Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 2
Amendment VIII.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
No. of Recommendations: 18
bighairymike:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.What point do you think you're cleverly making there?
Unlike others faced with 91 felony indictments, Orange Jesus has never spend a minute in jail awaiting trial. So, no bail issues.
As for "excessive fines," the fine in his finger rape trial were not excessive, although it's for him to make that argument during appeal, I suppose. And his punitive damages would not have risen if he had not continued to defame E Jean Carroll.
As for the NY fraud case, judge Engoron explained that the lower loan interest rates Trump received through fraud allowed him to build projects he wouldn’t have otherwise been able to finish. The judge determined that those savings and windfall profits were “ill-gotten gains”:
-- $168 million, plus interest, in savings on loans he obtained using his inflated financial statements for a golf resort near Miami, a Chicago hotel and condominium tower, a Washington, D.C. hotel and a Manhattan office building.
-- $126.8 million, plus interest, in profit from selling the Trump International Hotel in Washington in May 2022 to a company that now operates it as a Waldorf Astoria. Trump used $170 million of the $375 million to pay off a loan on the property. Other proceeds went to his children.
-- $60 million, plus interest, from selling the rights to manage a New York City golf course in June 2023. Engoron noted in his ruling that the buyer, Bally’s Corporation, stands to pay Trump an additional $115 million if it obtains a casino license for the property. However, he did not say if he would require Trump to give up that money, too.
Stop making excuses for the finger rapist who is guilty of business fraud, encouraged Russia to invade the EU, stole and refused to return top secret intelligence, quotes Hitler, and says that Jews who don't vote for him hate Israel and their religion.
In short, get out of the cult.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-letitia-jam...
No. of Recommendations: 1
>>bighairymike: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.<<
What point do you think you're cleverly making there?
Unlike others faced with 91 felony indictments, Orange Jesus has never spend a minute in jail awaiting trial. So, no bail issues. - CO
---------------
NY has set an unreasonable condition in order for a defendant to pursue an appeal. Regardless of how the appeal turns out, the excessive bond requirement to pursue that appeal, in and of itself, inflicts cruel and unusual punishment.
Forcing massive losses under a fire sale essentially applies a significant penalty in advance of the appeal process. Harm that cannot be reversed if the appeal is successful.
No. of Recommendations: 13
NY has set an unreasonable condition in order for a defendant to pursue an appeal.
No, they haven't.
At this point, the plaintiffs have won their civil case against Trump. They have secured a judgement for $464 million. Trump gets to appeal, but unless a stay is issued he owes the money now. This was a final judgement, and it is enforceable immediately. Right now, it is the plaintiffs' money. The purpose of the bond is to make sure that no matter what happens over the time that the appeal might take, the plaintiffs' money will be safe.
Trump, as the losing defendant, doesn't get to decide that the plaintiff's money will remain invested in commercial real estate (much less in the specific properties that Trump chooses) in order to minimize the consequences to the defendant. The plaintiffs can't be forced to take that risk, especially since the plaintiffs don't get any upside to having their money invested in a riskier asset.
Again, what Trump is arguing about is justification for a stay - an argument that he has a decent chance to prevail on appeal, and that therefore the status quo should not be disturbed. He's lost that argument at the trial court and at the appellate court. So the status quo is disturbed, and Trump has to pay the judgment now. He has the option to pay the judgement to the court, rather than the plaintiffs, in order to protect his ability to get the judgement back if he wins on appeal - but that's it.
He lost his case, and he lost his requests to stay the judgement. The consequences for being found guilty of fraud start now. And that's not unreasonable.
No. of Recommendations: 2
...unless your last name is "Somebody the ruling party doesn't like".
No. of Recommendations: 1
Forcing massive losses under a fire sale essentially applies a significant penalty in advance of the appeal process. Harm that cannot be reversed if the appeal is successful
-------------------
That's a good argument, but it isn't his property anymore.
The taco truck is ready, the miniature golf course is on the way, and the Ukraine says they have an offer from Taylor Swift on the plane.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Bighairymike, what is your suggested fine and what is the basis for your opinion? I am also curious what is your knowledge/experience to know more that the judge?
Aussi
No. of Recommendations: 2
>>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. - Us Constitution
Bighairymike, what is your suggested fine and what is the basis for your opinion? I am also curious what is your knowledge/experience to know more that the judge?
Aussi
--------------
Because the penalty is being imposed before the judic1al process is complete.
Because the penalty is not based on the harm to known victims, unlike Bernie Madooff for example where judgement is used to repay actual victims instead of filling state pocket books..
Because this is a political prosecution, conducted by a corrupt AG who ran on, "Elect me and I'll get him for something".
No. of Recommendations: 15
Because the penalty is being imposed before the judic1al process is complete.
So what? People have to pay judgments before their appeal is settled. People go to jail before their appeals are settled. Just because you file an appeal doesn't mean you have any right to forestall the consequences of losing your trial for years and years. The trial isn't the beginning of a judicial process - the outcome of the trial is a final judgment.
That's the difference between posting security and getting a stay on the final ruling. When you lose a trial, you have to pay the plaintiff what you owe. If you get a stay of that final ruling, then the status quo is preserved, and you don't have to pay anybody anything. You usually can get that if an appellate court believes you have a legitimate chance of prevailing on your appeal. The final judgment is put on hold.
If you don't get a stay, you have to pay the money right then. The final judgment goes into effect immediately. You have to give up the money right away. However, you are given an option if you want to appeal. Instead of paying any money to the plaintiff, you can pay the money to the court. Which holds the money for the plaintiff (so the plaintiff has no risk) - but that way, in the off chance you win on appeal, you don't run the risk that you can't get the money back from the plaintiff. You can put the money in the "box" in the court either in cash, or a bond (in which case the bonding company will want about 1-3% of the amount in premium and to restrict your ability to use the collateral). You have a penalty immediately - you lose access to whatever the amount of the judgment is, either because it's in the court's possession or because you've encumbered it to the bonding company.
Trump asked for a stay from the appellate court, and it was denied. So he has to either pay the amount of the judgment to the court, or get someone to post a bond. This is the same thing that happens to everyone who loses a civil trial and doesn't get a stay.
Because the penalty is not based on the harm to known victims,
Of course it is. Trump was able to get people to lend him money at too low an interest rate relative to the risks they took, by lying to them about the value of the collateral. This is pretty basic stuff, even for ordinary borrowers. If you have a loan-to-value ratio of 90% on your home, for example, you just pay your interest; if you have an LTV of only 70%, you don't, because you have to pay mortgage insurance. Because the lower value of the collateral relative to the loan imposes a bigger risk, so you get charged more for the loan. So if you get someone to falsify an appraisal, you can defraud the lender out of the money they would have and should have been paid - and they suffer that harm even if, after the fact, you end up not defaulting.
The judge calculated the amount of higher interest that Trump managed to avoid by inflating his property values, and that's what the amount was based on.
No. of Recommendations: 5
If you have a loan-to-value ratio of 90% on your home, for example, you just pay your interest; if you have an LTV of only 70%, you don't, because you have to pay mortgage insurance.
Because I went to law school so I wouldn't do math, of course I got these numbers backwards. Higher LTV pays PMI, not lower.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Trump asked for a stay from the appellate court, and it was denied. So he has to either pay the amount of the judgment to the court, or get someone to post a bond. This is the same thing that happens to everyone who loses a civil trial and doesn't get a stay.
"Whack!"
Sadly, I can only rec Albaby's post once. But as per usual, it's a crystal clear explanation of why it's the actual DETAILS that matter, in contradistinction to the breathlessly obfuscating "common sense" talking points coming from the other side. And so, all we get from that contingent is:
"Yowl, moan, whimper - so unfair! Why should I, a former POTUS be subjected to the same rules as everyone else?"
No. of Recommendations: 4
Because this is a political prosecution, conducted by a corrupt AG who ran on, "Elect me and I'll get him for something".
Don't forget Trump actually broke the law, that he knew was there, and that he admitted he broke the law. And that he says no one was harmed, but that he knows there was harm. There might be some mitigation of the fine/penalty on appeal, but the odds of a complete dismissal are highly unlikely - very remote with his admission.
The NY AG, Letitia, ran on standing up to Trump, not "I'll get him for something". Your libel of her is noted and is politically motivated but protected as she is a public figure. Please give us a genuine example of her being corrupt that isn't in political weasel words, as you say.
As for Letitia - GO LETITIA GO! Grab him by the airplane, then smack him, then grab him by the new, improved, MAR y TACO miniature golf club. :)
No. of Recommendations: 11
"Because the penalty is being imposed before the judic1al process is complete." -BHM
Huh? The trial is over. He lost. In our legal system when you lose a trial, the penalties take effect immediately.
Penalties often happen long before the appeal process is complete. Heck, sometimes they happen before even a trial has taken place. People are denied bond all of the time (or are given a bond amount they cannot afford) and have to sit in jail before they even get a trial.
Here is a clue to know if you are in a cult or not. Given all of the atrocities that happen in the judicial system (people given death sentences because they were railroaded into giving false confessions by lazy cops, disparate sentencing based on race, poor people run over in the legal system because they cannot afford adequate representation, etc, the list goes on and on), the thing you get worked up over is a multi-billionaire, with the best representation money could buy, losing a case where the evidence was clearly stacked against him and then he whines about the fine. If that is what bothers you about the judicial system, then you are a cultist.
"Because the penalty is not based on the harm to known victims...."
Except is was based on the level of harm to known victims. You can look at the judgement and you can see exactly how the penalty was calculated. If you defraud people, you don't get to benefit from that fraud.
"Because this is a political prosecution, conducted by a corrupt AG who ran on, "Elect me and I'll get him for something"."
There is so much wrong with your statement.
1. It is clear you do not believe in the rule of law. An AG empanels a grand jury (made up of citizens), presents them evidence and gets them to vote to charge Trump. Then charges Trump, goes to trial, wins the case against Trump and his highly paid lawyers, wins the penalty phase of the trial. Knowing that all of this is going to be subject to the appeals process where those highly paid lawyers can jump on any little mistake. You consider than political prosecution. Yet when Trump encourages a crowd to chant "lock her up!" at his rallies, or calls for Liz Cheney to be jailed, or literally pressures his AG (Bill Barr) to appoint a Special Prosecutor (John Dunham) to investigate his enemies, or illegally withholds aid to a foreign government as pressure for that foreign government to investigate his political enemies, etc, etc, etc. You do not have any problem with any of that. It is clear, you don't want rule of law, you only want non-cultists prosecuted.
2. You say AG James is corrupt. What do you base this statement on. I am guessing it is because your dear leader told you it so you believe it absolutely.
