Will the 8th Amendment reduce Trump's $500,000,000 in "fines"? (Poll)

[kyzr]

When Trump raped "that lady" was that political.

Not surprised you're here defending rape.
I guess next you'll be championing marriage for 10 year olds.

1. Trump didn't rape that lady, or he would be in prison. NY and her scammed Trump with "Lawfare".
2. You really want to play the deviant and pervert card?

 

[Dadoalex]

1. Trump didn't rape that lady, or he would be in prison. NY and her scammed Trump with "Lawfare".
2. You really want to play the deviant and pervert card?
...

Statute of limitations PERVERT.

 

[kyzr]

Statute of limitations PERVERT.

You really want to play the pervert card?

 

[Care4all]

..."For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history," Ginsburg wrote. "Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties. Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies."

-from RBG in Timbs

$355 million is 10% of Trump's $3.5 billion worth. He had testified under oath in a deposition he had $400 million in cash on hand....

The judge took that in to consideration, allegedly!

And replying to something on your other post above this one....

Trump was given due process, by having a trial in court, with his defense attorneys and witnesses and evidence and expert testimony etc... The trial was from early October 2023 to December 13, 2023 with the closing arguments, about 9 weeks...

Trump has appealed the verdict by the bench.....no word on how that is going, that I have seen?

the legislature has issued guidelines for the bench in these type of cases, and the judge in the verdict goes through them in detail and why he got to that number of $355 mil.....

even so, even if accurate and even if allowable, I simply think it is too excessive.

 

[Dadoalex]

You really want to play the pervert card?

View attachment 907994

You think that MAGAT fantasy has anything to do with Trump's fraud?

 

[para bellum]

$355 million is 10% of Trump's $3.5 billion worth. He had testified under oath in a deposition he had $400 million in cash on hand....

The judge took that in to consideration, allegedly!

Is there something somewhere that provides guidelines on the particular percent of a person's assets that can be seized for a business practice violation?

And replying to something on your other post above this one....

Trump was given due process, by having a trial in court, with his defense attorneys and witnesses and evidence and expert testimony etc... The trial was from early October 2023 to December 13, 2023 with the closing arguments, about 9 weeks...

Trump was ruled liable (iow, found guilty of the quasi-crime) by summary judgement in September, opening up the door to the civil action. He did not receive due process, it was done in a pre-trial motion by the AG.

The "trial" was the penalty phase. It was just a show, and gave the judge some time to figure out how hard he could hit Trump.

Trump has appealed the verdict by the bench.....no word on how that is going, that I have seen?

Not yet, but obviously it's coming.

the legislature has issued guidelines for the bench in these type of cases, and the judge in the verdict goes through them in detail and why he got to that number of $355 mil.....

What guidelines? I have seen none, and have not seen any reference to them. The final judgement does not mention any guidelines or calculus used to derive the figure.

I have read the financial law that applies to the proceeds- the money goes straight into the State treasury.

even so, even if accurate and even if allowable, I simply think it is too excessive.

Don Jr. and Eric were each fined $4 Million, with no real justification at all. They had no role in the financial statements. They just made money in the company, and the judge's only explanation for fining them was "they should have known".

Shit, the CFO was only fined $1 Million. He was the main guy in preparing the statements.

The State can take any or all of your property, as long as they don't charge you with a real crime? And make you pay the fine before allowing you an appeal? And you have no right to due process because you weren't charged with a crime. No prohibition on taking everything you have, as long as they call it "civil forfeiture" or some variation thereof.

I'm not saying companies can behave any way they want with no accountability. There have been some large penalties levied without criminality being first established. Deepwater Horizon, Exxon Valdez, etc. But always there has been some clear and obvious harm caused by their actions, and it's not unusual to see some criminal charges in there as well.

This is an obscene fine for a suit without any demonstrated harm or alleged criminality, just basically business practice violations. Using pro forma numbers when they should have been following GAAP...

Don't forget, this is a privately held company. They don't have to do everything a publicly held company has to do. The rules are not as strict.

