Trump's Legal Team Criticizes NY Attorney General's Bond Recommendations

Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers disagreed with some suggestions from the New York attorney general’s office regarding how he can pay bond. They rejected the idea of Trump getting multiple underwriters to secure bonds equaling the judgment. This option would still demand Trump to provide $500 million in cash or stock, which he currently does not possess.

The court filing was made because Trump has four days to either pay the judgment or convince an appeals court to let him pay a reduced amount or delay payment until after the appeal.

In the filing, Trump's legal team stated that the New York attorney general's office should not have the right to dispute their arguments.

If no agreement is reached, New York Attorney General Letitia James has stated that she will move forward to seize assets. The attorney general’s office emphasized on Wednesday that it is typical for big companies to submit billion-dollar bonds and recommended that Trump should have submitted real estate to the court instead.

Trump’s lawyers believe the suggestion made by the Attorney General is impractical and unfair. They point out that the Attorney General did not provide any New York case law to back up this idea. In addition, they argue that the risk involved in the proposal of appointing a ‘court-appointed officer’ to ‘hold real estate’ is essentially the same as the current requirement of a court-appointed monitor overseeing Defendants’ business operations.

Furthermore, Trump’s lawyers express concern that being forced to sell properties quickly at a low price would result in irreparable harm. They mention that if they were to win part of the appeal later on, they would not be able to regain the property.

The Attorney General and Supreme Court have required an appeal bond equal to the full judgment amount, which the writers consider to be unfair, unreasonable, and unconstitutional. They believe this condition violates both the Federal and New York State Constitutions.

Editor's P/S:

The legal battle between former President Donald Trump and the New York Attorney General's office over a $250 million fraud judgment highlights the ongoing tension between powerful individuals and the rule of law. Trump's lawyers' resistance to providing a bond equivalent to the judgment reveals their concerns about potential financial consequences and the erosion of his personal wealth.

The Attorney General's suggestion that Trump submit real estate to the court as collateral raises questions about the practicality and potential harm of such a move. While big companies may routinely submit billion-dollar bonds, Trump's lawyers argue that his situation is unique and that forced property sales could result in irreparable damage. The debate underscores the complex interplay between legal obligations, financial security, and the preservation of assets. As the legal proceedings continue, it remains to be seen how the courts will balance these competing interests and determine the ultimate outcome of this high-stakes case. ability to regain the property if they were to win their appeal. The legal team's arguments highlight the complexities and ongoing negotiations surrounding the enforcement of the judgment against the former President.