New York Judgment Against Trump Violates the Eighth Amendment

[Lisa558]

"Nope" isn't a legal argument.

There's strong evidence that Trump committed fraud. And that evidence justifies the charges. As demonstrated by the ruling of the judge who cited that evidence when he found Trump had committed fraud and required him to pay $355 million.

Trump already tried to have the civil suit dismissed on the ground's you've cited. He lost.

Its unlikely that the appeals court will overturn on the grounds you've cited. And even less likely that they'll overturn on the merits of the case. And there's very little chance they'll overturn on an 'excessive fines' clause of the constituition, when the money Trump was ordered to pay was about 2 times the money saved through fraud.

The evidence is where Trump lost. Good luck getting it overturned.

No harm was done, and the “victim” was a happy participant. This was a targeted witch-hunt, using a law that hadn’t been used this way in 70 years. They sought out no other real estate developers and other businesses that have done the same.

The case will be overturned or reduced to a token amount. The Trump-hater running for AG did so promising to “get Trump” - and the best she could do after two years of searching was this common occurrence for which nobody other than Trump was charged.

Good luck. Let’s call it a draw right now and revisit after the election,

 

[Skylar]

No harm was done, and the “victim” was a happy participant. This was a targeted witch-hunt, using a law that hadn’t been used this way in 70 years. They sought out no other real estate developers and other businesses that have done the same.

The case will be overturned or reduced to a token amount. The Trump-hater running for AG did so promising to “get Trump” - and the best she could do after two years of searching was this common occurrence for which nobody other than Trump was charged.

Good luck. Let’s call it a draw right now and revisit after the election,

Again, the evidence justified the charges. There is strong evidence that Trump wildly lied on his loan applications and committed repeated and overlapping acts of fraud.

You're ignoring the lies, the fraud, the false financial disclosures, all of it. And the court didn't. Your selective and willful dismissal of overwhelming evidence of fraud doesn't change the laws surrounding that fraud. Or the penalties associated with violating those laws.

You're literally applying willful dismissal of overwhelming evidence of fraud as your legal standard.

The courts didn't. And its highly unlikely that the appeals court will.

And sure. Lets revisit this later. I don't think the election is going to have much relevance to the outcome of the appeals.

 

[JoeB131]

No harm was done, and the “victim” was a happy participant. This was a targeted witch-hunt, using a law that hadn’t been used this way in 70 years. They sought out no other real estate developers and other businesses that have done the same.

No other developers engaged in conduct this egregious, that was the thing.

The case will be overturned or reduced to a token amount. The Trump-hater running for AG did so promising to “get Trump” - and the best she could do after two years of searching was this common occurrence for which nobody other than Trump was charged.

Again, not seeing any grounds for overturning it. Trump paid twice the benefit from his fraud. That's actually well within penalty guidelines.

Good luck. Let’s call it a draw right now and revisit after the election,

You mean after Trump loses and you'll scream in a shrill voice how he was cheated.

 

[Lisa558]

Again, the evidence justified the charges. There is strong evidence that Trump wildly lied on his loan applications and committed repeated and overlapping acts of fraud.

You're ignoring the lies, the fraud, the false financial disclosures, all of it. And the court didn't. Your selective and willful dismissal of overwhelming evidence of fraud doesn't change the laws surrounding that fraud. Or the penalties associated with violating those laws.

You're literally applying willful dismissal of overwhelming evidence of fraud as your legal standard.

The courts didn't. And its highly unlikely that the appeals court will.

And sure. Lets revisit this later. I don't think the election is going to have much relevance to the outcome of the appeals.

We’re just arguing back the same points. We’ll revisit this in a year, and see what an appeals court says about a biased Dem AG and a biased Dem judge out for blood for targeting a single individual - who happens to be Biden’s main opponent - by coming up with a victimless “crime” that hasn’t been charged this way in 70 years.

Meet you back here on November 5.

 

[Skylar]

We’re just arguing back the same points. We’ll revisit this in a year, and see what an appeals court says about a biased Dem AG and a biased Dem judge out for blood for targeting a single individual - who happens to be Biden’s main opponent - by coming up with a victimless “crime” that hasn’t been charged this way in 70 years.

Meet you back here on November 5.

Sounds like a plan. I've ready the 90 something page ruling. I'm pretty confident that the ruling is going to stand. There may be some adjustments on the fine amounts, but not much in my estimation.

Here's the ruling if you'd like to review it yourself. It will be super relevant in any upcoming appeal.

The Civil Fraud Ruling on Donald Trump, Annotated

Former President Donald J. Trump was penalized $355 million plus interest and banned for three years from serving in any top roles at a New York company, including his own, in a ruling on Friday by Justice Arthur F. Engoron.

www.nytimes.com

But time will tell.

