Bill of Attainer. Prohibited under the Constitution. Law specially crafted to get someone in particular. Ex Post Facto. Making a law up to make something a crime after the face. Prohibited. Jury trial for anything over 20$. I’d say over 350$ million dollars calls this into play. So much mockery of the Law here. There once was a time when Americans tarred and feathered public officials for things like this.
while I agree with your statement, the difference here would be that they are incorrectly applying existing laws, and not crafting a new law just to get Trump.
“Jury trial for anything over 20$. I’d say over 350$ million dollars calls this into play.”
I suspect Trump and his lawyers allowed the judge to decide so the amount of the award could be questioned because Amendment VII provides “no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law”.
[I believe recovery for fraud was allowed under the common law, but I’m not a lawyer.]
“Bill of Attainer. Prohibited under the Constitution. Law specially crafted to get someone in particular.”
The law was not crafted to “get” Donald Trump. It was utilized to get him sure, and the law is odious in its applicability, but it has been used sparingly before. It’s not a bill of attainder.
“Ex Post Facto. Making a law up to make something a crime after the face. Prohibited.”
The law has been around since at least as far back as you can search on Westlaw legal history - the 1980s or longer. Not ex post facto.
“Jury trial for anything over 20$. I’d say over 350$ million dollars calls this into play.”
Trump’s lawyer waived a jury trial. That one is on his legal team.
“So much mockery of the Law here. There once was a time when Americans tarred and feathered public officials for things like this.”
This post does ZERO to help.
The only problem with calling this law a bill of attainder is that it was passed 68 years ago in 1956.
The fine of $300 million is unconstitutional based on the 8th amendment protection against excessive fines.
The ban on doing business in New York for three years is unconstitutional because it was intended to prevent President Trump from exercising his right to appeal because he won't be able to find a lender who will post the $350 million bond required to file an appeal.
-PJ
As much as I despise what NY is doing to Trump, this is not a Bill of Attainder - that would require actual legislation with his name in it, as being subject to a law that no one else (except anyone else named) would be subject. That’s not what we have here. No, this is targeted litigation, as evidenced by what this idiot governor stated. That, alone, should get this result overturned.
It is also not an ex post facto law - that would also require a law to be passed stating that (in this case), it is illegal to over-value your property when making an application for a loan, and then prosecuting someone for doing such before that law became a law. That’s not what is going on here - what IS going on is that NY has taken a pre-existing fraud statute and stretched it beyond recognition. It is an arbitrary and capricious use of that law, as it has never been enforced in this manner before, despite literally thousands of loans obtained each year in NY State by real estate investors doing exactly what Trump did. Further, no one was actually defrauded - the banks got their money back, including interest, so how could he have possibly committed fraud? Where’s the victim here?
I agree with you that this was a complete travesty of justice, but disagree as to why.