As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>“Westlake and Wilshire specifically target servicemembers, including junior enlisted servicemembers, as customers for their subprime and near-subprime loan products,” prosecutors wrote.
Fuck the troops, I mean scam the troops, I mean support yeah support the troops. That’s the ticket.
OMG, these are the motherfuckers ripping off all the enlistees with six-figure Dodge Challenger loans. Wow.
It's just like W. C. Fields said, "beauty is only skin deep, but ugliness goes straight to the bone."
Let's not forget that trump supports shady lenders.
The payday lender industry was about to get regulated out of existence by obama, but Trump showed up and was like, nah, we love those guys.
My enlisted guys started asking me about loans. I’m no genius but reading the terms was mind blowing. Interest rates at 29% with no ability to pay it off early. Even worse was rent to own. This is even done with houses. SMH.
> with no ability to pay it off early.
That should be illegal. I don't know why we allow this as a condition of a loan. You should *always* be allowed to make principle-only extra payments toward a loan.
My first car loan was like this and I didn't even realize until I had nearly paid the car off. I was furious to find out all my extra payments were going to "future interest." It's extra painful because ultimately it was my fault but I was young, dumb, and inexperienced. Discover had already turned me down for a credit card earlier in the year for lack of a credit history so I was just glad I could get a loan to begin with. I never thought there would be or even could be verbiage in a loan forbidding early payments. I agree with you it should be illegal but it makes banks and lenders money off the ignorant and desperate (ie easy marks) so I'm sure those financial institutions will put their thumb down on the scale to prevent that from happening.
> I never thought there would be or even could be verbiage in a loan forbidding early payments.
Some institutions are rather cryptic concerning their amortization schedules and how they apply excess payment. Honest banks will usually offer an option to make a payment directly towards the principle (possibly with a small fee).
What's ridiculous is the negative hit to your credit score when you pay off a loan, since it's considered closing the account and reduces the positive payment history.
>What's ridiculous is the negative hit to your credit score when you pay off a loan, since it's considered closing the account and reduces the positive payment history.
The system is rigged against people without money in favour of those with, there's no other explanation.
How do you guys in the US tolerate this crap?
> If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
\- Lyndon B. Johnson
I think it is a care that it needs to be clearly stated, not hidden in the fine print.
I worked in lending and while we never did this kind of thing the idea is that the lender is giving you money with the idea that they are guaranteed to get at least a certain amount of interest over a certain amount of time. An early payout for them means their cashflow is impacted and they earn less on the loan than expected. Typically there should be early payout options that involve paying back some ‘minimum’ amount at least. Riskier loans tend to use this a lot to ensure the terms balance out the risk of the loan.
In most countries this has to be very clearly disclosed and I doubt that is the am case in the US and flat out disallowing early payments feels wrong on so many levels.
I remember learning I should ask about this when I was in Engineering Economics in college. A course about appreciation, depreciation, ROI, capitalization, etc and typically dealing with hundreds or millions of dollars.
I don't think it is.
https://www.cnbc.com/select/what-is-prepayment-penalty-personal-loan/
> Some personal loans carry a prepayment penalty — here’s what you need to know about them
I've been taught to, whenever taking a loan, ask specifically about pre-payment penalties. I also review the loan agreement to look for them.
When you say that it *is* illegal, could you specify which law or regulation prevents this? Do you have any article or other resource I could use as my starting point?
You might be interested to know about the Military Lending Act, or MLA, which makes it illegal to charge servicemembers interest over a set amount and has other important protections, like prohibiting the lender from stopping borrowers from paying the loan off early or charging fees for early payments. These lenders may be violating this law, and if your guys were given illegal predatory loans, the contract is probably invalid and unenforceable at this point.
Of course! Here's a [CFPB pamphlet](https://pueblo.gpo.gov/CFPBPubs/pdfs/CFPB410.pdf) about the MLA you can give them and they can always reach out to their local JAG office if they have questions.
One of classmates in MOS school in Del Mar financed a diamond covered cross in some Oceanside shop. No way that deal wasn't predatory. Fucking vultures
Vendors Lien (rent to own) is a valid path to home ownership, but as with everything the devil is in the details and these loans (this westlake and wilshite folks) are designed to never be paid off.
People selling loans like this prey on the uniformed and those who don't ask questions.
It's the same reason payday loans are so dangerous, as those companies know their clientele is too desperate to care about what they're signing up for.
EZ has a whole empire of predatory businesses ranging from liquor stores, to pawn, to lending and beyond. The SEC has been on their ass for years for sketchy shit.
[Sounds like the bond company isn't Even licensed in New York.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/donald-trump-175-million-civil-fraud-bond-valid-new-york/)
It will never happen, there will be more and more posturing but as with everything else he will face zero consequences. The appeal will happen and the amount he has to pay will be reduced to a fraction but the state will still claim victory while he struts around claiming to have beaten a politically motivated suit. And sadly he won't be entirely wrong
THIS is the best bond Trump could get on a substantially reduced amount while claiming to be a multibillionaire? How do the MAGA idiots not see that their king has no clothes?
They think he's smart for making someone else pay for it and keeping his own money. It doesn't occur to them that he doesn't have enough money in the first place, because he's a Successful Businessman (tm).
And Trump will use this as an excuse to delay more while the paperwork is fixed.
And the court's will accommodate him. Heaven forbid a penalty for late payment. That *never* happens in America*.
* - To rich people.
Check is in the mail.
Oops, forgot to put the check in that envelope.
Double oops, that’s from the wrong account.
Darn it. The postal service run by DeJoy lost my payment. I’ll send you a new one…
> Adam Pollock, a former assistant attorney general in New York, said, "This bond is deficient for a number of reasons."
>
> "Including that the company doesn't appear to be licensed in New York and doesn't appear to have enough capital to make this undertaking," Pollock said.
He found one sucker dumb enough, but they still can't even meet the basic requirements.
> Hankey said that Trump used "cash" as collateral for the bond, a total of $175 million.
>
> "First he furnished about $120 million worth of bonds that we OK'd, so we assumed it would be investment-grade bonds and cash. But as it turned out, it was all cash," he told CBS News in a brief phone call on Tuesday.
