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

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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?

By my reading of the clause..The SCOTUS may well INCREASE the fines levied~

 

[Rawley]

I did, I pointed out it refers to damages and restitution. That is what disgorgement is.

WW

Nope. Disgorgement is neither a damage nor restitution. Damage is a measure of how much plaintiffs have been damaged. Restitution is Defendant giving back what she took from plaintiff to make them whole.

Neither occurred in this case. Banks were not damaged and there was no restitution.

Third and last time - this was a fine, plain and simple.

 

[Rawley]

Rawley does not understand that "disgorgement" refers to returning unwarranted profits.

You poopyhead. I win

 

[WorldWatcher]

Rawley does not understand that "disgorgement" refers to returning unwarranted profits.

I know.

Because disgorgement is fundamentally different than "punishment" (i.e. fines).

Removing ill gotten gains would not be "fines" under the meaning of the 8th Amendment.

So let's use a similar example. (Not quite the same but similar.)

Let say you cheat on your taxes for years. The IRS finally catches you and files for payment. The payment will consist of 3 parts: (A) taxes owed, (B) interest on the taxes, (C) fines.

"A" and "B" are not subject to the 8th Amendment limitations. "C" being the fines are.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Third and last time - this was a fine, plain and simple.

Glad it's the last time.

However it's still a disgorgement and not a fine, plain and simple.

WW

 

[Rawley]

Glad it's the last time.

However it's still a disgorgement and not a fine, plain and simple.

WW

Sorry, I'll stick with the Supreme Court.

Held: Because SEC disgorgement operates as a penalty under §2462, any claim for disgorgement in an SEC enforcement action must be commenced within five years of the date the claim accrued. Pp. 5–11.
(a) The definition of “penalty” as a “punishment, whether corporal or pecuniary, imposed and enforced by the State, for a crime or offense against its laws,” Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 667, gives rise to two principles. First, whether a sanction represents a penalty turns in part on “whether the wrong sought to be redressed is a wrong to the public, or a wrong to the individual.” Id., at 668. Second, a pecuniary sanction operates as a penalty if it is sought “for the purpose of punishment, and to deter others from offending in like manner” rather than to compensate victims. Ibid. This Court has applied these principles in construing the term “penalty,” holding, e.g., that a statute providing a compensatory remedy for a private wrong did not impose a “penalty,” Brady v. Daly, 175 U. S. 148, 154. Pp. 5–7.

Loading…

www.supremecourt.gov

 

[WorldWatcher]

Sorry, I'll stick with the Supreme Court.

Held: Because SEC disgorgement operates as a penalty under §2462, any claim for disgorgement in an SEC enforcement action must be commenced within five years of the date the claim accrued. Pp. 5–11.
(a) The definition of “penalty” as a “punishment, whether corporal or pecuniary, imposed and enforced by the State, for a crime or offense against its laws,” Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 667, gives rise to two principles. First, whether a sanction represents a penalty turns in part on “whether the wrong sought to be redressed is a wrong to the public, or a wrong to the individual.” Id., at 668. Second, a pecuniary sanction operates as a penalty if it is sought “for the purpose of punishment, and to deter others from offending in like manner” rather than to compensate victims. Ibid. This Court has applied these principles in construing the term “penalty,” holding, e.g., that a statute providing a compensatory remedy for a private wrong did not impose a “penalty,” Brady v. Daly, 175 U. S. 148, 154. Pp. 5–7.

Loading…

www.supremecourt.gov

It's withing five years of the date when the CLAIM first occured.

And the disgorgement isn't being sought as punishment, it restitution for illegal activity.

So let's use a similar example. (Not quite the same but similar.)

Let say you cheat on your taxes for years. The IRS finally catches you and files for payment. The payment will consist of 3 parts: (A) taxes owed, (B) interest on the taxes, (C) fines.

"A" and "B" are not subject to the 8th Amendment limitations. "C" being the fines or "punishment" are.

WW

WW

 

[Rawley]

It's withing five years of the date when the CLAIM first occured.

And the disgorgement isn't being sought as punishment, it restitution for illegal activity.

Dude, no offense, but did you take a stupid pill today? You are typically not this obtuse. "restitution" means giving back to the victims what the defendant took from them.

Not happening with Trump,. James is shoving the $350M in her big old granny panties.

"First, whether a sanction represents a penalty turns in part on “whether the wrong sought to be redressed is a wrong to the public, or a wrong to the individual.” Id., at 668. Second, a pecuniary sanction operates as a penalty if it is sought “for the purpose of punishment, and to deter others from offending in like manner” rather than to compensate victims"

BOth of these in Trump case says the $350M is a penalty - a fine.

So let's use a similar example. (Not quite the same but similar.)

Let say you cheat on your taxes for years. The IRS finally catches you and files for payment. The payment will consist of 3 parts: (A) taxes owed, (B) interest on the taxes, (C) fines.

"A" and "B" are not subject to the 8th Amendment limitations. "C" being the fines or "punishment" are.

WW

WW

In Trump's case, there was no A, no B, only C

 

[WorldWatcher]

Dude, no offense, but did you take a stupid pill today? You are typically not this obtuse. "restitution" means giving back to the victims what the defendant took from them.

Not happening with Trump,. James is shoving the $350M in her big old granny panties.

"First, whether a sanction represents a penalty turns in part on “whether the wrong sought to be redressed is a wrong to the public, or a wrong to the individual.” Id., at 668. Second, a pecuniary sanction operates as a penalty if it is sought “for the purpose of punishment, and to deter others from offending in like manner” rather than to compensate victims"

BOth of these in Trump case says the $350M is a penalty - a fine.


In Trump's case, there was no A, no B, only C

In trumps case it's all A and B with no C.

That is the difference.

WW

 

[Concerned American]

SCOTUS doesn't have a say in State court judgements. The last stop for an appeal of the New York verdict is the New York Supreme Court.

So you think the US constitution stops at state borders? Think again.

 

[Rawley]

In trumps case it's all A and B with no C.

That is the difference.

WW

I hope your condition isn't permanent.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Curried Goats]

So you think the US constitution stops at state borders? Think again.

I think you don't understand our federalist system.

 

[Concerned American]

I think

Another lie ^^^.

 

[Curried Goats]

Another lie ^^^.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It is "disgorgement", giving back that which gained by unlawful means.

Trump's appeal will die, as nearly always.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You poopyhead. I win

Not on this, ever.

 

[Rawley]

Not on this, ever.

When your argument is reduced to ad hominem, yup, I win.

 

[Rawley]

It is "disgorgement", giving back that which gained by unlawful means.

James is giving the $350M to the banks? Do tell.

 

[Dadoalex]

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?

The fines are based on the level of fraud committed and the defendants' refusal to admit culpability. It's based on the legal principle
Do big crime
Get big fines

Trump can' of course, appeal if he can come up with $450M to pay the fines or buy the bond.

 

[Dadoalex]

I have no faith in SCOTUS after some of the crap they have pulled.

The entire system is literally out to get Trump, even judges he appointed.

Don't do the crimes if you can't pay the fines.