New York Judgment Against Trump Violates the Eighth Amendment

excalibur

Diamond Member
Mar 19, 2015
17,930
33,977
2,290
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.




And see:


 
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.




And see:


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

It doesn't violate anything.

DERP
 
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.
 
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.




And see:



The court did consider the charactor of the defendant. That's a big part of the reason the judgement was so high.
 
Well that's not what happened out here in the really real world.
You're a bald faced liar.

Screenshot_20240217-192958-446.png



 

Forum List

Back
Top