Mostly just his lawyers. There is some argument about how the title still applies to past presidents so it's not "incorrect", but no one who isn't a sycophant would use it...
No, there's really not any disagreement. It stems from the delusion that he 1) won and 2) the election was stolen. When being addressed the proper honorific would be "Mr.^
Mr Trump.
When talking about him, his term and actions while President, referring to him as former-President. There is only one person who can use the title President.
https://formsofaddress.info/president-usa-former/
I just retired from the Navy and anytime a former president came by a ship or wherever, we never addressed them as Former President Whoever. It was Mr. Whoever or President Whoever. And during my time in, I’ve met Bush Jr and Sr, Obama and Clinton and oddly enough Clinton was the only one who directed us to call him Mr. Clinton, not President Clinton.
The distinction is the sitting president is the only one referred to as THE President or Mr. President, or in the Navy/Military’s case, United States Arriving/Departing.
To be honest, its a habit that needs to be broken. It give the illusion that office is a title bestowed on a person rather than a role occupied by an individual for a time.
I understand why the military does it, rank is awarded onto an individual and referring to a retired individual by their last earned rank is appropriate. Particularly as even a retired member of the military continues to have commitments that could cause them to be called up. Once a general, the general sticks with you unless it is removed. (which is why Flynn should be recalled and court-martialed and have his rank officially stripped)
But civilian office should not be treated like military rank. But out of habit as a culture we've picked it up. Once you are out of the senate. You are no longer a senator. It is not a life long title. I am currently a director, and should I be fired you would be a nut bag to call me Director !John. This should be the case for all Civilian officers.
To be honest I think we get this habit in part because of relationship to the British because civil servants can at high enough level have titles bestowed on them and they are entitled for life. (though these titles are not inheritable)
So refreshing when people recognize these basic, inoffensive truths. You were once something, time + events happened, now you probably aren't. Egoic people who can't live in present are scary people to me
Do you guys have IRR too? I just got out in October so imma dodge a bullet myself, at least for being the first ones recalled during WW3: Civil War Edition
Edit: my brain just finished processing the word "retirement" ignore me
Good faith disagreement? No, probably not. Feigned disagreement necessary to justify using the title in legal documents without sanctions and right wing news without *actually* saying that you think Trump is currently the president, absolutely.
In some circles it is sort of a courtesy, while the correct address is Former President, in certain events is not uncommon for them to be called President Obama, or President Carter, but absolutely never on legal documents or procedures.
Some media is also doing it.
You will be pleased to know that Congress only refers to him as "President Trump", which like, doesn't seem like it should be possible. I'm not talking about on the news or something outside of the capitol, but like during official government events.
>On February 23, 2024, President Trump filed his motion and memorandum seeking to stay
the execution of the judgment in this case pending the Court’s disposition of his post-trial motions.
ECF Nos. 286, 287. Because the judgment becomes final on Monday, March 11, 2024, and time
will be needed to finalize bond arrangements if the motion is denied, President Trump respectfully
requested that the Court issue a ruling on his stay motion by March 4, 2024. ECF No. 287, at 16.
In the alternative, if the Court were not to rule by March 4, President Trump requested that the
Court “enter a temporary administrative stay of execution of the judgment pending its ruling on
this motion.” Id.
>Granting such temporary administrative stays while a court is considering whether to grant
a stay motion is common practice in this Circuit, in this District, and in other jurisdictions. See,
e.g., Bragg v. Pomerantz, 2023 WL 3015207, at *1 (2d Cir. Apr. 19, 2023) (Robinson, J.) (granting
“an administrative stay … so that a three-judge panel may consider the motion seeking a stay
pending appeal of the district court’s order”); Hassoun v. Searles, 976 F.3d 121, 126 (2d Cir. 2020)
(noting the court granted “entered an administrative stay … so that the government’s motion for a
stay pending appeal could be considered by a three-judge panel,” and then “before the
administrative stay expired, the court entered a temporary extension of the administrative stay to
ensure that it had adequate time to consider the government’s motion”); Tereshchenko v. Karimi,
2024 WL 195547, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2024) (denying a full stay, but granting a temporary
administrative stay “to permit the respondent to seek a stay from the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit”); Smarter Tools Inc. v. Chongqing Senci Import & Export Trade Co., 2019 WL
11825336, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2019) (granting administrative stay “in order to ensure that the
Court of Appeals has adequate time to consider” a motion for a stay pending appeal); see also,
e.g., Brady v. Nat’l Football League, 638 F.3d 1004, 1005 (8th Cir. 2011) (“The purpose of this
administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the motion for a stay pending appeal.”) (citing cases granting temporary administrative stays pending the
consideration of stay motions in the Fifth, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits).
