New York Judgment Against Trump Violates the Eighth Amendment

[Crepitus]

Who was harmed and what were their losses?

You idiots really need to get past this "no harm no foul" thing. This isn't a pick up game at the park.

Grow up.

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[excalibur]

Trump is also subject to banking regulations, which is why he was fined. His refusal to settle was just stupidity on his part.

Dude! Those were financial institutions. FFS.

He wasn't offered a settlement either.

 

[excalibur]

Sure it does. It shows that a 355MM fine isn't "cruel and unusual", as other corporations have gotten hit with bigger fines.

The only difference is those are publicly traded companies, as opposed to Trump's, which is owned by him.

A publicly owned company wouldn't have gotten into this kind of trouble.

Those were chartered financial institutions that agree to a set of rules. Trump is hit personally with this Eighth Amendment violating fine, not a corporation.

 

[JoeB131]

Dude! Those were financial institutions. FFS.

He wasn't offered a settlement either.

Um, when you are that guilty, that's when you offer a settlement, not when you wait for one. But Trump was too fucking arrogant to say, "Um, yeah, we fucked up, let's get a settlement." Now, he did do this in past frauds he's been caught in, like Trump University and the Trump Foundation. (Seeing a pattern here?) But after getting away with as much as he's gotten away with, he probably thought he could get away with this, too.

Those were chartered financial institutions that agree to a set of rules. Trump is hit personally with this Eighth Amendment violating fine, not a corporation.

The fine was against the Trump Org.
Trump is bound by the same rules any other organization is held to.

 

[Lisa558]

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

The judge should have been replaced after he said that Trump was “a bad guy” before the trial even started. He was out for blood, as was Luticia deVille.

 

[Skylar]

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

If he committed fraud to save money then some reasonable multiple of the money he saved as a fine would be reasonable. The judge ground that he saved about 168 million in interest payments due to lower interest rates acquired by fraud.

Meaning the multiple of money acquired by fraud to penalty is about 2.

Its going to be a hard appeals slog to argue that 2 is an excessive multiplier for financial fraud.

Good luck!

 

[Lisa558]

If he committed fraud to save money then some reasonable multiple of the money he saved as a fine would be reasonable. The judge ground that he saved about 168 million in interest payments due to lower interest rates acquired by fraud.

Meaning the multiple of money acquired by fraud to penalty is about 2.

Its going to be a hard appeals slog to argue that 2 is an excessive multiplier for financial fraud.

Good luck!

The bank willingly gave him a lower interest rate because they wanted the business, and they didn’t complain. It was the bank’s choice.

 

[JoeB131]

The judge should have been replaced after he said that Trump was “a bad guy” before the trial even started. He was out for blood, as was Luticia deVille.

Naw, everyone knows Trump is a bad guy.

Even you do.

The problem is that you don't care as long as he abuses minorities and sells this country out to the Zionist Entity.

 

[JoeB131]

The bank willingly gave him a lower interest rate because they wanted the business, and they didn’t complain. It was the bank’s choice.

Again, specious argument.

If I'm caught going 55 in a 25 MPH school zone, it isn't going to matter to the cops that I didn't hit any kids.

The fraud was the issue here, not whether the bank minded. The bank wouldn't have given him the loan if he appraised his properties for what they were actually worth.

 

[Skylar]

The bank willingly gave him a lower interest rate because they wanted the business, and they didn’t complain. It was the bank’s choice.

The bank was lied to by overlapping layers of fraud.

Making all the money saved by the lower interest rates a product fraud.

And a multiplier of about 2 of the money saved through fraud as a punishment is hardly a constitutional violation of the excessive fines clause.

 

[Lisa558]

The bank was lied to by overlapping layers of fraud.

Making all the money saved by the lower interest rates a product fraud.

And a multiplier of about 2 of the money saved through fraud as a punishment is hardly a constitutional violation of the excessive fines clause.

The bank knew what is was doing. They were eager to make the loan, even at the lower interest rate. They made $100 million.

And the bank did not bring a case of “fraud.” They were happy with the deal. In fact, the bank testified in defense of Trump!

The penalty will either be overturned completely as it was politically motivated, and the judge was biased against Trump, or reduced to a token amount. This was clearly a case of targeting a man, and then looking for a case to bring against him. The best they could come up with was a one without a victim.

 

[Skylar]

The bank knew what is was doing. They were eager to make the loan, even at the lower interest rate. They made $100 million.

And the bank did not bring a case of “fraud.” They were happy with the deal. In fact, the bank testified in defense of Trump!

The penalty will either be overturned completely as it was politically motivated, and the judge was biased against Trump, or reduced to a token amount. This was clearly a case of targeting a man, and then looking for a case to bring against him. The best they could come up with was a one without a victim.

Nope. The ruling of fraud was factually established thoroughly through witness statement, wild and blatant overvaluation and Trump's own financial records. Its highly unlikely to be overturned on the merits.

