BillStime Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 On 2/17/2024 at 4:50 AM, Tommy Callahan said: Epic. But a lefty posting Jersey from Joe (pure grift) gets posted and upvoted by the left is ignored. and again, the lefty hyperventilating at the justice system being weaponized. Openly biased court members are kosher. But the only wins seem to be in civil court, and in this case. no victim. (Ironic as NY bail reform was based on not punishing people that commit victimless crimes) But hey. take this win before its appealed. and ignore the other cases collapsing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy1 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Read the judge tossed 6 parts of the Rico case. And they happened to be the part that held the narrative together 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Trump appears unable to secure a bond for his appeal. Shouldn’t be that hard for a billionaire business magnate… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Trump appears unable to secure a bond for his appeal. Shouldn’t be that hard for a billionaire business magnate… The 8th amendment covers civil The Eighth Amendment prohibits the government's imposition of excessive fines. The excessive fines clause is similar to the prohibition against excessive bail. The court must balance the fine versus the nature of the offense. This protection applies to both civil and criminal cases. Edited March 18 by Tommy Callahan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Poor mobster trump. No one will lend him money https://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-trump-failed-appeal-bond-150739705.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Only four more days. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 The Wall$ are Clo$ing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 45 minutes ago, BillStime said: The Wall$ are Clo$ing Leticia James Tower. Has a ring to it, you gotta admit. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 5 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: The 8th amendment covers civil The Eighth Amendment prohibits the government's imposition of excessive fines. The excessive fines clause is similar to the prohibition against excessive bail. The court must balance the fine versus the nature of the offense. This protection applies to both civil and criminal cases. The only problem with your argument is that it's punitive in that it's to punish the behavior as well as compensate the victim. Sort of the same issue as there is with bail. Would a $5000 fine punish trump or curb the behavior? A $5000 fine would, however, cripple anyone living check to check. So the question is, what really is "excessive"? One could argue that because his wealth is excessive, the damages are not excessive to him. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 3 minutes ago, daz28 said: The only problem with your argument is that it's punitive in that it's to punish the behavior as well as compensate the victim. Sort of the same issue as there is with bail. Would a $5000 fine punish trump or curb the behavior? A $5000 fine would, however, cripple anyone living check to check. So the question is, what really is "excessive"? One could argue that because his wealth is excessive, the damages are not excessive to him. Right. If Trump is worth $5 billion (he claims more, but we know about the wealth inflation), a $500 million fine is 10% of his net worth. This is like the ordinary schmuck worth $500,000 being fined $50,000 for falsifying his records. Edited March 18 by The Frankish Reich 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Right. If Trump is worth $5 billion (he claims more, but we know about the wealth inflation), a $500 million fine is 10% of his net worth. This is like the ordinary schmuck worth $500,000 being fined $50,000 for falsifying his records. I'm fairly sure any judge is going to find that him not wanting to sell off assets to pay his fines is a ridiculous argument, especially considering he tried to move assets to Florida after he was instructed not to. Alina Habba is a hack, but this is likely just a political move by trump to garner more sympathy. Edited March 18 by daz28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 6 minutes ago, daz28 said: I'm fairly sure any judge is going to find that him not wanting to sell off assets to pay his fines is a ridiculous argument, especially considering he tried to move assets to Florida after he was instructed not to. Alina Habba is a hack, but this is likely just a political move by trump to garner more sympathy. Agreed. I do think the fine is excessive. Not as a constitutional matter, but just as a matter of simple law and application of a penalty for knowingly filing false statements that caused no measurable loss to any specific entity. So assuming he is allowed to proceed with an appeal, I think the fine will be reduced. As to what the appropriate amount of the fine is? I would imagine the AG would pull comparable cases where fines have been assessed for such false statements, and will argue that a percentage of the net worth of the company is appropriate. I don't know what that will result in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 4 hours ago, B-Man said: Only four more days. . You see Trump's ass is broke? HE can't cover his legal obligations. Broke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L Ron Burgundy Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Agreed. I do think the fine is excessive. Not as a constitutional matter, but just as a matter of simple law and application of a penalty for knowingly filing false statements that caused no measurable loss to any specific entity. So assuming he is allowed to proceed with an appeal, I think the fine will be reduced. As to what the appropriate amount of the fine is? I would imagine the AG would pull comparable cases where fines have been assessed for such false statements, and will argue that a percentage of the net worth of the company is appropriate. I don't know what that will result in. Do you think part of the reason for the exorbitant amount is the disdain Trump and Co seemed to treat the whole process? Or does that not figure into things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 9 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Agreed. I do think the fine is excessive. Not as a constitutional matter, but just as a matter of simple law and application of a penalty for knowingly filing false statements that caused no measurable loss to any specific entity. So assuming he is allowed to proceed with an appeal, I think the fine will be reduced. As to what the appropriate amount of the fine is? I would imagine the AG would pull comparable cases where fines have been assessed for such false statements, and will argue that a percentage of the net worth of the company is appropriate. I don't know what that will result in. On it's face, it surely appears to be excessive, but only from the tilted 2-tiered justice point of view that favors the wealthy. I'm almost certain that isn't going to change anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts