Right -- together, they put 3.5% at risk, not 0.28%. [1] A huge distinction to make!

Well ... not really. It still seems like a farce. Either lower the bail amount, or require meaningful proof that the guarantors have access to anywhere near the ostensible figure.

"Your bail is $X, but we'll set requirements that completely ignore $X" seems comedic at best, or special treatment at worst.

(I know, the courts will "come after" the guarantors for the full $250M. It's still irrelevant to the on-the-ground reality.)

[1] 700/250000 = 0.28% . Actual is 700 + 700? (from anons) + 4000 (house) = 8800/250000 = 3.5%.