Posted on 03/20/2024 8:23:37 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Let me tell you about the time Ruth Bader Ginsburg saved Donald Trump $355 million plus interest.
It was Feb. 20, 2019, and Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court in the case of Timbs v. Indiana.
In that case, police in Indiana had seized Tyson Timbs’ Land Rover SUV, which he bought for $42,000 with money he received from a life insurance policy when his dad died. The state sought civil forfeiture of the vehicle because Timbs had pleaded guilty to drug dealing and conspiracy to commit theft. However, the fine for the crime was only $10,000 and the vehicle was worth four times that. Taking the vehicle was an excessive fine, the judge ruled, and excessive fines are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court of Appeals agreed.
But then the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the ruling on the grounds that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies only to the federal government, and it does not bind the states.
Yes it does, the U.S. Supreme Court said unanimously. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas wrote separate concurring opinions stating that they would have arrived at the decision through different reasoning. But the conclusion was the same.
“There can be no serious doubt that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect the freedom from excessive fines enshrined in the Eighth Amendment,” wrote Gorsuch.
“The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies in full to the States,” wrote Thomas.
“The Excessive Fines Clause traces its venerable lineage back to at least 1215,” wrote Ginsburg, “Magna Carta required that economic sanctions ‘be proportioned to the wrong’ and ‘not be so large as to deprive [an offender] of his livelihood.’”
Timbs v. Indiana was a landmark decision. It was the first time the Supreme Court had held that the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause applied to the states. Just nine years earlier, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court had acknowledged in a footnote, “We never have decided whether … the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines applies to the States,” pointing to the 1989 case of Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., in which the court declined to decide the issue.
McDonald v. Chicago was itself a landmark decision. In that case, the Supreme Court said for the first time that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government.
“When ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government,” Justice Ginsburg wrote.
How that eventually changed is a little-known part of U.S. history that is about to protect former President Trump from the state of New York.
The Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War, in 1868. It read, in part, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
However, this did not immediately make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. That change began more than 50 years later, in 1925. In the case of Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court floated the idea that freedom of speech and of the press are assumed to be “among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states.”
Gradually over the next century, the court would pick and choose provisions of the Bill of Rights, declare them to be “fundamental” or “deeply rooted” in our history, tradition and “scheme of ordered liberty,” and make them binding on the states. (The history of this process can be read in Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion for the court in McDonald v. Chicago.)
The Eighth Amendment reads, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
The “cruel and unusual punishments” clause was declared applicable to the states in 1962, in Robinson v. California. The “excessive bail” provision has applied to the states since the 1971 case of Schilb v. Kuebel. And the “excessive fines” prohibition has been binding on the states since the 2019 Timbs case.
New York Judge Arthur F. Engoron fined the former president and 2024 frontrunner an astronomical $355 million plus $100 million (and counting) in interest. Engoron also prohibited the Trump Organization from taking loans from financial institutions that do business in New York for three years, and he banned Trump personally from working as a director or officer of any corporation or entity in New York for the same period. Engoron even refused Trump’s request for a 30-day extension of the due date to pay the fine, which New York requires before he can appeal the judgment.
This was a civil fraud trial, without a jury, in which the judge found Trump guilty of giving his assets a too-high valuation to get good loan terms, even though the bank adjusted those values downward before approving a loan that was paid back fully and on time, with interest.
“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” wrote Ginsburg. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.” New York Attorney General Letitia James campaigned on a promise to sue Donald Trump, calling him an “illegitimate president.” She said she’ll ask the court to seize Trump’s buildings if he can’t come up with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash in time to pay the fine.
We’ll see. It may be easier to go up against Trump than to argue with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“this is most clear-cut case of an 8th amendment violation I have ever heard of in my entire life.”
No kidding. “We fine you $1 billion (or $10 billion or $100 billion). Now put up that entire amount so you can appeal. If you can’t put up that bond, we will confiscate your assets.”
And there was NO crime. The parties negotiated the property valuation. The loan was paid back in full. The bank did not file a complaint.
They just keep killing the rule of law over and over and over. This is SO serious and most people in the nation don’t have a clue about how serious this is.
Anything over $20 requires the option of a jury trial. Another Constitutional violation.
I’d like to know how the judge in the Trump case came up with this half a billion dollar fine. There are no victims, banks made money, so who was ripped off?
Ping...
The leftist attorneys and politicians are using lawfare in order to establish themselves as multi-million dollar high-priced squatters.
.
“I’d like to know how the judge in the Trump case came up with this half a billion dollar fine.”
