Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[TexArcher 37455]

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

 

No, this is how the system works.

And someone who's spent more hours in court than most lawyers knows it.

You fat fucking con.

Edited March 19 by TexArcher

[Bozo_Casanova 26232]

43 minutes ago, dcbc said:

They clearly aren't familiar with Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the imposition of a life sentence without parole for fraudulently obtaining an aggregate of $230 (spread across three separate offenses) under the Texas recidivism statute did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.  If that's not C&UP, very little seems to be.

On Rummel- I tend to think Potter Stewart was right about that one. The policy was stupid and unjust to Rummel personally, but the procedure that produced the outcome, and the law, which IIRC Rummel did not challenge, was tolerable to the constitution. Or at least that’s the gist what I remember from reading his concurrence 30 years ago.

At any rate the appeals court got it right- a few months later a new trial was ordered, he wisely plead guilty and got time served. 
The constitution isn’t always the answer. 

Edited March 19 by Bozo_Casanova

[C-Man 26992]

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's also "excessive fines," so not quite as foolish as it initially seems.  Still foolish af, though.

 

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The excessive fines portion of the 8th actually has a bit of vitality these days in the context of civil forfeiture.

Why do I get the sense that @TwiceHorn is preparing us for some inevitably bad outcome and the orange shitstain is going to somehow wriggle out of this mess (again).

[The Dog 43771]

1 minute ago, C-Man said:

Why do I get the sense that @TwiceHorn is preparing us for some inevitably bad outcome and the orange shitstain is going to somehow wriggle out of this mess (again).

chill out jethro he's been saying for a while that the fine will likely be reduced. 

remember Trump struggled to post the bond for the Carroll judgment. even if this one is cut in half he's likely screwed.

The real question is whether or not he starts selling assets for the bond because James has said she WILL start going after his shit starting Monday.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

Not that I mind Trump getting tagged with a $83.3 million fine for defaming E. Jean Carroll, but how was that amount calculated?

[TwiceHorn 31184]

19 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

Why do I get the sense that @TwiceHorn is preparing us for some inevitably bad outcome and the orange shitstain is going to somehow wriggle out of this mess (again).

I am worried about one thing on the fine.  The basis for it was the difference between loan terms with Trump's personal guarantee and without.  A more precise, and unknowable, measure would have been the difference in terms with a personal guarantee with Trump's accurate wealth disclosed versus the inflated wealth.

Also, quite a bit of loan activity was outside the statute of limitations, starting with the closing of all of them.  The "bad acts" within the statute of limitations were continued submission of false SFC as a loan requirement.   So, an even more precise calculation would have been loan terms had Trump not lied on SFC and those that he did.  In other words, how would the lenders have adjusted the loan, post-closing, had his true condition been known.   Both of these I think may be substantial frailties in the judgment.

The part about the 8th Amendment is just woolgathering.  The initial post referred only to cruel and unusual punishment, which is probably not the pertinent part of the 8th Amendment, and, as was pointed out, virtually nothing is cruel and unusual.  But, in some contexts, the excessive fines portion may have some teeth.  Whether that is here or not is a different story.

Edited March 19 by TwiceHorn

[dcbc 14388]

10 minutes ago, The Dog said:

and they can use his and his lawyers' words against him (thanks again Alina!)

I'm now curious whether they made any objection at trial or in post-trial motions that the civil penalties amounted to disproportionate punishment under the 8th Amendment.  I don't know about NY state, but you have to preserve that issue in Texas.

[dcbc 14388]

11 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

Why do I get the sense that @TwiceHorn is preparing us for some inevitably bad outcome and the orange shitstain is going to somehow wriggle out of this mess (again).

Well, his response was to my post about a criminal sentence for a relatively minor series of offenses.  He was pointing out that the "penalty" language in the 8th Amendment applies to civil matters, such as forfeitures.  I imagine a lot of that may be quite applicable in federal drug cases and asset seizure/forfeiture.  I seem to think that even if this gets reduced on some basis, the nature of the case and the specific dollar amounts proven will make it pretty straight-forward to uphold against an 8th Amendment challenge. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not that I mind Trump getting tagged with a $83.3 million fine for defaming E. Jean Carroll, but how was that amount calculated?

Here's the verdict form.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18418220/280/carroll-v-trump/

The actual calculation is done by the jury in a black box, but usually by adopting a number proposed by one side or the other.

