Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The way the penalty (minus the interest) was arrived at was not at all unusual. What was unusual is listed in the ruling -- which people like you constantly ignore. You're a dupe, making political arguments that fail in courts.Its an 8th Amendment case. A very good one in fact. They didnt like his appraisal so they fined him more money than any company or individual in history? You can act like thats fair, but its not.
SCOTUS has no constitutional interest in this. Trump partisans constantly declaim that "he will take it to SCOTUS. "It's very possible this case will make it to the SCOTUS. It has to go through the Appellate Dept and NY Court of Appeals first, but if Trump does not get relief he will of course appeal to the SCOTUS. That's probably 2 years out if it goes that way.
Are you right in the head?Try and take it James... that I would like to see... people showing up for work and James bolting the doors putting them all out of a job.... all while shootings are going on outside in the streets of NY.... she already gets booed everywhere she shows her fat face.... she is the one who will be out of a job soon....
Madoff pled guilty to 11 counts of Federal Securities Fraud and there were thousands of investors that lost billions of dollars. There wasn't much in the way of "grey area" in that case.But the Madoff convictions stood up.
I didn't bring up Madoff. I suggested finding a different comparison.Madoff pled guilty to 11 counts of Federal Securities Fraud and there were thousands of investors that lost billions of dollars. There wasn't much in the way of "grey area" in that case.
But the Madoff convictions stood up.
Still, the problem is that State's case pretty much was that "Trump did it more than the other guys." ANd the problem with that is when does it stop being standard business practice and begins being a crime. There's a legal term called "vagueness." If a person of normal intelligence can't tell, it shouldn't be illegal. The State was arguing, essentially, "well no one would think they could fudge values THAT much."
We'll see. It may not be too far fetched to see Trump "devested" of Bedminster. What happens if the Scrotus says "too vague?" Does NY have to buy back Bedminster from whomever bought it from them after they took it from Trump? LOL
Oh absolutely there are 5th, 8th, and 14th amendment issues here. That is very much in the SCOTUS's wheelhouse.SCOTUS has no constitutional interest in this. Trump partisans constantly declaim that "he will take it to SCOTUS. "
Oh, sorry. I agree, lol. Madoff is not comparable.I didn't bring up Madoff. I suggested finding a different comparison.
No. What would Trump be asking the US Supreme Court to do? Exactly. please...It's very possible this case will make it to the SCOTUS. It has to go through the Appellate Dept and NY Court of Appeals first, but if Trump does not get relief he will of course appeal to the SCOTUS. That's probably 2 years out if it goes that way.
www.theguardian.com
She said she would personally pad lock the doors... she is the one who isn't "right" in the head....Are you right in the head?
The assets would be resold by a master. Until then the operations would likely continue and afterwards likely continue.
Oh wait, you're threatening violence again. Got it.
No one believes that....The way the penalty (minus the interest) was arrived at was not at all unusual. What was unusual is listed in the ruling -- which people like you constantly ignore. You're a dupe, making political arguments that fail in courts.
The madoff thing is irrelevant.Madoff committed an actual crime. The idea is of "created wealth", not the criminality or lack of criminality behind it.
What the appeals courts will say is you have to prove it first via criminal or normal civil actions BEFORE you can use the law in question, which was what has happened in the past.
Its a violation of the 8th Amendment. The Supreme Court will take it up.Again, the SC will have nothing to do with this case. The State of NY decided there was fraud committed in this case, and he got fined. He can appeal but if he wants a stay, he'll have to pony up the cash.
Vacate the decision based on lack of due process and excessive fines, obviously.No. What would Trump be asking the US Supreme Court to do? Exactly. please...
The madoff thing is irrelevant.
The issue is whether a person of avg intelligence would realize that what Trump was doing was a crime. Imo that is debateable. Because:
1) If it wasn't obviously illegal ... why didn't everyone overvalue, then undervalue, the same pieces of property to gain tax/insurance advantages?
OR
2) IF every developer does it too, but to lesser extents, then how could Trump know he crossed some none explicitly set out in statute, line.
The judge said in his ruling that the former president’s “complete lack of contrition” bordered on pathological.Madoff pled guilty to 11 counts of Federal Securities Fraud and there were thousands of investors that lost billions of dollars. There wasn't much in the way of "grey area" in that case.
Vacate the decision based on lack of due process and excessive fines, obviously.
The judge said in his ruling that the former president’s “complete lack of contrition” bordered on pathological.
"Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological,” he said. He also noted that Mr. Trump had not committed violent crimes and also conceded that “Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff.” Still, he wrote, “defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways.”
NYT:
Even though the lenders made money from Mr. Trump, they were the purported victims in the case, with Ms. James arguing that without his fraud, they could have made even more.
The financial penalty reflects those lost profits, with nearly half of the $355 million — $168 million — representing the interest that Mr. Trump saved, and the remaining sum representing his profit on the recent sale of two properties, money that the judge has now clawed back from Mr. Trump and corporate entities he owns.
Clue:it's relevant to the idea pushed by the other posters of the "potential money" lost by the bank, who didn't even claim they were defrauded. People that were actually defrauded weren't given that money.
Why do people start high as the seller and low as the buyer when haggling over anything?
www.cbsnews.com
Huh? Political hit job?Which is even more proof this is nothing more than a political hit job.
You really suck at making your case and backing your shit up. May I suggest the Hello Kitty message board as more your speed?