 

[Lisa558]

Sounds like a plan. I've ready the 90 something page ruling. I'm pretty confident that the ruling is going to stand. There may be some adjustments on the fine amounts, but not much in my estimation.

Here's the ruling if you'd like to review it yourself. It will be super relevant in any upcoming appeal.

The Civil Fraud Ruling on Donald Trump, Annotated

Former President Donald J. Trump was penalized $355 million plus interest and banned for three years from serving in any top roles at a New York company, including his own, in a ruling on Friday by Justice Arthur F. Engoron.

www.nytimes.com

But time will tell.

The ruling from the biased Democrat judge and AG?

Doesn‘t discount that this was personal targeting of Trump for political reasons, using a “law” not used this way in 70 years, and not against any others when this is a common occurrence, and when there is no victim, and when in fact the “victim” testified in defense of Trump, and only came about because the AG won her campaign by promising to “get Trump” and after two years finally found a victimless case to make good on her campaign promise.

The justice system doesn’t work like that, even though Trump-hating leftists have tried to make it so.

See you back here in a year. Care to make it interesting? I’ll put down $100.

 

[Skylar]

The ruling from the biased Democrat judge and AG?

The ruling that lays out the evidence and legal reasoning that the judge used when finding that Trump had commited fraud. The ruling that will be appraised by the appeals court when assessing any appeal.

That ruling.

Your characterizations of the ruling are meaningless, legally. Trump will have to prove that the ruling was politically motivated.

And he doesn't have the evidence for that. As demonstrated by his failure to have the civil suit dismissed on the same grounds. Whereas the judge has ample evidence of fraud. Laid out in that ruling.

If you're serious about assessing the likely outcomes of appeals, then you can't ignore the judge's ruling that will be the basis of any appeal court's judgment. Or the evidence it cites.

 

[JoeB131]

The ruling from the biased Democrat judge and AG?

Doesn‘t discount that this was personal targeting of Trump for political reasons, using a “law” not used this way in 70 years, and not against any others when this is a common occurrence, and when there is no victim, and when in fact the “victim” testified in defense of Trump, and only came about because the AG won her campaign by promising to “get Trump” and after two years finally found a victimless case to make good on her campaign promise.

The justice system doesn’t work like that, even though Trump-hating leftists have tried to make it so.

See you back here in a year. Care to make it interesting? I’ll put down $100.

None of these points are relevant.

If the law hasn't been used this way in 70 years, it's because most companies have whole departments dedicated to compliance.

It is NOT a common occurrence.

The bank's testimony is irrelevant. They were at best grossly negligent and at worst openly in a conspiracy with the Trump Org to break the law.

Trump has been committing fraud in New York since the 1970s when Tricky Dick sued him for housing discrimination. If anything, NY has been way too tolerant of this guy and his bad behavior until now.

 

[Lisa558]

The ruling that lays out the evidence and legal reasoning that the judge used when finding that Trump had commited fraud. The ruling that will be appraised by the appeals court when assessing any appeal.

That ruling.

Your characterizations of the ruling are meaningless, legally. Trump will have to prove that the ruling was politically motivated.

And he doesn't have the evidence for that. As demonstrated by his failure to have the civil suit dismissed on the same grounds. Whereas the judge has ample evidence of fraud. Laid out in that ruling.

If you're serious about assessing the likely outcomes of appeals, then you can't ignore the judge's ruling that will be the basis of any appeal court's judgment. Or the evidence it cites.

And all that has to be balanced against the fact that Trump and Trump alone was targeted for political reasons, and that nobody else has ever been indicted let alone found guilty of this victimless “crime” in 79 years. I say he has a case for malicious prosecution.

 

[Skylar]

And all that has to be balanced against the fact that Trump and Trump alone was targeted for political reasons, and that nobody else has ever been indicted let alone found guilty of this victimless “crime” in 79 years. I say he has a case for malicious prosecution.

Again, the evidence justifies the suit.

If there's no evidence, then there's no basis for the suit. But there is plenty of evidence.....laid out in the ruling I linked to.

And if he had a case for 'malicious prosecution', then he would have likely won his bid to have the suit dismissed on those grounds.

He lost.

Again, I think you're conflating your own personal biases and opinions with likely legal outcomes. And the former doesn't inform the latter.

 

[Lisa558]

Again, the evidence justifies the suit.

If there's no evidence, then there's no basis for the suit. But there is plenty of evidence.....laid out in the ruling I linked to.

And if he had a case for 'malicious prosecution', then he would have likely won his bid to have the suit dismissed on those grounds.

He lost.

Again, I think you're conflating your own personal biases and opinions with likely legal outcomes. And the former doesn't inform the latter.

He lost because he the decision was made by a biased judge and AG. He never would have been charged had he been anyone other than Trump.

 

[JoeB131]

And all that has to be balanced against the fact that Trump and Trump alone was targeted for political reasons, and that nobody else has ever been indicted let alone found guilty of this victimless “crime” in 79 years. I say he has a case for malicious prosecution.

