NY fraud case against Trump is a glaring abuse of judicial authority. Time to strike back with 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Politics
1

It appears to be beyond doubt that Trump’s, and the Banks business dealings involved in the case in question, were carried out within the accepted rules practiced in New York for generations, and thus, they fall under the umbrella of, establishment of law by custom.

This case is really about a New York Trump hating [well documented] Attorney General, Letitia James, and a Trump hating [also well documented] New York Judge, Arthur Engoron, using their office of Public Trust to strike out at someone they hate, and they portrayed their case against Trump as a noble cause by asserting he engaged in fraudulent business practices.

But the truth of the matter is, when reviewing the facts, Trump and the banks involved did business as commonly accepted in New York for generations, and as such, the business practices in question fall within that area of unwritten law created by custom.

So, if the AG and Judge disliked New York’s long-standing business practices which they assert are dishonest and lend to fraud, they should have lashed out at those practices, denounced them, and worked to alter them. Instead, Letitia James and Judge Engoron, took the opportunity to attack Trump, who they hate with a passion, and used their office of Public Trust in a criminal fashion, as a weapon against Trump, and why both ought to be disbarred for abuse of judicial authority and punished.

Finally, under the circumstances, there certainly is a remedy for Trump, in addition to an appeal, which is found under 42 U.S.C § 1983:


42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976) provides: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

JWK

“Under today’s authoritarian democrat party leadership, our government doesn’t help to fix the nation’s problems. It fixes the people, like Trump, who dare to point to the nation’s problems”.

3 Likes
2

What civil right was violated? Custom and practice isn’t a civil right. Custom and practice is lawful until it’s not

Why do some arguments have to go too far

It’s political. It’s targeted. It’s purposeful

It’s not a 1983 violation

1 Like
3

He’s -$500,000,000 in the hole for these lawsuits.

He’s +3,500,000,000 after the 4 billion in assets gained from the green light given to DWAC.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/donald-trump-s-truth-social-clears-final-hurdle-to-become-publicly-traded-company/ar-BB1ilCYX

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1849635/000119312524036806/d651831dex991.htm

The whole thing is just tabloid gossip for lonely singles looking for something to read while waiting for their turn with the cashier. :wink:

1 Like
4

Hmmmm . . . good question. Let’s see, I believe there is this thing in our federal constitution prohibiting private property to be taken for public use, without just compensation, a guarantee to a public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, and a federal prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, not to mention NY State denying a person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. And there is more, but the above will suffice for now.

1 Like
5

Eminement domain covers physical property.
A public trial was had
This was not a criminal trial but a lawsuit so a jury is not guaranteed.
Cruel and unusual punishment - good luck.
What was the denial of equal protection

Unequal prosecution isn’t denial of equal protection.

6

I think I’ll trust the court’s judgment in this case over that of some random person on the internet. I was a forensic accountant for a good portion of my career, so I know for a fact that decisions like this aren’t just made randomly. You’d better believe I couldn’t just hand a court a spreadsheet of my findings in a case without backing that up with an accompanying explanation of how the rules of GAAP and valuation justified my findings.

And if Trump had a problem with the court’s valuation, the proper context to address that would have been in court with an expert witness called by his defense lawyers to justify his valuation

4 Likes
7

Well, seems to me all you have is rebuttal by inuendo, and nothing more. :roll_eyes:

8

You are stretching the constitution where it doesn’t apply

It was a civil lawsuit with a disgorgement finding

It was political it was targeted

Trying to stretch it to make it seem like a 1983 violation is a joke.

And i know it’s a joke because you mentioned both a public trial and a jury. One was had the other is not applicable. Therefore it’s a joke

Trying o stretch cruel and unusual into a civil finding is even sadder given the punishment meted out by criminal courts which have been repeatedly rejected on cruel and unusual appeals.

9

Being prosecuted in NY Trump will not get ‘Equal Protection of The Law’ nor will he have the jury or judge from the pool of his “peers”.

2 Likes
10

Another thread on exactly the same topic.

1 Like
11

Well, you are entitled to your uniformed and prejudiced opinion, but one notable legal scholar seems to disagree with you. See:

An Alabama jury awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages for the loss of value in having a factory paint job, but then added $4 million in punitive damages. Even when the Alabama Supreme Court reduced that to $2 million, the U.S. Supreme Court still found it excessive. Even liberals on the Court such as John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer agreed that such “grossly excessive” awards raise a “basic unfairness of depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property, through the application of arbitrary coercion.”

2 Likes
12

:roll_eyes:

This thread focuses on establishment of law by custom. as a protection denied to Trump.

13

That’s not cruel and unusual. That excessive.

Try reading what you are posting before you post it

14

unusual, not to mention legislative intent!

Try thinking before posting.

15

Right so it’s not a contuional issue. It’s an excessive issue

Legislative intent of the law that President Trump was sued under….

Again try actually reading what you are posting

Nothing in the Turkey article cites to the nonsense that 1983 is applicable to this case

16

things change.

Allan

17

And this is the rub in this idiotic case and ruling since there is no injured party so who did he defraud? Loans were paid to the banks with interest and building were built all over NY! :open_mouth:

Is he supposed to pay the outrageous amount to the TDS judge who made the ruling or the TDS prosecutors. :woman_shrugging:

2 Likes
18

there is no injured party.

its disgorgement.

Allan

19

also known as claw back of unjust enrichment.

Allan

20

disgorgement is completely legal.

Allan