Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(4,274 posts)
37. We have no idea
Wed Apr 17, 2024, 09:59 AM
Apr 17

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".

And yet they can continue with their bullshit?.............................. Lovie777 Apr 16 #1
meidastouch channel read from the latest and it appears that Trump pasted the security page for Demsrule86 Apr 16 #7
Don Hankey and Don Hankey Pankey! Mme. Defarge Apr 16 #13
So true...scumbag Don with scumbag lawyers. Demsrule86 Apr 16 #14
So true. And today the AG asked that the court deny Trump's so called bond. Demsrule86 Apr 19 #38
The account control has more holes moniss Apr 16 #17
Oops! TexasBushwhacker Apr 16 #2
That was an internet myth. former9thward Apr 16 #27
Ah! TexasBushwhacker Apr 16 #28
I have no idea what to make of the article. IANAL, but ai hope someone who is Raven123 Apr 16 #3
The article downplays the fact that Trump's side has made a credible argument that the surety can be accepted onenote Apr 16 #5
The bond is based on the backing of a Trump trust that supposedly has money and assets that can convert to money. 58Sunliner Apr 16 #24
Sounds kind of like they simply needed a piece of paper stating that the assets actually exist to cover the judgement. cstanleytech Apr 16 #8
So...a fraudulent bond posted for a fraud trial?! BadgerKid Apr 16 #4
You assume that the surety's legal arguments are without merit. onenote Apr 16 #6
My feeling would be for the surety moniss Apr 16 #12
Do you have experience with reinsurance policies? onenote Apr 16 #31
Yes moniss Apr 17 #35
Great. Can you explain why isn't the reinsurance coverage from KIC is invalid? onenote Apr 17 #36
We have no idea moniss Apr 17 #37
Did you actually listen? Traurigkeit Apr 16 #22
Good one. You can't make this sh*t up. n/t iluvtennis Apr 20 #39
Brothers and sisters, let us delay. Hermit-The-Prog Apr 16 #9
He doesn't have the money. Old Crank Apr 16 #10
NY state law. OK did they abide by NY state law? bluestarone Apr 16 #11
Laughable that the insurance faux bond lender "rejected" the NY AG ??!! PortTack Apr 16 #15
Is Trump's IRS tax audit complete yet? twodogsbarking Apr 16 #16
Two weeks. underpants Apr 16 #26
The certification moniss Apr 16 #18
So Trump and his lawyers filled a fraudulent document so he can appeal his guilt on running a fraudulent business? Botany Apr 16 #19
Just seize the fucking property already. Anything and everything until you reach 500 million. onecaliberal Apr 16 #20
I wonder how much of his and his company's properties are already leveraged to the hilt? Botany Apr 16 #21
I'm sure all of it is. onecaliberal Apr 16 #29
I give up. johnnyfins Apr 16 #23
"her office should be on the hook for the costs "incurred" by forcing their response" Jarqui Apr 16 #25
As I've stated before angrychair Apr 16 #30
Oh shit Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 16 #32
so now they will be given another couple of weeks to provide more proof. Kablooie Apr 16 #33
"Just say you are securing the bond, and let me and my Republican friends do the rest..." kentuck Apr 17 #34
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Trump lawyers acknowledge...»Reply #37