Reached behind and extracted it from between her butt cheeks.
>I’d like to know how the judge in the Trump case came up with this half a billion dollar fine.<
It appears to be the valuation Trump put on Trump Tower NYC that James said was overvalued. Ironically, it looks like the property she wants to seize is Trump Tower at that “overvalued” price.
EC
“I read some Leftist’s opinion piece and it was anti-Trump” is really all you needed to post.
yep, this is Putin level stuff at this point.
She is a he.
“He has to put up the $400+ million first to begin the process all the way up to SCOTUS. That’s why I’ve been saying that Letitia and Engoron has him in a catch-22.”
If Trump successfully appeals to the Supreme Court and prevails, could he then file a lawsuit against the State of New York, claiming infringement of his rights and seeking compensation for $400 million, legal costs, and personal harm, totaling approximately $1 billion?
I fully understand where many people think that there's a (unconstitutional) catch-22 that Trump or any appellant get past.
But if they deny hearing his appeal I see no reason why he can't still appeal "all the way up".
I can give you examples where the highest state courts have denied even hearing an appeal, and SCOTUS heard the appeal.
Here is how the judge came up with the amount and Trump’s reaction. More at the link below.
WHY DOES TRUMP OWE SO MUCH?
Engoron found that Trump’s phony wealth claims were critical to his success, affording him lower loan interest rates and allowing him to build projects he wouldn’t have otherwise been able to finish. The judge determined that those savings and windfall profits were “ill-gotten gains” and ordered him and his co-defendants to cough them up to the state, with interest.
Trump, both individually and as the owner of various corporate entities, must pay:
— $168 million, plus interest, in savings on loans he obtained using his inflated financial statements for a golf resort near Miami, a Chicago hotel and condominium tower, a Washington, D.C. hotel and a Manhattan office building. Trump obtained three of the loans through Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management unit, which offered lower interest rates than its commercial real estate division, and used his financial statements to show the bank he was wealthy and a good credit risk.
— $126.8 million, plus interest, in profit from selling the Trump International Hotel in Washington in May 2022 to a company that now operates it as a Waldorf Astoria. Trump used $170 million of the $375 million to pay off a loan on the property. Other proceeds went to his children.
— $60 million, plus interest, from selling the rights to manage a New York City golf course in June 2023. Engoron noted in his ruling that the buyer, Bally’s Corporation, stands to pay Trump an additional $115 million if it obtains a casino license for the property. However, he did not say if he would require Trump to give up that money, too.
Trump’s sons, Eric and Donald Jr., must each pay a little over $4 million, plus interest, to the state for their shares of the Washington hotel sales. Weisselberg, the former Trump Organization finance chief, was ordered to pay $1 million — half of the $2 million severance he’s receiving.
WHAT DO TRUMP AND HIS LAWYERS SAY?
Trump called the decision “weaponization against a political opponent” and complained that he was being penalized for “having built a perfect company, great cash, great buildings, great everything.”
“President Trump will of course appeal and remains confident the Appellate Division will ultimately correct the innumerable and catastrophic errors made by a trial court untethered to the law or to reality,” Trump lawyer Christopher Kise said.
Trump and his lawyers have said that outside accountants that helped prepare his financial statements should’ve flagged any discrepancies and that the documents came with disclaimers that shielded him from liability. They say Trump never told anyone to inflate the value of assets and that, if there were discrepancies, no one was harmed.
“There were no victims because the banks made a lot of money,” Trump said Friday, echoing his trial testimony in November.
Trump testified that regardless of what his financial statements said, banks did their own due diligence and would’ve qualified him for the loans anyway. He said there’s no evidence that the terms or pricing would have been any different.
OK thanks. His “phony wealth”. What a joke. So by that logic anybody can walk into a bank, claim they are a billionaire and ask for a massive loan which of course will be approved because banks are just that gullibe. Are they kidding me with this garbage?
This is insane. What if that corrupt lying sack of sh*t Judge had said a "Trillion" dollars? Is our legal system so dysfunctional that it would take such a fine seriously?
That's what it is doing with this ridiculous half a billion dollar fine. On it's own merits, it should be tossed out with no further commentary because it is wrong on a fundamental level.
And that judge needs to be beaten so bad he goes to the hospital with broken bones and a concussion. The nation needs to start getting mean with corrupt arrogant tyrants.
Knowing Guy (a Christian) and how angry this wounded Huey chopper pilot who flew over 1,000 combat sorties & has Agent Orange damaged lungs & heart, it was probably hyperbolic.
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.