You get to take the amount of the judgement. Not everything. Unless the assets can't cover it.
If I owed you a judgement of 1 million dollars. And I had 500 grand in the bank and a car collection worth 5 million.
If I didn't pay the bond while I appealed you would have the right to execute the judgement once 30 days passed
You could seize my bank account and my cars. I couldn't stop you. After the cash I would owe you 500,000 grand.
The sheriff could start auctioning off my cars. Let's say 5 cars brought in 522,000. You would get the rest of your money and I would get 22 grand and the rest of my cars.
Seizing assets and auctioning them go through the courts and legal orders and it's not a quick thing.
I have been suspicious of you since you were a handshake.
You are being dishonest, and that makes me more suspicious.
You know people were arguing this, you know that was the outcome that they wanted, because they thought they'd be able to break him like that.
They run across Twitter and Reddit, giddy at the thought and it is strictly dishonest to pretend it wasn't happening.
Additionally, asset seizures are already dubious when it comes to the Constitutional rights of the people -- and I do not care what state law you attempt to quote that clashes with the Constitution, as there are many attempts to do just that, and you -- apparently -- would eat that up, defend it and proclaim everyone else is wrong.
You do not get to take everything he's worth just because he didn't post it, and that's what they mean.
You know it, I know it. Don't pretend otherwise.
I don't know what you mean.
I don't think anyone was actually arguing this.
You get to take the amount of the judgement. Not everything. Unless the assets can't cover it.
If I owed you a judgement of 1 million dollars. And I had 500 grand in the bank and a car collection worth 5 million.
If I didn't pay the bond while I appealed you would have the right to execute the judgement once 30 days passed
You could seize my bank account and my cars. I couldn't stop you. After the cash I would owe you 500,000 grand.
The sheriff could start auctioning off my cars. Let's say 5 cars brought in 522,000. You would get the rest of your money and I would get 22 grand and the rest of my cars.
Seizing assets and auctioning them go through the courts and legal orders and it's not a quick thing.
But read the link I posted, that's the process.
I have been suspicious of you since you were a handshake.
You are being dishonest, and that makes me more suspicious.
You know people were arguing this, you know that was the outcome that they wanted, because they thought they'd be able to break him like that.
They run across Twitter and Reddit, giddy at the thought and it is strictly dishonest to pretend it wasn't happening.
Additionally, asset seizures are already dubious when it comes to the Constitutional rights of the people -- and I do not care what state law you attempt to quote that clashes with the Constitution, as there are many attempts to do just that, and you -- apparently -- would eat that up, defend it and proclaim everyone else is wrong.
Oh my god, first you were arguing that this was false
and it's not.
Then you move the goalposts to it was about seizing all his assets.
which is also false.
when I talk about how the actual process would go, you call me dishonest because of????
Idiots on Reddit and Twitter?
I was talking about the NY AG and the judge not idiots on Twitter.
More goalpost moving
Attachment is a legal concept hundreds of years old. It's been part of creditor/debtor law forever. Here's an example from 1702
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Return_of_1702_writ_of_attachment_signed_by_Chief_Justice_John_Guest_of_Pennsylvania.jpg
Here's an example from the papers of Thomas Jefferson.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-02-02-0132-0004-0117
This is different from the more recent civil forfeiture laws.