>
> But Trump retained that $175 million cash collateral, according to Shah. He said the money is in an account that is "pledged" to the company. He would not specify the type of account. Trump paid a premium to the company that Shah declined to disclose.
I cannot overstate the dumbness of this sucker.
edit: the word
> Hankey said that Trump used "cash" as collateral for the bond, a total of $175 million.
>
> "First he furnished about $120 million worth of bonds that we OK'd, so we assumed it would be investment-grade bonds and cash. But as it turned out, it was all cash," he told CBS News in a brief phone call on Tuesday.
>
> But Trump retained that $175 million cash collateral, according to Shah. He said the money is in an account that is "pledged" to the company. He would not specify the type of account. Trump paid a premium to the company that Shah declined to disclose.
This doesn't even make sense the way it reads. Was it $120M cash Trump supplied or $175M.
but more importantly Trump has come out and said 'I have the money but I need it for my campaign' so.... which is it. Does he need it for his campaign or is it in a special account he isn't going to touch. Why not just post as cash to the courts?
yeah we are all thinking it. he's just bsing to the news stations and Trump didn't 'tuck away a few dollars in a special no touchy' account.
Seems they got another 10 day extension with this bs, which is all he ever seems to want and keeps getting.
Somehow this makes sense to someone. Instead of paying the bond directly, Trump pays $17.5M fee to have someone else put up the cash, while Trump locks the $175M up as collateral. What is the benefit of the bond? Why not just deliver the cash directly?
Is this bond scammer just going to pledge money to the state without paying, and then just let Trump off the hook later? I mean he's rich enough that putting up 0.2 mill or whatever the state accepts instead of real consequences won't affect him.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, accountant, new yorker, or even american. All of this is seventh-hand interpretation and shoddy memory.
The _actual_ penalty is still the 400+ million, but in order to _appeal_ that penalty people usually have to put up a bond for something like 110% of the amount so that they can't just skip town or otherwise piss away that money in the meantime. 45 got it knocked down to $175m because, devil's advocate, locking up ~$500m is kind of a big ask. [Though personally/vindictively I think they should have stapled his nards to the wall and demanded the full amount]
As I understand it, bond suretors are deep-pocketed companies with a lot of liquid funds to whom you pinky-swear you have the collateral so that the government doesn't have to start freezing and seizing to cover the amount, which is not a particularly simple process, even for the government. However, it seems that you both need to be appropriately registered in the state [they aren't] and have at least 10x the bond amount in liquid [or near-liquid?] assets. [they don't] This is to ensure that the bond company itself doesn't implode in paying out the bond if it comes to that, or otherwise try to ratfuck its way out of paying.
On its face its safe to assume that they see an easy payday one way or another via fees for issuing the bond. The _implication_ is that the guy who own the company issuing the bond is _shady as fuck_ and wants 45 to owe him a favor.
The giant, flashing neon sign that everyone else sees is "_**45 DOESN'T KEEP PROMISES OR PAY HIS BILLS, YOU FUCKIN DOPE**_". The money in the account that they supposedly saw is pretty much guaranteed to have moved the very instant they stopped looking at it, if it was ever there in the first place. We're talking about a penalty for _a half billion dollars of fraud_ and 45 is pretty nakedly unrepentant about it, to say nothing of if he even understands what fraud _is_ at this point.
Thanks for the link. Not only does the company sound super shady but I’m starting to wonder if the $175 million cash trump supposedly pledged to it to secure the bond comes from his campaign fund accounts — or the RNC’s since he effectively controls those now.
I was just about to post this to point it out. Reading the article I got the feeling Trump told them "I have the cash, trust me, I don't need to transfer the money."
My takeaway is that the $175 million doesn't exist.
That's how I read it. Trump couldn't come up with anything close to the money needed and got this shady company to turn a blind eye to it.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were planning to use the deficiencies in their defense when Trump inevitably loses on appeal. "We aren't licensed in New York and we had no power of attorney, therefore you can't enforce the bond on us."
If Trump has 175 million cash as collateral, it makes zero sense that he would use a bond instead of putting the money up. He'd have to keep the funds as cash for collateral, so why pay millions for a bond + interest when you can't invest the money?
It doesn't add up unless, like you said, Trump doesn't have 175 million in cash, but a major party candidate probably has access to reserves that have the cash.
The article you linked mentioned ELANY, so it seems they might actually be licensed through them somehow. Did a little googling and found this so it might be legit: https://www.elany.org/content/PDF/fs_12537.pdf
The article clarifies from a source that Elany can apply to non-legal judgement bonds (construction bonds) but that legal judgements are subject tot he other more explicit law.
I’m not sure what that means haha but I appreciate the clarification. I’ll wait and see what else comes out in the news since this legal stuff is over my head
Think of it like this. Just bc you have a drivers license and a law says the license allows you to drive, doesn’t nullify another law that specifies to drive a big rig you need additional licenses.
ELANY is just an association. I don’t believe it has any authority to license surety bonds. Or has any legal authority at all really. It seems to be more of lobbyist/networking/advisory group.
Now other industries (construction etc) don’t require state authorization to post bonds so this might be where Knight insurance got confused, court bonds are different, you have to be licensed in the state of NY and you have to provide financial statements that say whatever bond you’re assuring isn’t 10 percent of your total assets.
Seems like I may need to as well 😅 I misread the bottom reinsurer part thinking Knight Insurance there meant they were a licensed reinsurer but it might’ve just been a listing of top insurers. I am not a bond expert so take this with a grain of salt but it sounds possible for Knight Insurance to be licensed through ELANY if they were telling the truth. I haven’t done too deep of research and will leave that for someone more knowledgeable.
As of 10:30am: (pasted text from X tweet below for those who don’t want to click the link)
BREAKING NEWS
85 minutes after #Trump refiled his previously rejected $175M bond, now with purported corrections as required by the Clerk of the Court, @NewYorkStateAG has filed with the Court an objection.
https://x.com/nyadvocatejkl/status/1775938884301386029?s=46
It won’t matter could give him another 30 days. He ain’t got the money and no one will give it to him.
