Pushing back on the suggestion that Trump could hand over properties to the court, Robert said that the proposal was impractical and “functionally equivalent” to the Trump Organization’s court-appointed monitor.
He argued that James’ suggestion that Trump procure a series of smaller bonds would fail to resolve Trump’s current predicament because lenders are still unwilling to offer a bond using both cash and property as collateral.
“As explained in Defendants’ Affirmations, those separate bonds would still require a total collateralization of cash or cash equivalents in excess of $557 million, regardless of how many sureties were involved,” the letter said.
“It would be completely illogical — and the definition of an unconstitutional Excessive Fine and a Taking — to require Defendants to sell properties at all, and especially in a ‘fire sale,’ in order to be able to appeal the lawless Supreme Court judgment, as that would cause harm that cannot be repaired once the Defendants do win, as is overwhelmingly likely, on appeal,” Robert wrote on Thursday.
