New York Judgment Against Trump Violates the Eighth Amendment

[catatomic]

Besides it's up to the bank to file charges not the state of new York

- I am unfamiliar with this particular comment, but common sense is that they'd be allowed to do it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't know that that doesn't mean it's a crime.

My great uncle was chief justice of a state Supreme Court, my grandpa was a judge and my dad a DA. I got a master's in math which is the #1 degree for law school. I have lawyer in my blood.

No you have shit in your blood
No victim no crime
Banana republic judicial system

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Besides it's up to the bank to file charges not the state of new York

- I am unfamiliar with this particular comment, but common sense is that they'd be allowed to do it.

That's some funny shit
Banks goes to the court request a civil suit because they have been defrauded
But the banks didn't do that did they?

 

[Rawley]

Well that's not what happened out here in the really real world.

That's exactly what happened. The lenders testified there as no fraud.

 

[lantern2814]

Well, you're the one who's gonna suffer then. I tried to warn you.

You’re going to VERY unhappy when the appeals court throws this out and slaps the “judge” and James. They’ve pretty much already said it’s getting overturned. Wouldn’t be the first time this judge got a decision like this tossed.

 

[Rawley]

yeah, I don't see how it violates 8th amendment rights.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

[catatomic]

Civil fraud is a lawsuit between individuals or corporations to describe improper activity which may stop short of the criminal threshold1. It involves the intentional misrepresentation or concealment of an important fact upon which the victim is meant to rely, and in fact does rely, to the harm of the victim2. To prove civil fraud, there must be damages that occurred as a result of the fraud3. Unlike criminal fraud, civil fraud only needs to be proven on a balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt1.

 

[Rawley]

It happened to be victimless.

But it was undetermined if it would harm or not harm when he got the money. That's what makes it a crime. It's irresponsible. It happened to be victimless someone else could have done it and not had it been victimless. That's why it's a crime.

This is a civil case, not criminal.

 

[catatomic]

No you have shit in your blood
No victim no crime
Banana republic judicial system

Show's what you know:

Civil fraud is a lawsuit between individuals or corporations to describe improper activity which may stop short of the criminal threshold1. It involves the intentional misrepresentation or concealment of an important fact upon which the victim is meant to rely, and in fact does rely, to the harm of the victim2. To prove civil fraud, there must be damages that occurred as a result of the fraud3. Unlike criminal fraud, civil fraud only needs to be proven on a balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt1.

"balance of probabilities"

 

[toobfreak]

None of those were broken

Idiot, they have ALL been broken, and MUCH MORE.

 

[catatomic]

That's some funny shit
Banks goes to the court request a civil suit because they have been defrauded
But the banks didn't do that did they?

Same response:

Civil fraud is a lawsuit between individuals or corporations to describe improper activity which may stop short of the criminal threshold1. It involves the intentional misrepresentation or concealment of an important fact upon which the victim is meant to rely, and in fact does rely, to the harm of the victim2. To prove civil fraud, there must be damages that occurred as a result of the fraud3. Unlike criminal fraud, civil fraud only needs to be proven on a balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt1.

 

[Rawley]

Civil fraud is a lawsuit between individuals or corporations to describe improper activity which may stop short of the criminal threshold1. It involves the intentional misrepresentation or concealment of an important fact upon which the victim is meant to rely, and in fact does rely, to the harm of the victim2. To prove civil fraud, there must be damages that occurred as a result of the fraud3. Unlike criminal fraud, civil fraud only needs to be proven on a balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt1.

The lenders testified they did not rely on the corporation's valuations and there was no harm, there were no damages.

 

[catatomic]

The lenders testified they did not rely on the corporation's valuations and there was no harm, there were no damages.

Again, "balance of probabilities"

Civil fraud is a lawsuit between individuals or corporations to describe improper activity which may stop short of the criminal threshold1. It involves the intentional misrepresentation or concealment of an important fact upon which the victim is meant to rely, and in fact does rely, to the harm of the victim2. To prove civil fraud, there must be damages that occurred as a result of the fraud3. Unlike criminal fraud, civil fraud only needs to be proven on a balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt1.

The crime is that he took the risk, not that he paid it back. Taking that risk is criminally irresponsible. If another person took that risk they'd have to be prosecuted too. Since many wouldn't pay it back, there has to be prosecution.

 

[IM2]

I don't really see that ruling standing.

It's not only going to stand, but the interest will stack up.

 

[Rawley]

Again, "balance of probabilities"

Civil fraud is a lawsuit between individuals or corporations to describe improper activity which may stop short of the criminal threshold1. It involves the intentional misrepresentation or concealment of an important fact upon which the victim is meant to rely, and in fact does rely, to the harm of the victim2. To prove civil fraud, there must be damages that occurred as a result of the fraud3. Unlike criminal fraud, civil fraud only needs to be proven on a balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt1.

The crime is that he took the risk, not that he paid it back. Taking that risk is criminally irresponsible. If another person took that risk they'd have to be prosecuted too. Since many wouldn't pay it back, there has to be prosecution.

OK. If you refuse to even read my responses (or even what you post yourself), what's the point?

Have a blessed evening.

 

[catatomic]

It's not only going to stand, but the interest will stack up.

Thank you for understanding the truth.

 

[IM2]

Not only does the absurd judgment by the clown judge Engeron violate Trumps's 8th Amendment rights, it is also based on a statute that is unconstitutional.

Making the entire trial an obscene play. Lead by an obscene judge who really cares nothing for the oath he swore.

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." In United States v. Bajakajian, 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 forfeiture in this particular case violated the Excessive Fines Cause because the amount forfeited was "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of defendant’s offense." 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.​

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt8-3/ALDE_00000962/

And see:

Opinion analysis: Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court today ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states. The decision is a victory for an Indiana man whose luxury SUV was seized after he pleaded guilty to selling heroin. It is also a blow to state and local governments, for whom fines and forfeitures

www.scotusblog.com

The fine was not excessive and no law was violated except for the ones violated by Trump.

 

[catatomic]

The lenders testified they did not rely on the corporation's valuations and there was no harm, there were no damages.

I hear you loud and clear. The crime is taking the risk. Please reread my civil fraud Internet statement.

 

[excalibur]

The fine was not excessive and no law was violated except for the ones violated by Trump.

Cuckoo.

 

[IM2]

Cuckoo.

You most certainly are.