trump can't get anyone to post his bond

[para bellum]

Yes….of course. This is a civil offense. If you go to court and are adjudged responsible for fraud….and the judge says your fine will be determined by a jury, that’s on you.,that you don't understand the difference between civil and criminal proceedings is no one’s fault but your own. .

Trump was never offered a chance to defend himself in court, as you well know. The determination of guilt was done via pre-trial motion.

The other thing you don’t get is, a civil proceeding can turn criminal quickly if a party engages in perjury or fraud….something Trump doesn’t seem to get. He’s on the verge of being charge with perjury now…that’s due process.

Clinton learned that one didn't he?

Trump is not testifying under oath, he can't be charged with perjury for his statements outside the courtroom.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump was never offered a chance to defend himself in court, as you well know. The determination of guilt was done via pre-trial motion.

Clinton learned that one didn't he?

Trump is not testifying under oath, he can't be charged with perjury for his statements outside the courtroom.

His statement to his cash reserves was under oath in his deposition.

 

[para bellum]

You fail to understand one other thing…due process is a balance. “Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it.“

That means that the citizens of New York for example who are deprived of Trump’s tax money, require that the law of the land be prosecuted on THEIR behalf….While protecting Trumps rights. It’s not protecting Trump only. It’s also protecting the rights of citizens not to have frauds like Trump scamming the system.,

The citizens of New York were not deprived of any tax money, and that was never alleged.

And if they were, Trump should be charged with the crime, and the back taxes and penalties could be assessed.

That is not what this case was about.

If they were "defrauded" of something, that is a tort, and should be brought as a tort in the commercial division, which was setup to handle these kinds of cases.

The fundamental rights of procedural due process:

• An unbiased tribunal.
• Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
• The opportunity to present reasons for the proposed action not to be taken.
• The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
• The right to know the opposing evidence.
• The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
• A decision based only on the evidence presented.
• Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
• A requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
• A requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and the reasons for its decision

Can you show me the part about "protecting the rights of citizens not to have frauds like Trump scamming the system"?

 

[Dagosa]

Trump was never offered a chance to defend himself in court, as you well know. The determination of guilt was done via pre-trial motion.

Clinton learned that one didn't he?

Trump is not testifying under oath, he can't be charged with perjury for his statements outside the courtroom.

His lawyers presented a claim that he COULD NOT pay the bond . They represent Trump. In public, he keeps claimining he can….now if it is found he’s capable of making payment, it’s he through his lawyer who have committed our jury. It’s the opposite of what you’re claiming.

 

[Dagosa]

The citizens of New York were not deprived of any tax money, and that was never alleged.

it’s called theft of services…their services are reduced or the city has to take out a publuc loan to maintain them…yes, the public is is deprived.

And if they were, Trump should be charged with the crime, and the back taxes and penalties could be assessed.

That is not what this case was about.

If they were "defrauded" of something, that is a tort, and should be brought as a tort in the commercial division, which was setup to handle these kinds of cases.

WTF did we even have the city take Trump to court …FOR TAX FRAUD.

The fundamental rights of procedural due process:

• An unbiased tribunal.
• Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
• The opportunity to present reasons for the proposed action not to be taken.
• The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
• The right to know the opposing evidence.
• The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
• A decision based only on the evidence presented.
• Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
• A requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
• A requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and the reasons for its decision

Can you show me the part about "protecting the rights of citizens not to have frauds like Trump scamming the system"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The citizens of New York were not deprived of any tax money, and that was never alleged.

Right, that was covered when Trump's corporation was convicted of 17 felonies, and his top account went to jail (for the first time).

 

[para bellum]

His statement to his cash reserves was under oath in his deposition.

That is not perjury.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That is not perjury.

If he knew he was lying, it is.

 

[para bellum]

it’s called theft of services…their services are reduced or the city has to take out a publuc loan to maintain them…yes, the public is is deprived.

WTF did we even have the city take Trump to court …FOR TAX FRAUD.

Then charge him for "theft of services", or bring that tort.

The tax fraud was a different case and Trump was not charged.

Stop conflating.

 

[para bellum]

If he knew he was lying, it is.

I'm not interested in your inferences.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm not interested in your inferences.

That's not an inference. It's a definition.

 

[para bellum]

Right, that was covered when Trump's corporation was convicted of 17 felonies, and his top account went to jail (for the first time).

You and Dagosa are free to start a thread about the tax case. This thread is about the "civil fraud" case.

Stop jacking the thread.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You and Dagosa are free to start a thread about the tax case. This thread is about the "civil fraud" case.

Stop jacking the thread.

That's not going to work for you. It's a fact in the public record that Trump's corporation committed a pile of tax felonies. This fact can be assumed as true at all times and in any discussion.

And it's especially relevant to the scope of the parallel civil fraud case.

The big fraud wasn't tax fraud. It was defrauding thebanks and insurance companies.

 

[para bellum]

That's not an inference. It's a definition.

You have no clue what was in any deposition or transcript, and an even lesser interest in the laws. You have already proven that over and over, so GFY.

 

[para bellum]

That's not going to work for you. It's a fact in the public record that Trump's corporation committed a pile of tax felonies. This fact can be assumed as true at all times and in any discussion.

And it's especially relevant to the scope of the parallel civil fraud case.

The big fraud wasn't tax fraud. It was defrauding thebanks and insurance companies.

Boo hoo, file your amicus brief with the court, troll boy.

This thread is about the "civil fraud" case.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You have no clue what was in any deposition or transcript

False.

The entire transcript was made public in a court filing well over a year ago.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Boo hoo, file your amicus brief with the court, troll boy.

This thread is about the "civil fraud" case.

Which does not allege tax fraud, and the earlier convictions are why it does not.

Just adding clarity to your half truths.

 

[para bellum]

False.

The entire transcript was made public in a court filing well over a year ago.

Which you never read, as you have already shown.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which you never read, as you have already shown.

Now you are posturing. That's not going to help you.

He indeed said, under oath, that he had about $400 million in cash reserves. In the deposition. For this case.

 

[para bellum]

Which does not allege tax fraud, and the earlier convictions are why it does not.

Just adding clarity to your half truths.

The only significant open tax fraud case right now is against Hunter Biden.

Do you want to talk about that case? We can talk about that case, and the millions he collected for influence peddling- that would be at least a discussion of current events.