The amounts:

General compensatory damages:  7.3M

Cost of reputation repair: 11M

Punitive damages:  65M

[Brisketexan 104465]

46 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The most incredible thing on That’s Incredible was John Davidson’s hair.

That and somebody thought to pair Fran Tarkenton up with Davidson and Cathy Lee Crosby.

Man....Cathy Lee in her prime was 80s-riffic.

[dcbc 14388]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am worried about one thing on the fine.  The basis for it was the difference between loan terms with Trump's personal guarantee and without.  A more precise, and unknowable, measure would have been the difference in terms with a personal guarantee with Trump's accurate wealth disclosed versus the inflated wealth.

The part about the 8th Amendment is just woolgathering.  The initial post referred only to cruel and unusual punishment, which is probably not the pertinent part of the 8th Amendment, and, as was pointed out, virtually nothing is cruel and unusual.  But, in some contexts, the excessive fines portion may have some teeth.  Whether that is here or not is a different story.

I was using "cruel and unusual" as a catch-all for the 8th, for what it's worth.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

1 minute ago, dcbc said:

Well, his response was to my post about a criminal sentence for a relatively minor series of offenses.  He was pointing out that the "penalty" language in the 8th Amendment applies to civil matters, such as forfeitures.  I imagine a lot of that may be quite applicable in federal drug cases and asset seizure/forfeiture.  I seem to think that even if this gets reduced on some basis, the nature of the case and the specific dollar amounts proven will make it pretty straight-forward to uphold against an 8th Amendment challenge. 

Agreed.  As long as not insanely punitive, probably withstands 8th Amendment challenge.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's the verdict form.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18418220/280/carroll-v-trump/

The actual calculation is done by the jury in a black box, but usually by adopting a number proposed by one side or the other.

The amounts:

General compensatory damages:  7.3M

Cost of reputation repair: 11M

Punitive damages:  65M

Thanks.  Do/can punitive damages scale with means?

[Goredho 17302]

22 hours ago, tbone_ said:

They’re smart enough to know he’ll welch and fuck them too when it come time to pay up.

If you are Russia or Saudi Arabia or whoever, you don't loan Donald Trump half a billion with the idea he'll pay you back with interest.  You pay him half a billion to be himself and damage, perhaps destroy, the post WWII U.S. leviathan.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

14 minutes ago, dcbc said:

I'm now curious whether they made any objection at trial or in post-trial motions that the civil penalties amounted to disproportionate punishment under the 8th Amendment.  I don't know about NY state, but you have to preserve that issue in Texas.

Yup. Surely it made it into post-trial motions if not briefing on the damages.  But with habba Dabba do, who knows.  Kise probably got it right.

[Rimbo 25752]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Man....Cathy Lee in her prime was 80s-riffic.

Yeah, uhm, I'm just gonna have to disagree with you, there.

That looks incredible in any decade.

[Goredho 17302]

21 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

not as much as you might think

 

https://www.controller.com/listings/for-sale/boeing/757/jet-aircraft/3

 

I mean, it's a fucking Boeing, what do you expect?

[dcbc 14388]

On Rummel- I tend to think Potter Stewart was right about that one. The policy was stupid and unjust to Rummel personally, but the procedure that produced the outcome, and the law, which IIRC Rummel did not challenge, was tolerable to the constitution. Or at least that’s the gist what I remember from reading his concurrence 30 years ago.
At any rate the appeals court got it right- a few months later a new trial was ordered, he wisely plead guilty and got time served. 
The constitution isn’t always the answer. 

Fair enough. But the point remains that the 8th Amendment rarely is the basis for a winning argument on appeal in a punishment context.

[wildcat09 29187]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Agreed.  As long as not insanely punitive, probably withstands 8th Amendment challenge.

I have no idea what the standard would be for "too punitive," but given that it didn't even deter him from immediately defaming her again, $65 mil doesn't seem to be too punitive. 

[dcbc 14388]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I have no idea what the standard would be for "too punitive," but given that it didn't even deter him from immediately defaming her again, $65 mil doesn't seem to be too punitive. 

I thought we were talking about the New York state real estate value inflation case and the resultant civil penalties/fines wrt 8th Amendment.

Edited March 19 by dcbc

[dcbc 14388]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yup. Surely it made it into post-trial motions if not briefing on the damages.  But with habba Dabba do, who knows.  Kise probably got it right.

I have no idea.  And don't call me Shirley.

