Page 4 of 5
Re: DT tells court he cannot post bond
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:15 pm
by Della
Slimshandy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:54 pm
jessilin0113 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:32 pm
Didn't he say on Truth Social that he had $500 mil in cash? Man can't tell the truth or admit defeat to save his life. Malignant narcissism is fascinating to watch in real time.
It doesn’t really matter, if the bond is so high that a person can’t get a bond company to secure it, then the 8th amendment of the constitution has been violated if it’s not lowered.
Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
Which could have gotten the whole case thrown out on appeal- and that would have been after The AG seized his properties- to which he could then sue and win possibly billions from the state of NY.
Much easier to lower the bond…
https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... _00000962/
Re: DT tells court he cannot post bond
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:18 pm
by Della
MonarchMom wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:02 pm
Slimshandy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:54 pm
jessilin0113 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:32 pm
Didn't he say on Truth Social that he had $500 mil in cash? Man can't tell the truth or admit defeat to save his life. Malignant narcissism is fascinating to watch in real time.
It doesn’t really matter, if the bond is so high that a person can’t get a bond company to secure it, then the 8th amendment of the constitution has been violated if it’s not lowered.
Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
Which could have gotten the whole case thrown out on appeal- and that would have been after The AG seized his properties- to which he could then sue and win possibly billions from the state of NY.
Much easier to lower the bond…
Isn't that in effect before you stand trial? So as not to imprison someone who is innocent until proven guilty? In this case the trial has already happened, and judgement already made.
I think she's misunderstanding a bail bond with an appeal bond.
Re: DT tells court he cannot post bond
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:59 pm
by Slimshandy
MonarchMom wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:02 pm
Slimshandy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:54 pm
jessilin0113 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:32 pm
Didn't he say on Truth Social that he had $500 mil in cash? Man can't tell the truth or admit defeat to save his life. Malignant narcissism is fascinating to watch in real time.
It doesn’t really matter, if the bond is so high that a person can’t get a bond company to secure it, then the 8th amendment of the constitution has been violated if it’s not lowered.
Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
Which could have gotten the whole case thrown out on appeal- and that would have been after The AG seized his properties- to which he could then sue and win possibly billions from the state of NY.
Much easier to lower the bond…
Isn't that in effect before you stand trial? So as not to imprison someone who is innocent until proven guilty? In this case the trial has already happened, and judgement already made.
It would apply to any fines or fees that the government gets part of, which it would here.
Re: DT tells court he cannot post bond
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:15 pm
by Slimshandy
Della wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:15 pm
Slimshandy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:54 pm
jessilin0113 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:32 pm
Didn't he say on Truth Social that he had $500 mil in cash? Man can't tell the truth or admit defeat to save his life. Malignant narcissism is fascinating to watch in real time.
It doesn’t really matter, if the bond is so high that a person can’t get a bond company to secure it, then the 8th amendment of the constitution has been violated if it’s not lowered.
Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
Which could have gotten the whole case thrown out on appeal- and that would have been after The AG seized his properties- to which he could then sue and win possibly billions from the state of NY.
Much easier to lower the bond…
https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... _00000962/
Yeah… read it.
Re: DT tells court he cannot post bond
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:46 pm
by Della
Slimshandy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:15 pm
Della wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:15 pm
Slimshandy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:54 pm
It doesn’t really matter, if the bond is so high that a person can’t get a bond company to secure it, then the 8th amendment of the constitution has been violated if it’s not lowered.
Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
Which could have gotten the whole case thrown out on appeal- and that would have been after The AG seized his properties- to which he could then sue and win possibly billions from the state of NY.
Much easier to lower the bond…
https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... _00000962/
Yeah… read it.
You think I don't read things to know what they're about before I post them?
Re: DT tells court he cannot post bond
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:45 pm
by Slimshandy
Della wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:46 pm
Slimshandy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:15 pm
Yeah… read it.
You think I don't read things to know what they're about before I post them?
Oh, so you were just providing backup information to what I said.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Re: DT tells court he cannot post bond
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:49 pm
by Quorra2.0
Slimshandy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:04 pm
Quorra2.0 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 7:02 pm
Slimshandy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:05 pm
Wouldn’t it be weird if the judge lowered the amount he owed because of this…
It would be weird since they can’t do that. Lowering the amount would be something that can be asked on appeal. However, he has to pay the appeal bond, which is the judgement plus interest, to appeal. For example, judgement over Jean Carroll was a little over 83 mil, he’s appealing and the appeal bond he paid was a little over 91 mil(judgement plus interest).
Weird.
They lowered his bond.
His bond, they didn’t lower the amount he owes.
Re: DT tells court he cannot post bond
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:55 pm
by Della
Slimshandy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:45 pm
Della wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:46 pm
Slimshandy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:15 pm
Yeah… read it.
You think I don't read things to know what they're about before I post them?
Oh, so you were just providing backup information to what I said.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
In layman's terms, explain what it means?
Re: DT tells court he cannot post bond
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 7:33 pm
by Slimshandy
Della wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:55 pm
Slimshandy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:45 pm
Della wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:46 pm
You think I don't read things to know what they're about before I post them?
Oh, so you were just providing backup information to what I said.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
In layman's terms, explain what it means?
The Court has held the clause inapplicable to civil jury awards of punitive damages in cases between private parties, when the government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to receive a share of the damages awarded.4 The Court based this conclusion on a review of the history and purposes of the Excessive Fines Clause. At the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted, the Court noted, the word ‘fine’ was understood to mean a payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense.
It means that normally in civil trials this doesn’t apply, but in cases where the state/fed would be monetary recipients, it does.
Re: DT tells court he cannot post bond
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 8:22 pm
by Della
Slimshandy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 7:33 pm
Della wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:55 pm
Slimshandy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:45 pm
Oh, so you were just providing backup information to what I said.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
In layman's terms, explain what it means?
The Court has held the clause inapplicable to civil jury awards of punitive damages in cases between private parties,
when the government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to receive a share of the damages awarded.4 The Court based this conclusion on a review of the history and purposes of the Excessive Fines Clause. At the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted, the Court noted, the word ‘fine’ was understood to mean a payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense.
It means that normally in civil trials this doesn’t apply, but in cases where the state/fed would be monetary recipients, it does.
What about the bolded?