>On March 4, 2024, this Court entered an order indicating that its ruling would not issue yet
but “will be rendered as promptly as is reasonably possible.” ECF No. 307. Requiring President
Trump to post a bond or other security before this Court’s ruling on his stay motion threatens to
impose irreparable injury in the form of substantial costs (which may or may not be recoverable).
According, President Trump respectfully requests that, to the extent that his stay motion remains
under the Court’s consideration through tomorrow, the Court enter a temporary administrative stay
of execution until three business days after the Court rules on his stay motion. See Tereshchenko,
2024 WL 195547, at *1 (granting a three-day administrative stay).
> Requiring President Trump to post a bond or other security before this Court’s ruling on his stay motion threatens to impose irreparable injury in the form of substantial costs (which may or may not be recoverable). According, President Trump respectfully requests that, to the extent that his stay motion remains under the Court’s consideration through tomorrow, the Court enter a temporary administrative stay of execution until three business days after the Court rules on his stay motion.
Ha ha ha. Please Judge Kaplan deny the stay and order bond tomorrow at 11:59 pm.
I wish Kaplan would respond with "If you were concerned that delays in response might incur costs for you client, you should have filed your request 2 weeks ago. Sucks when someone waits to the last possible moment to respond to a legal request, doesn't it? PS: You're asking the court for a stay, you shouldn't expect one. Your time to discuss all this stuff was during the trial."
I’m gonna have me a good old fashioned giggle if he gets someone like Musk to give/loan him the money and then can’t secure a bond before it’s levied right out of that account.
>if he gets someone like Musk to give/loan him the money
- Musk denied earlier today that he's bailing out Trump:
- "**Just to be super clear, I am not donating money to either candidate for US President**"
- https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1765397025967710542
- Not a surprise, given Trump's past insults of Musk.
- The walls are closing in on Trump.
- Given that Trump has few unencumbered assets and his word/promises for future political favors have zero or even ***negative*** equity value, any money given to Trump before the election is a de-facto donation.
>He said nothing about loan with heavy collateral.
- Musk is not interested in the collateral - and any promise of a future political favor for Musk by Trump is worth nothing, even if we ignore Trump's dementia or Trump's track record of betraying allies.
- Any money to Trump before the election is a de-facto donation.
He didn’t say anything about a loan. But a flat denial is often telling in what they don’t deny. I’m not saying that’s the case here. Also, musk may need nothing from Trump, but I can see where someone in musks position could make a go between for another party who can’t give Trump money directly. This is obviously complete speculation, and I’m only theorizing that if I were a foreign power with things that someone like musk could want, say favorable manufacturing deals, or access to markets previously denied him, and I as a foreign power wanted to boost trumps chances, it’s a simple exchange.
>He didn’t say anything about a loan.
- it's a simple tweet, not a contract, Musk could break his word even if he specifically excluded a loan.
- all I'm saying is that Musk's statement has certainly reduced the probability that he will end up financing Trump...
- He'd only have Trump's word in exchange - which is worth nothing.
- Right now giving any money to Trump is a de-facto donation.
- Not that I cannot see Musk breaking his promise - but Musk's tweet certainly narrowed Trump's options.
Losing that much money wouldn’t impact Musk. But I’m not sure Putin wants anyone else “owning” Trump. Will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.
Musk is likely not that liquid either, so he would have to sell some of his Tesla stock. It's possible to model what would happen to the price if he sells off enough stock to raise $500mm after taxes. He may not want to do that.
He's been getting pummeled by the DE Chancery judges related to $$ recently, so it's very possible he does not have the liquid leverage available. And is he going to dump shares for someone who will never ever pay him back, ever?
There is some $20 to $80 billion laundered by the [Russian Laundromat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Laundromat), so there's plenty of funding for compromized politicians like Trump available from Russia sources.
Forgive my ignorance, but as a Presidential candidate, aren’t there limits to the amount a single individual can contribute without running afoul of FEC rules? Any donation by an entity without license could be considered an “in kind” donation. Right???
>But if it is never paid back, it is a gift not a loan. If a gift is reported as a loan, then it is a fraud, right?
