by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics:
Thanks for the “astute lawyer” compliment. That was very nice, and coming from you, it is very meaningful to me.
The Epoch Times headline in your “NYC Out of Control” post calls the dollar part of the verdict against the Trumps a “penalty.” It has also been called a “fine,” but I haven’t yet seen it called “damages” in a headline. I think Hochul, Engoron, and James know that the amount was based on a damage assessment and calculation that may not hold up. New York Executive Law § 63(12) clearly reads that the attorney general “may apply…for an order…directing restitution and damages…”. [Emphasis mine.]
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
New York proved math calculations, not actual damages, where the damaged party had to be made whole. Had the statute recited a list of fines, they’d probably be in a more sound position, but their position now is what I would call “too dicey for comfort.” I would seize nothing in this situation because there are too many cases of improper seizures to worry about. The verdicts against those who seize property in error or improperly or hastily in a flawed or tainted case are many times larger than the amount of the money judgment used to seize and sell the property of the defendant.
Furthermore, if New York has someone running the Trump businesses, and should he or she destroy or damage the businesses, the state could be liable for many, many times the amount of the verdict/judgment against the Trump family. Trump could wind up seizing the state capitol, the governor’s residence, etc., plus having his property returned to him. I’ve seen this happen. Once, the State of Louisiana overreached, and once, the U.S. government was a litigant against a billionaire oil man, banker, and friend who could not get the IRS to return his multi-million dollar overpayment of taxes. He finally had enough, and he seized the Hale Boggs Federal Court Building. He got his money a day later.
Perhaps by dancing around exactly what legal principle the amount of the money verdict/judgment is based on (i.e., damages, fines, penalties [i.e., a payment imposed as punishment], whatever), the Hochul, Engoron, James enterprise has walked into a trap. The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive fines. If they maintain the amount is absolutely based on the principle of damages, how can they show a diminution of the state being “whole” (or “wholeness” if you will) owing to Trump’s actions with third parties. If they maintain the amount of the verdict/judgment is based on a properly enacted and published fine or penalty, then they must face the Eighth Amendment.
Read More @ ArmstrongEconomics.com