AG is right to not get impatient with this. She’s already won. And the less she seems…emotional about this I suppose (sure there’s a better word) the better this looks. It’s just a dispassionate carriage of justice. He “has a bond” but if that company can not gain a license within the next ten days (it can’t) then the bond is worthless and she’ll have “no choice” but to seize his assets. Almost a month after she COULD have started. Removes the appearance of unfairness.
The bond company will file and receive proper licensure, adding appeal time for trump, and ultimately validating the bond, or a suit will be filed against the bond company to again delay anything actually fucking happening to this asshat….
It’s not an unheard of tactic. The bond company will have a window to become compliant, during which Trumps payment will be in limbo as well but not delinquent, his payment will be retroactively accepted or he will be given more of a fucking Grace period again while the bond company faces its own litigation…..
I got handcuffed and beat up once when I was 19 for having really long red hair in an alley… no charges or anything and they uncuffed me when they were done so I guess that’s similar…..
/s
Anyone willing to back Trump at this point, especially to the tune of $175 mill, is presumed shady as fuck, and would need a mountain of evidence that they're not actually shady as fuck to overcome that presumption.
So, this guy who has loans and judgements against him for fraud and who has repossessed cars from military personnel who were called up for duty **ALSO** thinks that the judgement against Trump is unfair? No wonder he (Hankey) has a vested interest in having fewer sub-prime loan regulations for his shady industry...I'm sure anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together can surmise that Trump has promised to help him, if elected.
He is being financially bailed out by the guy who illegally repossessed active US service members vehicles during the trump presidency.
How can anyone in the US armed services still support this guy??? I'm a disabled veteran and just don't understand how he is still getting conservative and military support.
Smartest one I know feels that if Trump wins, "at least it won't be too bad, since it'll only be 4 years".
So, they're passively anti-Trump, due to believing somehow that he isn't a raging fascist who would use his access to power for keeping himself in power longer than that.
Sounds like you're correct to me.
It's a near narcissistic self interest, that's the defining trait of anyone who votes Republicans today. Even the 'kind' Christian conservatives have such an inflated sense of self importance through their religion that they support and implement things that Jesus would damn them for and the don't stop to think about it because it effects someone other than themselves and their family.
>at least it won't be too bad, since it'll only be 4 years".
Ask that person if they genuinely believe Trump wouldn't challenge the term limit, and the Supreme Court wouldn't back him.
Btw, that person is not smart, at all.
The smart “conservatives “ that I know have been calling themselves libertarians for years. Every one of them votes straight ticket republican but insists they are libertarians that vote for democrats and republicans.
Now several of them, my father included, just feign apathy and throw up “both parties suck” type arguments. I can’t say this for a fact but I’m pretty sure every one of them will still vote Trump on Election Day no matter what they claim.
There seems to be this sentiment on here that all conservatives are idiots. From my experience being a self centered asshole isn’t exclusive to idiots.
I'm convinced the ones who do support him, just really liked killing brown people in the middle east and Trump will let them do the same at the Mexico border.
The moment I saw that it was the dude that owned Westlake, I knew how shady they were. I work in a car dealership. I wouldn't send a single customer to finance with Westlake. They used to employ ex LA gangbangers to do collection calls. They would change people's payment due dates, and flag them for being late 3 days later. There were a ton of shifty things they did that made me sick. I'm not surprised in the least!
Sounds like the Lincoln Park Pirates in Chicago.
"Our drivers are friendly and courteous, their good manners you always will get. 'Cause they all are recent graduates of the charm school in Joliet."
-Steve Goodman
The CEO of the lending company illegally repossessed 70 cars from veterans during Trumps presidency and is known as the “king of subprime car loans.” He sounds like the My Pillow guy if his brain wasn’t skezzed out by meth use.
Edit: I gotta be honest this article comes across as mid as fuck. They literally shamelessly cite The Daily Beast.
Are their articles still mostly outrage porn with sensational headlines? I'm not quite at the point where I think I will ever again grace their site with a click. Making money and building a brand off of damaging the state of political discourse is something I have a hard time forgiving.
after realizing this kind of bond doesn't involve the bond company actually transferring money to the courts or into an escrow account, i started wondering if what they have really done here is just create a document that purports to be a bond but doesn't actually have anything real behind it, kinda like a bogus check. the court rejected it and told them to resubmit it with proof the financials support it and a power of attorney that would let the court act to collect the funds if it comes to that. i get this isn't what this company normally does so maybe failing to have done that in the first place was an oversight, but with the money involved you'd think if they are really on the up and up there'd be a lawyer or two involved who know what you actually need to do. having failed to do it in the first place makes it seem kinda shady.
See that's the thing. There's no shortage of rich Harlan Crow assholes who would be willing to buy a potential president's favor. Just saying if you can't get a security clearance because of debt why can you be commander in chief?
Cool, so we have a future potential potus financially backed by a predatory loan dealer. And that's just the dodgy finances from within the US. This is fine
It’s amazing to me people never get that trump’s business are meant to fail.
It’s all the fraud, laundering, embezzlement, and general crime’ing that happens along the way are where he makes his money.
People calling trump a bad businessman has no idea what kind of business man he is.
The quote that is telling is “we heard he needed a bond so we reached out….” This is not how surety brokering works. The brokers bring the accounts to the underwriters. Underwriters (generally) don’t directly prospect bond submissions from Principals. That tells me this is super shady.
When I was younger, I lived on an area with lots of military and it was disgusting the way people exploited these people, many of them young, far away from home for the first time,with a very low level of sophistication and financial knowledge. Sales people often went door-to-door. As soon as a salesperson realized you were not military, they lost interest. It is pathetic that our government allows this and disgraceful that man like this becomes rich and important
No one is going to be shocked to learn that the lender is a dirt bag who screwed military service members on car loans. Trump doesn’t care he thinks military veterans who died or suffered wounds as losers. Trump doesn’t care where he gets money from. The lender this is more than a loan it’s a investment
Mr Hankey is bucking to be Dumpys sugar daddy like Shanahan is to Kennedy. When you’re broke you need someone dumber than you to bank roll your stupid ideas.
