Musk Responds to $354 Million Ruling in Trump’s Civil Fraud Case With One Simple Question
“Given that there were no victims with losses, who is supposed to receive the money?”
70-79, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
There is no such thing as a crime without victims, even if the individual victims are a step or two removed.
1-25 of 34
Lila15 · 22-25, F
@sunsporter1649 Here you go:
Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim . Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct.
Lila15 · 22-25, F
@sunsporter1649 Yes, because he lied to get the money.
So if a guy has sex with your wife and you don't find out about it, is that OK with you? Assume she doesn't get pregnant or catch a STD.
So if a guy has sex with your wife and you don't find out about it, is that OK with you? Assume she doesn't get pregnant or catch a STD.
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 See NY Penal Law § 170.10 & 175.10: Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.
Also see New York Executive Law EXC § 63(12) regarding persons who "engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, ..."
Also see New York Executive Law EXC § 63(12) regarding persons who "engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, ..."
Lila15 · 22-25, F
@ElwoodBlues There you go. That's the answer.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues And the fine for such misdeeds is....
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 The law, NY EXC § 63(12), says the state has the power to disgorge profits made via fraud.
Seems most of Trump's profits in the last 7 years were made via fraud. BTW, that law has been on the books since the 1960s. BTW, it's likely that the last 50 or 60 years, MOST of Trump's profits were made via fraud, but the statute of limitations protects his earlier fraud.
Seems most of Trump's profits in the last 7 years were made via fraud. BTW, that law has been on the books since the 1960s. BTW, it's likely that the last 50 or 60 years, MOST of Trump's profits were made via fraud, but the statute of limitations protects his earlier fraud.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution protects against imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights.[1] The amendment serves as a limitation upon the state or federal government to impose unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants before and after a conviction. This limitation applies equally to the price for obtaining pretrial release and the punishment for crime after conviction.[2] The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments has led courts to hold that the Constitution totally prohibits certain kinds of punishment, such as drawing and quartering. Under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, the Supreme Court has struck down the application of capital punishment in some instances, but capital punishment is still permitted in some cases where the defendant is convicted of murder.
The Supreme Court has held that the Excessive Fines Clause prohibits fines that are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law". The Court struck down a fine as excessive for the first time in United States v. Bajakajian (1998). Under the Excessive Bail Clause, the Supreme Court has held that the federal government cannot set bail at "a figure higher than is reasonably calculated" to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause and the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause apply to the states, but has not done this regarding the Excessive Bail Clause.
The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments has led courts to hold that the Constitution totally prohibits certain kinds of punishment, such as drawing and quartering. Under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, the Supreme Court has struck down the application of capital punishment in some instances, but capital punishment is still permitted in some cases where the defendant is convicted of murder.
The Supreme Court has held that the Excessive Fines Clause prohibits fines that are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law". The Court struck down a fine as excessive for the first time in United States v. Bajakajian (1998). Under the Excessive Bail Clause, the Supreme Court has held that the federal government cannot set bail at "a figure higher than is reasonably calculated" to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause and the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause apply to the states, but has not done this regarding the Excessive Bail Clause.
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 The law, NY EXC § 63(12), says the state has the power to disgorge profits made via fraud.
Nothing excessive about that.
Nothing excessive about that.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues "Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas
In Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86 (1909), the Supreme Court held that excessive fines are those that are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law". The Court wrote in its syllabus:
The fixing of punishment for crime and penalties for unlawful acts is within the police power of the state, and this Court cannot interfere with state legislation in fixing fines, or judicial action in imposing them, unless so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. Where a state antitrust law fixed penalties at $5,000 a day, and, after the verdict is guilty for over 300 days, a defendant corporation was fined over $1,600,000, this Court will not hold that the fine is so excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law where it appears that the business was extensive and profitable during the period of violation and that the corporation has over $40,000,000 of assets and has declared dividends amounting to several hundred percent
The Court further stated in its opinion:
[I]t has contended that the fines imposed are so excessive as to constitute a taking of the defendant's property without due process of law. It is not contended in this connection that the prohibition of the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution against excessive fines operates to control the legislation of the states. The fixing of punishment for crime or penalties for unlawful acts against its laws is within the police power of the state. We can only interfere with such legislation and judicial action of the states enforcing it if the fines imposed are so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law.
In essence, the government must not be able to confiscate such a large amount of property without following an established set of rules created by the legislature."
In Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86 (1909), the Supreme Court held that excessive fines are those that are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law". The Court wrote in its syllabus:
The fixing of punishment for crime and penalties for unlawful acts is within the police power of the state, and this Court cannot interfere with state legislation in fixing fines, or judicial action in imposing them, unless so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. Where a state antitrust law fixed penalties at $5,000 a day, and, after the verdict is guilty for over 300 days, a defendant corporation was fined over $1,600,000, this Court will not hold that the fine is so excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law where it appears that the business was extensive and profitable during the period of violation and that the corporation has over $40,000,000 of assets and has declared dividends amounting to several hundred percent
The Court further stated in its opinion:
[I]t has contended that the fines imposed are so excessive as to constitute a taking of the defendant's property without due process of law. It is not contended in this connection that the prohibition of the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution against excessive fines operates to control the legislation of the states. The fixing of punishment for crime or penalties for unlawful acts against its laws is within the police power of the state. We can only interfere with such legislation and judicial action of the states enforcing it if the fines imposed are so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law.
