Clock is ticking for Trump to post bonds worth half a billion dollars

Truth Detector said:
MSNBC parrot. You give new meaning to the term dumbass. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Are you actually claiming those are not true? Trump also said he would never pay this one but he has. He sure loses a lot.

Trump pays $25 million to settle Trump University cases
President-elect Donald Trump has paid $25 million to settle three lawsuits against his now-defunct Trump University
Click to expand...
 
Truth Detector said:
In other words, he is being forced to come up with the entire amount in order to appeal. There is no defense for the unprofessional and unconstitutional actions of this Judge and this partisan hack AG who ran on "getting Trump."

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.



In other words, he is being forced to post bond before he can appeal. You're so very uneducated and dumb. :laugh:



....but not before Trump is FORCED to come up with half a billion. If it doesn't sound excessive, you're either an idiot, dishonest or in your case, BOTH.



Trump didn't commit a crime. Terrible comparison. Trump isn't going to prison.

Eight Amendment. Read it. Sixth Amendment. Read it. Fifth Amendment. Read it. Case of TIMBS v. INDIANA. Read it.

Held: The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pp. 2–9.

(a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates and renders applicable to the States Bill of Rights protections “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 767 (alterations omitted). If a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires. Pp. 2–3.

(b) The prohibition embodied in the Excessive Fines Clause carries forward protections found in sources from Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights to state constitutions from the colonial era to the present day. Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties. They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue. The historical and logical case for concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is indeed overwhelming. Pp. 3–7.

(c) Indiana argues that the Clause does not apply to its use of civil in rem forfeitures, but this Court held in Austin v. United States, 509 U. S. 602, that such forfeitures fall within the Clause’s protection when they are at least partially punitive. Indiana cannot prevail unless the Court overrules Austin or holds that, in light of Austin, the Excessive Fines Clause is not incorporated because its application to civil in rem forfeitures is neither fundamental nor deeply rooted. The first argument, overturning Austin, is not properly before this Court. The Indiana Supreme Court held only that the Excessive Fines Clause did not apply to the States. The court did not address the Clause’s application to civil in rem forfeitures, nor did the State ask it to do so. Timbs thus sought this Court’s review only of the question whether the Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. Indiana attempted to reformulate the question to ask whether the Clause restricted States’ use of civil in rem forfeitures and argued on the merits that Austin was wrongly decided. Respondents’ “right, . . . to restate the questions presented,” however, “does not give them the power to expand [those] questions,” Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 279, n. 10 (emphasis deleted), particularly where the proposed reformulation would lead the Court to address a question neither pressed nor passed upon below, cf. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7.

The second argument, that the Excessive Fines Clause cannot be incorporated if it applies to civil in rem forfeitures, misapprehends the nature of the incorporation inquiry. In considering whether the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates a Bill of Rights protection, this Court asks whether the right guaranteed—not each and every particular application of that right—is fundamental or deeply rooted. To suggest otherwise is inconsistent with the approach taken in cases concerning novel applications of rights already deemed incorporated.

See, e.g., Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U. S. ___, ___. The Excessive Fines Clause is thus incorporated regardless of whether application of the Clause to civil in rem forfeitures is itself fundamental
or deeply rooted. Pp. 7–9.

84 N. E. 3d 1179, vacated and remanded.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf
Click to expand...

Noone cares to read the bullshit you post. Trump was guilty and will have to post the money or he doesn't get to appeal anything. In another month the shithead will be in court everyday because in a criminal trial he must. When we get a guilty verdict there his numbers will plumment and Republicans will be scratching their asses and wondering what to do next.
 
Truth Detector said:
It didn't get that way until Biden and the progressive left started getting their way.
Click to expand...

Get used to it because Trump has pretty much destroyed the Republican party. He won't be elected as it is now and throw a few felony convictions on there and this election will be like the Reagan Mondale one.
 
Truth Detector said:
What crime? There was no crime. There were no victims. There were no claimants. The AG ran on "getting Trump." The Judge in this case is a loony leftist who posted naked selfies.
Click to expand...

You need to try and accept fact. The fucker is guilty and he will be posting one way or another the money or there will be no appeal.
 
Truth Detector said:
What fraud? Who did he defraud? There were no victims. There were no claimants. There was no crime. How dumb are you? This was, of course, a rhetorical question because you are extremely stupid and ignorant. That is why you're a Biden voter and defender.
Click to expand...

He broke clear and precise law. The victims were those who play by the rules and the taxpayers. There is no lending institution that must say he cheated me in order to be guilty. You can deny all the fuck you care to but the asshole was found guilty, his dipshit followers like yourself can make all the stupid claims you want but Trump is going to pay.
 
Truth Detector said:
MORON ALERT!!!!

dumb-stupid.gif
Click to expand...

Trump Ordered To Pay Over $350 Million In Civil Fraud Case As Judge Finds Ex-President Knowingly Committed Fraud

New York AG says she’ll seize Donald Trump’s property if he can’t pay $454 million civil fraud debt

Judge in Trump fraud case denies request to pause $354 million judgment

Judge Denies Trump’s Delayed Payment Request In E. Jean Carroll Case

Trump sets aside $5.5 million in first step to satisfy E. Jean Carroll judgment

He has already set aside over 5 million in judgements so don't say he isn't going to have to pay.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Your example is flawed.

In the loans case, it is you have $100 and someone says the $100 belongs to them. That person asks their best friend--who openly hates you--if the money belongs to them. The friend says it does and they take your $100 bill. You go to a real court and sue. The courts says the money doesn't belong to them and gives you back that $100 several months later.

Because the state not an individual or company, is getting this judgement, there is no reason the state needs to impose payment immediately. The state, unlike an individual or company has the power to enforce the ruling at their leisure. The state can wait for payment. It is even more so that the state can wait as neither the state nor any other party suffered a loss as a result of Trump's actions. Forcing payment enriches the state unfairly. The payment can wait until the court case is fully settled.
Click to expand...

Do you just like to make shit up? You could read about the case and find out just what the truth is instead of making shit up. and the 80+ million he owes Carroll doesn't belong to the state.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
How is a question a lie?

Aside from that, no one was harmed by Trump's actions, no one.
Click to expand...

What about all those persons who didn't lie on those documents and for one reason or another were turned down? How about the taxpayers who were cheated out of millions in taxes? You claim no one was harmed but that is only because you are an idiot that worships your velveeta man and would like to believe that.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Okay, I'll answer your idiotic, poorly conceived, question directly.
...
Click to expand...

You did not answer my question. not even a little bit as it is not about Trump.

So once again here is the question simplified for you Terry.

- New Mortgage Broker office opens. It is discovered by law enforcement, on its first attempt to sell to numerous banks that every single mortgage they have bundles is fraudulent (NINJA loans). Good news is that none of the banks offered the loans to buy bought any but the Mortgage Brokerage is known to be targeting more banks and private investors trying to sell them off.

Terry is it your view that the government CANNOT stop this firm by charging them and shutting them down, and they must allow them to continue to operate and seek a buyer because there is no victim yet? That the documents crime of submitting fraudulent forms, is not a crime, UNTIL the loans are funded and eventually at least one defaults, creating a victim?
 
Jarod said:
Its not bail. You idiots always want higher bail. But it appears you do not know the difference between bail and a judgement.
Click to expand...

Yoo Hoooooo, knucklehead, 8th amendment. Cruel and unusual punishment, excessive fines and bail. They are all about the 8th amendment. Try reading it sometime.

protects against imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.

judge-judy-facepalm.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top