[Captainant 27311]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The excessive fines portion of the 8th actually has a bit of vitality these days in the context of civil forfeiture.

Is the fine excessive in light of the sums of money that he defrauded people out of? Trump stole BILLIONS through fraud. A penalty that is a fraction of what was stolen is hardly unreasonable (unless you have some weird instinct to use kid gloves with fascists)

[Goredho 17302]

11 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Here's the most hilarious thing: Trump was gifted 500 million dollars by his dad and now, despite the fact that the dollars are inflated, he can't even come up with the money his dad gave him.

 

No, the most hilarious thing is if he took that $500 million, didn't touch the principal and lived on the interest until October of 2012, and then was smart like all the libertarian dipshits that vote for him and dumped it all into Bitcoin, he'd be the world's richest man with a net worth of more than 285 billion dollars.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

43 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Thanks.  Do/can punitive damages scale with means?

Jurors are permitted to take into account the wealth of the defendant in calculating punitive damages,because it should be sufficient to punish. But wealth of the defendant is irrelevant for most other forms of damages. As in compensatory damages compensate and the ability to pay is irrelevant. 

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19118]

44 minutes ago, Goredho said:

If you are Russia or Saudi Arabia or whoever, you don't loan Donald Trump half a billion with the idea he'll pay you back with interest.  You pay him half a billion to be himself and damage, perhaps destroy, the post WWII U.S. leviathan.

I'm firmly in the camp that believes KSA are a bunch of cunts, but what do they get out of the good old USA falling apart?  Iran would whip their asses so fast if we weren't around to back them up.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Is the fine excessive in light of the sums of money that he defrauded people out of? Trump stole BILLIONS through fraud. A penalty that is a fraction of what was stolen is hardly unreasonable (unless you have some weird instinct to use kid gloves with fascists)

There was no evidence at THIS trial that Trump defrauded anyone of billions. Other people he defrauded over the years are irrelevant to this particular case. 

I think excessive fine analysis requires some connection to the harm done in the case at bar, which is why it has some life in the context of civil forfeiture. 

[dcbc 14388]

21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Is the fine excessive in light of the sums of money that he defrauded people out of? Trump stole BILLIONS through fraud. A penalty that is a fraction of what was stolen is hardly unreasonable (unless you have some weird instinct to use kid gloves with fascists)

Analogizing to the criminal sentencing cases, if the penalty falls within a range prescribed by statute, it is per se not in violation of the 8th amendment.  If not, courts consider (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty, (2) the penalties imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, and (3) the penalties imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.

Edited March 19 by dcbc

[Bozo_Casanova 26232]

55 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Agreed.  As long as not insanely punitive, probably withstands 8th Amendment challenge.

Here’s a question for the law dogs- as currently interpreted how is “Cruel and Unusual” different in practice from “capricious and arbitrary?”

[locodos 5329]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There was no evidence at THIS trial that Trump defrauded anyone of billions. Other people he defrauded over the years are irrelevant to this particular case. 

I think excessive fine analysis requires some connection to the harm done in the case at bar, which is why it has some life in the context of civil forfeiture. 

In this instance would the appeal just be for a portion of the judgement, and not a reversal of the Judge's findings?

[Brisketexan 104465]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Here’s a question for the law dogs- as currently interpreted how is “Cruel and Unusual” different in practice from “capricious and arbitrary?”

Depends.  What color is the defendant?

[locodos 5329]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Depends.  What color is the defendant?

traffic cone orange with pale pink trim

[TwiceHorn 31184]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Here’s a question for the law dogs- as currently interpreted how is “Cruel and Unusual” different in practice from “capricious and arbitrary?”

They apply in completely different circumstances. C&U is criminal only and very little has been adjudged cruel or unusual. 

A&C is mostly a term of administrative law and applies to an agency action disconnected from facts or rules/laws. Agency action gets labeled A&C far more often than anything gets labeled C&U. 

They have in common that there is an element of disproportionality or irrationality to both. 

[wildcat09 29187]

20 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I'm firmly in the camp that believes KSA are a bunch of cunts, but what do they get out of the good old USA falling apart?  Iran would whip their asses so fast if we weren't around to back them up.

They think a non-democratic USA dominated by American conservatives is more aligned with their long-term interests than a democratic USA. They're probably not wrong about that. Autocrats like making friends with other autocrats. Democracies are messy and unpredictable.  

[Brisketexan 104465]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

They have in common that there is an element of disproportionality or irrationality to both. 

