New York Attorney General Letitia James has taken the first steps towards seizing one of former President Donald Trump’s properties. The leftist attorney general who campaigned on “getting Trump” has vowed to seize Trump’s properties if he is unable to pay the $464 million fine levied against him in James’ dubious civil fraud case.
On March 6, James registered Judge Arthur Engoron’s $464 million judgement against Trump in Westchester County, according to a Westchester County online database. The move will make it easier for James to seize the former president’s 140-acre Trump National Golf Club Westchester and Seven Springs estate, both of which are located in the New York suburb, if he is unable to pay the fine by Monday.
Judgements against the Trump Organization, as well as Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, have also been filed in the county.
Trump’s attorneys have sought court approval for a reduced $100 million bond, which could result in a decision shortly. In a separate court filing, Trump’s attorneys have stated that securing the full amount is a “practically impossibility.”
“The amount of the judgment, with interest, exceeds $464 million, and very few bonding companies will consider a bond of anything approaching that magnitude,” Trump’s lawyers said. “Despite scouring the market, we have been unsuccessful in our efforts to obtain a bond for the Judgment Amount for Defendants for the simple reason that obtaining an appeal bond for $464 million is a practical impossibility under the circumstances presented.”
James has previously stated that she is prepared to seize Trump’s properties and other assets if he is unable to pay the fine by Monday, March 25. “If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets,” James said during an interview with ABC News last month.
Former Acting U.S. Attorney General Matt Whitaker and a number of additional legal experts have urged Trump to challenge the exuberant fine on 8th Amendment grounds.
“But, you know, there are supposed to be no excessive fines and, you know, no cruel and unusual punishment. It’s a constitutional right. It’s our founding fathers knew this was a weapon used by the state to harm citizens that were out of favor,” Whitaker told Newsmax in reference to the 8th Amendment. “Well, you know, 250 years later almost, here we are with this same threat because they, you know, the founding fathers understood one thing and that was human nature.”
The former acting attorney general went on to predict that the fine will ultimately be lowered, if not tossed out entirely, under the 8th Amendment.
