Posted on 02/26/2024 7:23:55 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
In the elector related cases, I think they waited the 22 months (?) that ballots have to be retained.
Have a look at this ‘septic tank’:
Learn more about the history regarding this ‘family’ home:
“This wretched woman ran on using the office to go after one American Citizen and the majority of the worthless voters elected her. F NY, i hope the state goes bankrupt”
As long as the cheating Democrats control the WH and the purse strings, leftist states like NY will never “go bankrupt”. They will be bailed out with taxpayer dollars by their fellow leftists in control in DC. And they know it. It’s all part of the incentive to cheat a win and keep the rats in control.
What will you bet that the owner gets the $16.8 advertised?
Recent democrat actions have been targeted AT Trump’s lawyers. Taking this as guidance, it would be a crucial step to also warn lawyers and charitable organizations that when helping these illegals, their assistance will constitute a conspiracy against the US.
Mark Levins show last night discussed how the courts judgement was unconstitutional according to the 8th Ammendent to the Constitution,this type of case has happened and been adjudicated according to the 8th amendment of the Constitutionby the Supreme Court,the Judgement was 9-0 with Ruth Badger Ginsberg reading the judgement!
Prison. This judge and this prosecutor need to go to *PRISON*.
What they did was criminal. (Denial of Civil Rights under color of law.)
This is exactly how the civil war happened.
Except the wealthy, northeastern big city liberals were called "Republicans" back in those days. Same methodology, just a different name.
“ In the elector related cases, I think they waited the 22 months (?) that ballots have to be retained.”
Pfft! Oh, ya, Leticia James is looking at the rules.
I have lived in NY City
Well you know...Great Minds Think Alike!
I HIGHLY doubt that NY State courts will provide any justice. I suspect that he will have to appeal to the federal court system to even have a chance of a correct judgement.
dr4gey wrote:
“
The SCOTUS already ruled (9-0) on this in Timbs vs Indiana (2019). The state cannot assess excessive fines.
“
Can this ruling be used at a point in the appeal process (maybe at the USSC or right below that level) to establish precedent?
I agree! It was tyranny plain and simple- abuse of power- and prosecutorial misconduct of the worst kind
BTTT
“First, it has to wind its way through the New York state judiciary. That means appeal courts and ultimately the New York State supreme Court. If he gets stuffed at all these venues then his last appeal is to go to the supreme Court for the unconstitutionality of the gines and process.”
First of all, the “Supreme Court” within the NYS court system is the lowest level (i.e. this is where the trial occurs). The highest level in the NYS system is the Court of Appeals.
The federal court system is completely separate - and you don’t start at the Supreme Court level, you start with the appropriate District Court (in this case the DC for the Southern District of New York). If you lose there, you appeal to the Circuit Court, and if you lose there you can appeal to the Supreme Court. At both the Circuit Court and SC levels they can decide not to hear your case, which leaves the ruling of the lower level court in place.
That all said, I strongly believe that this judgment has all kinds of Constitutional errors, not the least of which is the clear violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition on “excessive fines and penalties.” There are also some pretty apparent Due Process problems, as Judge Eng(mo)ron didn’t even allow Trump’s attorneys to present evidence in his defense, and he also appeared to have made up his mind about his ruling well before the trial was even over. This should be a slam dunk on any level of appeal, whether at the state or federal level. Were I Trump, I would have filed an appeal in the federal system, as there is no requirement for him to post a bond of $400 million+ in order to appeal.
According to a legal expert on another forum, this was said about Timbs:
Timbs was not a Civil Case, it was a criminal case. The SCOTUS decision in the case involved a criminal case and civil forgeture unter a criminal system.
It had nothing to do with a Civil Case of disgorgement. Disgorgement being the removal of illegally obtained assets in New York for persistent fraudulent and illegal business activites.
Wouldn’t Trump get to be reimbursed for all the interest he paid if he wins his appeal?
“Prison. This judge and this prosecutor need to go to *PRISON*.”
Costs too much.
A rope and tree or some other sturdy materials would suffice.
Here is the text of the Eighth Amendment. It is pure. It is simple.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
It is repeated again below, in the ruling. There shall no “excessive fines imposed”. The Constitution did not stipulate criminal or civil fines. There shall be no excessive fines imposed, period.
On February 20, 2019 the US Supreme Court ruled on excessive fines in the Timbs v. Indian case. It was a 9-0 ruling with Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing the opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf
From the 9-0 ruling:
The State sought civil forfeiture of Timbs’s vehicle, charging that the SUV had been used to transport heroin. Observing that Timbs had recently purchased the vehicle for more than fort times the maximum $10,000 monetary fine assessable against him for his drug conviction, the Indiana trial court denied the State's request.
The vehicle's forfeiture, the court determined, would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Timbs’s offense, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed because the Indiana Supreme Court Claimed the Eighth Amendment does not pertain to citizens of Indiana.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. (Incorporation Doctrine)
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.”
If a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires.
The prohibition embodied in the Excessive Fines Clause carries forward protections found in sources from Magna Carta (1215) 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 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
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.