Arthur Engoron, the New York Supreme Court judge in the real estate case brought against Donald Trump by the state attorney general, has fined Trump and members of his family $464 million. This raises the question of whether the fine – which does not reflect damages actually done – is "excessive" under the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution, which reads as follows: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
You are 100% correct. The fine is excessive especially when one considers that there is no victim and the both the DA and the judge showed excessive bias towards the person accused, attacking the person rather than the alleged crime.
I've been a banker all my life, and I've never met a developer that doesn't exaggerate, embellish, and overvalue their property. It is the very nature of the profession.
This ruling was politically motivated, and threatens all future trades. Every business person is now on edge, because a radical judge and a not so bright prosecutor, undervalued his property substantially. Mara-a-lago in 1981 sold for 20M. Today, it's worth at least 200M, yet Engoron, a man who knows nothing about real estate, thinks it's worth 17M.
We certainly don't need apparatchiks to help us evaluate property. We have a whole team at the bank, perfectly capable of doing that.
Keep in mind this prosecutor campaigned on "get Trump" and claimed that New York City was "too pale, too male, and too stale". She is a racist, marxist, buffoon.
I think this is a disturbingly banana republic approach to prosecutions, bordering on persecutions of Pres. Trump. Not only was there no victim or damaged party, but Kevin O'Leary, of Shark Tank fame, clearly stated that what Pres. Trump did was common practice, both here and internationally. Will they go after every other real estate firm with the same fervor? I think not.
This is also reminiscent of the J6 persecution, wherein there was no accusation or charge of "insurrection," yet Pres. Trump is deemed guilty before being proven to have even done anything, and the facts of the case argue against any charge being made.
And let us not forget the political prisoners of the J6 riots, and take a moment to compare them to antifa or BLM "peaceful protests."
The selective and directed acts of lawfare against Pres. Trump, for purely political purposes, goes against everything that jurisprudence defines as fair and lawful. The left has been radicalized into a series of actions that even most Third World governments would reject (although some may embrace them wholeheartedly).
The Constitution demands that unequal prosecution of the law be stopped and the perpetrators be severely punished. This is flat out unAmerican.
Frankly, this piling onto Trump seems completely excessive, not just the fine. I believe that the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot. That being said, I have no idea what to do in November. Biden is not competent in my opinion, nevermind his policy advisors. He is pulling us into very unpopular conflicts.
Trump, if reelected, will be hamstrung at every turn and we desperately need an effective President and a less contentious social climate.
They know all of the Get Trump da’s are purely political ! They’re not about doing what they’re supposed to do! They want to crush their opponents in anyway they possibly can! Constitution?? The corruption in this government doesn’t care about the law! It’s a disgrace! The people want someone who has the maximum fight possible to clean up this cabal of toxic people who have weaponized their positions !
If the case is functionally quasi-criminal, how do the courts bar Trump from having a jury, or justify using a civil standard of proof? Indeed, given that the judge's opinion is explicitly punitive, how is it conceivable that preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard? Likewise, aren't litigants allowed a jury for resolution of factual disputes, even in purely equitable cases?
As Stalin’s chief of police said “ show me the man, I’ll show you the crime.” Definitely applies to loudmouth Trump here and other situations ( Russia gate). If this goes through, where are we in the USA?
Further than this, Alan, i wonder if the NY statute itself is unconstitutional. is it really okay to create a law that explicitly provides prosecution even when no one is harmed?
I think on further examination and deep analysis, we'll find that such a law that specifically pivots the proceeding to civil court so that one can overcome the standard of "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" to the completely immeasurable "a preponderance of the evidence".
And while we're on the subject of constitutionality, while I might have your ear, can you comment on whether voters have to be citizens, based on the US constitution? Isn't it inferred that anyone voting needs to be a citizen? isn't it also inferred that "people" counted for purposes of representation in congress are citizens, and not merely anyone you can count who resides in a state?
Taking this a bit further, is there any evidence that the law ever accepted non-citizens for the purpose of being counted for representation, or voting?
Would love to hear your thoughts in an upcoming podcast. I'd also love to see a hot-shot attorney argue these points before the supreme court.
Thank you for this article Professor…..The entire thing is a waste of taxpayers money…..no bank or loaner or assessor would even speak against Trump…..the entire thing is vicious, in bad taste but worst of all communism at its worse.
Not being legal minded, how common is it for a judge to not only come up with a mega fine, but dictate that the defendant cannot borrow within that state?
SEC v. Liu is helpful on this point. Even though the Court didn't come to direct 8th amendment issues, they did discuss limits on disgorgement and limiting it to profits.