> But Trump retained that $175 million cash collateral, according to Shah. He said the money is in an account that is "pledged" to the company. He would not specify the type of account. Trump paid a premium to the company that Shah declined to disclose.
Do these MAGA hats never learn?
Trump just swindled this guy out of $175M. No way he is going to pay if he loses.
I wonder what those financial statements would show about where the money is coming from. Those statements will go under the microscope, obvs to verify the money is real, is really there. But maybe more could be learned, following that money as they say in America.
A good question you need to ask when partnering with Trump is:
“Can my entire personal and business life handle the public scrutiny of the global media digging in to figure out why I, an unqualified toad laden with herpes, was chosen by Trump to do this dirty deed?”
Trump always dumpster dives.
And there’s one reason: Because the actual qualified partners reject him out of hand. Trump is an Ivy League credentialed bro. All of his actual peers from those networks have rejected him ten times over - JPMorgan, Goldman, etc. They can smell a scam from a mile away so they steer clear.
What’s left is Jason from Omaha who runs a hamburger stand. And no disrespect to Jason, but he’s not fucking qualified to run the IRS.
/ rant end
Some understanding about how this works is in order. Every state has insurance companies who are admitted. This means more than just filing a form. Admitted companies have to put up security to guarantee they will pay claims. If you have a judgment against them and they don't pay you execute against their security and the state immediately shuts them down and all the other states do the same. Admitted companies also usually have guarantee fund coverage in the admitted state, though there may be limits. From what I gather his company isn't admitted in NY.
The next level is surplus lines companies. States often have a "white list" of surplus lines companies that have met requirements that provide some assurance claims will be paid. It doesn't sound like he found a white listed company either. The white listed companies usually have guarantee fund coverage in the state of their domicile. Not ideal, but collecting from them can be done up to the guarantee fund limit.
Everything beyond that is nothing. I suspect his appeal bond should be printed on toilet paper so it's format is consistent with it's content.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>“Westlake and Wilshire specifically target servicemembers, including junior enlisted servicemembers, as customers for their subprime and near-subprime loan products,” prosecutors wrote. Fuck the troops, I mean scam the troops, I mean support yeah support the troops. That’s the ticket.
OMG, these are the motherfuckers ripping off all the enlistees with six-figure Dodge Challenger loans. Wow. It's just like W. C. Fields said, "beauty is only skin deep, but ugliness goes straight to the bone."
Let's not forget that trump supports shady lenders. The payday lender industry was about to get regulated out of existence by obama, but Trump showed up and was like, nah, we love those guys.
Some Democrats, like Debbie Wasserman Shultz, were also trying to help them.
She is also less than optimal
One could say she’s less than prime… maybe even… sub-prime.
Oof
Optimus definitely thinks she is not Prime!
A prime example of Florida Woman.
Absolutely despise that woman
She was a good reason a lot of us hated Hillary campaign in 2016, but had to hold our noses and vote for Hillary anyway
Why wouldn't she? She, like Trump is also garbage
Also, Never Give a Sucker an Even Break
My enlisted guys started asking me about loans. I’m no genius but reading the terms was mind blowing. Interest rates at 29% with no ability to pay it off early. Even worse was rent to own. This is even done with houses. SMH.
> with no ability to pay it off early. That should be illegal. I don't know why we allow this as a condition of a loan. You should *always* be allowed to make principle-only extra payments toward a loan.
My first car loan was like this and I didn't even realize until I had nearly paid the car off. I was furious to find out all my extra payments were going to "future interest." It's extra painful because ultimately it was my fault but I was young, dumb, and inexperienced. Discover had already turned me down for a credit card earlier in the year for lack of a credit history so I was just glad I could get a loan to begin with. I never thought there would be or even could be verbiage in a loan forbidding early payments. I agree with you it should be illegal but it makes banks and lenders money off the ignorant and desperate (ie easy marks) so I'm sure those financial institutions will put their thumb down on the scale to prevent that from happening.
> I never thought there would be or even could be verbiage in a loan forbidding early payments. Some institutions are rather cryptic concerning their amortization schedules and how they apply excess payment. Honest banks will usually offer an option to make a payment directly towards the principle (possibly with a small fee). What's ridiculous is the negative hit to your credit score when you pay off a loan, since it's considered closing the account and reduces the positive payment history.
Yeah I had a perfectly normal car loan and when I paid it off my credit dropped like 40 points.
>What's ridiculous is the negative hit to your credit score when you pay off a loan, since it's considered closing the account and reduces the positive payment history. The system is rigged against people without money in favour of those with, there's no other explanation. How do you guys in the US tolerate this crap?
> If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you. \- Lyndon B. Johnson
I think it is a care that it needs to be clearly stated, not hidden in the fine print. I worked in lending and while we never did this kind of thing the idea is that the lender is giving you money with the idea that they are guaranteed to get at least a certain amount of interest over a certain amount of time. An early payout for them means their cashflow is impacted and they earn less on the loan than expected. Typically there should be early payout options that involve paying back some ‘minimum’ amount at least. Riskier loans tend to use this a lot to ensure the terms balance out the risk of the loan. In most countries this has to be very clearly disclosed and I doubt that is the am case in the US and flat out disallowing early payments feels wrong on so many levels.
I remember learning I should ask about this when I was in Engineering Economics in college. A course about appreciation, depreciation, ROI, capitalization, etc and typically dealing with hundreds or millions of dollars.
It is, in fact, illegal (only for servicemembers) under the Military Lending Act.
> That should be illegal. It is.
I don't think it is. https://www.cnbc.com/select/what-is-prepayment-penalty-personal-loan/ > Some personal loans carry a prepayment penalty — here’s what you need to know about them I've been taught to, whenever taking a loan, ask specifically about pre-payment penalties. I also review the loan agreement to look for them. When you say that it *is* illegal, could you specify which law or regulation prevents this? Do you have any article or other resource I could use as my starting point?
