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

[Dadoalex]

DS said that there was NO FRAUD moron.
If there was they would know it, because they would have been victimized, duh.
(Hint: they were the lender, they made lots of money, walked away happy)

THE LAW SAYS THERE WAS.
I WIN

 

[kyzr]

THE LAW SAYS THERE WAS.
I WIN

Actually Letitia James and Judge Engoron said there was. There are no winners in NY, just losers.

We'll need to wait and see how it ends up. Fani thought she was winning too.

 

[Dadoalex]

Actually Letitia James and Judge Engoron said there was. There are no winners in NY, just losers.
View attachment 907816 We'll need to wait and see how it ends up. Fani thought she was winning too.

And here comes the racist sexist attacks on someone wholly uninvolved.
Why would one feign surprise?

The Law.
The Law says hat Trump did was fraud.
Nothing you've said or posted says otherwise.

Rule of Law little man.
Something Republicans used to honor.

 

[Care4all]

It applies to asset forfeitures via civil proceedings also.

Timbs v. Indiana - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Note that it was still in the criminal courts and not the civil court for this case in the link....? A misdemeanor vs. A felony, but still criminal charges.

it would make sense if the 8th A, covered civil suits by the state, however this particular case in your link is referring to a criminal case, so I am still uncertain?

I'll Google it, to see if I can find out.... Thank you.


Edit:

ANNOTATIONS

The Eighth Amendment deals only with criminal punishment, and has no application to civil processes. In holding the Amendment inapplicable to the infliction of corporal punishment upon schoolchildren for disciplinary purposes, the Court explained that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause “circumscribes the criminal process in three ways: First, it limits the kinds of punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of crimes; second, it proscribes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime; and third, it imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished as such.”298 These limitations, the Court thought, should not be extended outside the criminal process.

 

[Care4all]

DS said that there was NO FRAUD moron.
If there was they would know it, because they would have been victimized, duh.
(Hint: they were the lender, they made lots of money, walked away happy)

If the lenders go belly up, does our govt through FDIC protect their customer's savings up to the limit???

 

[Care4all]

It applies to asset forfeitures via civil proceedings also.

Timbs v. Indiana - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No application

---

The Eighth Amendment deals only with criminal punishment, and has no application to civil processes.

Limitation of the Clause to Criminal Punishments :: Eighth Amen…​

law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-08/16-limitation-of-the-clause-t…


ANNOTATIONS

The Eighth Amendment deals only with criminal punishment, and has no application to civil processes. In holding the Amendment inapplicable to the infliction of corporal punishment upon schoolchildren for disciplinary purposes, the Court explained that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause “circumscribes the criminal process in three ways: First, it limits the kinds of punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of crimes; second, it proscribes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime; and third, it imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished as such.”298 These limitations, the Court thought, should not be extended outside the criminal process.

 

[StoneCold]

Mar a Lago is worth $18 million. Trump should be executed.

You know that $18M was a compromise between POS45 and county tax authorities, right? Or is this your attempt at comedy. If so...

 

[Care4all]

Clearly he is being excessively punished. Who objectively would say otherwise?

As proven in the EJ Carroll case, small fines like $5 million mean nothing to the billionaire Trump....he continued to defame. Only after the second jury imposed the $65 million fine, did he stop, breaking the law and stop defaming her....

Trump has made it clear that small multi million dollar fines won't stop trump from continuing his fraudulent practices.... is likely the thought????

Regardless, I too believe the amount is excessive, but still needs to be sizeable ....like $50 million or $100 mil at most, not the $355 million.

 

[Care4all]

Mar a Lago is worth $18 million. Trump should be executed.

According to the palm beach tax assessor, with all the Deed restrictions Trump agreed to when he got permission to convert the family private home to a resort, Mara Lago is worth $18 to $27 million.

For the past 20 plus years, as part of the deal on the Deed restrictions of never ever being able to be a private mansion again, Trump received a humongous property tax savings every year.

on the certified property assets form, Trump fraudulently put that Mara Lago was worth $780 million, not the $18 to $27 million.

 

[StoneCold]

Have you gone door to door in NY validating this fantasy?
Do you have unbiased polling?

Then why not stop crapping on the ballroom floor?

The bathrooms are full of boxes of secrets?

 

[kyzr]

And here comes the racist sexist attacks on someone wholly uninvolved.
Why would one feign surprise? The Law.
The Law says what Trump did was fraud.
Nothing you've said or posted says otherwise.
Rule of Law little man. Something Republicans used to honor.

1. So when NY passed a "law" that extended the statute of limitations so some lady could sue Trump, that was that legitimate, or political? How would you feel if republicans extended the statute of limitations so Hunter could be prosecuted for tax evasion?
Remember the FBI let Hunter's tax evasion slide?

2. Letitia James ran on "getting Trump", she bragged about it. Don't say she was "uninvolved". You keep saying Trump committed "fraud", so look up what "fraud" means:
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

No one was "injured", so no fraud was committed.
Letitia James abused the law to "get Trump" as she promised her democrat voters.

Partisan "hack" Letitia James

 

[para bellum]

No application

---

The Eighth Amendment deals only with criminal punishment, and has no application to civil processes.

