Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump Appeals $355 Million Ruling in New York Civil Fraud Case
Breitbart ^ | 02/26/2024 | Simon Kent

Posted on 02/26/2024 7:23:55 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27

Former President Donald Trump filed a notice of appeal Monday in the matter of the New York civil judgment finding him liable for fraudulently inflating his net worth on years of financial statements.

The judgement curtailed his ability – and that of the Trump Organization – to do business in New York or apply for loans from financial institutions registered with the state.

Trump asked an intermediate-level state appellate court to overturn Justice Arthur Engoron’s Feb. 16 ruling in a civil fraud lawsuit brought in 2022 by New York Attorney General Letitia James, Reuters reports.

Trump’s post-judgment interest will continue to accrue at $111,984 each day until it is paid, according to the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the case against Trump and his company, CBS News notes.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: appeals; breaking; case; harassment; lawfare; newyork; persecution; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last
To: stanne

In the elector related cases, I think they waited the 22 months (?) that ballots have to be retained.


61 posted on 02/26/2024 8:29:56 AM PST by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Bookshelf

Have a look at this ‘septic tank’:

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/177-Benedict-Rd_Staten-Island_NY_10304_M44079-35011

Learn more about the history regarding this ‘family’ home:

https://www.nydailynews.com/2023/10/12/former-staten-island-home-of-big-paul-castellano-goes-on-sale-for-16-8m/


62 posted on 02/26/2024 8:36:04 AM PST by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: iamgalt

“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.


63 posted on 02/26/2024 8:36:28 AM PST by Danie_2023 (yi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Brian Griffin

What will you bet that the owner gets the $16.8 advertised?


64 posted on 02/26/2024 8:38:20 AM PST by Bookshelf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Brian Griffin

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.


65 posted on 02/26/2024 8:38:39 AM PST by Sgt_Schultze (When your business model depends on slave labor, you're always going to need more slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

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!


66 posted on 02/26/2024 8:39:36 AM PST by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob434
In that case, the judge and prosecutors etc should be severely disciplined for knowing the law yet breaking it willingly and brazenly. They should lose their jobs for blatantly defying the law or rules or whatever

Prison. This judge and this prosecutor need to go to *PRISON*.

What they did was criminal. (Denial of Civil Rights under color of law.)

67 posted on 02/26/2024 8:43:32 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Danie_2023
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.

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.

68 posted on 02/26/2024 8:46:10 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Brian Griffin

“ 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.


69 posted on 02/26/2024 8:49:35 AM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Bookshelf

I have lived in NY City


70 posted on 02/26/2024 8:50:00 AM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Chgogal

Well you know...Great Minds Think Alike!


71 posted on 02/26/2024 8:55:21 AM PST by Regulator (It's fraud, Jim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

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.


72 posted on 02/26/2024 8:55:36 AM PST by taxcontrol (The choice is clear - either live as a slave on your knees or die as a free citizen on your feet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dr4gey

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?


73 posted on 02/26/2024 8:55:45 AM PST by WildHighlander57 ((the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.) )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I agree! It was tyranny plain and simple- abuse of power- and prosecutorial misconduct of the worst kind


74 posted on 02/26/2024 8:57:33 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

BTTT


75 posted on 02/26/2024 8:59:41 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: databoss; DOC44

“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.”


This is not correct.

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.


76 posted on 02/26/2024 9:12:27 AM PST by Ancesthntr (“The right to buy weapons is the right to be free.” ― A.E. Van Vogt, The Weapons Shops of Isher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Chgogal

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.


77 posted on 02/26/2024 9:22:25 AM PST by Macho MAGA Man (The last two weren't balloons. One was a cylindrical objects Trump is being given the Alex Jones tr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: databoss

Wouldn’t Trump get to be reimbursed for all the interest he paid if he wins his appeal?


78 posted on 02/26/2024 9:58:43 AM PST by Macho MAGA Man (The last two weren't balloons. One was a cylindrical objects Trump is being given the Alex Jones tr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“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.


79 posted on 02/26/2024 10:43:56 AM PST by 2CAVTrooper (Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Macho MAGA Man
Timbs v. Indiana

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

80 posted on 02/26/2024 11:36:16 AM PST by Chgogal (Welcome to Fuhrer Biden's Weaponized Fascist Banana Republic! It's the road to hell,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson