Hey Commie Libs. Trump just made 4 Billion Dollars

Poor Richard Saunders said:
GJSFudKbYAAJvWl



And Trump's filing from his lawyers

https://www.documentcloud.org/docum...people_of_the_state_of_affidavit_or_affirm_11


It can't be a practical impossibility of Trump has the CASH.
Click to expand...
The golden sneakers are making a bundle
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Then, win or lose, the bail becomes the punishment. Seems Trump's case should he make it for an 8th Amendment remedy keeps growing.
Click to expand...

LOL. It isn't bail. It is a bond to guarantee that Trump can't abscond without paying. There is no 8th amendment remedy in a civil case. Trump lost a civil case. The court requires he pay up or post a bond if he doesn't want to pay up during the appeal.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
LOL. It isn't bail. It is a bond to guarantee that Trump can't abscond without paying. There is no 8th amendment remedy in a civil case. Trump lost a civil case. The court requires he pay up or post a bond if he doesn't want to pay up during the appeal.
Click to expand...

Government imparting an excessive penalty, be it civil or criminal, is covered by the 8th Amendment.

The Eighth Amendment generally applies in criminal proceedings, as the most common locus of government punishment, but the Supreme Court has held the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines can apply in civil forfeiture proceedings, noting that the text of the amendment is not limited to “criminal” cases.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constit...eighth-amendment-cruel-and-unusual-punishment

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 9-0 that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines, written into the Eighth Amendment, applies to the states as well — a sweeping ruling that strengthens property rights and could limit controversial police seizures, such as those done through civil forfeiture, nationwide.

The case, Timbs v. Indiana, started with a lawsuit from Tyson Timbs, who pleaded guilty in Indiana to drug dealing and conspiracy to commit theft. After he pleaded guilty, the courts ordered him to forfeit a Land Rover SUV, valued at $42,000, that Timbs had bought with his dad’s life insurance policy. Timbs argued that the seizure was essentially an excessive fine, because it was more than four times the $10,000 maximum fine he could see from his drug conviction under state law.

“Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.” She added, “Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed ‘in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence,’ for ‘fines are a source of revenue,’ while other forms of punishment ‘cost a State money.’”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...diana-ruling-excessive-fines-civil-forfeiture

Since there is no identified victim in Trump's case, no identified loss to any group, business, or individual, slapping him with a half-billion-dollar judgement clearly falls under the 8th Amendment.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Government imparting an excessive penalty, be it civil or criminal, is covered by the 8th Amendment.

The Eighth Amendment generally applies in criminal proceedings, as the most common locus of government punishment, but the Supreme Court has held the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines can apply in civil forfeiture proceedings, noting that the text of the amendment is not limited to “criminal” cases.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constit...eighth-amendment-cruel-and-unusual-punishment

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 9-0 that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines, written into the Eighth Amendment, applies to the states as well — a sweeping ruling that strengthens property rights and could limit controversial police seizures, such as those done through civil forfeiture, nationwide.

The case, Timbs v. Indiana, started with a lawsuit from Tyson Timbs, who pleaded guilty in Indiana to drug dealing and conspiracy to commit theft. After he pleaded guilty, the courts ordered him to forfeit a Land Rover SUV, valued at $42,000, that Timbs had bought with his dad’s life insurance policy. Timbs argued that the seizure was essentially an excessive fine, because it was more than four times the $10,000 maximum fine he could see from his drug conviction under state law.

“Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.” She added, “Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed ‘in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence,’ for ‘fines are a source of revenue,’ while other forms of punishment ‘cost a State money.’”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...diana-ruling-excessive-fines-civil-forfeiture

Since there is no identified victim in Trump's case, no identified loss to any group, business, or individual, slapping him with a half-billion-dollar judgement clearly falls under the 8th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Disgorgement of ill gotten gains is not the same thing as civil forfeiture.

You may not have noticed but Timbs forfeiture was from a criminal conviction. The vehicle was not purchased with ill gotten gains but was bought from his dad's life insurance policy.

The no victim argument is pretty silly since it would mean no crime occurs with fraud until someone is identified as a victim. That is ridiculous since it would mean there can be no conspiracy to commit fraud. Or has been repeatedly pointed out to you a failed bank robbery would no longer be a crime under your stupid interpretation.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Disgorgement of ill gotten gains is not the same thing as civil forfeiture.

You may not have noticed but Timbs forfeiture was from a criminal conviction. The vehicle was not purchased with ill gotten gains but was bought from his dad's life insurance policy.

The no victim argument is pretty silly since it would mean no crime occurs with fraud until someone is identified as a victim. That is ridiculous since it would mean there can be no conspiracy to commit fraud. Or has been repeatedly pointed out to you a failed bank robbery would no longer be a crime under your stupid interpretation.
Click to expand...

Man are you stupid.

