THE LAWYER-INFESTED BIDEN REGIME IS A LAWLESS OPERATION NO DIFFERENT THAN THE OBAMA BANKSTER REGIME!
TELL FUKHEAD BIDEN THE JUDICIAL, F.B.I., D.O.J., AND D.H.S., ARE NOT HIS FUKING AGENCIES!
Ben Carson Warns Of 'An Entirely New Threat To Our Country'
The 8th Amendment comes out in favor of Trump
On February 16, 2024, a judge in New York State imposed fines totaling just over $360 million on former president Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization, and several related Trump companies and trusts in the civil case brought by the New York attorney general. President Trump’s sons Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump were fined just over $4 million each. The court imposed additional sanctions, including injunctions against former president Trump; Donald Trump, Jr.; and Eric Trump from serving as officers or directors in New York corporations for specified numbers of years, among other sanctions.
The media reporting on the court’s decision has been massive since the decision was rendered. However, little or no reporting focused on the constitutionality of the fines under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. President Trump and his co-defendants all have substantial 8th Amendment “excessive fine” challenges to raise. In fact, a review of the facts and applicable law reveal that this decision is simply more election interference.
Background about the Case
The fines stem from a civil suit filed by New York attorney general Letitia James in 2022, claiming that former president Trump and his companies used falsely inflated asset valuations and misleading financial statements in dealings with lenders. The suit alleges various different claims, chief among them the New York State Executive Law Section 63(12) “fraudulent or illegal acts” claims.
Importantly, the Trump case involved no victims. The court could not order any lender to be paid back or made whole, because the lenders not only were paid back, but all made money on the loans made to Trump. Since the case did not present any victims, the New York judge ordered what is known as disgorgement — that is, to give up “profits.” In this case, the court relied on expert testimony submitted by the State of New York to claim that the Trumps’ “profits” were lower interest rates on various loans.
The court ordered Trump and his companies to cough up $168 million on supposedly “ill-gotten interest savings” on multiple loans involving several different commercial properties. On this issue, the court simply fails to acknowledge the fact that “recourse” loans, like those involved in the Trump case, entitle the borrower to lower interest rates. A good discussion of the court’s error in this regard may be found here.
The court also fined former president Trump over $126,000,000 based on his profit from the sale of the “Old Post Office” in Washington, D.C. Trump purchased the Old Post Office in 2012, and, after remodeling it and turning it into a hotel, the Trump Organization sold its interest in it in 2022 for $375 million. Again, the court ordered “disgorgement” of the profits, finding that the original $170-million loan obtained by the Trump Organization to finance the purchase and renovation of the property was obtained using false financial statements.
Finally, the court ordered “disgorgement” of some $60 million in profits obtained by Trump on the assignment or sale of a contract on a public golf course in the Bronx called Ferry Point for the same reasons.
The Eighth Amendment Problem
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.”
The New York court’s ruling ordering the Trumps to pay over $360 million under New York State law likely violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on “excessive fines.”
First, in 2019, The United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibition on “excessive fines” applies to states, not just to actions by the federal government. Thus, New York State fines are subject to the Eighth Amendment. Next, while the fines imposed by the New York Court in the Trump case are characterized as “disgorgement,” the United States Supreme Court and federal appellate decisions confirm that “disgorgements” are penalties or fines for purposes of federal law. Thus, the New York Court’s “disgorgement” penalties are subject to an “excessive fine” challenge under the Eighth Amendment.
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Bajakajian adopted the standard of “gross disproportionality” in excessive fines determinations. If the amount of the fine or forfeiture is “grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense, it is unconstitutional.” Importantly, an excessive fines challenge is reviewed de novo by the reviewing court. This means the higher court reviews this question without any deference to the lower court’s decision and is free to substitute its judgment for that of the lower court.
As the United States Supreme Court’s decisions instruct, the focus of the “grossly disproportional” inquiry is on the following factors:
(1) the degree of the defendant’s reprehensibility or culpability
(2) the relationship between the penalty and the harm to the victim caused by the defendant’s actions
(3) the sanctions imposed in other cases for comparable misconduct
Applying these factors to the New York court’s decision reveals that the fines are clearly excessive. There are no victims in the Trump case. No one was harmed. Each and every financial institution involved was fully repaid and made money on its loans. Further, a review of case law in New York demonstrates that there simply are no cases ordering a defendant to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in disgorgement without any victim being deprived of anything. Finally, just how “reprehensible” is it to obtain loans and credit facilities and then pay the lenders back, in full, on time, in compliance with the agreement? The answer is, not very.
