Bond slashed to 175 million while Trump appeals

[*pally*]

(04-09-2024, 01:09 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Your thinking only of yourself and not the child. 


I don't fear cross-dressers nor do I fear priests. However, I do want to have full control over who my child is in a bathroom with.


The bigger concern would be "What makes people full of hate?" Let's try not to force people to hate one another by forcing them to abide by someone else's standards over their own. Acceptance can never be forced.

it is a false sense of security if you believe you have any control over who your child is in the bathroom with and that is without even taking trans people into the euation

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-09-2024, 02:05 PM)pally Wrote: it is a false sense of security if you believe you have any control over who your child is in the bathroom with and that is without even taking trans people into the euation

Perfect example as to why Single use bath room is a better option. 

Security AND Privacy restored for everyone.

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2024, 01:55 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Because it's not. As I stated, if it were only adults, most people wouldn't care. But children are a different story. Plus, I think you are putting too much trust that your scenario is full proof and that people won't be people and do bad things. I know that sounds like a weak explanation, but I don't know any better way at the moment to explain without it sounding offensive. 

I know most people wouldn't care if it were just about adults, or at least there would be less ammunition for them to work with. However, I reject the premise that it being about children actually does create a greater problem. Predators are going to do predator things and allowing people to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender is not going to increase the risks. When we have seen people try to take advantage of those policies they have been called out for it, and rightfully so.

(04-09-2024, 01:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I might not have YOUR credentials, but i do have the ability to think ahead. It's a requirement for my job and is very much in line with my nature anyways. 

With the option that is currently on the table, I see lawsuits going this route, on top of keeping everyone divided and the hate increasing.

With Single Use br's, I don't see all of those problems arising, everyone has the exact same option and society would be free to grow at their own pace. 
Have you see any issues arise from outdoor events that use portable single use commodes (other than they can stink and sometimes a line)? 

Put that in your pipe and tell me which route would be the cheapest and best way to get Society where you want it for the long run. 

I might be an R, but i'm not against spending money for something I deem as a the right reasons. Frivolous sending? Yes, i will argue that.  

Oh, you mistake me for someone who disagree with unisex bathrooms being the solution. I am currently working on a team to implement such an infrastructure at a Scout camp. I just also know that it isn't an inexpensive proposition. There will be special interest groups lobbying against government spending on the efforts when it comes to updating public property. Say something was passed similar to the ADA which required public serving businesses to implement this in their accommodations there would be a fervent lobby against it on the premise of it being additional regulations on businesses and so forth. The largest special interest group in this country is the Chamber of Commerce. Knowing what I know about their positions and how they approach legislation I would not see them being in favor of these actions. I also don't foresee the GOP position being one of embracing this sort of thing. So with all of that, the political feasibility of such a position just isn't there. Maybe in a few years, but there are a lot of things that would have to change for that. Maybe it will be lawsuits, but right now with the current SCOTUS makeup those against these moves will have an advantage judicially as well.

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2024, 02:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Perfect example as to why Single use bath room is a better option. 

Security AND Privacy restored for everyone.

Pfft. Stalls in American public restrooms left much to be desired on both of those points.

[HarleyDog]

(04-09-2024, 03:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know most people wouldn't care if it were just about adults, or at least there would be less ammunition for them to work with. However, I reject the premise that it being about children actually does create a greater problem. Predators are going to do predator things and allowing people to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender is not going to increase the risks. When we have seen people try to take advantage of those policies they have been called out for it, and rightfully so.


Oh, you mistake me for someone who disagree with unisex bathrooms being the solution. I am currently working on a team to implement such an infrastructure at a Scout camp. I just also know that it isn't an inexpensive proposition. There will be special interest groups lobbying against government spending on the efforts when it comes to updating public property. Say something was passed similar to the ADA which required public serving businesses to implement this in their accommodations there would be a fervent lobby against it on the premise of it being additional regulations on businesses and so forth. The largest special interest group in this country is the Chamber of Commerce. Knowing what I know about their positions and how they approach legislation I would not see them being in favor of these actions. I also don't foresee the GOP position being one of embracing this sort of thing. So with all of that, the political feasibility of such a position just isn't there. Maybe in a few years, but there are a lot of things that would have to change for that. Maybe it will be lawsuits, but right now with the current SCOTUS makeup those against these moves will have an advantage judicially as well.

Thank you for the well-detailed response. I won't lie. When I was reading it I was thinking, Nah, I think bipartisanly we could work this out. But then I got towards the last sentence and heard Hannity in my head screaming "The deceiving Dems are wanting to take your tax dollars to build LGBTQ bathroom. Seriously folks, you can't make this stuff up."

I would like to hope it would be well received because as we discussed earlier, it meets a need and gives both parties a huge solution to a smaller problem which both could campaign on. Yet, with the amount of hatred towards one another, it's possible this thing would blow up.

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2024, 04:56 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Thank you for the well-detailed response. I won't lie. When I was reading it I was thinking, Nah, I think bipartisanly we could work this out. But then I got towards the last sentence and heard Hannity in my head screaming "The deceiving Dems are wanting to take your tax dollars to build LGBTQ bathroom. Seriously folks, you can't make this stuff up."

I would like to hope it would be well received because as we discussed earlier, it meets a need and gives both parties a huge solution to a smaller problem which both could campaign on. Yet, with the amount of hatred towards one another, it's possible this thing would blow up.

