this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
328 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2595 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Letitia James filed a ‘notice of exception to the sufficiency of the surety’ seeking more information about Knight Specialty Insurance Company

Donald Trump’s $175m bond in his New York civil fraud case has been thrown into doubt by New York Attorney General Letitia James after she filed a notice asking for evidence that the out-of-state firm that underwrote it really has the money to pay up.

Ms James’s office submitted a “notice of exception to the sufficiency of the surety” on Thursday asking for further proof that California-based Knight Specialty Insurance Company (KSIC) has the capital to proceed on the former president’s behalf.

KSIC is not regulated by New York state, which means that it is not authorised to issue surety bonds in the Empire State and therefore cannot obtain a certificate from the New York Department of Financial Services, which is customarily part of any bond package.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 95 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Just assume everything he says is a lie and everything he does is a crime.

You would be right more often than not.

Saves time.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The funny thing is, even if this shady company is found not to be able to post the bond, per new york state law they're still legally on the hook for the money, unless an actual elgibile bond is found. So Letitia James may get to go after both this shady company and Trump, with the shady company forced to then go after Trump directly to get back the portion they promised to the state.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The whole point of all of this is specifically so they won't have to hunt people down for the money. If they allow this bond to stand, all it will do is give Trump some cannon fodder to throw in front of the AG when he inevitably loses the appeal. They will attempt to collect the bond, KSIC will disappear (and probably flee the country), and the AG will have to spend years going after them for the money while Trump walks away.

What should happen is that the AG seize personal properties at their actual appraised value and have them locked in escrow until the appeals play out. If he wins, he gets his properties back, untouched. If he loses, he can either pay up the cash in exchange for the properties or lose them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Oh what I mean is, if new york doesn't accept this bond as valid, the company that promised the invalid bond is still on hook for the 175 million, but right now, even though it doesn't count as a bond for Trump. The bond company could sue Trump to recover that though, and Leititia James can immediately start going after Trump and the shady company both. It won't work as a bond if it's not valid, but they've still made themselves liable by submitting these filings, unless Trump gives the state the money or a valid bond is submitted.

Failure to justify. If a motion to justify is not made within ten days after the notice of exception is served, the undertaking shall then be without effect, except as provided in this subdivision. Unless otherwise provided by order of court, a surety on an undertaking excepted to and not justified shall remain liable until a new undertaking is given and allowed, but the original undertaking shall be otherwise without effect.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cvp/article-25/2507/

Unless I'm misreading this.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This. Once I started assuming everything he says is a lie (until proven right) life became so much easier.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago