In a high-stakes legal battle, New York Attorney General Letitia James has made a bold move against former President Donald Trump concerning a substantial civil fraud judgment.
Breitbart reported that James requested an appellate court to dismiss Trump's plea for reducing or delaying a $454 million bond, a request labeled by Trump's legal team as unconstitutional.
On a brisk Wednesday, the legal saga took a turn when James approached the appellate court, urging it to refuse Trump's appeal to mitigate or postpone the collection of a massive bond tied to a civil fraud ruling. The request put forth by Trump's legal team aimed to lessen the financial and practical burden of the bond, arguing that the sum and conditions were excessively punitive and not feasible.
James argued that Trump had not exhausted his options in securing the bond, proposing alternatives such as acquiring multiple smaller bonds or directly handing over certain real estate holdings to the court. She implied that these measures were reasonable avenues that Trump had yet to fully explore, suggesting a lack of due diligence on his part.
In response, Clifford Robert, Trump’s attorney, vented his objections through a letter to New York’s Appellate Division the following Thursday. Robert criticized James's propositions as being “illogical” and “unconstitutional,” and painted a dire picture of the consequences such actions could precipitate. According to him, James’s proposals would unjustly coerce Trump into liquidating pivotal real estate assets under duress, termed a "fire sale".
Robert highlighted the impracticality of James's suggestion to secure several smaller bonds. He clarified that this approach would still necessitate a total collateral exceeding $557 million in cash or its equivalents, a figure notably higher than the original bond itself. This requirement underscored the unrealistic financial demands being placed on Trump.
The attorney further lambasted the notion that Trump should be compelled to dispose of valuable properties, especially under unfavorable conditions. Robert portrayed this requirement as an extreme measure that would inflict irreparable harm, particularly given the high odds of Trump succeeding upon appeal against what was referred to as a “lawless Supreme Court judgment”.
According to the terms set forth, Trump is required to post a liquid bond covering the entire $454 million judgment to prevent the immediate enforcement of the judgment. However, this task proved to be a significant hurdle as 30 surety companies refrained from accepting real estate as collateral. This predicament has shone a light on the complexities and challenges of securing such a substantial bond.
Should the bond not be posted by the designated deadline, enforcement actions could be initiated as early as March 25. These actions could include freezing Trump's bank accounts and properties, thereby implementing the judgment without delay. The immediacy of this potential outcome has heightened the stakes of this legal confrontation.
James and her office have not shied away from outlining potential measures to collect the owed amount. Reports suggest that strategies could involve imposing liens against Trump’s properties, seizing rent collections, and accessing funds in his New York State bank accounts. This detailed strategy depicts the extent to which efforts may be deployed to secure the judgment sum.
Mitchell Epner, a seasoned New York litigator, conveyed to media outlets the variety of tools at the disposal of state officials in asset seizure cases. His insights serve to illuminate the broad scope of enforcement methods that could be employed beyond merely targeting real estate assets. This diversity in potential tactics further underscores the multifaceted nature of asset recovery in legal judgments.
In defense of Trump, Robert's communications emphasized the perceived injustices and practical hurdles entailed by the proposed enforcement strategies. He portrayed the demands as excessive, going as far as to brand them a violation of constitutional rights owing to their punitive nature.
The discourse between James’s office and Trump’s legal team highlights an intense struggle over financial and legal principles. At the heart of this dispute is the quest to either affirm or mitigate a historic judgment, with implications that could resonate beyond the immediate parties involved.
This article has delved into the legal tussle between New York Attorney General Letitia James and former President Donald Trump over a $454 million bond linked to a civil fraud judgment. James's appeal to the appellate court to deny Trump's request for bond reduction or delay, Trump's legal team's rebuttals branding such proposals as unconstitutional and irrational, and the looming threat of asset enforcement actions underscore a saga of legal brinkmanship. With the potential for asset seizures and property liens hanging in the balance, this case exemplifies the complexities and high stakes inherent in legal battles involving high-profile figures and significant financial judgments.