If someone else did the same thing, that doesn't excuse Trump.

Come on, this isn't the third grade, and "Billy did it, too!" isn't a valid defense.

 

[JoeB131]

He lost because he the decision was made by a biased judge and AG. He never would have been charged had he been anyone other than Trump.

Probably not.

Anyone not named Trump would have corrected the problem the minute it was pointed out.

Trump compounded fraud upon fraud. When Judge Eregon appointed a special supervisor, she found - you guessed it - more fraud.

 

[Skylar]

He lost because he the decision was made by a biased judge and AG. He never would have been charged had he been anyone other than Trump.

Says you. Citing you.

Not of which is relevant to an appeals ruling. Your personal opinion isn't a legal standard. It will have no impact on any legal outcome.

Trump will have to prove that the judge was bias. And the bar for that is ludicrously high. Trump lacks the evidence. He already tried arguments of bias and misconduct in Trump v. James.

Trump v. James, 1:21-cv-1352 (BKS/CFH) | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Trump v. James, 1:21-cv-1352 (BKS/CFH), see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

He lost. It wasn't Judge Engoran that ruled. It was the United States District Court, N.D. New York.

The issues that you're bringing up have already been adjudicated. Repeatedly. Trump has lost every single time.

Its quite unlikely that an appeals court will rule differently.

 

[Lisa558]

Says you. Citing you.

Not of which is relevant to an appeals ruling. Your personal opinion isn't a legal standard. It will have no impact on any legal outcome.

Trump will have to prove that the judge was bias. And the bar for that is ludicrously high. Trump lacks the evidence. He already tried arguments of bias and misconduct in Trump v. James.

Trump v. James, 1:21-cv-1352 (BKS/CFH) | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Trump v. James, 1:21-cv-1352 (BKS/CFH), see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

He lost. It wasn't Judge Erogan that ruled. It was the United States District Court, N.D. New York.

The issues that you're bringing up have already been adjudicated. Repeatedly. Trump has lost every single time.

Again, your “proof” that Trump lost is because a Trump-hating AG out to get him and a Trump-hating judge said so. That would be like Hitler finding a Jew of some victimless crime that others are never prosecuted for and zooming in on the Jew.


And then you’d say: but the Jew LOST. Hitler said so!

 

[Skylar]

Again, your “proof” that Trump lost is because a Trump-hating AG out to get him and a Trump-hating judge said so. That would be like Hitler finding a Jew of some victimless crime that others are never prosecuted for and zooming in on the Jew.

Again, you're offering your personal opinion as a legal standard. It isn't.

The issue of bias and prosecutorial misconduct has already been adjudicated by the District Court of NY. And Trump failed on the evidence. If the AG has ample evidence of crimes, it doesn't matter WHY she prosecutes. As long as she has a responsible expectation of a favorable outcome for the case she levies.

Again, Trump v. James:

"To establish the “bad faith” exception, the federal plaintiff must show that “the party bringing the state action must have no reasonable expectation of obtaining a favorable outcome..

....Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established that the bad faith exception to Younger applies."

Trump v. James, 1:21-cv-1352 (BKS/CFH) | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Trump v. James, 1:21-cv-1352 (BKS/CFH), see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

The bar for bias that invalidates a judge's ruling is even higher.

If Trump couldn't meet the lower standard of prosecutorial misconduct, there's essentially zero chance he'll meet the higher standard of judicial misconduct. Especially when his 'evidence of misconduct' is that the judge is a Democrat and ruled against him.

 

[Care4all]

Yes it appeals
Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 8 – “Freedom from excessive bail, fines, and cruel punishments.”
View attachment 904035
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum | Ronald Reagan › co...

Amendment 8 – “Freedom from excessive bail, fines, and cruel ...​

Your link states CRIMINAL TRIALS and this trial was a CIVIL trial?

From your link, first line....

Amendment Eight to the Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791. It forbids the use of excessive bails or fines in criminal trials,

 

[Skylar]

Friends of the Judge are left speechless by his penalty and his conduct in this case....

Says who?

 

[johnwk]

It violates everything, including common sense. It's almost as disturbing as the reward to that lady who made the accusations against him.

The rabid people who would burn witches back in the day don't care. As long as "their team" gets a W. Sick people.

Who is the victim that is entitled to this $360 million, and what damages did they suffer?​

New York, and especially New York City, has turned into a crime, garbage, rat infested and corrupted cesspool. Its population needs to be taught a lesson.

 

[Skylar]

Who is the victim that is entitled to this $360 million, and what damages did they suffer?​

New York, and especially New York City, has turned into a crime, garbage, rat infested and corrupted cesspool. Its population needs to be taught a lesson.

Strawman. Show me where in NY law that equitable relief for repeated or ongoing fraud in conducting business requires a victim to be paid.