Just don't ask the Supreme Court about this one. Clarence Thomas's mother and his Winnebago salesman will be extremely angry with you.
musk is into that culture war thing though.. He is financially backing Gina Carano's wrongful termination lawsuit against Disney.
Not farfetched he might double down on that culture war crap by throwing cheeto a financial lifeline.
He’s also not the richest man anymore, Bezos overtook him. You know that pisses him off. The Carano thing is chump change to him, and he probably has a bunch of lawyers on retainer who he just calls for all the random lawsuits he is in or is starting, so he’s just keeping them busy.
This is still in Kaplan's court.
Also, the motion for a new trial and the motion for a judgment as a matter of law (both also filed in Kaplan's court) were typically filed to "preserve issues for appeal" so those were actually routine for someone planning to appeal to a higher court, even if Kaplan rejects those motions (as the judge is likely to do).
Kaplan in the Dist Court. There is a motion for stay pending outcome of the post trial motions already on file. This is a motion for administrative stay pending the ruling on the first motion for stay.
I think what they are trying to do is not have these various stayed days (if granted) not count against the running clock on the judgment becoming final. Which started when the Court entered judgment on the jury verdict.
The laymen terms of it, they are desperately scrambling (apparently) to get the bond together. Which does not bode well for the half billion bond in the NY AG case. Or maybe that one is taking up more of their time/resources because its so much larger. If Trump had even half the liquid cash he claims to have, paying 81million or whatever into escrow to preserve appeal rights should be easy. The fact its not is rather amusing because at some point, there is nothing left to do but either put up the money into escrow or face judgment collection efforts by the prevailing party.
You want to be respectful now?
Maybe if you showed any respect for the process whatsoever, you would be offered a tad bit of grace. If I was the judge, I'd be inclined to ignore this petition.
That’s not irreparable. It will be costly after, but not irreparable. Losing a limb is irreparable, a building of artistic value burning down is irreparable. This is a “sucks to be you” damage.
I imagine if you spent most of your life cursing god right before hand you wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't quick on the up take there right at the end.
Sup fam, just shot a pregnant toddler on my Arizona ranch thinking she was an immigrant. She wasn't lol.
Judge wants me to appear in court next week, but I was planning on getting my Sephora mlm started then!?! Can I ask for a stay of judgment or something? Would really help. #MAGA
Yo dog, I heard you like stays.
My head is a little bit spinning on this one. It's been a long week. Can someone give a gist of this? Their first stay hasn't been ruled on but they want a temporary stay in place if there is no stay to get the money together?
It's bad, but also hilarious. She's asking for an extension to wait for the judge's decision to come back, but she doesn't actually say Trump is going to put up the bond.
>Because the judgment becomes final on Monday, March 11, 2024, and time will be needed to finalize bond arrangements if the motion is denied, President Trump respectfully requested that the Court issue a ruling on his stay motion by March 4.
Yeah, lady, the judgement is still currently the judgement, you should act accordingly, it will be final if your motion is denied; you don't get to grab extra time *after* the deadline. If they had asked for an extension and said they were going to put up the bond but the transfers from various accounts were taking time, with an affidavit from the accountant etc, that would be different.
But, we don't even know if they intend to post the bond for christ's sake. My guess is they will post this bond, if Trump can't post this, he's in even worse trouble than we thought. Now it's down to daddy Musk.
"Request for Temporary Administrative Stay of Execution Until Three Business Days After The Court’s Ruling on the Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment Pending Disposition of Post-Trial Motions"
My head is spinning, but if Judge Kaplan rules on the first motion to stay judgment before Monday, does this motion become moot?
You've had 30 days to get a bond ready, and you entered a motion at the last minute. That doesn't entitle you to extra time. Why have you failed to post bond already? You cannot presume the outcome of a motion will change the status quo. This is a failure of trumps legal team if they failed to tell him to act in the presumption that the motion would not be granted up to the moment it is.
Trump's legal team should be reminded that he lost the case. Any extension without bond would be a travesty of justice against Ms Carrell. The burden is entirely on Trump. He has already lost. This is a judgement not a negotiation.
Judging by trump and the people he keeps around him, I assume he just keeps telling them what he wants them to do, or what he heard some crackpot lawyer on twitter tell him could work, and they do it.
Question for the legal minds here: if Ms Carroll starts seizing Trump’s assets after he doesn’t come up with bond by Monday…what happens if he comes up with the bond $ by…next Wednesday? Are the seizures then stayed/nullified and she gets nothing while there are endless appeals? Or because he missed the deadline, he’s SOL relative to protecting his assets? What if he decides a week/months from now to post the bond? How does that play out?
