Following New York Attorney General Letitia James' submission of a letter urging the court to not consider Trump’s ability to acquire a $464 million bond a “practical impossibility”, the court swiftly ordered its removal.
This comes at the same time CNN reports that Letitia James initiated the process to seize Donald Trump's golf course and private estate in Seven Springs, NY, located north of Manhattan. This was indicated by a filing submitted by James to the Westchester County NY clerk's office on March 6.
The letter, appended to a request for filing a surreply, typically an unusual move without explicit court approval, drew significant media attention upon its submission. However, it was promptly retracted on the same day and resubmitted without the letter, containing only the formal request.
In the initial letter, Ms. James requested the court to disregard the testimonies of a Trump attorney and broker regarding their efforts to secure a $464 million bond, alleging their unreliability as sources. The defense criticized the state's approach, highlighting the absence of specific reasons to doubt the credibility of their assertions and characterizing the state's stance as a blanket statement.
The sworn affidavits disclosed that the defense had pursued the substantial bond even before the final judgment, escalating the fine from $250 million to over $350 million in the trial's closing days. Despite efforts involving four brokers negotiating with over 30 surety companies, no deal was reached.
One broker contextualized that a $100 million bond was already considered sizable, emphasizing that the $464 million bond, inclusive of ordered interest, is a rarity, typically reserved for large publicly traded companies, and few sureties possess the capability to issue it.
In response, the attorney general contended that these affidavits did not sufficiently clarify why the defendants faced rejections, insinuating that the asserted value of Trump Organization assets might not align with the defense's claims.
The defense aimed to counter various points in the March 21 letter to the court, disputing the state's claim that the defendants hadn't dedicated sufficient time to procure a bond. They argued that critical negotiations had taken place just the previous week, emphasizing that efforts persisted even during the defense's pursuit of a stay.
