New York Judgment Against Trump Violates the Eighth Amendment

[excalibur]

Not only does the absurd judgment by the clown judge Engeron violate Trumps's 8th Amendment rights, it is also based on a statute that is unconstitutional.

Making the entire trial an obscene play. Lead by an obscene judge who really cares nothing for the oath he swore.

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." In United States v. Bajakajian, 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 forfeiture in this particular case violated the Excessive Fines Cause because the amount forfeited was "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of defendant’s offense." 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.​

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt8-3/ALDE_00000962/

And see:

Opinion analysis: Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court today ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states. The decision is a victory for an Indiana man whose luxury SUV was seized after he pleaded guilty to selling heroin. It is also a blow to state and local governments, for whom fines and forfeitures

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Rambunctious]

Friends of the Judge are left speechless by his penalty and his conduct in this case....

 

[shockedcanadian]

It violates everything, including common sense. It's almost as disturbing as the reward to that lady who made the accusations against him.

The rabid people who would burn witches back in the day don't care. As long as "their team" gets a W. Sick people.

 

[Crepitus]

Not only does the absurd judgment by the clown judge Engeron violate Trumps's 8th Amendment rights, it is also based on a statute that is unconstitutional.

Making the entire trial an obscene play. Lead by an obscene judge who really cares nothing for the oath he swore.

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." In United States v. Bajakajian, 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 forfeiture in this particular case violated the Excessive Fines Cause because the amount forfeited was "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of defendant’s offense." 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.​

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt8-3/ALDE_00000962/

And see:

Opinion analysis: Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court today ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states. The decision is a victory for an Indiana man whose luxury SUV was seized after he pleaded guilty to selling heroin. It is also a blow to state and local governments, for whom fines and forfeitures

www.scotusblog.com

That amount was based on the amount of fraud documented in the trial.

It doesn't violate anything.

DERP

 

[Natural Citizen]

I don't really see that ruling standing.

 

[DGS49]

In a way, this judgment is a good thing. It validates emphatically everything Trump has been saying about the prosecution, the prosecutor, the judge and the NYC judicial system.

It is so over-the-top that it literally separates rational humans from other-then-rational.

The judge has done us a favor.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't really see that ruling standing.

No victim

 

[BULLDOG]

Not only does the absurd judgment by the clown judge Engeron violate Trumps's 8th Amendment rights, it is also based on a statute that is unconstitutional.

Making the entire trial an obscene play. Lead by an obscene judge who really cares nothing for the oath he swore.

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." In United States v. Bajakajian, 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 forfeiture in this particular case violated the Excessive Fines Cause because the amount forfeited was "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of defendant’s offense." 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.​

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt8-3/ALDE_00000962/

And see:

Opinion analysis: Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court today ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states. The decision is a victory for an Indiana man whose luxury SUV was seized after he pleaded guilty to selling heroin. It is also a blow to state and local governments, for whom fines and forfeitures

www.scotusblog.com

The court did consider the charactor of the defendant. That's a big part of the reason the judgement was so high.

 

[excalibur]

I just had a leftoid on another board bring up Bernie Madoff's restitution. This is the sort of terminal TDS afflicted person we have to deal with.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The court did consider the charactor of the defendant. That's a big part of the reason the judgement was so high.

Who was the victim?

 

[Missourian]

That amount was based on the amount of fraud documented in the trial.

It doesn't violate anything.

DERP

The fraud that the lenders testified didn't exist?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The fraud that the lenders testified didn't exist?

The first no victim crime what you would see in a banana republic

 

[Crepitus]

The fraud that the lenders testified didn't exist?

Well that's not what happened out here in the really real world.

 

[BULLDOG]

Who was the victim?

Our laws were the victim. i thought you cult members claimed to believe in following laws.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well that's not what happened out here in the really real world.

Yes that's exactly what happened no one was defrauded except the tax payers of new York because of a leftist da and judge

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Our laws were the victim. i thought you cult members claimed to believe in following laws.

Yes that judge was lawless

 

[Missourian]

Well that's not what happened out here in the really real world.

You're a bald faced liar.

Banker involved in big loans to Trump's company testifies for his defense in civil fraud trial

A Deutsche Bank executive says the bank followed its own guidelines when deciding to lend Donald Trump’s company hundreds of millions of dollars.

apnews.com

 

[Crepitus]

Yes that's exactly what happened no one was defrauded except the tax payers of new York because of a leftist da and judge

"Fraid not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Fraid not.

Is that all you got? You're about as wrong as wrong can be

 

[Crepitus]

You're a bald faced liar.

Banker involved in big loans to Trump's company testifies for his defense in civil fraud trial

A Deutsche Bank executive says the bank followed its own guidelines when deciding to lend Donald Trump’s company hundreds of millions of dollars.

apnews.com

One guy. If that was the only testimony this wouldn't have happened.

YOu kids need to learn how to use common sense.