Once again, a court in New York issued yet another political decision masquerading as justice. The fines imposed by this New York court on former President Trump and his sons and businesses are grossly and unconstitutionally excessive. While President Trump and his co-defendants undoubtedly have many defenses to the claims to raise on appeal, chief among them should be a constitutional challenge to these grossly excessive fines.
Daniel R. Street is an attorney with over 25 years of litigation experience. He is the author of the Fake News Exposed about Trump book series. Links to his free Substack and to his books, social media, and more may be found at his website, danielrstreet.com.
Image via Raw Pixel.
Watch — Bishop Joseph Strickland: Catholics Were Targeted by FBI Because They Are Pro-Life
The FBI’s targeting of Catholics sounds “much more like Nazi Germany or communist Russia than the United States,” Bishop Joseph Strickland said.
Breitbart News’s Matthew Perdie interviewed Strickland on Thursday at CPAC 2024 in National Harbor, Maryland, about the FBI’s investigation into traditional Catholic churches.
As Breitbart News reported, a leaked memo last year from the FBI’s Richmond office stated that violent extremists’ “interest” in “radical-traditionalist Catholic” ideology was growing and that it therefore presented an opportunity for the FBI to engage with certain churches in an attempt to goad the churches’ leadership into serving as FBI “tripwires,” who would operate like unofficial informants to the FBI. House Republicans have since discovered that multiple field offices appeared to be involved in crafting the memo and that the FBI allegedly interviewed a priest and a church choir director.
Perdie asked Strickland — a fierce Pope Francis critic who has been “relieved” by the Vatican for “undermining the faith” — why he thinks the FBI decided to investigate Catholic Latin mass goers.
“Well, I really don’t claim to have the answer for why they would do this, but I do see it as a sad symptom of a society that sounds too much more like Nazi Germany or communist Russia than the United States,” Strickland said.
Phil Thiltrickett, an opponent of an abortion, holds a rosary as he prays outside a Planned Parenthood Clinic. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, file)
“Freedom of speech, freedom of religion — all of those freedom issues seem to be bound up in this … I think the FBI has been weaponized to go after people who simply believe deeply in the message of Jesus Christ and believe in the truth that He’s revealed,” he continued. “And sadly, in the nation and really in the world, even in the Catholic Church, we’re having a lot of people not so sure about this truth that God has revealed through his Son Jesus Christ.”
Strickland added that the FBI’s actions are a “symptom” of a “nation that is losing its way.”
“She can always come back, but we’ve got to listen to the truth that God has revealed to us and come back to those foundation stones and not use government agencies to attack people for living the truth,” he said. “If we’re afraid of the truth, then we’ve got more to fear than any individual who may be standing for that truth.”
Perdie also asked Strickland if he thinks the FBI targeted traditional Catholics, in part, because of their more conservative pro-life and pro-family values.
“Oh, absolutely,” Strickland replied.
“The Catholic Church is, and should be, totally opposed to this woke agenda … The Catholic Church should reject [the woke agenda] because it’s a rejection of God. It’s a rejection of who we are: created in the image and likeness of God,” he said.
Strickland added that tyrannical leaders are “threatened by those who stand for the truth and won’t budge.”
“So their mission is to try to get rid of those who stand for the truth,” he said. “It won’t be accomplished any more than in Nazi Germany. They tried to eliminate [people] and have one pristine Aryan race. Did it work? No, because it was based on false ideals of a broken humanity.”
“The same thing with communism — any of these ideologies that ignore God,” he continued.
Strickland concluded by encouraging Americans to stand for the truth in a sea of lies.
“I think it’s natural that those standing for that truth are going to be seen as a threat to this agenda,” he said. “Just as we look to Nazi Germany or to the communist state of Stalin: how many people died because they said no to those despotic regimes? The same thing is going to happen here, but we have to speak against the false messages — no matter how many hearts and minds the false message captures.”
