|
Post by volleyguy on Mar 25, 2024 16:02:50 GMT -5
Only crazy people think having to put up a $175 Million dollar bond is #WINNING. That amount was almost double the requested bond amount, and based on the over-leveraged property list, the amount that was going to be unencumbered enough for the AG to realistically attach.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Mar 25, 2024 16:13:37 GMT -5
Only crazy people think having to put up a $175 Million dollar bond is #WINNING. That amount was almost double the requested bond amount, and based on the over-leveraged property list, the amount that was going to be unencumbered enough for the AG to realistically attach. The court assigned monitor might have had a hand in this. I’d think this was based on their available cash on hand. I guess it can still earn interest while it’s got a lien.
|
|
|
Post by bobinmd on Mar 25, 2024 16:55:13 GMT -5
Bob, I hope the FBI is watching you. Your bat %*$# crazy. What was not factual in my post? I didn’t even mention Orange paying two women for their silence to affect an election. Guessing you meant ‘you’re’ not “your” right? 🤡🥨 Anything not factual Hol?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Mar 25, 2024 17:39:49 GMT -5
Only crazy people think having to put up a $175 Million dollar bond is #WINNING. That amount was almost double the requested bond amount, and based on the over-leveraged property list, the amount that was going to be unencumbered enough for the AG to realistically attach. The court assigned monitor might have had a hand in this. I’d think this was based on their available cash on hand. I guess it can still earn interest while it’s got a lien. It's also possible that the appeals court is sending a signal by adjusting the amount of the bond required, i.e. that they are inclined to reduce the penalty (but perhaps not reverse it entirely).
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Mar 25, 2024 18:17:25 GMT -5
The court assigned monitor might have had a hand in this. I’d think this was based on their available cash on hand. I guess it can still earn interest while it’s got a lien. It's also possible that the appeals court is sending a signal by adjusting the amount of the bond required, i.e. that they are inclined to reduce the penalty (but perhaps not reverse it entirely). That's what I heard, that this is probably the amount they will reduce the penalty to. The flip side of that, is there is speculation that it will still be hard for him to get a bond, and if he can't do that in ten days it will make him look really bad.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Mar 25, 2024 18:24:55 GMT -5
It's also possible that the appeals court is sending a signal by adjusting the amount of the bond required, i.e. that they are inclined to reduce the penalty (but perhaps not reverse it entirely). That's what I heard, that this is probably the amount they will reduce the penalty to. The flip side of that, is there is speculation that it will still be hard for him to get a bond, and if he can't do that in ten days it will make him look really bad. It's certainly a possibility that they will reduce the penalty to the level of the bond, but not a certainty. It's equally likely, I think, that they are adjusting the bond to his capacity to pay and maintain reserves based on his financial statements. Since the ban on running the businesses is stayed (which is not unusual), it would be counter to that to force his cash reserves to fall to levels where the business(es) can't continue to function. Reducing the bond, but not to the requested limit, also might suggest that the appeals court is likely to concur in the decision, and reject the argument that the statute does not apply.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Mar 25, 2024 18:28:07 GMT -5
The fat old rip lost, Donald Trump will now not only be able to come up with the money but hopefully will have this turned over in appeals court. Every single case you are losing. Lol Why would this be overturned on appeal?
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Mar 25, 2024 18:30:01 GMT -5
That's what I heard, that this is probably the amount they will reduce the penalty to. The flip side of that, is there is speculation that it will still be hard for him to get a bond, and if he can't do that in ten days it will make him look really bad. It's certainly a possibility that they will reduce the penalty to the level of the bond, but not a certainty. It's equally like, I think, that they are adjusting the bond to his capacity to pay and maintain reserves based on his financial statements. Since the ban on running the businesses is stayed (which is not unusual), it would be counter to that to force his cash reserves to fall to levels where the business(es) can't continue to function. Reducing the bond, but not to the requested limit, also might suggest that the appeals court is likely to concur in the decision, and reject the argument that the statute does not apply. I don't pretend to know, that was just speculation from one guest I was listening to who had an informed opinion.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Mar 25, 2024 18:53:38 GMT -5
#Winning!
...wait, that's not winning. That's not winning at all.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Mar 25, 2024 18:54:28 GMT -5
It's certainly a possibility that they will reduce the penalty to the level of the bond, but not a certainty. It's equally like, I think, that they are adjusting the bond to his capacity to pay and maintain reserves based on his financial statements. Since the ban on running the businesses is stayed (which is not unusual), it would be counter to that to force his cash reserves to fall to levels where the business(es) can't continue to function. Reducing the bond, but not to the requested limit, also might suggest that the appeals court is likely to concur in the decision, and reject the argument that the statute does not apply. I don't pretend to know, that was just speculation from one guest I was listening to who had an informed opinion. The appeals court didn’t explain their decision, so no one but them actually knows their reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by bobinmd on Mar 25, 2024 19:18:19 GMT -5
#Winning! ...wait, that's not winning. That's not winning at all. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Mar 25, 2024 19:53:18 GMT -5
Just to show you how absolutely corrupt the justice system is in New York? Bernie Madoff’s bond was $64 million. And how many victims did Bernie have? Donald Trumps was close to $500 million and there was zero victims. If Donald Trump was a Democrat this would’ve never happened. You just have a corrupt system that you corrupt people support.
|
|
|
Post by bobinmd on Mar 25, 2024 20:03:28 GMT -5
Just to show you how absolutely corrupt the justice system is in New York? Bernie Madoff’s bond was $64 million. And how many victims did Bernie have? Donald Trumps was close to $500 million and there was zero victims. If Donald Trump was a Democrat this would’ve never happened. You just have a corrupt system that you corrupt people support. And Unibomber. Always somebody else’s fault. 4-91.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Mar 25, 2024 20:12:06 GMT -5
A bail bond and a judgement bond are two entirely different things.
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Mar 25, 2024 23:14:06 GMT -5
Just to show you how absolutely corrupt the justice system is in New York? Bernie Madoff’s bond was $64 million. And how many victims did Bernie have? Donald Trumps was close to $500 million and there was zero victims. If Donald Trump was a Democrat this would’ve never happened. You just have a corrupt system that you corrupt people support. Who is feeding you the information? Fox News? Madoff pleaded guilty to all 11 felonies.
|
|