Posted on 03/19/2024 9:14:58 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As former president Donald Trump battles a $464-million bond requirement from New York’s attorney general amid appealing the state’s $355-million punitive damages award, alarming constitutional questions lurk. These questions relate to the potential premature seizure of Trump’s property and the excessive nature of the gargantuan financial punishments themselves.
One potential worst-case scenario gives New York authority to unilaterally seize and liquidate Trump’s real estate assets and businesses. This could happen before appellate courts including potentially the Supreme Court — render their final decisions on the matter. If Trump prevails and has the colossal penalty deemed unconstitutionally excessive, he may find it legally impossible to re-acquire properties already liquidated and sold to new owners. No amount of court-ordered restitution could make him truly whole again after such deprivation of property absent due process.
This prospect creates a Pandora’s box. Civil rights lawsuits against the state alleging violations could become futile endeavors if sovereign immunity shields New York from enforcing federal court orders over its assets and funds.
The implications become even more catastrophic if Trump secures an Eighth Amendment “excessive fines” victory at the Supreme Court while actively serving as president. In this extraordinary scenario, the federal government could initiate legal actions against a defiant New York to compel compliance. Almost certainly, this would provoke howls of “authoritarianism” and allegations of politically motivated overreach from the state’s Democrat establishment.
Options could include presidential deployment of entities like the FBI to seize state property or funds as de facto restitution. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could order New York’s legislature to directly compensate Trump via state appropriations. Either scenario seems poised to catalyze a constitutional crisis, pitting issues of state sovereignty against federal supremacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The DEMONIC DEMOCRATS KNOW WE WILL NEVER DO TO THEM WHAT THEY TO TO US!!!
Oh, I'm pretty sure that's Plan A for all those who are after Trump.
What needs to be done to Demonicrats is to indict, try. convict, and sentence them for giving aid and comfort to the domestic and foreign enemies of the United States.
As for carrying out their sentences, there is enough rope, and for gallows, there are enough utility poles on which these convicted traitors can be left to rot off the noose.
This should be the goal taught to our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
In order to avoid these issues, the U.S. Supreme Court must intervene soon. There is zero need for more than a nominal bond in this case. Most of Trump’s wealth is in the United States.
Correct.
It’s always annoying when people assume that Republicans will act like Democrats. Republicans will never act like Democrats.
This is fearmongering. If Trump doesn’t post a bond and doesn’t get a stay of enforcement, then the State attaches bank accounts, and goes ahead with auctions of some of his interests in real estate. If the judgment is then reversed on appeal, he gets his money back. He suffers a forced sale of properties he would’ve preferred to keep, but in their place he gets the fair market value as reflected in the winning bid. That’s a loss to him but not a catastrophe, i.e., not confiscation. (Averting problems like this is why people bond appeals when they can.)
New York State is not going to refuse to pay him and provoke some kind of constitutional crisis. If the ultimate resolution is in Trump’s favor, the State will just cut him a check – regardless of whether he’s President or a private citizen.
Also going to affect the real estate market in New York. The risk factor went WAY up.
I’m not a vengeful person but it’s possible we should do the same to the goons, thugs and traitors of the deep state and democrat office holders.
Cutting a check for the amount that NYS is willing to accept for the seized properties does not make President Trump whole. Especially given that the state has already alleged the properties are worth significantly less than he has asserted. Forcing the sale of an asset for an amount less than the owner would accept and then giving that fire-sale amount to the rightful owner after reversal is theft.
Further, the scale of the fine and the stupidly short time frame for a whole-value bond is a clear indicator of the theft and fire-sale of the properties is the intended outcome.
"What Would Dexter Morgan Do?"
However, let’s assume those bids for Trump’s property are lowered because of the questions surrounding the forced sale — who would pay full value, not knowing what might happen to the recently acquired property? Then — using your scenario of Trump being paid back “fair market value” of whatever the winning bids were — Trump is given back his money at a reduced rate. Kind of a win/win for Trump’s enemies: if he loses his appeal, they have stripped him of very valuable property/assets; if he wins his appeal, he gets back only a fraction of the real value of the property.
I think to the layman, this verdict appears to be a slam dunk instance of outrageously expensive fines. So, has anyone questioned Trump if, or when, he is actually going to begin that protest process in the federal court system, verses continuing to suffer worse and worse consequences in NY state court? As far as I can tell, he can file that federal 8th amendment protest at any time, but hasn’t yet, for some reason. I know the pat answer is ‘just trust the plan’ but this needs an explanation IMO. Thanks.
Like everything else in this country, it all depends on who controls the Box.
MortMan: “Cutting a check for the amount that NYS is willing to accept for the seized properties does not make President Trump whole. Especially given that the state has already alleged the properties are worth significantly less than he has asserted.”
What NYS thinks the properties are worth is irrelevant. The procedure is that the sheriff advertises the sale, and there’s an auction at least two months later. How much Trump’s debt is reduced depends on how much the winning bid was.
Ray Lomas: “However, let’s assume those bids for Trump’s property are lowered because of the questions surrounding the forced sale — who would pay full value, not knowing what might happen to the recently acquired property?”
That’s not a concern. The sheriff’s sale conveys valid title, regardless of what happens thereafter on the appeal. That’s why Trump would indeed suffer some loss – he couldn’t get the property back, only the sale proceeds.
Without a stay of enforcement, Trump is certainly in a bad situation. My main point was that, if he wins on appeal, he would certainly get the money (even if he couldn’t get back any auctioned properties). The linked article’s scenario of a state-federal confrontation is just hyperventilating. It’s a distraction from the real problem that Trump could face.
If justice is seen as fully twisted and one sided, people will seek other avenues as naturally as water seeks gravity and cracks.
Yeah, we sold Mar a Lago for 50 million to Bezos. Here’s you check Mr. Trump.
Nah, just fantasies about using lawfare against them for a while and/or turning organizations that were set up as protectors for all of us against them to torment their groups. (like they have done to us the last decade)
Even the thought is somewhat repulsive.
What democrats and their thugs and goons have done needs to be dealt with as criminal acts against the State.. Not as a means to revenge. So I take back the whole revenge thing - don’t want to ever function on their level.
“He suffers a forced sale of properties he would’ve preferred to keep, but in their place he gets the fair market value as reflected in the winning bid.”
And THIS makes him whole???
I can not disagree with you more!!!
As a business owner, I could not replace my property and re-open my business for the meager amount that people would pay for my lifelong work at a State public auction. I would lose not only the loss of value of the property, but also all my potential income for the future from the property -— as would Trump.
Plus => it wouldn’t surprise me at all if New York taxed proceeds of the payment as “income” to Trump from the sales of his properties as well.
“Yeah, we sold Mar a Lago for 50 million to Bezos. Here’s you check Mr. Trump.”
If Letitia James goes after Mar-a-Lago, there would be an auction, not a collusive sale by New York State.
One of Trump’s witnesses at the trial was a Florida real estate broker who said — https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-civil-fraud-trial-allows-testimony-from-expert-who-valued-mar-a-lago-at-750-million/ar-AA1kRXKP — that Mar-a-Lago could be sold for between $750 million and $1 billion. Let that broker find someone to put in a bid in that range.
I assume it’s easier for James to go after properties in New York, though. She’s mentioned 40 Wall Street because it’s right near her office.
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.