Trump half-billion dollar civil penalty thrown out by appeals court

FastLane said:
Well it is New York after all. It's also interesting that they decided that no penalty will be assessed for his horrible crimes. What do you think about Letitia James putting a home that she bought in Virginia and does not live in as her primary residency. Should she resign as AG?
Click to expand...
There is a penalty. The court kept in place the independent monitor that oversees the Trump company operations that ensures compliance with the law.

While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is
well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture, the court’s disgorgement order, which
directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an
excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I see the court let the finding of fraud involved stand. That's going next. If there's no liability on the part of the defendant, then there's no fraud involved. In a civil case, having to pay means you are libel. Not having to pay means no liability is involved. If the court had reduced the penalty to say $1 then the finding of fraud could stand. Without that, it's going to get tossed. And, remember, this is the NY courts, a state that is run by people who absolutely hate Trump.
Click to expand...
There is a penalty. The court kept in place the independent monitor that oversees the Trump company operations that ensures compliance with the law.

While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is
well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture, the court’s disgorgement order, which
directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an
excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The court's ruling prevents the Trump Organization from repeating it's fraud by monitoring them.
 
volsrocks said:
Remember how excited the left was that the legal bulldogs of Tish James, Alvin Bragg and Jack Smith were all working to bankrupt Trump and send him to prison? They’re now 0 for 3.
Click to expand...
you forgot Fani Willis. 0 for 4.
Or did you? There's still hope for dims that she'll continue w/ her prosecution. lol
 
The Court found Trump Co WAS LIABLE and the Attorney General bring the action for the frauds was correct.

They only fault the trial Judge for what they call an obsessive fine. Meaning some level of fine was justified just not that much.

So to be clear the findings of GUILT and FRAUD stand and are now verified by this higher court.
 
Judge David Friedman was spot on in his opinion.

"Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' ... but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business," Friedman wrote. "The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business."
 
Yakuda said:
Right a waste of time. So you're claiming he did something wrong but has no penalty for what you claim he did wrong and your excited. So someone kills a person but never goes to prison and you win right? You're a donut.
Click to expand...
Hmm.. so if someone is restricted in their movements and confined to their home except for going to work there is no penalty?

Trump Organization is under the supervision of an outside monitor for 3 years. All their actions are looked at to make sure they are no longer committing the same fraud.
Donald Trump and Allen Weisselberg are not allowed to serve on the board or as an officer of any NY company for 3 years.
Don Jr and Eric Trump are not allowed to serve on the board or as an officer of any NY company for 2 years
Donald Trump and the Trump organization can not apply for any loans in NY for 3 years.
 
FastLane said:
Judge David Friedman was spot on in his opinion.

"Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' ... but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business," Friedman wrote. "The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business."
Click to expand...
Judge Friedman ignored prior NY Appeals Court rulings that invalidate his argument.
 
a3r45f.jpg
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Hmm.. so if someone is restricted in their movements and confined to their home except for going to work there is no penalty?

Trump Organization is under the supervision of an outside monitor for 3 years. All their actions are looked at to make sure they are no longer committing the same fraud.
Donald Trump and Allen Weisselberg are not allowed to serve on the board or as an officer of any NY company for 3 years.
Don Jr and Eric Trump are not allowed to serve on the board or as an officer of any NY company for 2 years
Donald Trump and the Trump organization can not apply for any loans in NY for 3 years.
Click to expand...
Trump can't go to work?
 
Earl said:
Godwin's law

Godwin's Law is known to be the oldest meme on the Internet, made by Mike Godwin. The memes meaning is to say: The longer an online conversation continues, The more of a chance there is to mention Hitler.

He mentioned Gorwin, not Hitler. He gets a pass. Right?
Click to expand...
He mentioned Göring, head of the Luftwaffe, aka "Fat Herman."
 
QP! said:
a3r45f.jpg
Click to expand...
It's not a "fine." It wasn't a criminal trial. In civil trials, the relief is normally the party harmed is made whole for their loss by the loser paying to make up that loss. Since there was no party that suffered a loss--the state had no loss in this--then the normal penalty is a symbolic one of charging the loser $1. The court didn't do that.
 
Yakuda said:
Right a waste of time. So you're claiming he did something wrong but has no penalty for what you claim he did wrong and your excited. So someone kills a person but never goes to prison and you win right? You're a donut.
Click to expand...
he did do something wrong and the appelate confirmed that. They found the FRAUD DID HAPPEN and the ruling was correct and the AG was right to bring it.

The judge messing up the fine would be like a cop messing up something that does not impact the trial or ruling.
 
The ruling concerning the monitor will be successfully appealed, IMO.

The judge and A/G are corrupt and President Trump’s Civil rights were violated, and real estate laws and election laws were violated by fat Latricia.

This case stinks of ten day old fish heads and will be overturned at the Supreme Court.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's not a "fine." It wasn't a criminal trial. In civil trials, the relief is normally the party harmed is made whole for their loss by the loser paying to make up that loss. Since there was no party that suffered a loss--the state had no loss in this--then the normal penalty is a symbolic one of charging the loser $1. The court didn't do that.
Click to expand...
ya but the problem is you are lying and wrong.

There are victims of this type of fraud and i have proven this to prior with you losing on it.

Bank rates, like Insurance pools, work based on group pricing and pooled risk, and when some people commit fraud to hide their true risk and get lower rates the other people pay higher rates to cover that improperly priced risk.,
 
Earl said:
The ruling concerning the monitor will be successfully appealed, IMO.

The judge and A/G are corrupt and President Trump’s Civil rights were violated, and real estate laws and election laws were violated by fat Latricia.

This case stinks of ten day old fish heads and will be overturned at the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Very doubtful but if @Damocles will allow us to account bet over it with him booting the loser if they don't go, i will bet you.

You have both the trial judge and the appellate court affirming the fraud and that the AG actions were correct so it is very doubtful the SC over turns it. Even this corrupt SC.
 
FastLane said:
Like what?
Click to expand...

Justice Friedman’s decision runs athwart our prior rulings
in this case and misconstrues Executive Law § 63(12) and the case law that has
interpreted that statute. While he justly criticizes comments made by the Attorney
General about defendants when she was running for that office, he ignores that this
issue has already been considered, and rejected, by this Court.

[snip]
Defendants and Justice Friedman assert that the Attorney General exceeded her
powers and misused the Executive Law
[snip]
However, this Court has already ruled in Trump I that the facts of this case
warrant the application of Executive Law § 63(12), and that the Attorney General is
vindicating the public interest in challenging the transactions in question (see People v
Trump, 217 AD3d at 610).
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top