• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge rejects Manafort's request to modify bail terms - The Hill today

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,776
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Judge rejects Manafort's request to modify bail terms | TheHill

A judge on Thursday rejected a motion from former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to modify the terms of his bail agreement.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote in court documents that Manafort's proposal to pledge his property in Alexandria, Va., as part of his $10 million bond was "unsatisfactory," as the property is already pledged as collateral for a loan on one of Manafort's other properties.
====================================================================================
Crook & former Trump campaign manager tries to pull a fast one by pledging property that is already committed as collateral on an outstanding loan. Poor baby. Nice try though.
 

If the judge had said yes would the bail claim come before the mortgage claim?

See till we know the answer we cant claim that Mannafort had a bad idea.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
If the judge had said yes would the bail claim come before the mortgage claim?

See till we know the answer we cant claim that Mannafort had a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Generally, no, lenders can't jump the line in front of an existing loan's collateral. And it wouldn't matter. If the court took first position, the other loan is in default because the collateral is no good, and that loan can be called at any time. So either way the original lender has to agree to the change, and there's no reason it would give up good collateral on an existing loan for a guy looking at massive legal fees and/or years in prison in his future.
 

They would thus call in the loan, and then since he could not pay he would be in default, and they would get to pound sand....but see I dont see where we get to slam Mannafort for asking, unless there is some rule that says that judges are supposed to say no to such a request.
 

Well, I'm nearly 100% sure the court (or any other lender) cannot step in front of the original lender and use that house for collateral already pledged for another loan. Would make the idea of collateral worthless if at any time another lender (or a court should the borrower get in legal trouble) can jump the line.

And it's not a big deal him asking, and trying to fool the court into accepting assets securing other loans as security for bail. He got caught, and I'm sure his lawyers figured that would happen, but you don't know if you don't ask, I guess. The only downside is the judge might take offense to being played for a fool, and subject him to more stringent requirements because he's operating in bad faith. I'd guess that's the least of his problems at this point.
 

I vaguely recall something called "super priority" from a secured transactions class, but not where it applied under the UCC.

Which rather makes my post useless.



I do wonder about bail though.
 
Mr Person said:
I vaguely recall something called "super priority" from a secured transactions class, but not where it applied under the UCC.

Which rather makes my post useless.

I do wonder about bail though.
Click to expand...

I've never seen the law on that but I just can't imagine it being acceptable. Let's assume I as a normal person get caught selling drugs and for bail I pledge my $400,000 house mortgaged to the hilt. So then I skip bail because all I'm going to lose is the house in which my equity was $0, so my actual financial loss if I run to Mexico to avoid prosecution is approximately $0, which is effectively what I put up for bail! And then I let the court fight it out with my mortgage lender for the spoils!

Be a nice trick if it worked!
 

But would the Court allow you to use a house in which you have 0 equity as collateral?




I should probably actually read up on the situation before I say anything more because I'm effectively talking out of my ass at the moment....
 
Mr Person said:
But would the Court allow you to use a house in which you have 0 equity as collateral?




I should probably actually read up on the situation before I say anything more because I'm effectively talking out of my ass at the moment....
Click to expand...

It takes a brave man to admit that he doesn't know what he's talking about. You'll never hear a confession like this from a Republican.
 
This was predicted by Renato Mariotti.
 
Mr Person said:
I vaguely recall something called "super priority" from a secured transactions class, but not where it applied under the UCC.

Which rather makes my post useless.



I do wonder about bail though.
Click to expand...
My thinking would be that if he pledged fraudulent or fraudulently obtained bail sureties, he might be liable to have his bail revoked.

Now whether that occurs practically & politically, I have no idea.
 
Cardinal said:
This was predicted by Renato Mariotti.
Click to expand...
I like this guy & have been watching his campaign. University of Chicago PolySci, and Yale Law. He's young, smart, and seems to be a fighter for the everyman, possibly due to his humble immigrant working-man heritage and his South Side roots. Still a bit young and perhaps lacking in experience, but he seems to have his heart in the right place.