In essence, the government must not be able to confiscate such a large amount of property without following an established set of rules created by the legislature."
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 The NY legislature established clear rules, NY EXC § 63(12), in the 1960s.
"The law under which Ms. James sued, known by its shorthand 63(12), requires the plaintiff to show a defendant’s conduct was deceptive. If that standard is met, a judge can impose severe punishment, including forfeiting the money obtained through fraud. Ms. James has also used this law against the oil company ExxonMobil, the tobacco brand Juul and the pharma executive Martin Shkreli."
Look dude, I'm just cutting and pasting from my post were I did your research for you. Now it's like I have to read it aloud to you multiple times and pause and quiz you about it after each paragraph or 2. You appear to have an elementary school learning level combined with a failing memory. SHEESH!!
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud, dude.
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud!
"The law under which Ms. James sued, known by its shorthand 63(12), requires the plaintiff to show a defendant’s conduct was deceptive. If that standard is met, a judge can impose severe punishment, including forfeiting the money obtained through fraud. Ms. James has also used this law against the oil company ExxonMobil, the tobacco brand Juul and the pharma executive Martin Shkreli."
Look dude, I'm just cutting and pasting from my post were I did your research for you. Now it's like I have to read it aloud to you multiple times and pause and quiz you about it after each paragraph or 2. You appear to have an elementary school learning level combined with a failing memory. SHEESH!!
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud, dude.
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud!
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues Penal Law Section 175.10
Falsifying business records in the first degree
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
Falsifying business records in the first degree
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 Trump ALSO violated NY EXC § 63(12). I posted the whole thing, and you keep refusing to read it. Sorry dude, when you violate multiple laws, you don't get to pick the one with the easiest penalty. You get the worst penalty.
"The law under which Ms. James sued, known by its shorthand 63(12), requires the plaintiff to show a defendant’s conduct was deceptive. If that standard is met, a judge can impose severe punishment, including forfeiting the money obtained through fraud. Ms. James has also used this law against the oil company ExxonMobil, the tobacco brand Juul and the pharma executive Martin Shkreli."
Look dude, I'm just cutting and pasting from my post were I did your research for you. Now it's like I have to read it aloud to you multiple times and pause and quiz you about it after each paragraph or 2. You appear to have an elementary school learning level combined with a failing memory. SHEESH!!
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud, dude.
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud!
"The law under which Ms. James sued, known by its shorthand 63(12), requires the plaintiff to show a defendant’s conduct was deceptive. If that standard is met, a judge can impose severe punishment, including forfeiting the money obtained through fraud. Ms. James has also used this law against the oil company ExxonMobil, the tobacco brand Juul and the pharma executive Martin Shkreli."
Look dude, I'm just cutting and pasting from my post were I did your research for you. Now it's like I have to read it aloud to you multiple times and pause and quiz you about it after each paragraph or 2. You appear to have an elementary school learning level combined with a failing memory. SHEESH!!
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud, dude.
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud!
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution protects against imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. The amendment serves as a limitation upon the state or federal government to impose unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants before and after a conviction. This limitation applies equally to the price for obtaining pretrial release and the punishment for crime after conviction. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments has led courts to hold that the Constitution totally prohibits certain kinds of punishment, such as drawing and quartering. Under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, the Supreme Court has struck down the application of capital punishment in some instances, but capital punishment is still permitted in some cases where the defendant is convicted of murder.
The Supreme Court has held that the Excessive Fines Clause prohibits fines that are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law". The Court struck down a fine as excessive for the first time in United States v. Bajakajian (1998). Under the Excessive Bail Clause, the Supreme Court has held that the federal government cannot set bail at "a figure higher than is reasonably calculated" to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause and the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause apply to the states, but has not done this regarding the Excessive Bail Clause.
The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments has led courts to hold that the Constitution totally prohibits certain kinds of punishment, such as drawing and quartering. Under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, the Supreme Court has struck down the application of capital punishment in some instances, but capital punishment is still permitted in some cases where the defendant is convicted of murder.
The Supreme Court has held that the Excessive Fines Clause prohibits fines that are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law". The Court struck down a fine as excessive for the first time in United States v. Bajakajian (1998). Under the Excessive Bail Clause, the Supreme Court has held that the federal government cannot set bail at "a figure higher than is reasonably calculated" to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause and the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause apply to the states, but has not done this regarding the Excessive Bail Clause.