Civil forfeiture is the taking of ill-gotten gains. That is, stuff you got as a result of criminal activity. The reason Timbs won is the state took items not gotten from his criminal activity. That is excessive takings.

Your last is equally idiotic. Bank robbery is a crime. Attempting it is equally punishable just as attempted murder is punishable as murder. Trump hasn't been convicted of criminal fraud which would normally be necessary to find a civil forfeiture. Instead, he was simply sued by the state who claims that somehow he should pay a huge sum--to them--for a victimless crime he never was even charged with, let alone tried and convicted of.

That is, the state made the whole thing up in what quite literally and exactly amounts to the equivalent of a Stalinist show trial.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Man are you stupid.

Civil forfeiture is the taking of ill-gotten gains. That is, stuff you got as a result of criminal activity. The reason Timbs won is the state took items not gotten from his criminal activity. That is excessive takings.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one that is stupid since you don't seem to know that in the case of Trump, the judge took only ill gotten gains.

Your last is equally idiotic. Bank robbery is a crime. Attempting it is equally punishable just as attempted murder is punishable as murder. Trump hasn't been convicted of criminal fraud which would normally be necessary to find a civil forfeiture. Instead, he was simply sued by the state who claims that somehow he should pay a huge sum--to them--for a victimless crime he never was even charged with, let alone tried and convicted of.

That is, the state made the whole thing up in what quite literally and exactly amounts to the equivalent of a Stalinist show trial.
Click to expand...

Attempted fraud is equally as punishable as fraud. But you seem to think that laws don't exist and that attempted fraud doesn't exist.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I'm not the one that is stupid since you don't seem to know that in the case of Trump, the judge took only ill gotten gains.
Click to expand...

There were no "ill gotten gains." That requires that Trump be found guilty of a crime in a criminal trial. That didn't happen.

Attempted fraud is equally as punishable as fraud. But you seem to think that laws don't exist and that attempted fraud doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Again, if Trump attempted fraud, the state's remedy would be to bring criminal charges and find him guilty of those charges. Following that, the state could seek civil relief for any losses various parties incurred.

The state didn't do any of that. They went straight to seeking relief in the form of a judgement against Trump for supposed losses incurred even as no victim or loss could be identified. Seeking to take Trump's profits while no one else lost anything, is to simply punish Trump for being successful. That's what YOU are saying the court did.
 
volsrock said:
The funding partner for Trump Media & Technology Group said it has received regulatory approval from securities regulators that will allow it to proceed with a long-delayed merger. The combination could provide former President Donald Trump with a stake worth almost $4 billion.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-... stinky properties in a fire-sale. :sadbaby:
Click to expand...
 
Stone said:
Well,...looks like you wont have that worry anymore. POTUS will be more than fine....

:maggrin:
Click to expand...

Nope. He needs to come up with the cash my Monday. Hey! You wanna buy a shitty golf club in Westchester County? Mango needs the cheddar!
 
T. A. Gardner said:
There were no "ill gotten gains." That requires that Trump be found guilty of a crime in a criminal trial. That didn't happen.



Again, if Trump attempted fraud, the state's remedy would be to bring criminal charges and find him guilty of those charges. Following that, the state could seek civil relief for any losses various parties incurred.

The state didn't do any of that. They went straight to seeking relief in the form of a judgement against Trump for supposed losses incurred even as no victim or loss could be identified. Seeking to take Trump's profits while no one else lost anything, is to simply punish Trump for being successful. That's what YOU are saying the court did.
Click to expand...

No such thing needs to occur.
AGs in every state have filed civil suits to recover monies fraudulently gained without charging criminal fraud. This is common practice and has been for over a century. Are you not aware of the lawsuits won by many states against the tobacco companies?

This is the law that was used to file suit against Trump.
Executive Law § 63(12) now reads as follows:
Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal
acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the
carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney
general may apply… for an order enjoining the continuance of such
business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing
restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any
certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four
hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty
of the general business law, and the court may award the relief
applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word
“fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device,
scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation,
concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or
unconscionable contractual provisions. The term “persistent fraud”
or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying
on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term “repeated”
as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct
fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one
person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies
recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or
state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be
subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the law that says there must be a victim. There is nothing in the law that says it only can be used after a criminal indictment.


You have not addressed any of the facts that the judge used to make his decision.
Did Trump get a lower interest rate by lying about his wealth? yes/no
No one other than the one person paid millions by Trump to testify said Trump would have received the same interest rate no matter what his wealth was.

Is this statement true or false?
Timely and total repayment of loans does not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict on the marketplace.

The problem you have TA is that the facts aren't on your side. You are doing nothing but talking out of your ass while never having actually read any of the legal rulings or motions.
 
Interesting question. Who left after the other twenty times the moonbat lefties screeched "We got him now"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top