You're playing America's song now!

[DigglerontheHoof 21022]

All I know is Dotard will get out of this bullshit.  The courts will cut him a break or someone else will pony up the cash.  He will wriggle free, he always does. 

[Underdog 28437]

Maybe if he stops trying to fuck Ivanka again Jared will give him the money. 

[locodos 5329]

1 minute ago, Underdog said:

Maybe if he stops trying to fuck Ivanka again Jared will give him the money. 

I'm pretty sure that Jared will only give him the money if he gets to watch, it's the republican way.  Ivanka is the one holding this thing up.

[Pato del Muerto 52322]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They think a non-democratic USA dominated by American conservatives is more aligned with their long-term interests than a democratic USA. They're probably not wrong about that. Autocrats like making friends with other autocrats. Democracies are messy and unpredictable.  

They also realize that a Christian theocracy in the USA is much more aligned with their own Islamic kingdom than what we currently are. 
 

only scary thing about that is that both sides wouldn’t be able to see past the other’s god. But it’s not like wars have ever been fought over such things. 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

6 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

They also realize that a Christian theocracy in the USA is much more aligned with their own Islamic kingdom than what we currently are. 

Fundamentalism --> theocracy --> authoritarianism --> win

[Surly Bevo 24692]

Question. Was it necessary by some deadline etc for the failure to secure the bond to be made publicly known yesterday?

[The Dog 43771]

Just now, Surly Bevo said:

Question. Was it necessary by some deadline etc for the failure to secure the bond to be made publicly known yesterday?

the deadline to secure/post the bond is 3/25.

he's just whining.

[dcbc 14388]

47 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You're playing America's song now!

Is that a Lee Greenwood b-side?

Edited March 19 by dcbc

[Hookah Horns 3058]

Aileen Cannon should be hanged. Corrupt bitch. 

[Brisketexan 104465]

25 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Is that a Lee Greenwood b-side?

b-side?  Fuck that, it's from the secret omitted verse of "Proud to be an American."  "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I can be completely fucking irrational and disproportionately exact pain and cruelty on anyone weaker than me, and I won't forget the people I fucked over, because the 'other' don't deserve to be free, and you better stand up, boy....or else I'll beat your ass again."  Or something like that.

[dcbc 14388]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

b-side?  Fuck that, it's from the secret omitted verse of "Proud to be an American."  "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I can be completely fucking irrational and disproportionately exact pain and cruelty on anyone weaker than me, and I won't forget the people I fucked over, because the 'other' don't deserve to be free, and you better stand up, boy....or else I'll beat your ass again."  Or something like that.

I was hoping I'd get a hidden verse.  I am not disappointed in that effort.  We need to get you into the studio.  

 

Edited March 19 by dcbc

[The Dog 43771]

(from an article in 2021 so "next 3 years" is 21-24)

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

2 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

All I know is Dotard will get out of this bullshit.  The courts will cut him a break or someone else will pony up the cash.  He will wriggle free, he always does. 

He's gonna pay out a few hundred million at the very least.  The issue for him is if he has to come up with the liquidity even in the short term - that means he's exposing himself to a fuckload of taxes.  So even if they go back and lower the amount...once he's had to makes moves to raise money, it's costing his ass a LOT.  Also remember there's a shitload more cases on the way vs him.  It's beautiful thing.  Just laugh at him and enjoy.  

[DigglerontheHoof 21022]

7 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

He's gonna pay out a few hundred million at the very least.  The issue for him is if he has to come up with the liquidity even in the short term - that means he's exposing himself to a fuckload of taxes.  So even if they go back and lower the amount...once he's had to makes moves to raise money, it's costing his ass a LOT.  Also remember there's a shitload more cases on the way vs him.  It's beautiful thing.  Just laugh at him and enjoy.  

You're definitely closer to his tax bracket than I am, so I hope you're correct.

[RomaVicta 29756]

5 hours ago, dcbc said:

They clearly aren't familiar with Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the imposition of a life sentence without parole for fraudulently obtaining an aggregate of $230 (spread across three separate offenses) under the Texas recidivism statute did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.  If that's not C&UP, very little seems to be.

I need to know that. I hate knowing it. I had no idea.

[tx 3 putt 76159]

5 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Local rich kid shocked by consequences*

 

 

 

 

 

*ole Donny will wriggle out of this one, nevertheless 

 

 

the dildo of consequences never comes lubed