If Trump says its true it must be true

MAGA 1:1 God Bless the USA Bible, DJT Version (Amazon. $20 soft cover)

My OP post should have started with

The quote is based on one I saw on a bumper sticker, except it began, "The Bible says it..."

I'm loving how the judges are referring to TFG as "Mr. Trump," no matter how many times his lawyers say otherwise.

He's lying.

There is no more info at the link.

I don’t see why it has to be set up this way, which would require constant monitoring on the part of the state. Why should the government be put in that position?

It seems to me that whether this setup works or not is then dependent on people in the system—Schwab’s system and within the monitor’s system. We all know that those people can be pressured, at least within Schwab. I think it’s asking too much of the monitor’s office.

I’m not an expert in high finance but it appears he does not want to have to liquidate his holdings, but for the purpose of functionality, that would be best. It seems like he is holding his appeal as leverage in order to do this.

I can see why people in the government would try to be fair under those circumstances (that he might win his appeal).If I am correct, then he is exacting enormous pressure on all concerned in this matter. I would hate to be in their position (s).

On edit: re the last paragraph, it sounds like a house of cards. One entity of a company insuring another. It seems to be spreading responsibility around.

So either they corrected it or they didn’t.

banking law. There is as yet no legal determination that KSIC meets the NY requirements. It seems that it probably will not. But as said elsewhere this will take more time to resolve.
What I wonder about is whether, when KSIC is found lacking sufficient cash as I believe to be the case, Trump will then be granted an extension to secure a different source for the bond?

...threshold of meeting NYS's bonding requirements. It also appears to me he and his lawyers spent a lot of time crafting the bond to give him maximum flexibility to, as usual, weasel out of paying let alone meeting the State's requirements. Once it's finally quashed, watch for a fast motion to go back to a 30 day window to secure funds elsewhere.

p.s. No wonder he's burning through so much cash paying his lawyers to game the system.

Nothing is ever as it appears to be and in this case, it is more obvious than usual.

Yes, I also wonder how the courts will handle it when it is discovered with certainty that there is insufficient cash to guarantee the bond.

Is that KSIC isn’t even licensed to do business in New York. That alone could sink the bogus bond. Never mind the fact that the parent company is hiding behind banking laws in the Caymans. If tRump were to flop in his appeal, Tish James - and by extension, the state of New York - would find it next to impossible to collect. At least, that’s my understanding.

Sure, who will stop him from turning around tomorrow and just withdrawing all the money in
his account and sticking it to Knight Insurance?

Is someone going to monitor the account day and night?

And if he takes out the money and hides it, what can the court do?

of course we would also see the spectacle of trying to collect on a bond, aka paper promise, that the issuer will claim it is no longer able to make good on and we find out what promises on paper are really worth.

.. money to pay the bond?

Trump lies about everything.

Your question suggests that if you have the money you don't need to get a bond. But if you don't have the money to collateralize a bond, you can't get a bond. Yet lots and lots of litigant who have the funds opt to get bonds rather than put up their funds directly. One reason is that the courts greatly prefer a bond. Otherwise the court would have to handle the paperwork of setting up an interest-bearing account that would hold the money for the duration of any appeals.

yesterday that the paper showing the Schwab account signatures was already used in the EJ Carroll case. This is fishy beyond belief, and I think the judge should reject the bond justification.

This is fishy as hell, and will probably end up being yet another fraud he committed.

They need to file additional fraud charges and reinstate the original judgment.

You seem to be addressing a different point..

I was replying directly to your statement that "You can't get a surety without collateral."

...which ya shoulda done to begin with.

....the E. Jean Carrol bond?

(That's a rumor I heard).

A document that was used for the Carroll bond was used as a template for a similar document in the fraud case bond and the reference to the Carroll case was inadvertently left in the document. Is that true? Don't know. Is it believable? Yes, give that I've seen similar mistakes made by far better lawyers that the ones involved here.

...I'm sure no one would mind if all that was very carefully verified.