Less than a month after New York Attorney General Letitia James said she would be willing to seize former Republican President Donald Trumpā€™s assets if he is unable to pay the $464 million required by last monthā€™sĀ judgmentĀ in his civil fraud case, Trumpā€™s lawyers disclosed in court filings Monday that he had failed to secure a bond for the amount.

In the nearly 5,000-page filing, lawyers for TrumpĀ saidĀ it has proven a ā€œpractical impossibilityā€ for Trump to secure a bond from any financial institutions in the state, as ā€œabout 30 surety companiesā€ have refused to accept assets including real estate as collateral and have demanded cash and other liquid assets instead.

To get the institutions to agree to cover that $464 million judgment if Trump loses his appeal and fails to pay the state, he would have to pledge more than $550 million as collateralā€”ā€œa sum he simply does not have,ā€Ā reportedThe New York Times, despite his frequent boasting of his wealth and business prowess.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    8 months ago

    No we arenā€™t. They are automated.

    Your own video showed a fucking human, dude.

    • 0xD@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      8 months ago

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmhIJOqepVU

      Just google it. This is just the first result, normally youā€™d remove the spine so you donā€™t have to turn the pages. The book in the other video is a special one that should not be destroyed, and since that fancy shmancy thing from my link is probably more expensive than my socks, itā€™s done manually.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        Ā·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It was foggyā€™s job to support his argument, not mine. He shouldā€™ve done a better job (e.g. by citing the video you found instead of the manual one he picked).

        Also, I wrote that it would take ā€œhoursā€ to scan in 5000 pages, even with a fast scanner. The scanner you cited can do 3000 pph, so it would take 1.6 ā€œhoursā€ to scan 5000 pages. Thatā€™s still a plural number of hours, so if thatā€™s the fastest scanner in the world my statement remains technically correct (the best kind of correct šŸ¤“).

        Finally, even a sheet-feed* very fast automatic document scanner (especially one hooked to an LLM in an automated workflow) sounds like a pretty expensive and specialized bit of tech, and I donā€™t know that we can assume the law firm wouldā€™ve chosen to make that investment instead of paying clerks a bunch of man-hours to do it the old, slow way.

        (* Frankly, citing a book scanner instead of a sheet-feed one is another way foggy didnā€™t do his argument any favors, since I wouldā€™ve been happy to concede that the documents Trumpā€™s lawyers produced were unlikely to have been bound in book form. And even if they were bound for some reason, they werenā€™t the kind of thing anybody would have qualms against running through a band saw to get rid of the spine.)

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      Ā·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Itā€™s also over a year old.

      ā€¦Again, yā€™all are months, if not years behind AI news.