 

[j-mac]

Donald Trump violated New York state Executive Law 63/12 by submitting a series of false financial statements.

The victim, when any state law is broken, is the state.

His violations are listed in detail here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/egpbajldovq/Trump-order-20240216.pdf

The specific state law he violated is here: New York Executive Law § 63(12) - Wikipedia.

I realize that Trumpsters have to play the victim game, remain wilfully ignorant and lie like hell, but those are the facts, and they cannot be changed.

Is there a precedent that this law was ever used before like this? Because the reporting is that it hasn’t been…

“The Executive Law as manifest in the Order appears duplicative of other more qualified regulatory bodies and tilted almost to the point of presuming guilt rather than innocence. It is intrusive, interjecting the state as referee into the marketplace, devaluing the “free” in free enterprise and undermining the principle that the market is largely self-correcting, as in Adam Smith’s invisible hand.

Whether you like or hate Trump, and despite the manifest flaws in Trump Organization financial statements, the excessive powers being wielded against him under this Law should worry you. Once government arrogates to itself this kind of overweening power, it seldom relinquishes it. New York v Trump will serve as a precedent to cite in, and to justify, future cases. That should worry all citizens.”

New York’s Fraud Law: Guilt, Despite Absence of Intent, Malice, Materiality, Damages or Actual Fraud

Let me say first that I am not a lawyer. Nor am I a supporter of Donald Trump for the GOP presidential nomination. Yet, I am troubled by the New […]

ctexaminer.com

 

[WorldWatcher]

Is there a precedent that this law was ever used before like this? Because the reporting is that it hasn’t been…

Trump’s Harsh Punishment Was Made Possible by This New York Law

The little-known measure meant hundreds of millions in penalties in the civil fraud case brought by Attorney General Letitia James.

www.nytimes.com

"Like thousands of earlier actions by the attorney general’s office — including those against the oil giant Exxon Mobil, the global bank UBS, the tobacco company Juul, and Mr. Shkreli and his former pharmaceutical company..."

<<SNIP>>

"The law, enacted nearly 70 years ago when Jacob K. Javits was New York’s attorney general, has become a mainstay of the office. It has been central to a wide range of recent civil actions that have reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements."

WW

 

[konradv]

Trump may have a Supreme Trump card to play. The 8th Amendment. How can he use it?

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Excessive Fines

www.law.cornell.edu

In 1998, however, the Court injected vitality into the strictures of the clause. “The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.” 9 In United States v. Bajakajian,10 the government sought to require that a criminal defendant charged with violating federal reporting requirements regarding the transportation of more than $10,000 in currency out of the country forfeit the currency involved, which totaled $357,144. The Court held that the forfeiture11 in this particular case violated the Excessive Fines Cause because the amount forfeited was “grossly disproportionate to the gravity of defendant’s offense.” 12 In determining proportionality, the Court did not limit itself to a comparison of the fine amount to the proven offense, but it also considered the particular facts of the case, the character of the defendant, and the harm caused by the offense

Does the Eighth Amendment only apply to the Federal Government, or does it protect all citizens?

Excessive for you isn’t excessive for Trump, if we’re to believe his financials.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Excessive for you isn’t excessive for Trump, if we’re to believe his financials.

That and this isn't a criminal "fines" case, nor is it an asset forfeiture case***, it is a civil disgorgement case on making basically restitution for excess profits made via persistent fraudulent and illegal business practices.

The judgement isn't "punishment", its removal of ill-gotten gains.

WW

*** By asset forfeiture, I'm referring to laws that seize property such as a car where a small amount of marijuana is found or a home because of $50 worth of cocaine.

W

 

[Redfish]

I don't even watch CNN or MSNBC. You're just swinging wildly in the dark and making shit up.

As Engoron said when he ruled against this argument during trial the marketplace itself is victimized by fraud. If one business is allowed to lie to get favorable loans based on fraud that gives an advantage to them over their competitors who aren't engaging in fraud.

