E Jean Carrol's filing. It wasn't even the current company they were using for the fraud case.

Why are we not surprised?!

than Swiss cheese. It would be very easy for the Orange Ruski to transfer out the cash and then simply be on the hook for his "promise" to keep up the balance to $175 million. So the bond company is left with having to try to fight him to make good on his "promise" and meanwhile goes back to the state of NY and says "we no longer have sufficient assets" so if you wish to engage in a multi year mega-million dollar litigation then you know our address and we will be sure to pass along your response to our bankruptcy attorneys for our subsidiary Knight Speciality and I'm sure they will put you in the creditor line.

Too bad the kind of representation you get when you don't pay your bills. Remember when his legal team checked the wrong box, getting him a bench trial instead of jury trial?

Habba had a tense interaction with the judge presiding over the lawsuit between columnist E. Jean Carroll and Trump and contested one of his rulings. But the description of a jury "box" oversight is wrong. In Trump's civil fraud case, the judge confirmed Habba did not forget to check off a box to get a jury trial.

Civil fraud case was slated for bench trial from the start

The widely circulated rumor that Habba forgot to check a box to request a jury for the trial was debunked by the judge himself, Arthur Engoron. ABC News reported on Oct. 11, 2023, that Engoron said no one “forgot” to check off anything. “We are having a non-jury trial because we are hearing a non-jury case," he said. “It would have not helped to make a motion. Nobody forgot to check off a box.”

Engoron said James had requested the case not be decided by a jury, which is reflected in court documents. That meant it would be a bench trial, which is when the judge makes the final ruling. The process to seek a jury trial instead would have required filing a motion for a jury trial, not checking a box. Trump's team filed no such motion. Even if they had, Engoron said, he would have denied it since James asked for "equitable" relief, which does not entitle participants to a jury trial.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/02/29/trump-trial-alina-habba-jury-box/72780822007/

… can explain this

even without a certificate of qualification.

It will be interesting to see what James comes up with in response. At the moment, in the absence of that response, I would predict that the court will accept the justification but will not impose costs on James for have filed the exception.

The valuation is for April 5th, and the same statement of assets was made for the E Jean Carroll bond. Is it the same acct? What are the assets and how are they valued? The company does not have the capital and surplus to guarantee Trump’s bond. The bond agreement does not give Knight a lien on the account as collateral and seems to afford Trump a two-day window to dissipate the account, according to Weissmann.

It's apparently required by law and Trump's attorneys never filed it and they are now trying an end run around it by telling the judge that the evidence exists to prove it if the judge will examine it.
Of course if I was the judge I sure as hell would not risk my own neck and do what they asked and I would demand the certificate be presented by the end of the week at the latest.

Unreal!

What is your basis for that conclusion?

to be required to escrow the $175 million. Accepting the idea that the surplus of the main company will cover the bond of the subsidiary is illegal. Surpluses are not allowed to swing like that. For good reasons. I have pointed out before that the subsidiary has suddenly posted a large increase in it's surplus on the web site. Where did this suddenly come from? You cannot borrow your way to surplus health since a loan is a liability accounted for against your surplus. Your surplus is premiums minus financial liabilities including for risk issued.

The idea that some Cayman Islands account somewhere will somehow be available to Knight to cover the bond is pure BS. You either have the assets secured to cover the risk or you don't. That account arrangement/promises hardly meets the definition of secured. That definition in these kinds of things means that you have assets in escrow or trust in accounts completely under your control. Not some "joint" control with the applicant for the bond.

Engoron needs to bring in some expertise on this matter. White collar crime investigators. He should demand that escrow of the full amount of the bond be established entirely at the sole control of the surety and he should demand proof of the premium terms for the bond and whether actual payment of the premiums has been made and where those funds came from.

of the policy terms, exclusions and conditions. We have no idea about how people could weasel out. What you have with reinsurance is another layer of paper promises. There is a reason that there are things like escrow accounts, trust accounts etc. I don't accept paper promises about money from people proven to be liars of the highest magnitude and or from their "friends". You get the assets to back the bond solidly established and entirely in the sole control of the surety. Period. Going any other route is a sure path to lots of broken promises and lengthy/costly litigation to try and make people live up to their "promises".

What we do have is a supposedly professional organization supposedly experienced in the business asking us to believe that nobody was professional enough to make sure all the paperwork was in order prior to submission to the court. Really? So now they come back with more layers of complexity about the money and even more layers of questionable paper that raises even more questions. This is hardly a situation where it is reasonable to ask people to just accept more "paper promises".

He can't get the money.
The company backing him didn't file correctly.

Just keep dragging the cases out.

If YES to all parts then ok. BUT if NO to ANY part the NOT OK!!

is a legal document that is enforceable whereas some statement by somebody in a legal brief in court is simply argument.

I don’t think he even owns Trump Tower.

The process should proceed. Sort it out.

He will skate on everything. Just VOTE!

The above is beyond insulting.

The bulk of their information just got filed yesterday.

Prior to that, her response to this bond was absolutely right on. It stunk big time.

I sped read their docs. At a glance, part of what their latest documents leaves unclear (and maybe I missed something) is what other hooks are into the figures they cite - so what is net available if it comes time to collect and will it be there when that time comes..

And how will it work - who does AG James go to to collect the dough, etc.

They're cash and equivalents. What happens if the equivalents go in the toilet?

Maybe it is all fine. One can only digest so much in a flip through the docs over a very few minutes.

To me, it is what they should have submitted in the first place. But there is still a bunch she has to verify.
There is a very good chance she's going to have to collect this money so she has to make sure this is very solid. I can almost guarantee there is more info required.

It is not clear to me how it will work. Trump loses the appeal. Who pays? If that surety party doesn't, what is the mechanism to get someone else to step up - the backs of the insurance company? I did not see any agreements like that. (maybe I missed them)

What you don't want, particularly with Trump, is some flimsy clause that lets Trump take them to court for another ten years to fight over collecting the bond.

I think AG James did a heck of a job in this case and she has been absolutely right in forcing these steps to make sure the path is clear to collect with no games.

Trump just walks between the legal raindrops and never gets wet.

He failed to post the proper bond and yet here we are nothing happened to him. As far as I can tell nothing ever will.

Every passing day our democracy dies a little more because of him.

And when that's not enough they will get another few weeks to provide proof.

But that still won't be sufficient so they will be given some more weeks to provide proof.

But that proof won't be acceptable so they will be.... ad infinitum.

A big scam.