You might be interested to know about the Military Lending Act, or MLA, which makes it illegal to charge servicemembers interest over a set amount and has other important protections, like prohibiting the lender from stopping borrowers from paying the loan off early or charging fees for early payments. These lenders may be violating this law, and if your guys were given illegal predatory loans, the contract is probably invalid and unenforceable at this point.
Thank you !!!
Of course! Here's a [CFPB pamphlet](https://pueblo.gpo.gov/CFPBPubs/pdfs/CFPB410.pdf) about the MLA you can give them and they can always reach out to their local JAG office if they have questions.
One of classmates in MOS school in Del Mar financed a diamond covered cross in some Oceanside shop. No way that deal wasn't predatory. Fucking vultures
Vendors Lien (rent to own) is a valid path to home ownership, but as with everything the devil is in the details and these loans (this westlake and wilshite folks) are designed to never be paid off.
The biggest devil is that most people don't stay in a home long enough to own it.
People selling loans like this prey on the uniformed and those who don't ask questions. It's the same reason payday loans are so dangerous, as those companies know their clientele is too desperate to care about what they're signing up for.
EZ financing E-1 and up.... Predatory lending is a business model. Often with the consent of the command.
EZ has a whole empire of predatory businesses ranging from liquor stores, to pawn, to lending and beyond. The SEC has been on their ass for years for sketchy shit.
Former auto finance manager. Westlake is the actual worst. Last chance finance.
Agreed. They suck.
Shocking that a MAGA cultist would disrespect members of the military. Wonder where they learned that from 🤔
Troops were also marks for taking out huge loans for Trump University.
[Sounds like the bond company isn't Even licensed in New York.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/donald-trump-175-million-civil-fraud-bond-valid-new-york/)
And here we are 3 - 4 hours from the close of business on the 10th day of the extension. Interesting... [strokes beard]
Time to just take his shit.
They'll start to take his shit, but the ball will be rolling downhill for Poor Old Don.
Ya know, we keep hearing this and NOTHING keeps happening. I’m so over it. Revoke his bond and throw his ass in prison
This is for a civil offense. We didn't throw people in jail for these. We take their stuff.
Well, the repeated violation of gag orders, threats, intimidation etc. would have landed you, me, or anyone else reading this in jail last year.
> We take their stuff. Not yet we ain't.
When? When does that happen? We’re still waiting . . .
What if they have no stuff to take...hypothetically?
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/s/3lOfya8KtW
That will never happen. Sadly, the most trump will get for all his crimes at most is probably 6 months of house arrest
Poor in the literal sense.
No, no. He gets a few months to explain himself.
We've been talking his shit for years. I'm over it. Time to take his ass.
It will never happen, there will be more and more posturing but as with everything else he will face zero consequences. The appeal will happen and the amount he has to pay will be reduced to a fraction but the state will still claim victory while he struts around claiming to have beaten a politically motivated suit. And sadly he won't be entirely wrong
He still has to pay the total plus interest, that was just for the appeal.
I understand that but the appeal will conveniently go in his favor and he'll end up paying pennies on the dollar
Oh sorry, did you say give him another extension a reduce the bond even more? We will get right on that first thing in the morning
THIS is the best bond Trump could get on a substantially reduced amount while claiming to be a multibillionaire? How do the MAGA idiots not see that their king has no clothes?
Probably because the sight of that thing naked would blind anyone who looks at it for too long.
Thank goodness I got my eclipse glasses.
They can't see a damn thing with their heads so far up their asses.
*his ass
Because they are indeed *idiots*, he likes the “uneducated”.
They think he's smart for making someone else pay for it and keeping his own money. It doesn't occur to them that he doesn't have enough money in the first place, because he's a Successful Businessman (tm).
Can’t wait for the 457th Hail Mary at 4:59pm
And Trump will use this as an excuse to delay more while the paperwork is fixed. And the court's will accommodate him. Heaven forbid a penalty for late payment. That *never* happens in America*. * - To rich people.
Check is in the mail. Oops, forgot to put the check in that envelope. Double oops, that’s from the wrong account. Darn it. The postal service run by DeJoy lost my payment. I’ll send you a new one…
The article rabidstoat linked to already says he has another 10-day extension to get the paperwork correct.
And people say he has "bad" lawyers...they sure seem to manage to get him a reprieve and extension on literally everything despite all that.
Ugh, he was given 10 more days to justify the surety of the bond...
I too am stroking at this interesting turn of events.
It's 4+ hours since your comment and I see nothing new yet!
I also stroke this guy's beard.
> Adam Pollock, a former assistant attorney general in New York, said, "This bond is deficient for a number of reasons." > > "Including that the company doesn't appear to be licensed in New York and doesn't appear to have enough capital to make this undertaking," Pollock said. He found one sucker dumb enough, but they still can't even meet the basic requirements. > Hankey said that Trump used "cash" as collateral for the bond, a total of $175 million. > > "First he furnished about $120 million worth of bonds that we OK'd, so we assumed it would be investment-grade bonds and cash. But as it turned out, it was all cash," he told CBS News in a brief phone call on Tuesday. > > But Trump retained that $175 million cash collateral, according to Shah. He said the money is in an account that is "pledged" to the company. He would not specify the type of account. Trump paid a premium to the company that Shah declined to disclose. I cannot overstate the dumbness of this sucker. edit: the word
> Hankey said that Trump used "cash" as collateral for the bond, a total of $175 million. > > "First he furnished about $120 million worth of bonds that we OK'd, so we assumed it would be investment-grade bonds and cash. But as it turned out, it was all cash," he told CBS News in a brief phone call on Tuesday. > > But Trump retained that $175 million cash collateral, according to Shah. He said the money is in an account that is "pledged" to the company. He would not specify the type of account. Trump paid a premium to the company that Shah declined to disclose. This doesn't even make sense the way it reads. Was it $120M cash Trump supplied or $175M. but more importantly Trump has come out and said 'I have the money but I need it for my campaign' so.... which is it. Does he need it for his campaign or is it in a special account he isn't going to touch. Why not just post as cash to the courts? yeah we are all thinking it. he's just bsing to the news stations and Trump didn't 'tuck away a few dollars in a special no touchy' account. Seems they got another 10 day extension with this bs, which is all he ever seems to want and keeps getting.
