(03-25-2024, 12:57 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(03-25-2024, 11:53 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: I think that's a lot more reasonable.

Why do you think that's a reasonable amount?

What is the purpose of this bond?

How does it contribute to the finalization and resolution of the case against Trump?

Strictly speaking, I did not say it was a reasonable amount.  I said it was a lot more reasonable.   Meaning, the original amount was unreasonable, and this lesser amount is not as unreasonable.  

The purpose of this bond, as in any civil case where there is a monetary judgment, is to guarantee payment.  The money is deposited with the court, and the court holds onto it until appeals are exhausted.  This happens in almost all civil cases like this.  I've been through it myself.  It's to make sure the money doesn't magically "disappear" while the case is on appeal.  

The reason I didn't think the original amount was reasonable was because Trump's fortune is almost all tied up in real estate.  It's hard to extract that amount of money from a real estate portfolio like his in such a short amount of time.  Besides, if the purpose of the bond is to guarantee payment, Trump's real estate isn't going anywhere.  It'll still be there when his appeals are exhausted.  He can't hide it.  It can't magically "disappear."  I don't think it's fair for one prosecutor and one judge to bankrupt a person and seize their property without appeals being exhausted, and it seemed to me that enforcing the original bond amount would irreparably damage the defendant while his case is on appeal, and that seems really unfair.   Even if he is guilty and deserves to pay the damages.  You don't hang a man while his case is on appeal.  

Larger bonds have been deposited with courts before, but those were large, publicly held companies who had no problem coming up with what to them was a piddling little million bucks or two million bucks.  

You know I hate Trump.  But everyone should be treated fairly.

---