🚨 THIS MIGHT GET ME BANNED! Letitia James is a B****. Trump might not make Bond because of her

Terrence K Williams ^ | March 19, 2024 | Terrence K Williams

[Morgana]

Terrence is upset at what is happening to Trump.

Warning language.

[mware]

My understanding is this is a state issue UNLESS Trump Constitutional rights have been violated. Thats when feds can step in. Unfortunately this is Sotomayor circuit. I don’t know if another SC can take up the cause if she refuses.

[monkeyshine]

I don’t know if he can go directly to the USSC. I would guess that he has to use the NY courts, and then if he gets no remedy there he can ask the federal circuit courts to intervene on 8th and 14th amendment grounds.

Believe it or not, it was during Trump’s tenure as POTUS when the SC ruled that the excessive fines clause applied to the states in civil forfeiture cases. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion and Sotomayor and the others concurred - it was unanimous however Thomas and Gorsuch said it was actually a 14th amendment issue - the right to be free from excessive fines in a civil matter is a privilege and immunity of a citizen. But they all agreed with the decision just for different reasons. That case was in 2019 where a guy in Indiana was caught selling drugs, and they fined him around $1,5000 (but the maximum fine could have been $10,000). The state also took his $45,000 car in civil forfeiture alleging it was used to transport drugs. He argued the taking of the car exceeded the value of the $1500 fine and the maximum statutory fine, and was therefore excessive. The USSC agreed with the state Supreme Court decision that taking of the car was “grossly disproportionate” to the gravity of crime ( I guess Indiana appealed their own court’s ruling to the USSC - and lost)

Interestingly the opinion basically says that the excessive fines clause is a critical protection because an excessive fine could be used to retaliate against political opponents! (I just read the opinion thought it was funny, and applicable, as if they saw Trump’s case coming… but they were saying the reason we have the 8th and 14th is to protect from political retaliation… but it also protects drug dealers). We know Trump’s case is political retaliation Leticia James said she was going to get Trump, he is the only person ever to be sued for this, and there is even a question whether the law designed to protect citizens from banks and insurance companies can be used by the state to prosecute sophisticated parties where nobody alleges any losses of any kind. The state AG bent over backwards to “get Trump” and used very unusual means to extract a gargantuan fine. So Trump may be able to get a hearing at the federal court if the state doesn’t stop it. He may even be able to get a circuit court to issue a stay on seizure while he appeals because the seizure and sale would cause irreparable harm, if the state should end up losing on appeal there is no remedy to get his property back.

Here is the decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf

[mware]

Thank you for your detailed response.

[stig]

If all, or most, loans have been paid off, there are no, or few, liens.

That is true but in most real estate business current assets are usually leveraged to pay for the next project. So it's a constant cycle of taking out a mortgage then paying it off. Which would mean a good percentage of his properties have some bank on the hook.

[Drew68]

The most powerful person in the USA, has always been a District Attorney, an Attorney General.

Yep. And conservatives were asleep at the wheel, more concerned with senators, representatives, and presidents while George Soros was pumping millions into winning these races that nobody was paying attention to.

[RoosterRedux]

Your point is well-taken in general. I was speaking of the properties and loans which were the subject of the NY case (Letitia James/Judge Engoron). The bankers had all indicated that the loans involved were completely paid off. And to the best of my knowledge there were no other significant liens on those properties.

But you are certainly correct in that Trump may have put liens on those properties to raise cash and it didn't come out in the proceedings.

As you imply, if AG James seizes those properties, the lien holders, if any, will certainly be heard from.

I don't know about court seizures of properties but tax seizure liens usually take precedence over all other liens. It will be interesting to see how this situation plays out.