With both that evidence and Trump's own former CFO being in negotiations for a plea deal on perjury, lying in Trump's defense in this case......appeals are going to be an uphill battle for Trump.

And you simply 'saying' it was politically motivated isn't a legal standard. Trump would have to prove that in court with overwhelming evidence. Which he doesn't have.

Whereas the judge has mountains of evidence that Trump committed financial fraud.

Good luck.

 

[Lisa558]

Nope. The ruling of fraud was factually established thoroughly through witness statement, wild and blatant overvaluation and Trump's own financial records. Its highly unlikely to be overturned on the merits.

With both that evidence and Trump's own former CFO being in negotiations for a plea deal on perjury, lying in Trump's defense in this case......appeals are going to be an uphill battle for Trump.

And you simply 'saying' it was politically motivated isn't a legal standard. Trump would have to prove that in court with overwhelming evidence. Which he doesn't have.

Whereas the judge has mountains of evidence that Trump committed financial fraud.

Good luck.

Sorry, but the penalty has to be in line with the damages caused, and nobody was harmed. Not a single person lost money.

This was clearly a political prosecution, and the Attorney General is on tape promising she would “get Trump” as part of her election campaign. She then spent two years looking for a case to pin on him.

It’s prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[JoeB131]

he bank knew what is was doing. They were eager to make the loan, even at the lower interest rate. They made $100 million.

And the bank did not bring a case of “fraud.” They were happy with the deal. In fact, the bank testified in defense of Trump!

Again, that the banks were in on the fraud is irrelevant to the case.

The fact is, there was still fraud.

Just like I won't be let off for going 55 through a school zone, even if I did it at night when no kiddies were there.

The problem here is that banks SHOULD do due diligence and SHOULDN'T write bogus loans, just because they see the opportunity to make money. This is how we all got in trouble in 2008, when the banks were writing loans to people who had no business getting them.

The penalty will either be overturned completely as it was politically motivated, and the judge was biased against Trump, or reduced to a token amount. This was clearly a case of targeting a man, and then looking for a case to bring against him. The best they could come up with was a one without a victim.

Actually, this is just another long list of Trump Frauds. Did you forget about Trump University or the Trump Foundation (which resulted in Trump being banned from running a charity in NY State?)

Trump's problem is that the man is a congenital grifter. He commits fraud when he doesn't really have to. It's in his nature.

This time, he finally got caught.

 

[Skylar]

Sorry, but the penalty has to be in line with the damages caused, and nobody was harmed. Not a single person lost money.

This was clearly a political prosecution, and the Attorney General is on tape promising she would “get Trump” as part of her election campaign. She then spent two years looking for a case to pin on him.

It’s prosecutorial misconduct.

The penalty is about 2 times the money saved through fraud.

That's a completely reasonable multiplier that will absolutely pass any excessive fines challenge.

And the case stands on its merits, with Trump actually committing the fraud he was accused of by the prosecutor. Says who? Says the judge who ruled against Trump.

Trump is highly unlikely to get the case overturned on the merits. And Trump already tried dismissals on the grounds you've cited, and lost.

You're conflating the legal outcome that you want with what is likely under the law. They aren't the same thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, but the penalty has to be in line with the damages caused, and nobody was harmed. Not a single person lost money.

This was clearly a political prosecution, and the Attorney General is on tape promising she would “get Trump” as part of her election campaign. She then spent two years looking for a case to pin on him.

It’s prosecutorial misconduct.

So when I drive 55 through a school zone, I shouldn't get a fine if I don't hit any kids, right?

it doesn't matter than no one lost money. They COULD have lost money if there was a reverse in the market. And then the taxpayers would have been on the hook.

 

[Skylar]

So when I drive 55 through a school zone, I shouldn't get a fine if I don't hit any kids, right?

it doesn't matter than no one lost money. They COULD have lost money if there was a reverse in the market. And then the taxpayers would have been on the hook.

By Lisa's logic, insider trading is perfectly legal.

 

[Lisa558]

The penalty is about 2 times the money saved through fraud.

That's a completely reasonable multiplier that will absolutely pass any excessive fines challenge.

And the case stands on its merits, with Trump actually committing the fraud he was accused of by the prosecutor. Says who? Says the judge who ruled against Trump.

Trump is highly unlikely to get the case overturned on the merits. And Trump already tried dismissals on the grounds you've cited, and lost.

You're conflating the legal outcome that you want with what is likely under the law. They aren't the same thing.

Nope. The bank knew, and offered him the lower interest rate because they wanted to land a whale. No harm, no penalty.

And it remains that Trump was targeted, and after a two-year search for a ”crime,” the best Lucretia Deville could come up with was a victimless crime where the ”victim” actually testified FOR Trump!

 

[Skylar]

Nope. The bank knew, and offered him the lower interest rate because they wanted to land a whale. No harm, no penalty

And it remains that Trump was targeted, and after a two-year search for a ”crime,” the best Lucretia Deville could come up with was a victimless crime where the ”victim” actually testified FOR Trump!

"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.