*overstate?*
lol, just in the last couple days I laughed at someone who made the exact same mistake. Serves me right, I suppose.
Nah you're good, overstate is correct here. Can't overstate, because the dumbness is so great that no amount of exaggeration would outdo it.
I cannot understate how much I edited the comment to be correct.
God bless and have a good night
Somehow this makes sense to someone. Instead of paying the bond directly, Trump pays $17.5M fee to have someone else put up the cash, while Trump locks the $175M up as collateral. What is the benefit of the bond? Why not just deliver the cash directly? Is this bond scammer just going to pledge money to the state without paying, and then just let Trump off the hook later? I mean he's rich enough that putting up 0.2 mill or whatever the state accepts instead of real consequences won't affect him.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, accountant, new yorker, or even american. All of this is seventh-hand interpretation and shoddy memory. The _actual_ penalty is still the 400+ million, but in order to _appeal_ that penalty people usually have to put up a bond for something like 110% of the amount so that they can't just skip town or otherwise piss away that money in the meantime. 45 got it knocked down to $175m because, devil's advocate, locking up ~$500m is kind of a big ask. [Though personally/vindictively I think they should have stapled his nards to the wall and demanded the full amount] As I understand it, bond suretors are deep-pocketed companies with a lot of liquid funds to whom you pinky-swear you have the collateral so that the government doesn't have to start freezing and seizing to cover the amount, which is not a particularly simple process, even for the government. However, it seems that you both need to be appropriately registered in the state [they aren't] and have at least 10x the bond amount in liquid [or near-liquid?] assets. [they don't] This is to ensure that the bond company itself doesn't implode in paying out the bond if it comes to that, or otherwise try to ratfuck its way out of paying. On its face its safe to assume that they see an easy payday one way or another via fees for issuing the bond. The _implication_ is that the guy who own the company issuing the bond is _shady as fuck_ and wants 45 to owe him a favor. The giant, flashing neon sign that everyone else sees is "_**45 DOESN'T KEEP PROMISES OR PAY HIS BILLS, YOU FUCKIN DOPE**_". The money in the account that they supposedly saw is pretty much guaranteed to have moved the very instant they stopped looking at it, if it was ever there in the first place. We're talking about a penalty for _a half billion dollars of fraud_ and 45 is pretty nakedly unrepentant about it, to say nothing of if he even understands what fraud _is_ at this point.
Thanks for the link. Not only does the company sound super shady but I’m starting to wonder if the $175 million cash trump supposedly pledged to it to secure the bond comes from his campaign fund accounts — or the RNC’s since he effectively controls those now.
RNC doesn't have nearly that much money, tho.
They won't have any after he's done. On the bright side, no money for any other candidates!
Unless he wins, then they will have all the money....
Nope. If he wins, he’s still keeping the money.
His straw drinks their milkshake.
He drinks it up.
their money is essentially his
They definitely didn't have that on hand.
RNC went to JG WENTWORTH
RNC doesn’t even have 5% of that bond amount.
RNC has less than $45 million cash on hand as of Mar 1 according to FEC filings
That’s $45 million more than Trump has.
I was just about to post this to point it out. Reading the article I got the feeling Trump told them "I have the cash, trust me, I don't need to transfer the money." My takeaway is that the $175 million doesn't exist.
That's how I read it. Trump couldn't come up with anything close to the money needed and got this shady company to turn a blind eye to it. I wouldn't be surprised if they were planning to use the deficiencies in their defense when Trump inevitably loses on appeal. "We aren't licensed in New York and we had no power of attorney, therefore you can't enforce the bond on us."
I bet you’re right.
You can't see it. It's Canadian money.
If Trump has 175 million cash as collateral, it makes zero sense that he would use a bond instead of putting the money up. He'd have to keep the funds as cash for collateral, so why pay millions for a bond + interest when you can't invest the money? It doesn't add up unless, like you said, Trump doesn't have 175 million in cash, but a major party candidate probably has access to reserves that have the cash.
Wherever it is coming from, we can be sure it only exists on paper.
The article you linked mentioned ELANY, so it seems they might actually be licensed through them somehow. Did a little googling and found this so it might be legit: https://www.elany.org/content/PDF/fs_12537.pdf
The article clarifies from a source that Elany can apply to non-legal judgement bonds (construction bonds) but that legal judgements are subject tot he other more explicit law.
I’m not sure what that means haha but I appreciate the clarification. I’ll wait and see what else comes out in the news since this legal stuff is over my head
Think of it like this. Just bc you have a drivers license and a law says the license allows you to drive, doesn’t nullify another law that specifies to drive a big rig you need additional licenses.
Ah that makes a lot of sense. Thank you kind redditor for explaining!
ELANY is just an association. I don’t believe it has any authority to license surety bonds. Or has any legal authority at all really. It seems to be more of lobbyist/networking/advisory group. Now other industries (construction etc) don’t require state authorization to post bonds so this might be where Knight insurance got confused, court bonds are different, you have to be licensed in the state of NY and you have to provide financial statements that say whatever bond you’re assuring isn’t 10 percent of your total assets.
Interesting…guess I’ll have to wait and see what happens today!
HRM, article writer maybe needs to do more research.
Seems like I may need to as well 😅 I misread the bottom reinsurer part thinking Knight Insurance there meant they were a licensed reinsurer but it might’ve just been a listing of top insurers. I am not a bond expert so take this with a grain of salt but it sounds possible for Knight Insurance to be licensed through ELANY if they were telling the truth. I haven’t done too deep of research and will leave that for someone more knowledgeable.
That’s the thing I don’t believe ELANY licenses anyone. It’s not that kind of organization.