For whatever reason, he appeared once on CNN where I thought he did O.K., but I haven't seen him since.
 

Is he in your state? He seems like a good guy, but there's something...just a little something...off...that I can't quite put my finger on. Every time I post his comments here there's always a very small voice of uncertainty warning me away from doing so. I don't know what it is but when I figure it out I'll let you know.

I've got my eye on Kamala. Still young but smart as a whip and strong as hell. I hope she's ambitious too, although something tells me I don't need to worry about that.
 
Parrish said:
Also in his discussions about Cypress.
Click to expand...

That reminds me:


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/paul-manafort-russia-trump.html

Maybe the reason for Manafort's continued resistance to Mueller's efforts to flip him is because Manafort owes money to somebody a lot scarier than Mueller.

All I've been considering was Mueller Jail vs. Trump Pardon. I completely forgot to take into account the super scary Russian mobsters.
 
I follow Renato locally, and I like where he came from - his life story. I can relate. But I understand your hesitancy, and I must admit he is inexperienced and competing far above his weight class. But like I said, I like his story.

Kamala Harris on the other hand, is a seasoned pro, and I can see her making a splash on the national scene absolutely no problem. I'm thinking Harris may be the Dem Nikki Haley. Hell, she's even of Indian heritage like Nikki.
 

Wilbur Ross is another I'd expect to be a tad nervous as a director of the bank of Cypress.
 

All he needs to do to make it all go away is say what Meuller wants him to say. Pretty soon Mueller will start jailing his wife, kids, grandkids, dog, cat, goldfish, until he says what Mueller wants to hear. Meuller is his own justice department answerable to no one.
 

One of the talking heads yesterday evening said Manafort will die in prison.
 
JacksinPA said:
It takes a brave man to admit that he doesn't know what he's talking about. You'll never hear a confession like this from a Republican.
Click to expand...

Okay brave? Maybe...not sure that is the word I would use but that's because if the goal is to learn something, admitting you don't know is a good thing. If your goal is just to win, then yeah I guess it takes bravery.
Mr. Person seems to be "good persons" so there's that.

I promise that if I ever feel like I am talking out of my ass (one of my wife's favorite sayings) I will promptly admit it.
I am already "winning" enough in real life that being on the losing side of an internet debate isn't going to kill me, and I might even learn something. It will annoy me if the person I am debating is only there to gloat, but I'll survive.
 
Mr Person said:
I vaguely recall something called "super priority" from a secured transactions class, but not where it applied under the UCC.

Which rather makes my post useless.



I do wonder about bail though.
Click to expand...

don't know that i have seen it outside of a bankruptcy court. generally a chapter 11 case
to survive, the bankrupt debtor needs a cash injection but has pledged its assets to secure prior obligations
BK judge can offer a creditor a super priority interest in collateral as security for prospective lender willing to offer the requisite cash infusion essential for the C11 to work despite the typical creditor objections. it becomes previous creditors' ox that is subject to being gored should the judge find the super priority security interest essential to the Plan's success
in manafort's instance, the judge would need to know the liquidation value of the property(s) pledged less the prior liens to assess the adequacy of the offered collateral to secure the bond/bail. could be playing hardball to lend Mueller a hand, but more likely manafort's properties are simply inadequate in (forced sale not market) value to secure the government
 

Well lets be honest here. He has every right to offer up that property for that very reason, while I don't believe there is a law expressly stating that he cannot.
This might be the judge splitting an exceedingly thin hair right here.
 

That's false. He's answerable to a Trump appointee, who in turn answers to...Trump.

And I don't know why anyone would spend any time worrying about Manafort. He's a big boy, and engaged in pretty massive fraud knowing what he was doing. They've apparently got him creating fraudulent financial statements for a loan, evading millions in taxes, etc. He's earned his time in the pokey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…