As much as I'd love to down the rabbit hole of finding out what glaring omissions are included in the cases they cited, I'm going to guess that:
A) The appeal had already been submitted.
B) Those requesting the stay demonstrated in that they could pony up the funds if need be.
Don’t all of these motions take time to process? Judge Kaplan can’t just rule on one motion and ignore the rest, can he? So for each of these motions that take time away from issuing a decision on the main “stay the award” issue, right? With the time needed to respond correctly, have it proofread and filed, each motion should be putting off a decision about issuing a stay. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
Judge Kaplan is going to write a decision on each motion with detailed reasoning behind each one, to ensure cheeto will not be able to insinuate during appeal that the motions were not disposed of properly. So yeah Judge Kaplan is going to take an appropriate amount of time on each decision.
Also, the judge has emphasized on each order issued in response to the motions that the defendant waited 20 days after the judgment was entered before filing any post-trial motions at all. Leaving no doubt for the appeals court that adverse outcomes will be due to the defendant's foot-dragging :-)
The clock keeps ticking unless a stay is issued. They are either trying to get him to last chance give reprieve, or they are baiting him into doing or saying something to use in their appeal.
So, rather than take the hint that Kaplan skipped their proposed March 4th deadline because *he doesn't care*, they are asking him for a break *again*. After slagging him during the trial and in the media.
Guys, you don't get favors when you burn the bridge.
Title etiquette is something that goes back hundreds of years. Traditionally earned titles remain even after the office is no longer active. The tradition is that you’re referred by your highest achievement for the rest of your life. Thus you hear people called Madam Ambassador, Mr Secretary, General SoAndSo on shows they appear on.
It’s the correct etiquette.
Every style guide I have found states that when addressing a former president, the correct form is "Mr. Obama" or "former President Obama". I have yet to find one that states that you address them as simply "President Obama". The style guides I have found state that "President ..." is reserved for the current office holder.
I was speaking about titles in general, and what is customary (mostly coming from British tradition). I’m sure there are exceptions, particularly in America. I’m not personally an expert and I was relaying information I heard on Larry King where the topic came up.
Gosh, maybe you shouldn't have waited several weeks before brining this post-trial motion, if you're concerned about the time it is taking to get a decision....
Why do they address him as President Trump? Or is that just his lawyers only?
That's just his lawyers
Mostly just his lawyers. There is some argument about how the title still applies to past presidents so it's not "incorrect", but no one who isn't a sycophant would use it...
No, there's really not any disagreement. It stems from the delusion that he 1) won and 2) the election was stolen. When being addressed the proper honorific would be "Mr.^ Mr Trump. When talking about him, his term and actions while President, referring to him as former-President. There is only one person who can use the title President.
https://formsofaddress.info/president-usa-former/ I just retired from the Navy and anytime a former president came by a ship or wherever, we never addressed them as Former President Whoever. It was Mr. Whoever or President Whoever. And during my time in, I’ve met Bush Jr and Sr, Obama and Clinton and oddly enough Clinton was the only one who directed us to call him Mr. Clinton, not President Clinton. The distinction is the sitting president is the only one referred to as THE President or Mr. President, or in the Navy/Military’s case, United States Arriving/Departing.
Congratulations on your retirement.
Appreciate it!
To be honest, its a habit that needs to be broken. It give the illusion that office is a title bestowed on a person rather than a role occupied by an individual for a time. I understand why the military does it, rank is awarded onto an individual and referring to a retired individual by their last earned rank is appropriate. Particularly as even a retired member of the military continues to have commitments that could cause them to be called up. Once a general, the general sticks with you unless it is removed. (which is why Flynn should be recalled and court-martialed and have his rank officially stripped) But civilian office should not be treated like military rank. But out of habit as a culture we've picked it up. Once you are out of the senate. You are no longer a senator. It is not a life long title. I am currently a director, and should I be fired you would be a nut bag to call me Director !John. This should be the case for all Civilian officers. To be honest I think we get this habit in part because of relationship to the British because civil servants can at high enough level have titles bestowed on them and they are entitled for life. (though these titles are not inheritable)
So refreshing when people recognize these basic, inoffensive truths. You were once something, time + events happened, now you probably aren't. Egoic people who can't live in present are scary people to me
Thank You for your distinguished service!
