SteveR Loc: Michigan

An appeals court has slashed Trump's bond by 60% to 175 million. See the attached article.

The article also indicates that a Constitutional provision against "excessive fines" may work in his favor on appeal, especially since none of the banks involved were harmed and actually profited by doing business with him.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/legal-experts-say-trumps-whopping-new-york-fee-could-be-excessive-under-constitution-unheard-of

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

No one is harmed when a dwi is issued.
No is harmed in lots of illegal acts

The law is the law. Trump had his day in court and lost.
Perfect example of a two tiered legal system

I hope the irs is all over this .

Triple G

Using the 8th amendment preventing excessive fines is most often used in criminal cases; this will be a new precedent in use in a civil trial, but anything is possible. Is the $450Mil fines or penalties? Does it make a difference? Watch starting 4/15 to find out.

I mentioned earlier that the appeal could hope for a lowering of the penalties, but that the case would still prevail. We'll see if my assessment is correct.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

And those civil penalties have gone in the billions. Far outdustaning the trump organization penalty

SteveR Loc: Michigan

For huge multi-billion dollar corporations. The fact that the appeals court cut the bond by 60% shows that the bond initially imposed was vastly punitive. We'll see how it plays out. The question still remains whether or not this was a political prosecution.

Triple G

All the way to SCOTUS.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Two totally different offenses. Drunk drivers kill, for one thing. In Trump's case, the banks also had their own appraisers. If you read the article, they were more than pleased to do business with Trump. They made money.

Triple G

Fraud is fraud and doesn't require monetary loses; harm to the financial market place and that it changes the access, cost, and risk to all investors in that market is the victim. In civil cases, the proof bar is "by the preponderance" of the evidence. If prosecution can show multiple instances of the same property's value being significantly different as posted on insurance, loan, and tax documents, then a guilty (liable or responsible for) judgment will likely be upheld and the original penalty amount still in play unless appeals court determines it to be excessive.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

So bonds are suppose to be commensurate with the value of the company and not the offense. ??

The trump organization fine was not punitive. It calculated on the amount of cheating plus interest ( some of it to you the taxpayer)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/25/trump-354-million-penalty-judgment/

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

1. I was not talking about drunk driven accidents I was talking about dwi. No one is killed

2. The banks cheated out of money just like tax payers were.

3. And the fine was not changed .it is still the same with growing interest!!

Time to quit finding ways to defending this conman

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

You’re really banging those tap shoes, Mr. Bojangles…

Triple G

Such great music!

National Park

Drunk drivers are usually picked up in law enforcement anti-drunk driving details without having hurt anyone. They still violated the law, since killing someone is not an essential element of the crime which prosecutors must prove, and they still are prosecuted.

Same thing with New York's fraud law. Fraud is fraud regardless of whether the banks benefited from the loan. Harm to others is not an essential element of the crime. Under your interpretation, anybody applying for a loan can commit fraud, hoping that the banks will benefit from the loan and they can get off scott free. What a nightmare that would be for both the banking system and those trying to civilly prosecute fraud.

Next time you get pulled over for drunk driving tell the officer he should let you off because no one got hurt. Let me know how that works out for you.

National Park

Most drunk drivers who are arrested are picked up in law enforcement details targeting drunk drivers. Drunk drivers are arrested regardless of whether they have hurt someone. They are arrested and convicted because driving drunk increases the chances that they will hurt someone.

Same thing with New York's fraud law. Fraud is fraud regardless of whether the banks benefited from the loan. Harm to others is not an essential element of the crime. The purpose of the fraud statute is to prevent banks from getting hurt; when someone commits fraud on an application, there is a higher chance that the bank will get hurt. Under your interpretation, anybody applying for a loan can commit fraud, hoping that the banks will benefit from the loan and as a result they will get off scot free. What a nightmare that would be for both the banking system and those trying to civilly prosecute fraud--endless arguments in court about whether a bank got hurt.

Banks don't have enough appraisers to run around checking everything a loan applicant puts on a loan application. That's why the onus is (and must be) on the applicant to tell the truth. (And in Trump's case, remember that he never, ever in a million years tells a lie, so why wouldn't the banks believe him?)

Next time you get pulled over for drunk driving tell the officer he should let you off because no one got hurt. Let me know how that works out for you.