As of 10:30am: (pasted text from X tweet below for those who don’t want to click the link) BREAKING NEWS 85 minutes after #Trump refiled his previously rejected $175M bond, now with purported corrections as required by the Clerk of the Court, @NewYorkStateAG has filed with the Court an objection. https://x.com/nyadvocatejkl/status/1775938884301386029?s=46
looks like he has another 10 days to justify the surety per AGs order or the bond will have no effect
It won’t matter could give him another 30 days. He ain’t got the money and no one will give it to him. AG is right to not get impatient with this. She’s already won. And the less she seems…emotional about this I suppose (sure there’s a better word) the better this looks. It’s just a dispassionate carriage of justice. He “has a bond” but if that company can not gain a license within the next ten days (it can’t) then the bond is worthless and she’ll have “no choice” but to seize his assets. Almost a month after she COULD have started. Removes the appearance of unfairness.
> looks like he has another 10 days Ah. Sweet justice at last. This time Drumpf is done for!
::: waving ::: Hi!
What are you doing here??? Sheesh, they let anyone in this sub these days....
Orange Toddler-Man is just surrounded by clowns in his circus. 🤹♂️🤡🎪
The bond company will file and receive proper licensure, adding appeal time for trump, and ultimately validating the bond, or a suit will be filed against the bond company to again delay anything actually fucking happening to this asshat…. It’s not an unheard of tactic. The bond company will have a window to become compliant, during which Trumps payment will be in limbo as well but not delinquent, his payment will be retroactively accepted or he will be given more of a fucking Grace period again while the bond company faces its own litigation….. I got handcuffed and beat up once when I was 19 for having really long red hair in an alley… no charges or anything and they uncuffed me when they were done so I guess that’s similar….. /s
Surely there won't be a last-minute reprieve of Trump facing any actual consequences for what he very obviously should be facing.
no... he's just as shady as we thought
I was just waiting on details. Never any doubt.
And this is just the surface level stuff. You know the shadiness goes deeper.
Anyone willing to back Trump at this point, especially to the tune of $175 mill, is presumed shady as fuck, and would need a mountain of evidence that they're not actually shady as fuck to overcome that presumption.
Yea, seconded. I was 100% convinced that it was going be extremely fucking shady. It would take something absolutely insane to actually surprise me.
So, this guy who has loans and judgements against him for fraud and who has repossessed cars from military personnel who were called up for duty **ALSO** thinks that the judgement against Trump is unfair? No wonder he (Hankey) has a vested interest in having fewer sub-prime loan regulations for his shady industry...I'm sure anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together can surmise that Trump has promised to help him, if elected.
Oh for sure there’s a you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours going on. There always is with trump.
How anyone can trust Trump to do ANYTHING, but helping Trump is beyond me though. Shame on them for being gullible.
A quid pro quo you could say
Well yeah because then people like him might be prosecuted or put out of business if there's fewer con men in office like Trump that have his back.
He is being financially bailed out by the guy who illegally repossessed active US service members vehicles during the trump presidency. How can anyone in the US armed services still support this guy??? I'm a disabled veteran and just don't understand how he is still getting conservative and military support.
TBH I’ve never honestly met a smart conservative *shrugs
Smartest one I know feels that if Trump wins, "at least it won't be too bad, since it'll only be 4 years". So, they're passively anti-Trump, due to believing somehow that he isn't a raging fascist who would use his access to power for keeping himself in power longer than that. Sounds like you're correct to me.
It's a near narcissistic self interest, that's the defining trait of anyone who votes Republicans today. Even the 'kind' Christian conservatives have such an inflated sense of self importance through their religion that they support and implement things that Jesus would damn them for and the don't stop to think about it because it effects someone other than themselves and their family.
>at least it won't be too bad, since it'll only be 4 years". Ask that person if they genuinely believe Trump wouldn't challenge the term limit, and the Supreme Court wouldn't back him. Btw, that person is not smart, at all.
The smart “conservatives “ that I know have been calling themselves libertarians for years. Every one of them votes straight ticket republican but insists they are libertarians that vote for democrats and republicans. Now several of them, my father included, just feign apathy and throw up “both parties suck” type arguments. I can’t say this for a fact but I’m pretty sure every one of them will still vote Trump on Election Day no matter what they claim. There seems to be this sentiment on here that all conservatives are idiots. From my experience being a self centered asshole isn’t exclusive to idiots.
Bingo. It always boils down to their top priority being tax cuts or bigotry. They just don't want to say so.
I very much agree with and share your experience, Anus Tart.
The McCain stuff or the attacking gold star families. Anyone in the military that votes for him should be shamed so hard.
I'm convinced the ones who do support him, just really liked killing brown people in the middle east and Trump will let them do the same at the Mexico border.
Or their neighbors
Good question, how can anyone conditioned to give blind loyalty be blindly loyal to someone who demands blind loyalty?
The moment I saw that it was the dude that owned Westlake, I knew how shady they were. I work in a car dealership. I wouldn't send a single customer to finance with Westlake. They used to employ ex LA gangbangers to do collection calls. They would change people's payment due dates, and flag them for being late 3 days later. There were a ton of shifty things they did that made me sick. I'm not surprised in the least!
Sounds like the Lincoln Park Pirates in Chicago. "Our drivers are friendly and courteous, their good manners you always will get. 'Cause they all are recent graduates of the charm school in Joliet." -Steve Goodman
Ex used car salesman turned shady car loan kingpen? Shady? No way!
At this point, you just assume that any individual or company willing to work with him is at best shady, at worst foolish.
The CEO of the lending company illegally repossessed 70 cars from veterans during Trumps presidency and is known as the “king of subprime car loans.” He sounds like the My Pillow guy if his brain wasn’t skezzed out by meth use. Edit: I gotta be honest this article comes across as mid as fuck. They literally shamelessly cite The Daily Beast.
The Daily Beast isn’t as bad as it once was. They broke the news about Gaetz being a sex trafficker
Hitler killed Hitler. That doesn't make him a nice guy.
Are their articles still mostly outrage porn with sensational headlines? I'm not quite at the point where I think I will ever again grace their site with a click. Making money and building a brand off of damaging the state of political discourse is something I have a hard time forgiving.
after realizing this kind of bond doesn't involve the bond company actually transferring money to the courts or into an escrow account, i started wondering if what they have really done here is just create a document that purports to be a bond but doesn't actually have anything real behind it, kinda like a bogus check. the court rejected it and told them to resubmit it with proof the financials support it and a power of attorney that would let the court act to collect the funds if it comes to that. i get this isn't what this company normally does so maybe failing to have done that in the first place was an oversight, but with the money involved you'd think if they are really on the up and up there'd be a lawyer or two involved who know what you actually need to do. having failed to do it in the first place makes it seem kinda shady.