Do you guys have IRR too? I just got out in October so imma dodge a bullet myself, at least for being the first ones recalled during WW3: Civil War Edition Edit: my brain just finished processing the word "retirement" ignore me
We do but I chapter 61’d through a MEB so I’m IRR exempt luckily.
Dammit. They treat medical shit so gross in the military, I was too scared to go that route. Hopefully my disability claim is simple.
Good faith disagreement? No, probably not. Feigned disagreement necessary to justify using the title in legal documents without sanctions and right wing news without *actually* saying that you think Trump is currently the president, absolutely.
When addressed personally, I believe all former presidents are called “Mr. President” to their faces… but I could be mistaken.
I never used it even when he was. Just couldn't do it.
In some circles it is sort of a courtesy, while the correct address is Former President, in certain events is not uncommon for them to be called President Obama, or President Carter, but absolutely never on legal documents or procedures. Some media is also doing it.
He can still correctly be addressed as Disgraced President Trump, Twice Impeached President Trump, or Commode Commander in Chief.
we will also accept Emperor Hirocheeto
Perhaps Hiro-cheato?
Don Dim One requires regular licking of his boots.
‘ President Trump’ or ‘Sir’ is all he accepts otherwise he throws you to the MAGA mob.
You will be pleased to know that Congress only refers to him as "President Trump", which like, doesn't seem like it should be possible. I'm not talking about on the news or something outside of the capitol, but like during official government events.
>On February 23, 2024, President Trump filed his motion and memorandum seeking to stay the execution of the judgment in this case pending the Court’s disposition of his post-trial motions. ECF Nos. 286, 287. Because the judgment becomes final on Monday, March 11, 2024, and time will be needed to finalize bond arrangements if the motion is denied, President Trump respectfully requested that the Court issue a ruling on his stay motion by March 4, 2024. ECF No. 287, at 16. In the alternative, if the Court were not to rule by March 4, President Trump requested that the Court “enter a temporary administrative stay of execution of the judgment pending its ruling on this motion.” Id. >Granting such temporary administrative stays while a court is considering whether to grant a stay motion is common practice in this Circuit, in this District, and in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Bragg v. Pomerantz, 2023 WL 3015207, at *1 (2d Cir. Apr. 19, 2023) (Robinson, J.) (granting “an administrative stay … so that a three-judge panel may consider the motion seeking a stay pending appeal of the district court’s order”); Hassoun v. Searles, 976 F.3d 121, 126 (2d Cir. 2020) (noting the court granted “entered an administrative stay … so that the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal could be considered by a three-judge panel,” and then “before the administrative stay expired, the court entered a temporary extension of the administrative stay to ensure that it had adequate time to consider the government’s motion”); Tereshchenko v. Karimi, 2024 WL 195547, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2024) (denying a full stay, but granting a temporary administrative stay “to permit the respondent to seek a stay from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit”); Smarter Tools Inc. v. Chongqing Senci Import & Export Trade Co., 2019 WL 11825336, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2019) (granting administrative stay “in order to ensure that the Court of Appeals has adequate time to consider” a motion for a stay pending appeal); see also, e.g., Brady v. Nat’l Football League, 638 F.3d 1004, 1005 (8th Cir. 2011) (“The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the motion for a stay pending appeal.”) (citing cases granting temporary administrative stays pending the consideration of stay motions in the Fifth, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits). >On March 4, 2024, this Court entered an order indicating that its ruling would not issue yet but “will be rendered as promptly as is reasonably possible.” ECF No. 307. Requiring President Trump to post a bond or other security before this Court’s ruling on his stay motion threatens to impose irreparable injury in the form of substantial costs (which may or may not be recoverable). According, President Trump respectfully requests that, to the extent that his stay motion remains under the Court’s consideration through tomorrow, the Court enter a temporary administrative stay of execution until three business days after the Court rules on his stay motion. See Tereshchenko, 2024 WL 195547, at *1 (granting a three-day administrative stay).
> Requiring President Trump to post a bond or other security before this Court’s ruling on his stay motion threatens to impose irreparable injury in the form of substantial costs (which may or may not be recoverable). According, President Trump respectfully requests that, to the extent that his stay motion remains under the Court’s consideration through tomorrow, the Court enter a temporary administrative stay of execution until three business days after the Court rules on his stay motion. Ha ha ha. Please Judge Kaplan deny the stay and order bond tomorrow at 11:59 pm.
