did come up with one, but truth is they mostly likely won't

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Unless, as she pointed out, they find a distinction

---

Id love to hear the distinction. Public v private company won't be relevant. I hope they did come up with one, but truth is they mostly likely won't

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Unless, as she pointed out, they find a distinction

---

Id love to hear the distinction. Public v private company won't be relevant. I hope they did come up with one, but truth is they mostly likely won't

---

State vs citizen compared to corp vs corp?

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Unless, as she pointed out, they find a distinction

---

Id love to hear the distinction. Public v private company won't be relevant. I hope they did come up with one, but truth is they mostly likely won't

---

State vs citizen compared to corp vs corp?

---

How is that relevant to comity?

Younger v Harris, on which Pennzoil v Texaco relies, is state v individual.

---

Rongagin71 said:

---

I'm not sure what year the judge was talking about Mar-A-Lago being only worth $18million, but would it have had to be way back and before massive improvements? Or the Judge is a liar.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Is the judge's finding of fact with regard to the valuation of Mar-a-lago arbitrary and capricious?

---