Limitation of the Clause to Criminal Punishments :: Eighth Amen…​

View attachment 907849
law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-08/16-limitation-of-the-clause-t…


ANNOTATIONS

The Eighth Amendment deals only with criminal punishment, and has no application to civil processes. In holding the Amendment inapplicable to the infliction of corporal punishment upon schoolchildren for disciplinary purposes, the Court explained that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause “circumscribes the criminal process in three ways: First, it limits the kinds of punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of crimes; second, it proscribes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime; and third, it imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished as such.”298 These limitations, the Court thought, should not be extended outside the criminal process.

I would say that there is a lot or room to argue this one. Trump was found guilty without a trial of a quasi-crime, and there are no restraints whatsoever in the statute limiting the penalty.

Even if you say the 8th does not apply, this was still a civil forfeiture action and the 14th does. You can't give the State an unlimited license to seize someone's property. It's abhorrent to the Constitution.

___________________________________________________

​

Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas​

In Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86 (1909), the Supreme Court held that excessive fines are those that are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law". The Court wrote in its syllabus:

The fixing of punishment for crime and penalties for unlawful acts is within the police power of the state, and this Court cannot interfere with state legislation in fixing fines, or judicial action in imposing them, unless so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. Where a state antitrust law fixed penalties at $5,000 a day, and, after the verdict is guilty for over 300 days, a defendant corporation was fined over $1,600,000, this Court will not hold that the fine is so excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law where it appears that the business was extensive and profitable during the period of violation and that the corporation has over $40,000,000 of assets and has declared dividends amounting to several hundred percent

The Court further stated in its opinion:

t has contended that the fines imposed are so excessive as to constitute a taking of the defendant's property without due process of law. It is not contended in this connection that the prohibition of the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution against excessive fines operates to control the legislation of the states. The fixing of punishment for crime or penalties for unlawful acts against its laws is within the police power of the state. We can only interfere with such legislation and judicial action of the states enforcing it if the fines imposed are so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law.

...In essence, the government must not be able to confiscate such a large amount of property without following an established set of rules created by the legislature.[23]

Browning-Ferris v. Kelco​

In Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause does not apply "when the government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to receive a share of the damages awarded". While punitive damages in civil cases are not covered by the Excessive Fines Clause, such damages were held to be covered by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, notably in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).[24]

Austin v. United States​

In Austin v. United States 509 U.S. 602 (1993),[25] the Supreme Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause does apply to civil asset forfeiture actions taken by the federal government, in the specific case, the government's seizure of the petitioner's auto body shop on the basis of one charge of drug possession for which he had served seven years in prison.

 

[kyzr]

If the lenders go belly up, does our govt through FDIC protect their customer's savings up to the limit???

No one was injured in this specific case, as opposed to FTX where Sam Bankman Fried defrauded investors.
See the difference?

 

[Dadoalex]

1. So when NY passed a "law" that extended the statute of limitations so some lady could sue Trump, that was that legitimate, or political? How would you feel if republicans extended the statute of limitations so Hunter could be prosecuted for tax evasion?
Remember the FBI let Hunter's tax evasion slide?

2. Letitia James ran on "getting Trump", she bragged about it. Don't say she was "uninvolved". You keep saying Trump committed "fraud", so look up what "fraud" means:
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

No one was "injured", so no fraud was committed.
Letitia James abused the law to "get Trump" as she promised her democrat voters.
View attachment 907871 Partisan "hack" Letitia James

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.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. So when NY passed a "law" that extended the statute of limitations so some lady could sue Trump...

This isn't true. The Adult Survivors Act in New York was passed in New York as a result of the "Me Too" movement which had started a few years before.

The legislation was pass in the Senate 63-0 and in the Assembly 140-3.

Those numbers mean that there was overwhelming support from BOTH DEMs and GOP for passage.

GOP legislators voted for it just like the DEMs.

WW

 

[MagicMike]

Whatever toady. The moment you use Maga or MAGAt... I know what you're about

Reality?
That must be what you're getting at.

 

[StoneCold]

This isn't true. The Adult Survivors Act in New York was passed in New York as a result of the "Me Too" movement which had started a few years before.

The legislation was pass in the Senate 63-0 and in the Assembly 140-3.

Those numbers mean that there was overwhelming support from BOTH DEMs and GOP for passage.

GOP legislators voted for it just like the DEMs.

WW

Stomps foot:"Different, different, D I F F E R E N T!"
Limps off, smiling!

 

[Care4all]

No one was injured in this specific case, as opposed to FTX where Sam Bankman Fried defrauded investors.
See the difference?

So let me ask you....if it is okay for Trump to exaggerate his assets on this certified to be true special assets form for the banking institutions, can ALL BUSINESSES just start fraudulently listing and excessively over valuing their properties too... on their special assets valuation form?

So does that mean that no business ever, has to have their accountants accurately certify their special property assets to be true on this form? They all can lie and cheat for a better interest rate? And it would mean nothing? It would be just fine and dandy??

 

[Care4all]

This isn't true. The Adult Survivors Act in New York was passed in New York as a result of the "Me Too" movement which had started a few years before.

The legislation was pass in the Senate 63-0 and in the Assembly 140-3.

Those numbers mean that there was overwhelming support from BOTH DEMs and GOP for passage.

GOP legislators voted for it just like the DEMs.

WW

winner winner chicken dinner!


t y for replying and correcting his comment! I was just getting ready to do so!

 

[para bellum]

Regardless, I too believe the amount is excessive, but still needs to be sizeable ....like $50 million or $100 mil at most, not the $355 million.

..."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