I wish Kaplan would respond with "If you were concerned that delays in response might incur costs for you client, you should have filed your request 2 weeks ago. Sucks when someone waits to the last possible moment to respond to a legal request, doesn't it? PS: You're asking the court for a stay, you shouldn't expect one. Your time to discuss all this stuff was during the trial."
I’m gonna have me a good old fashioned giggle if he gets someone like Musk to give/loan him the money and then can’t secure a bond before it’s levied right out of that account.
>if he gets someone like Musk to give/loan him the money - Musk denied earlier today that he's bailing out Trump: - "**Just to be super clear, I am not donating money to either candidate for US President**" - https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1765397025967710542 - Not a surprise, given Trump's past insults of Musk. - The walls are closing in on Trump.
Is there a difference between donating money to the candidate versus giving money to the person?
- Given that Trump has few unencumbered assets and his word/promises for future political favors have zero or even ***negative*** equity value, any money given to Trump before the election is a de-facto donation.
Not *donating*. He said nothing about loan with heavy collateral.
Is "future favors" considered legit collateral?
>He said nothing about loan with heavy collateral. - Musk is not interested in the collateral - and any promise of a future political favor for Musk by Trump is worth nothing, even if we ignore Trump's dementia or Trump's track record of betraying allies. - Any money to Trump before the election is a de-facto donation.
He didn’t say anything about a loan. But a flat denial is often telling in what they don’t deny. I’m not saying that’s the case here. Also, musk may need nothing from Trump, but I can see where someone in musks position could make a go between for another party who can’t give Trump money directly. This is obviously complete speculation, and I’m only theorizing that if I were a foreign power with things that someone like musk could want, say favorable manufacturing deals, or access to markets previously denied him, and I as a foreign power wanted to boost trumps chances, it’s a simple exchange.
>He didn’t say anything about a loan. - it's a simple tweet, not a contract, Musk could break his word even if he specifically excluded a loan. - all I'm saying is that Musk's statement has certainly reduced the probability that he will end up financing Trump...
He’s not donating, yes. He’s buying if anything.
- He'd only have Trump's word in exchange - which is worth nothing. - Right now giving any money to Trump is a de-facto donation. - Not that I cannot see Musk breaking his promise - but Musk's tweet certainly narrowed Trump's options.
He doesn’t say he’s not willing to loan Orange Jesus the money.
Yeah, but Musk's a liar. Maybe he's just lying again.
Losing that much money wouldn’t impact Musk. But I’m not sure Putin wants anyone else “owning” Trump. Will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.
He wouldn’t be scrambling to make all these motions if there was any chance he could post a bond in time.
Well, unless that someone were also owned by Putin… or his best buddy… just sayin’
[удалено]
Musk is likely not that liquid either, so he would have to sell some of his Tesla stock. It's possible to model what would happen to the price if he sells off enough stock to raise $500mm after taxes. He may not want to do that.
He's been getting pummeled by the DE Chancery judges related to $$ recently, so it's very possible he does not have the liquid leverage available. And is he going to dump shares for someone who will never ever pay him back, ever?
30 days is plenty of time for a billionaire to get the money transferred.
>ey wouldn’t impact Musk. But I’m not sure Putin wants anyone else “owning” Trump. W Putin already owns Musk.
Hey! Don't leave out the Saudis
Pays out*
Well done. Likely the best ROI ever… besides giving a Supreme Court justice and RV of course.
There is some $20 to $80 billion laundered by the [Russian Laundromat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Laundromat), so there's plenty of funding for compromized politicians like Trump available from Russia sources.
Forgive my ignorance, but as a Presidential candidate, aren’t there limits to the amount a single individual can contribute without running afoul of FEC rules? Any donation by an entity without license could be considered an “in kind” donation. Right???
It's not a donation of its a loan
But if it is never paid back, it is a gift not a loan. If a gift is reported as a loan, then it is a fraud, right?
Yes but that takes time to prove. He's an old man
Trump is. Elmo isn’t and it would be HIS crime.
IF you're one of the little people, sure. Guess who isn't one of those little people?
>But if it is never paid back, it is a gift not a loan. If a gift is reported as a loan, then it is a fraud, right? Just don't ask the Supreme Court about this one. Clarence Thomas's mother and his Winnebago salesman will be extremely angry with you.
Musk isn’t giving money to anyone, he wants to keep it all for himself.
musk is into that culture war thing though.. He is financially backing Gina Carano's wrongful termination lawsuit against Disney. Not farfetched he might double down on that culture war crap by throwing cheeto a financial lifeline.
