WHY TRUMP WILL CHOOSE DEFAULT

Trump would be well advised to default on his enormous debt to New York. Any individual benefactor would be identified and used to hurt him in the election. Likewise, filing for bankruptcy will hurt him in the election as that move requires the disclosure of all of his assets, liabilities, and income. So, he is left with default, which is a slow, expensive process by which New York must go through a cumbersome and complicated set of processes to seize his assets, if any.

The situation can become legally complex if the State of New York executes a judgment against an individual or entity and seizes assets burdened with loans to third parties. Here are a few possible scenarios:

1. Priority of Liens: The State of New York's judgment may have priority over the liens held by the third-party lenders. In this case, the state could seize the assets free and clear of the loans. However, this depends on the laws governing liens and priorities in the jurisdiction.
2. Subordination Agreements: If there are existing subordination agreements between the third-party lenders and the State of New York, the lenders may have agreed to subordinate their liens to the state's judgment lien. This means that even though the loans exist, the state's lien takes precedence in the event of enforcement.
3. Foreclosure or Sale: In some cases, if the assets seized are subject to loans, the state may have the option to foreclose on or sell the assets to satisfy its judgment. The proceeds from the sale would then be used to pay off the loans to third parties, with any remaining funds going toward satisfying the state's judgment.
4. Challenges from Third-Party Lenders: Third-party lenders may challenge the state's seizure of assets, especially if they believe their interests are being unfairly prejudiced. This could lead to litigation determining the priority of liens and the parties' rights.

Overall, the outcome would depend on various factors, including the laws and regulations governing liens and judgments in New York, the terms of any existing agreements or contracts, and the actions taken by the parties involved. In complex situations like these, it's advisable to consult with legal professionals who specialize in bankruptcy, debt enforcement, and asset seizure to understand the options and potential consequences.

If the assets subject to the State of New York's judgment are located in other states or foreign countries, enforcing the judgment becomes more complicated due to the involvement of different legal jurisdictions. Here's what could happen in such scenarios:

1. Domestic Enforcement (Other U.S. States): If the assets are located in other states within the United States, the State of New York can seek to enforce its judgment in those states through a process known as domestication of the judgment. This typically involves registering the judgment in the courts of the other states and pursuing enforcement proceedings according to the laws and procedures of those jurisdictions.
2. International Enforcement (Foreign Countries): Enforcing a judgment in foreign countries involves navigating the legal systems and procedures of those countries. This process may be governed by international treaties, bilateral agreements, or the domestic laws of the foreign jurisdiction. The State of New York must follow the appropriate legal channels in the foreign country to seek recognition and enforcement of its judgment.
3. Recognition and Enforcement: In both domestic and international contexts, the State of New York would need to obtain recognition of its judgment by the courts in the relevant jurisdictions before it can enforce it against the assets located there. This often requires demonstrating that the decision is final, valid, and enforceable under the foreign jurisdiction's laws.
4. Challenges and Defenses: The party against whom the judgment is enforced may raise various challenges or defenses to contest enforcement, including jurisdictional issues, lack of due process, or substantive legal arguments. Resolving these disputes may require further litigation in the courts of the relevant jurisdictions.
5. Practical Considerations: Enforcing judgments across borders can be time-consuming, costly, and uncertain. Factors such as the availability of assets, the willingness of foreign authorities to cooperate, and the effectiveness of legal mechanisms for enforcement can impact the outcome.

In summary, enforcing a judgment against assets in other states or foreign countries involves a complex legal process that requires careful navigation of domestic and international laws and procedures. Legal advice from experienced professionals familiar with both domestic and global enforcement matters is essential in such cases.

Top of Form