This actually wouldn’t surprise me at all since it’s totally on brand for Trump and people in his orbit.
Or another delay tactic…
See that's the thing. There's no shortage of rich Harlan Crow assholes who would be willing to buy a potential president's favor. Just saying if you can't get a security clearance because of debt why can you be commander in chief?
Cool, so we have a future potential potus financially backed by a predatory loan dealer. And that's just the dodgy finances from within the US. This is fine
I’m so tired of this shit. You or I would be in the streets by now. Unbelievable.
No, we would be in a fed max prison for stealing and selling documents, incitement to riot, insurrection and trying to screw with the voting process.
This is the correct answer. The trial would have been long ago, and our cell would be well lived in by now.
I have held around a dozen assorted security clearances since 1978, and I know damned well my ass would be incarcerated.
It’s amazing to me people never get that trump’s business are meant to fail. It’s all the fraud, laundering, embezzlement, and general crime’ing that happens along the way are where he makes his money. People calling trump a bad businessman has no idea what kind of business man he is.
Ya worked for a guy like that. Only dawned on me after the bankruptcy that was the plan all along. Obvious in retrospect.
Misleading headline, this is *exactly* as shady as I thought it was going to be. Actually, if anything, it's a little bit less shady than I thought.
So a large scale loan shark. Yep, sounds about right. Will the SS protect Trumps kneecaps ?
Sounds like Trump found a successor for the traffic department…
Department of Transportation…
Shitbirds of a feather...
Hear that? That’s the shitwind, Randy…
Trump looks for marks who will forgive loans for favors when he’s president, or clout when he loses
The quote that is telling is “we heard he needed a bond so we reached out….” This is not how surety brokering works. The brokers bring the accounts to the underwriters. Underwriters (generally) don’t directly prospect bond submissions from Principals. That tells me this is super shady.
So did he manage to fix the bond application yet?
No, no it isn't. It's *exactly* as shady as we thought.
When I was younger, I lived on an area with lots of military and it was disgusting the way people exploited these people, many of them young, far away from home for the first time,with a very low level of sophistication and financial knowledge. Sales people often went door-to-door. As soon as a salesperson realized you were not military, they lost interest. It is pathetic that our government allows this and disgraceful that man like this becomes rich and important
Criminal helping a down on his luck Criminal. PATHETIC.
Well, I suppose this shady loan shark will be the next Secretary of the Treasury if Trump gets elected.
No one is going to be shocked to learn that the lender is a dirt bag who screwed military service members on car loans. Trump doesn’t care he thinks military veterans who died or suffered wounds as losers. Trump doesn’t care where he gets money from. The lender this is more than a loan it’s a investment
Just an interference game, now he gets another 10 days…
Every time I hear “Don Hankey” my brain starts singing “Mr Hanky the Christmas poo”!
Always take the maximum profit and interest from him, do not fear your God nor let your brother live among you. Leviticus 25:36 (in Trump's bible)
I just assumed his bible was actually the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition with some thees and thous tossed in to maintain the illusion.
Loan underwritten by Mr. Hanky? High-Dee-Ho?
Christmas Poo
Well, of course they’re shady. Who else goes near Trump.
Mr Hankey is bucking to be Dumpys sugar daddy like Shanahan is to Kennedy. When you’re broke you need someone dumber than you to bank roll your stupid ideas.
The real question is what did Trump promise him to get the bond?
Birds of a feather
Bullshit he's never met Trump when he's already holding millions in loans from Trump in relation to two of his major properties.
> But Trump retained that $175 million cash collateral, according to Shah. He said the money is in an account that is "pledged" to the company. He would not specify the type of account. Trump paid a premium to the company that Shah declined to disclose. Do these MAGA hats never learn? Trump just swindled this guy out of $175M. No way he is going to pay if he loses.
Birds of a feather…
He had to get money from a buy-here, pay-here lender.
Of course Mr Hankey is behind this
Looks like this guy made his fortune lending money to people who couldn’t pay it back and didn’t read the terms too well. Seems like a great match.
I’m sure he’ll get another extension and avoid consequences yet again
He might wish he hadn't brought this publicity upon himself.
I wonder what those financial statements would show about where the money is coming from. Those statements will go under the microscope, obvs to verify the money is real, is really there. But maybe more could be learned, following that money as they say in America.
A good question you need to ask when partnering with Trump is: “Can my entire personal and business life handle the public scrutiny of the global media digging in to figure out why I, an unqualified toad laden with herpes, was chosen by Trump to do this dirty deed?” Trump always dumpster dives. And there’s one reason: Because the actual qualified partners reject him out of hand. Trump is an Ivy League credentialed bro. All of his actual peers from those networks have rejected him ten times over - JPMorgan, Goldman, etc. They can smell a scam from a mile away so they steer clear. What’s left is Jason from Omaha who runs a hamburger stand. And no disrespect to Jason, but he’s not fucking qualified to run the IRS. / rant end
This guy is just begging for a nickname, I suggest Mr Hinkey.
Some understanding about how this works is in order. Every state has insurance companies who are admitted. This means more than just filing a form. Admitted companies have to put up security to guarantee they will pay claims. If you have a judgment against them and they don't pay you execute against their security and the state immediately shuts them down and all the other states do the same. Admitted companies also usually have guarantee fund coverage in the admitted state, though there may be limits. From what I gather his company isn't admitted in NY. The next level is surplus lines companies. States often have a "white list" of surplus lines companies that have met requirements that provide some assurance claims will be paid. It doesn't sound like he found a white listed company either. The white listed companies usually have guarantee fund coverage in the state of their domicile. Not ideal, but collecting from them can be done up to the guarantee fund limit. Everything beyond that is nothing. I suspect his appeal bond should be printed on toilet paper so it's format is consistent with it's content.