You are 100% correct. The fine is excessive especially when one considers that there is no victim and the both the DA and the judge showed excessive bias towards the person accused, attacking the person rather than the alleged crime.
I've been a banker all my life, and I've never met a developer that doesn't exaggerate, embellish, and overvalue their property. It is the very nature of the profession.
This ruling was politically motivated, and threatens all future trades. Every business person is now on edge, because a radical judge and a not so bright prosecutor, undervalued his property substantially. Mara-a-lago in 1981 sold for 20M. Today, it's worth at least 200M, yet Engoron, a man who knows nothing about real estate, thinks it's worth 17M.
We certainly don't need apparatchiks to help us evaluate property. We have a whole team at the bank, perfectly capable of doing that.
Keep in mind this prosecutor campaigned on "get Trump" and claimed that New York City was "too pale, too male, and too stale". She is a racist, marxist, buffoon.
I think this is a disturbingly banana republic approach to prosecutions, bordering on persecutions of Pres. Trump. Not only was there no victim or damaged party, but Kevin O'Leary, of Shark Tank fame, clearly stated that what Pres. Trump did was common practice, both here and internationally. Will they go after every other real estate firm with the same fervor? I think not.
This is also reminiscent of the J6 persecution, wherein there was no accusation or charge of "insurrection," yet Pres. Trump is deemed guilty before being proven to have even done anything, and the facts of the case argue against any charge being made.
And let us not forget the political prisoners of the J6 riots, and take a moment to compare them to antifa or BLM "peaceful protests."
The selective and directed acts of lawfare against Pres. Trump, for purely political purposes, goes against everything that jurisprudence defines as fair and lawful. The left has been radicalized into a series of actions that even most Third World governments would reject (although some may embrace them wholeheartedly).
The Constitution demands that unequal prosecution of the law be stopped and the perpetrators be severely punished. This is flat out unAmerican.
Frankly, this piling onto Trump seems completely excessive, not just the fine. I believe that the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot. That being said, I have no idea what to do in November. Biden is not competent in my opinion, nevermind his policy advisors. He is pulling us into very unpopular conflicts.
Trump, if reelected, will be hamstrung at every turn and we desperately need an effective President and a less contentious social climate.
I have never been more discouraged.
They know all of the Get Trump da’s are purely political ! They’re not about doing what they’re supposed to do! They want to crush their opponents in anyway they possibly can! Constitution?? The corruption in this government doesn’t care about the law! It’s a disgrace! The people want someone who has the maximum fight possible to clean up this cabal of toxic people who have weaponized their positions !
As far as to deter future misconduct, that is also a lie as all developers do this and it is a common industry standard!
I agree with this 100%. Even the money needed to file an appeal is ridiculously excessive!
If the case is functionally quasi-criminal, how do the courts bar Trump from having a jury, or justify using a civil standard of proof? Indeed, given that the judge's opinion is explicitly punitive, how is it conceivable that preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard? Likewise, aren't litigants allowed a jury for resolution of factual disputes, even in purely equitable cases?
Leave. New York. NOW.
It's all about NY Democrats against the Trump Family in election year . When is this witch hunt going to finish
As Stalin’s chief of police said “ show me the man, I’ll show you the crime.” Definitely applies to loudmouth Trump here and other situations ( Russia gate). If this goes through, where are we in the USA?
What exact legal.step should Trump take and where?
Further than this, Alan, i wonder if the NY statute itself is unconstitutional. is it really okay to create a law that explicitly provides prosecution even when no one is harmed?
I think on further examination and deep analysis, we'll find that such a law that specifically pivots the proceeding to civil court so that one can overcome the standard of "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" to the completely immeasurable "a preponderance of the evidence".
And while we're on the subject of constitutionality, while I might have your ear, can you comment on whether voters have to be citizens, based on the US constitution? Isn't it inferred that anyone voting needs to be a citizen? isn't it also inferred that "people" counted for purposes of representation in congress are citizens, and not merely anyone you can count who resides in a state?
Taking this a bit further, is there any evidence that the law ever accepted non-citizens for the purpose of being counted for representation, or voting?
Would love to hear your thoughts in an upcoming podcast. I'd also love to see a hot-shot attorney argue these points before the supreme court.
Thank you for this article Professor…..The entire thing is a waste of taxpayers money…..no bank or loaner or assessor would even speak against Trump…..the entire thing is vicious, in bad taste but worst of all communism at its worse.
Not being legal minded, how common is it for a judge to not only come up with a mega fine, but dictate that the defendant cannot borrow within that state?
SEC v. Liu is helpful on this point. Even though the Court didn't come to direct 8th amendment issues, they did discuss limits on disgorgement and limiting it to profits.