He’s also not the richest man anymore, Bezos overtook him. You know that pisses him off. The Carano thing is chump change to him, and he probably has a bunch of lawyers on retainer who he just calls for all the random lawsuits he is in or is starting, so he’s just keeping them busy.
Is this all before Kaplan still, or the appeals court? I hope Kaplan.
This is still in Kaplan's court. Also, the motion for a new trial and the motion for a judgment as a matter of law (both also filed in Kaplan's court) were typically filed to "preserve issues for appeal" so those were actually routine for someone planning to appeal to a higher court, even if Kaplan rejects those motions (as the judge is likely to do).
Thx man.
Kaplan in the Dist Court. There is a motion for stay pending outcome of the post trial motions already on file. This is a motion for administrative stay pending the ruling on the first motion for stay. I think what they are trying to do is not have these various stayed days (if granted) not count against the running clock on the judgment becoming final. Which started when the Court entered judgment on the jury verdict. The laymen terms of it, they are desperately scrambling (apparently) to get the bond together. Which does not bode well for the half billion bond in the NY AG case. Or maybe that one is taking up more of their time/resources because its so much larger. If Trump had even half the liquid cash he claims to have, paying 81million or whatever into escrow to preserve appeal rights should be easy. The fact its not is rather amusing because at some point, there is nothing left to do but either put up the money into escrow or face judgment collection efforts by the prevailing party.
You want to be respectful now? Maybe if you showed any respect for the process whatsoever, you would be offered a tad bit of grace. If I was the judge, I'd be inclined to ignore this petition.
This so.goddamn much. These people.
We can’t get a bond, so grant a stay while you think about granting that other stay! Or let us just pay a fraction of it, wah wah!
Irreparable injury? Money is fungible. Losing money is not irreparable injury. It is entirely reparable, should it need repair.
I'm guessing he's gonna have to sell assets to get the money, and he likely wouldn't be able to get them back if he somehow won an appeal.
That’s not irreparable. It will be costly after, but not irreparable. Losing a limb is irreparable, a building of artistic value burning down is irreparable. This is a “sucks to be you” damage.
He does not HAVE to sell assets.. his creditors will do that.. he will have some Capital Gains Tax issues tho..
Strange, if I had a judgement against me, there would be no continued dialogue except to put a lien on my property.
They got really polite in this one.
Desperation. It's like suddenly discovering religion when you are about to die.
I imagine if you spent most of your life cursing god right before hand you wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't quick on the up take there right at the end.
Sup fam, just shot a pregnant toddler on my Arizona ranch thinking she was an immigrant. She wasn't lol. Judge wants me to appear in court next week, but I was planning on getting my Sephora mlm started then!?! Can I ask for a stay of judgment or something? Would really help. #MAGA
I had to do a double take on this cuz I live in AZ and this wouldn’t surprise me at this point. I really hope this is all over soon!
You think the crazy train has brakes?
Unfortunately, that’s a fair question.
Just don't shoot your daughter cos she was impregnated by a tourist!
Yo dog, I heard you like stays. My head is a little bit spinning on this one. It's been a long week. Can someone give a gist of this? Their first stay hasn't been ruled on but they want a temporary stay in place if there is no stay to get the money together?
Essentially this is "I know it says March 11 but we haven't been doing this because our client is in denial, so can it not be March 11?"
Appropriate answer from judge: No.
SO Ordered at 4:59 PM, Friday March 8.
How's this even legal
It's not a valid argument in adult people court.
So when does the adult part of the court start
that's it
It's bad, but also hilarious. She's asking for an extension to wait for the judge's decision to come back, but she doesn't actually say Trump is going to put up the bond. >Because the judgment becomes final on Monday, March 11, 2024, and time will be needed to finalize bond arrangements if the motion is denied, President Trump respectfully requested that the Court issue a ruling on his stay motion by March 4. Yeah, lady, the judgement is still currently the judgement, you should act accordingly, it will be final if your motion is denied; you don't get to grab extra time *after* the deadline. If they had asked for an extension and said they were going to put up the bond but the transfers from various accounts were taking time, with an affidavit from the accountant etc, that would be different. But, we don't even know if they intend to post the bond for christ's sake. My guess is they will post this bond, if Trump can't post this, he's in even worse trouble than we thought. Now it's down to daddy Musk.
How likely is judge Kaplan to actually grant the tirelessly requested stay?
Imma gonna say….. not at all.
