NY AG asks Court to REJECT the Knight surety and declare it to be "without effect."

[moniss]

10. As I've said before

the bond is merely a paper promise as well as the supposed "account" at Schwab. The terms of which appear to be that if all the money disappears then the Orange Ruski has made a paper promise to pay it all back. The supposed reinsurance possibilities behind Knight are more paper promises with unknown terms and conditions that could make that promise useless as well. The re-insurer for example could say "We committed to the policy contingent on Knight doing x, y and z. They only did x and therefore the policy is void."

The idea that anybody would take any paper promise from the Orange Ruski after his history is laughable. So if you accept the current situation with the bond you are accepting paper promise from an untrustworthy person, paper promises from a company who filed false and misleading information (despite issuing corrections), a surety company that has apparently shifting numbers regarding it's own financial position and a potential paper promise with unknown terms and conditions.

Hardly a replacement for a trust or escrow account fully funded with cash or acceptable cash equivalents that is fully under the sole control of the surety company alone.

The lawyers and the Orange Ruski have tried to erect another scheme and an illusion of security of payment. It's a scam.