Jump to content

45 indicated


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, gernblansten said:

Someone explain this to me like I'm 5. The 11/8/21 Letter of Interest appearing to set out possible terms for $100M loan lists the collateral as 725 4th Ave., New York, NY, which I believe to be Trump Tower. The $175M bond filings say it is secured by collateral in the form of a Schwab account with $175M in cash. What does Trump Tower being used as collateral on a $100M loan a couple years ago have to do with a Schwab account being pledged to secure the $175M bond?

The LOI says it is secured by the assets of the DJT Trust.  The Schwab account appears to be an asset of the DJT Trust.

So, they are second in priority to themselves, at least according to the LOI.

So, if the LOI embodies the true security interests pursuant to that loan AND the loan defaults before a claim matures on the bond (the appeal affirms the judgment in excess of $175M), then they are under- or unsecured on the bond.

But, as long as the bond/undertaking obligates Knight to pay on the bond, the conditions of their security interests against Trump are pretty much irrelevant unless there's evidence they don't have the assets to pay.  If Knight has the money to pay and wants to make a dumb deal with Trump, that's I think pretty much their business.

 

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The LOI says it is secured by the assets of the DJT Trust.  The Schwab account appears to be an asset of the DJT Trust.

So, they are second in priority to themselves, at least according to the LOI.

So, if the LOI embodies the true security interests pursuant to that loan AND the loan defaults before a claim matures on the bond (the appeal affirms the judgment in excess of $175M), then they are under- or unsecured on the bond.

But, as long as the bond/undertaking obligates Knight to pay on the bond, the conditions of their security interests against Trump are pretty much irrelevant unless there's evidence they don't have the assets to pay.  If Knight has the money to pay and wants to make a dumb deal with Trump, that's I think pretty much their business.

 

 

If the filing from yesterday is accurate, Knight doesn't have the money to just pay the $175 million.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The LOI says it is secured by the assets of the DJT Trust.  The Schwab account appears to be an asset of the DJT Trust.

So, they are second in priority to themselves, at least according to the LOI.

So, if the LOI embodies the true security interests pursuant to that loan AND the loan defaults before a claim matures on the bond (the appeal affirms the judgment in excess of $175M), then they are under- or unsecured on the bond.

But, as long as the bond/undertaking obligates Knight to pay on the bond, the conditions of their security interests against Trump are pretty much irrelevant unless there's evidence they don't have the assets to pay.  If Knight has the money to pay and wants to make a dumb deal with Trump, that's I think pretty much their business.

 

 

I think the point is they may not have 175M liquid to get fucked over by Trump and still be solvent in NYC, which is a good point.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Lol, right. The audio of his “grab ‘em by the pussy” comment didn’t do it. Video of him shooting someone on Fifth Ave wouldn’t do it. His base is bereft of standards, values, or fixed principles of any kind. No decent person supports Trump.

Its sad but true. It also makes them totally predictable. There is no bottom. Nothing that will change their minds. 

I left out the sarcasm punctuation.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

making comments to a prospective juror that his attorneys are challenging. Nothing happens. News at 11. 

 

 

 

what happened is the challenge by his lawyers was denied.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂

 

Isn’t this like an automatic contempt of court or something? The juror has to be excused now right? I mean the juror may hold a grudge against a defendant that confronts a juror.

This seems really big. Am I missing something?

I did serve on a jury a couple decades ago on a trial for two counts of aggravated assault. That’s the extent of my legal and courtroom experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

The challenge was for cause, ie posting a “honking cheer video” the night of the election. Near as I can determine, that’s a video of cars honking.

yes.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

#guilty

 

 

Objection.  The witness is unqualified to characterize what constitutes a "legal expense."  The evidence before the court conclusively demonstrates that he never once has paid a legal bill.

 

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, GenXer said:

Isn’t this like an automatic contempt of court or something? The juror has to be excused now right? I mean the juror may hold a grudge against a defendant that confronts a juror.

This seems really big. Am I missing something?

I did serve on a jury a couple decades ago on a trial for two counts of aggravated assault. That’s the extent of my legal and courtroom experience.

It's highly unusual. Most defendants are not stupid enough to make antagonizing comments about or towards a potential juror. 

Lawyers actually spend some time coaching demeanor during a trial, but Trump just can't help himself, obviously. 

Pretty much everyone gets a warning before the hammer comes. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's highly unusual. Most defendants are not stupid enough to make antagonizing comments about or towards a potential juror. 

Lawyers actually spend some time coaching demeanor during a trial, but Trump just can't help himself, obviously. 

Pretty much everyone gets a warning before the hammer comes. 

The penalty is, at the very least, he has to burn a peremptory strike on her.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's highly unusual. Most defendants are not stupid enough to make antagonizing comments about or towards a potential juror. 

Lawyers actually spend some time coaching demeanor during a trial, but Trump just can't help himself, obviously. 

Pretty much everyone gets a warning before the hammer comes. 

What sort of hammer are you referencing? If it is a fine, I’d argue the hammer is relative to assets. If he is removed from the courtroom, then I’d argue he gets what he wants.

There is historical precedent for a different hammer:

image.jpeg.1e3055faf664469e6ec888787016a303.jpeg

Edited by Willfully Horn
Accuracy
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s going to be fascinating to watch, because we know he can’t control himself. And this is going to last a long time. How many warnings will he get?

He wants nothing more than to be thrown in jail and brought into court in an orange jumpsuit and shackles.

PERSECUTION! ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!1!1!1!1!1!!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

He can't control himself, he will threaten jurors, prosecutors, witnesses, etc.,...do whatever the fuck he wants, and the judge will do nothing.  Guaran-fucking-teed. 

I remember the guy who represented himself in that wisconsin parade car chase guy case, she had to put him in a different room and forced him to participate over video whenever he got too disruptive

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

I remember the guy who represented himself in that wisconsin parade car chase guy case, she had to put him in a different room and forced him to participate over video whenever he got too disruptive

Yeah, as with most things Trump, it's an all-new situation.  Who knows what the judge will do, but he seems pretty sharp. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So he basically only wakes up to scream at jurors.  Seems totally normal for a person in control of their body and faculties.  

I've seen this done a number of times before.  Berate a juror you feel will be against you so you can order them gone from the pool for bias.  

And nobody can do much about it, because all he has to do is violate the gag order or judge's instructions on courtroom decorum, and Trump posts their family's addresses to his MAGA gun-toting acolytes.  And around and aroune we go.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Just have someone sitting next to him with a spray bottle give him a couple of squirts every time he starts flapping his jaws.

Judge Lucius Desha Bunton of the Western District of Texas, RIP, had a number of rules about how lawyers could walk around the courtroom and how witnesses behave. He enforced the rules with a water pistol. At first. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 5
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Judge Lucius Desha Bunton of the Western District of Texas, RIP, had a number of rules about how lawyers could walk around the courtroom and how witnesses behave. He enforced the rules with a water pistol. At first. 

He replaced Judge John Wood who was murdered by Woody Harrelson's dad.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twitter folks may be over-selling it a bit. there's a play by play on Threads has that Merchan noticed Trump's grumbling and then smacked him down. wasn't terribly dramatic.

6 minutes ago, dcbc said:

The penalty is, at the very least, he has to burn a peremptory strike on her.

apparently they did. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, dcbc said:

The penalty is, at the very least, he has to burn a peremptory strike on her.

When we were being questioned as jurors, all the jurors were present. If a defendant confronted a prospective juror in front of me, it would’ve affected my impression of said defendant regardless of the judge’s instructions. It’s human nature to do so.

Is trump trying to affect the entire jury pool as another delay tactic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...