Yeah, right now the political environment is just far too volatile for it. Even before the recent trends in partisan attitudes this would've been a hard sell for bipartisanship, but as we go on we see fewer and fewer things getting that sort of support. Things that used to be obvious yes votes in both chambers have become party-line or nearly party-line votes. It is a sad state of affairs.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-09-2024, 03:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know most people wouldn't care if it were just about adults, or at least there would be less ammunition for them to work with. However, I reject the premise that it being about children actually does create a greater problem. Predators are going to do predator things and allowing people to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender is not going to increase the risks. When we have seen people try to take advantage of those policies they have been called out for it, and rightfully so.


Oh, you mistake me for someone who disagree with unisex bathrooms being the solution. I am currently working on a team to implement such an infrastructure at a Scout camp. I just also know that it isn't an inexpensive proposition. There will be special interest groups lobbying against government spending on the efforts when it comes to updating public property. Say something was passed similar to the ADA which required public serving businesses to implement this in their accommodations there would be a fervent lobby against it on the premise of it being additional regulations on businesses and so forth. The largest special interest group in this country is the Chamber of Commerce. Knowing what I know about their positions and how they approach legislation I would not see them being in favor of these actions. I also don't foresee the GOP position being one of embracing this sort of thing. So with all of that, the political feasibility of such a position just isn't there. Maybe in a few years, but there are a lot of things that would have to change for that. Maybe it will be lawsuits, but right now with the current SCOTUS makeup those against these moves will have an advantage judicially as well.

Weird, didn't see your response.

Anyways, i know you aren't against it, just wondered why you were against what i was proposing. 

That's always possible and with the current proposal if it becomes a law then same will happen. 

But my understanding is that if a business upgrades or renovates a % of all is already a tax write-off so there wouldn't be anything that wasn't already in place other than the Fed taking the tax hit in 1-2 years vs spread out. And you know with social media so big these days, someone would give good PR to a businesses for that and any new business that starts from the ground up would also build accordingly. 

It's very possible the COC would try to put up a fight, but i think businesses would jump at it and make it moot. Either path you take the COC and certain politicians will fight it. 

As weird as it sounds, just seems like an overall win-win. There is always people that don't like change and some that would use politics. 

[GMDino]

oopsie.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-attorney-general-letitia-james-opposes-trump-bond-in-civil-fraud-case/

Quote:New York Attorney General Letitia James opposes company holding Trump's $175 million bond in civil fraud case

By Graham Kates, Katrina Kaufman
Updated on: April 19, 2024 / 6:05 PM EDT / CBS News

• [/url]
• [url=https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?related=cbsnews,CBSPolitics&via=CBSPolitics&text=New%20York%20Attorney%20General%20Letitia%20James%20opposes%20company%20holding%20Trump%27s%20%24175%20million%20bond%20in%20civil%20fraud%20case&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Fnew-york-attorney-general-letitia-james-opposes-trump-bond-in-civil-fraud-case%2F]
• [/url]
  

New York Attorney General Letitia James on Friday filed a memorandum of opposition to the surety company that holds the $175 million bond for former President Donald Trump as he appeals the $460 million decision against him in the civil fraud trial earlier this year. 


The attorney general's office says it is concerned about the financials of the bondholder, Knight Specialty Insurance company, and the collateral for the bond.


The $175 million in cash that Trump claims to have provided as collateral in a bank account is in the DJT Revocable Trust and not under Knight's control, as it should be, the attorney general's office argued. Because Trump still has access to the funds, he's still able to make withdrawals, or replace the funds with other assets that could fluctuate with the markets. And if the value drops below $175 million, the bond is no longer secured, according to the attorney general.


The state is concerned that if Trump continues to control the account, he could make money on the bond deal, earning interest that exceeds the fees he owes to Knight for posting the bond. 


Should Trump lose on appeal, and if he doesn't pay, Knight would be obligated to pay the $175 million bond. The attorney general's memorandum argued that Knight falls short on several requirements for a surety bondholder.

As CBS News has reported, Knight doesn't appear to [url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-175-million-civil-fraud-bond-valid-new-york/]meet a restriction under New York insurance law barring companies from putting more than 10% of its capital at risk, and the attorney general's office noted that Knight has a surplus of only $138 million.


Under New York law, given that amount of surplus, it may not take on liability of more than $13.8 million. The attorney general also said that Knight relies on risk transfer practices that work to "artificially" bolster its surplus. James also argues that Knight's management is untrustworthy, violating federal law "on multiple occasions over the last several years.
Representatives for Trump did not immediately return requests for comment.


The state asked the court to require Trump to come up with a replacement within seven days of its ruling on the matter. A hearing on this issue is scheduled for Monday.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-175-million-bond-goes-before-judge-new-york-ags-concerns-2024-04-22/

Bond remains in place.

[GMDino]

(04-22-2024, 04:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-175-million-bond-goes-before-judge-new-york-ags-concerns-2024-04-22/

Bond remains in place.

With the additional safeguards.

Quote:Trump accepts new restrictions on $175 million bond in New York civil fraud case

...

But at a hearing on Monday, down the block from where jurors heard opening arguments in Trump's criminal hush money trial, lawyers for Trump and Knight agreed that the funds would remain as cash and not be traded for securities.


They also agreed that Knight would have exclusive control of the account and not withdraw funds, and to provide James with monthly statements to assure that the cash isn't going anywhere.

The agreement was reached after Engoron questioned the security of the collateral.


"You keep using the word agreement, what if they break the agreement?" he asked Trump's lawyer Christopher Kise. "It all seems like a house of cards."



Knight is owned by billionaire Trump supporter Don Hankey.

...

[Luvnit2]

(04-21-2024, 02:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: oopsie.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-attorney-general-letitia-james-opposes-trump-bond-in-civil-fraud-case/

One more overreach by James. She loses and eventually she will lose on appeal. I really hope when they lose, Trump sues NY for hundreds of billions of dollars and wins.

oopsie, you wishes denied.