Repost by Permission: Trump Seeks Protection From Late Justice Ginsberg’s Landmark Stuart Kings Ruling

March 19, 2024

Trump Seeks Protection From Late Justice Ginsberg’s Landmark Stuart Kings Ruling

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

An informative new Security Council (SC) report circulating in the Kremlin today first noting President Putin assessing: “I have every reason to believe that no democracy, at least when it comes to electoral campaigning, can be seen in some Western nations, including the United States”, says he then observed: “What is it like to vote by mail in the United States of America?…Who is in control there?…No one…They bought a vote for $10, and then they bought thousands of votes, came in droves, threw them in until midnight, and that’s it…Here you have democracy…We do not have anything like that”—an observation joined by the world’s most watched and popular podcaster Joe Rogan assessing about the socialist persecution of President Donald Trump: “It’s crazy how many times they’ve indicted him because it seems like what happens in banana republics, but just somehow or another, it’s okay?…Is it possible that you’re doing this because this guy’s running for president?…Because it kind of seems like it to the world…It looks like you’re trying to prosecute your political opponents…360-something million dollars…That’s insane…It’s a lot of money…Where does it go?… Because there are no victims, right?…That’s a problem…Elon tweeted that…It’s just kind of bonkers”.

The “360-something million dollars” referenced by Rogan, this report notes, is the “uncharted territory” civil fine slammed on President Trump by radical socialist Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron in a case masterminded by leftist lunatic New York State Attorney General Letitia James, who made a “trophy pledge” during her election campaign to “bag” her quarry President Trump, whom she branded “illegitimate”.

In what’s factually called a “Kafkaesque Civil Trial” that denied President Trump a jury, this report continues, legal experts shockingly observed: “The New York State laws used to go after Trump have NEVER been used in this way, historically, and while Trump may owe some back state taxes, if Judge Engoron is right, not a single bank claimed that it had been defrauded by Trump in the loans it had made to him…This is truly a victimless crime….Ms. James and Judge Engeron have essentially turned a vaguely worded New York State law into a modern day Bill of Attainder targeted at Donald Trump both for political gain and because they despise his political views and desperately want to call his truthfulness into question as he runs for President of the United States in 2024…The civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump is a travesty and an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr”.

Under New York State law, this report details, President Trump most post a bond before he can appeal the outrageous ruling, but would require him to post 120% of what he owes with collateral — amounting to $557.5 million—President Trump employed the world’s largest privately held insurance brokerage firm Lockton Companies to secure the bond he needs, but whose President Gary Giulietti of the Northeast for the Lockton Companies revealed in an affidavit yesterday: “Based upon my more than 50 years in the insurance industry as well as my actual experience over the past several weeks during which I have been in contact with some of the largest insurance carriers in the world in an effort to try and obtain a bond for Defendants, it is my opinion that obtaining an appeal bond for $464 million (the “Judgment Amount”) is not possible under the circumstances presented…Despite scouring the market, we have been unsuccessful in our effort to obtain a bond for the Judgment Amount for Defendants for the simple reason that obtaining an appeal bond for $464 million is a practical impossibility under the circumstances presented…Simply put, a bond of this size is rarely, if ever, seen…In the unusual circumstance that a bond of this size is issued, it is provided to the largest public companies in the world, not to individuals or privately held business…In the surety world, a bond of $100 million is considered large; an appeal bond of $464 million is commercially unattainable for a privately owned company…Such would be the case even for a company with billions of dollars in real estate unless they have cash or cash equivalents approaching $1 billion so as to collateralize the bond and have sufficient capital to run the business and satisfy its other obligations”.

Upon receiving the Lockton Companies affidavit yesterday, this report notes, the attorneys for President Trump filed a 29-page motion to stay the need for a bond, wherein it pleaded:

In deciding whether to enter a stay, the Court may consider “any relevant factor, including the presumptive merits of the appeal and any exigency or hardship confronting any party“.