He did not get favorable loans, the banks did their due dilligence in verifying the value of the properties put up as collateral. There was no fraud. The banks testified that they were paid in full including interest and considered Trump an outstand customer. THERE WAS NO FRAUD, NO CRIME, NO VICTIMS. IT WAS A CLASSIC KANGAROO COURT. STOP LYING.

 

[Redfish]

That and this isn't a criminal "fines" case, nor is it an asset forfeiture case***, it is a civil disgorgement case on making basically restitution for excess profits made via persistent fraudulent and illegal business practices.

The judgement isn't "punishment", its removal of ill-gotten gains.

WW

*** By asset forfeiture, I'm referring to laws that seize property such as a car where a small amount of marijuana is found or a home because of $50 worth of cocaine.

W

There were no ill gotten gains. the banks were paid in full and used their own property value calculations before making the loans. This was just another attempt to remove Trump from the election because the left is scared shitless that he will expose and prosecute their corruption and treason if elected.

 

[Redfish]

Donald Trump violated New York state Executive Law 63/12 by submitting a series of false financial statements.

The victim, when any state law is broken, is the state.

His violations are listed in detail here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/egpbajldovq/Trump-order-20240216.pdf

The specific state law he violated is here: New York Executive Law § 63(12) - Wikipedia.

I realize that Trumpsters have to play the victim game, remain wilfully ignorant and lie like hell, but those are the facts, and they cannot be changed.

nothing in your post is true, you have been listening to CNN too much. They lie.

 

[Redfish]

nothing in your post is true, you have been listening to CNN too much. They lie.

dumbass mac 58 posts a smiley face because he has no cogent talking point to refute the truth.

 

[Curried Goats]

He did not get favorable loans, the banks did their due dilligence in verifying the value of the properties put up as collateral. There was no fraud. The banks testified that they were paid in full including interest and considered Trump an outstand customer. THERE WAS NO FRAUD, NO CRIME, NO VICTIMS. IT WAS A CLASSIC KANGAROO COURT. STOP LYING.

That the bank was paid back doesn't negate the fact that he got loans based on fraud which disadvantages his competitors who aren't engaging in fraud.

 

[j-mac]

Trump’s Harsh Punishment Was Made Possible by This New York Law

The little-known measure meant hundreds of millions in penalties in the civil fraud case brought by Attorney General Letitia James.

www.nytimes.com

"Like thousands of earlier actions by the attorney general’s office — including those against the oil giant Exxon Mobil, the global bank UBS, the tobacco company Juul, and Mr. Shkreli and his former pharmaceutical company..."

<<SNIP>>

"The law, enacted nearly 70 years ago when Jacob K. Javits was New York’s attorney general, has become a mainstay of the office. It has been central to a wide range of recent civil actions that have reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements."

WW

So, the message is to other developers, and businesses, is 'Don't do business in NY'..... Got it...

 

[WorldWatcher]

So, the message is to other developers, and businesses, is 'Don't do business in NY'..... Got it...

Nope.

The message is don’t engage in persistent fraudulent and illegal business practices.

WW

 

[Mac1958]

dumbass mac 58 posts a smiley face because he has no cogent talking point to refute the truth.

"The Truth" LOL

I have nothing to say to the mindless Trumpster "fake news" defense.

I provided specific links, specific facts, and you didn't like them, so you just dismissed them. Too bad. Stay hidden in your ignorant little world.

This is why I no longer bother with you rubes. I might as well try to communicate with a jihadi on the streets of Damascus.

 

[j-mac]

Nope.

The message is don’t engage in persistent fraudulent and illegal business practices.

WW

Nothing fraudulent was proven here.

 

[j-mac]

"The Truth" LOL

I have nothing to say to the mindless Trumpster "fake news" defense.

I provided specific links, specific facts, and you didn't like them, so you just dismissed them. Too bad. Stay hidden in your ignorant little world.

This is why I no longer bother with you rubes. I might as well try to communicate with a jihadi on the streets of Damascus.

Tell us more how independent you are Mac…