by Patrick ➕follow (58) 💰tip ignore
Comments 1 - 27 of 27 Search these comments
Fox News ran a terrific story yesterday headlined, “Kevin O'Leary warns 'extraordinary' NYC civil fraud penalty against Trump is 'an attack on America’.” Truer words were never spoken.
O’Leary seemed outraged about Trump’s historic $464 million dollar fine — over an offense for which officials who can’t speak proper English are still searching for a victim. Kevin properly pointed out that the problem has nothing to do with Trump. It’s about due process and property rights. In other words, if this works against Trump, everybody knows they’ll do it again, and again, and again.
They literally can’t help themselves. They are like bureaucratic termites. Their nature is to eat up and hollow out anything good and normal.
The article included more great stuff O’Leary said. But in my view, Kevin’s most important point was his call for everyone — regardless of political persuasion — to look at this case as an attack — not on Trump — but on America itself:
“This is an attack on America and I don't know how you can look at it any other way. And I know plenty of investors who are completely disturbed by this … no one is going to put any money to work in New York in these amounts until this thing settles down. The whole world is watching, and everybody's waiting for one thing we haven't got yet: adult supervision. Where is it? Where are the adults in this crazy narrative? Certainly there's got to be adult supervision at some point. And I understand, you know, the war going on here and all the political yada-yada, woof-woof-woof. But we need an adult in the room now. This is the United States of America under siege.”
All true. Where are the adults? Because the children are unsupervised and they are tearing up the house.
How do I put this politely?
Everything about this case is insane.
I am trying to find an understandable analogy for the basis of the case against Trump, the crime he is supposed to have committed.
Here’s the best I can do:
You decide to replace some windows. The contractor comes, quotes you a price. You agree. He says, “Are you sure you can pay?”
You say “Yes, I have the money in my bank account.”
This is a lie. You don’t have the money in your account, but you are sure you’ll get it next week. You have a check coming.
He looks dubious but agrees.
He does the job. The money comes in as promised and you pay on time. He is satisfied.
New York state finds out that you lied about having the money in your account.
It claims you have committed fraud. And it takes your house.
Patrick, your 'Choose File' button is no longer working on my computer for some reason.
A better analogy would be this:
You sell your house for $500k to a man who got a loan from a bank that appraised that house for that $500k. The deal closes and everyone is happy. 5 years later you are hauled into court for fraud, since the tax assessment on the house was only $420k. The buyer and the bank testify that everything was fine, but the judge finds you guilty anyway and nails you with a $200k fine.
Patrick, your 'Choose File' button is no longer working on my computer for some reason.
Ceffer says
Patrick, your 'Choose File' button is no longer working on my computer for some reason.
I am on a Mac. I will try later, rw said that it could be self correcting after updates (or something, I'm computer illiterate beyond the interface).
OK, restarting fixed it
A New York appeals court has reduced the bond Donald Trump must post to appeal the civil fraud judgment against him to $175 million, giving him a crucial victory
Assuming Trump can post the $175 million bond, he will now be able to appeal the insane $464 million (and counting) penalty that Judge Arthur Engeron imposed on him last month. He will not face losing his properties until his appeal is heard.
Recall that Engeron’s ruling came for a “fraud” that Trump committed by taking out loans, then paying them back in full, with interest. Whatever one thinks of Trump, that decision was a travesty of justice and should frighten anyone who does business in New York. I suspect this is the first step in undoing it.
that decision was a travesty of justice and should frighten anyone who does business in New York
And, while the appellate court’s decision was good, it wasn’t great. Even a $175 million dollar bond in this case is outrageous. The good news is the amount — a third of the original — signals the court of appeals is leaning toward lopping the head of Judge Engoran’s ridiculous fine.
The appellate judges are probably thinking about the Constitutional issue.
Under the Constitution and settled Supreme Court law, punitive fines generally can’t exceed three times actual damages. Nor can they be so large as to bankrupt someone, or even “impose an undue financial burden on the individual.” Overlarge fines offend the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines. In a major recent case, Timbs v. Indiana (2019), the Court confirmed that the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to the States (not just the federal government), in both civil and criminal cases.
So that’s my best guess as to what the court of appeals had in view. That and politics. If it waived the bond requirement it would have been pilloried. Media doesn’t seem to know what to make of the $175 million bond, which is still a LOT, so they’re mostly ignoring it.
Assuming that Judge Engoran’s fine for “overestimating real estate” stands at all, it seems likely to be greatly reduced.
Radical New York Judge Arthur Engoron has come under investigation over allegations that he colluded with a lawyer regarding the case he was overseeing against President Donald Trump.
A New York real estate attorney claims that he coordinated with Engoron in the case against Trump.
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct has launched a probe into the claim by Attorney Adam Leitman Bailey.
Bailey told WNBC-TV that he had a secret, off-the-record courthouse conversation with Engoron three weeks before the judge would slap Trump with a $454 million penalty for allegedly inflating the value of his assets.
New York judges are barred from considering outside opinions in such a way when litigating a case.
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,230,138 comments by 14,704 users - KgK one online now