Here, Defendants’ ongoing diligent efforts have proven that a bond in the judgment’s full amount is “a practical impossibility“.

These diligent efforts have included approaching about 30 surety companies through 4 separate brokers.  A bond requirement of this enormous magnitude-effectively requiring cash reserves approaching $1 billion, is unprecedented for a private company.

Even when it comes to publicly traded companies, courts routinely waive or reduce the bond amount.  Enforcing an impossible bond requirement as condition of appeal would inflict manifest irreparable injury on Defendants, and defeat or impair this Court’s appellate jurisdiction.  By contrast, waiving the bond requirement will impose no cognizable harm on the Attorney General.

The case involves no actual victims and no award of restitution, and she is fully protected by Defendants’ real-estate holdings.  This factor alone warrants a stay.

The manifold errors in Supreme Court’s judgment further warrant a stay.  Among other errors, Supreme Court disrespectfully disregarded this Court’s previous ruling in this case that the statute of limitations applies and that “the continuing wrong doctrine does not delay or extend these periods“.

Moreover, the Supreme Court ridiculously valued Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida, as being worth “between $18 million and $27.6 million“, understating its actual value by about 50 to 100 times.  Supreme Court imposed a massive disgorgement award in the absence of any evidence that the alleged misrepresentations caused the supposedly ill-gotten proceeds, in violation of the black-letter requirement that the disgorged amount must be causally connected to the violation.  Supreme Court double- and triple-counted damages, and committed elementary errors in the process, such as conflating the proceeds of a sale with the profits from that sale.  Such basic mistakes would have been prevented if this case had been allowed to be adjudicated in the Commercial Division, where it belonged.

These errors establish that the disgorgement award is unconstitutional.

It is “grossly disproportional” in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the United States Constitution and a parallel clause of the New York Constitution, as well as basic principles of due process and selective prosecution.

Because the judgment is unconstitutionally excessive, the bond requirement violates the Eighth Amendment as well, because it imposes an irrational, punitive sanction.

This case has no victims, no damages, and no actual fmancial losses.  None of Defendants’ sophisticated business partners testified that they would have changed any transaction in light of the alleged “misrepresentations” and all of these sophisticated parties, along with their law firms and other service providers, were well aware of the ironclad disclaimers present in all of the financial statements at issue.

With President Trump’s attorneys invoking the Eighth Amendment in their motion to stay yesterday, this report concludes, it placed the outrageous socialist ruling in the cross hairs of the landmark “Timbs v. Indiana” case decided unanimously by the United States Supreme Court on 20 February 2019, which concluded: “The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States”—Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion: “The Eighth Amendment’s prohibi­tion on excessive fines applies in full to the States”—Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in his concurring opinion: “There can be no serious doubt that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect the freedom from excessive fines enshrined in the Eighth Amendment”—and whose majority opinion on behalf of the entire Supreme Court was written by the late Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who wrote in her landmark unanimous ruling:

The Excessive Fines Clause traces its venerable lineage back to at least 1215, when Magna Carta guaranteed that a Free-man shall not be amerced for a small fault, but after the manner of the fault; and for a great fault after the greatness thereof, saving to him his contenement.

As relevant here, Magna Carta required that economic sanctions “be proportioned to the wrong” and “not be so large as to deprive an offender of his livelihood”.

No man shall have a larger amercement imposed upon him, than his circumstances or personal estate will bear,taking no position on the question whether a person’s income and wealth are relevant considerations in judging the excessiveness of a fine.

Despite Magna Carta, imposition of excessive fines persisted.  The 17th century Stuart kings, in particular, were criticized for using large fines to raise revenue, harass their political foes, and indefinitely detain those unable to pay.

For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties.

Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies, as the Stuarts’ critics learned several centuries ago.

[Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]

March 19, 2024 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.

Romans 10:9 that if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart, one believes resulting in righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in him will not be disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich to all who call on him. 13 For, “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”