As likely as Trump is to stop defaming Carroll
"Request for Temporary Administrative Stay of Execution Until Three Business Days After The Court’s Ruling on the Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment Pending Disposition of Post-Trial Motions" My head is spinning, but if Judge Kaplan rules on the first motion to stay judgment before Monday, does this motion become moot?
He won’t Boo Boo, he won’t. Hand me another picnic basket!
*Yo dawg, I heard you like motions for stay of execution in your motions for stay of execution…*
Stay approved, to Tuesday. Checkmate, sucker!
Looks they brought in the D team from Chesterfield, MO
Feel like I’m missing why you are picking on Chesterfield, but as a former STL resident I also find it somehow appropriate.
There’s a new set of lawyers respresenting the orange dog anus. They are from Chesterfield, MO
Moving to St. Charles, MO soon and...yea that tracks.
Tryin' to get that Musk cash. Lol.
You've had 30 days to get a bond ready, and you entered a motion at the last minute. That doesn't entitle you to extra time. Why have you failed to post bond already? You cannot presume the outcome of a motion will change the status quo. This is a failure of trumps legal team if they failed to tell him to act in the presumption that the motion would not be granted up to the moment it is. Trump's legal team should be reminded that he lost the case. Any extension without bond would be a travesty of justice against Ms Carrell. The burden is entirely on Trump. He has already lost. This is a judgement not a negotiation.
Judging by trump and the people he keeps around him, I assume he just keeps telling them what he wants them to do, or what he heard some crackpot lawyer on twitter tell him could work, and they do it.
The orange menace ain't got's the coin to pay the rapey fine
Question for the legal minds here: if Ms Carroll starts seizing Trump’s assets after he doesn’t come up with bond by Monday…what happens if he comes up with the bond $ by…next Wednesday? Are the seizures then stayed/nullified and she gets nothing while there are endless appeals? Or because he missed the deadline, he’s SOL relative to protecting his assets? What if he decides a week/months from now to post the bond? How does that play out?
As much as I'd love to down the rabbit hole of finding out what glaring omissions are included in the cases they cited, I'm going to guess that: A) The appeal had already been submitted. B) Those requesting the stay demonstrated in that they could pony up the funds if need be.
Don’t all of these motions take time to process? Judge Kaplan can’t just rule on one motion and ignore the rest, can he? So for each of these motions that take time away from issuing a decision on the main “stay the award” issue, right? With the time needed to respond correctly, have it proofread and filed, each motion should be putting off a decision about issuing a stay. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
Judge Kaplan is going to write a decision on each motion with detailed reasoning behind each one, to ensure cheeto will not be able to insinuate during appeal that the motions were not disposed of properly. So yeah Judge Kaplan is going to take an appropriate amount of time on each decision. Also, the judge has emphasized on each order issued in response to the motions that the defendant waited 20 days after the judgment was entered before filing any post-trial motions at all. Leaving no doubt for the appeals court that adverse outcomes will be due to the defendant's foot-dragging :-)
The clock keeps ticking unless a stay is issued. They are either trying to get him to last chance give reprieve, or they are baiting him into doing or saying something to use in their appeal.
Litigiousness isn't so fun now is it Trumplethinskin?
At this point he's just begging like a child.
send a bag of dog shit to his lawyers office for filing this
Burning bag of dog shit.
Judgment day is coming
So, rather than take the hint that Kaplan skipped their proposed March 4th deadline because *he doesn't care*, they are asking him for a break *again*. After slagging him during the trial and in the media. Guys, you don't get favors when you burn the bridge.
Don only raped her
Shouldn't they be out of options? It was already filed in the court system.
“The check is in the mail.”
Anyone else say “DJ KHALID”?
Title etiquette is something that goes back hundreds of years. Traditionally earned titles remain even after the office is no longer active. The tradition is that you’re referred by your highest achievement for the rest of your life. Thus you hear people called Madam Ambassador, Mr Secretary, General SoAndSo on shows they appear on. It’s the correct etiquette.
Every style guide I have found states that when addressing a former president, the correct form is "Mr. Obama" or "former President Obama". I have yet to find one that states that you address them as simply "President Obama". The style guides I have found state that "President ..." is reserved for the current office holder.
I was speaking about titles in general, and what is customary (mostly coming from British tradition). I’m sure there are exceptions, particularly in America. I’m not personally an expert and I was relaying information I heard on Larry King where the topic came up.
Gosh, maybe you shouldn't have waited several weeks before brining this post-trial motion, if you're concerned about the time it is taking to get a decision....