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 "The law under which Ms. James sued, known by its shorthand 63(12), requires the plaintiff to show a defendant’s conduct was deceptive. If that standard is met, a judge can impose severe punishment, including forfeiting the money obtained through fraud. Ms. James has also used this law against the oil company ExxonMobil, the tobacco brand Juul and the pharma executive Martin Shkreli."
Look dude, I'm just cutting and pasting from my post were I did your research for you. Now it's like I have to read it aloud to you multiple times and pause and quiz you about it after each paragraph or 2. You appear to have an elementary school learning level combined with a failing memory. SHEESH!!
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud, dude.
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud!
Look dude, I'm just cutting and pasting from my post were I did your research for you. Now it's like I have to read it aloud to you multiple times and pause and quiz you about it after each paragraph or 2. You appear to have an elementary school learning level combined with a failing memory. SHEESH!!
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud, dude.
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud!
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues So some left-wing nut-job marxist judge says Mar-A-Largo is worth $18,000,000 and slaps a fine of $355,000,000 because the defendant disagrees, right?
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 "The law under which Ms. James sued, known by its shorthand 63(12), requires the plaintiff to show a defendant’s conduct was deceptive. If that standard is met, a judge can impose severe punishment, including forfeiting the money obtained through fraud. Ms. James has also used this law against the oil company ExxonMobil, the tobacco brand Juul and the pharma executive Martin Shkreli."
Look dude, I'm just cutting and pasting from my post were I did your research for you. Now it's like I have to read it aloud to you multiple times and pause and quiz you about it after each paragraph or 2. You appear to have an elementary school learning level combined with a failing memory. SHEESH!!
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud, dude.
Look dude, I'm just cutting and pasting from my post were I did your research for you. Now it's like I have to read it aloud to you multiple times and pause and quiz you about it after each paragraph or 2. You appear to have an elementary school learning level combined with a failing memory. SHEESH!!
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud, dude.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues Lets see, a property on Palm Beach Island, encompassing 2.5 acres, sold for $155,000,000. Mar-A-Largo encompasses 18.5 acres. You do the math
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 That wasn't the only fraud, ijit. I gave you a bunch of examples, ijit. It's not my fault if you're an illiterate moron, ijit.
"The law under which Ms. James sued, known by its shorthand 63(12), requires the plaintiff to show a defendant’s conduct was deceptive. If that standard is met, a judge can impose severe punishment, including forfeiting the money obtained through fraud. Ms. James has also used this law against the oil company ExxonMobil, the tobacco brand Juul and the pharma executive Martin Shkreli."
Look dude, I'm just cutting and pasting from my post were I did your research for you. Now it's like I have to read it aloud to you multiple times and pause and quiz you about it after each paragraph or 2. You appear to have an elementary school learning level combined with a failing memory. SHEESH!!
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud, dude.
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud!
"The law under which Ms. James sued, known by its shorthand 63(12), requires the plaintiff to show a defendant’s conduct was deceptive. If that standard is met, a judge can impose severe punishment, including forfeiting the money obtained through fraud. Ms. James has also used this law against the oil company ExxonMobil, the tobacco brand Juul and the pharma executive Martin Shkreli."
Look dude, I'm just cutting and pasting from my post were I did your research for you. Now it's like I have to read it aloud to you multiple times and pause and quiz you about it after each paragraph or 2. You appear to have an elementary school learning level combined with a failing memory. SHEESH!!
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud, dude.
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud!
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues And how much money did President Trump borrow to get fined $355,000,000....
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 Ask him, ijit!! Do you even understand the concept of profit???
"The law under which Ms. James sued, known by its shorthand 63(12), requires the plaintiff to show a defendant’s conduct was deceptive. If that standard is met, a judge can impose severe punishment, including forfeiting the money obtained through fraud. Ms. James has also used this law against the oil company ExxonMobil, the tobacco brand Juul and the pharma executive Martin Shkreli."
Look dude, I'm just cutting and pasting from my post were I did your research for you. Now it's like I have to read it aloud to you multiple times and pause and quiz you about it after each paragraph or 2. You appear to have an elementary school learning level combined with a failing memory. SHEESH!!
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud, dude.
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud!
"The law under which Ms. James sued, known by its shorthand 63(12), requires the plaintiff to show a defendant’s conduct was deceptive. If that standard is met, a judge can impose severe punishment, including forfeiting the money obtained through fraud. Ms. James has also used this law against the oil company ExxonMobil, the tobacco brand Juul and the pharma executive Martin Shkreli."
Look dude, I'm just cutting and pasting from my post were I did your research for you. Now it's like I have to read it aloud to you multiple times and pause and quiz you about it after each paragraph or 2. You appear to have an elementary school learning level combined with a failing memory. SHEESH!!
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud, dude.
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud!
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues Lets see, Borrows $150,000,000 against properties worth between $500,000,000 and $1,200,000,000. Pays back the money, with interest, on time. Show me the fraud.
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 I showed you, ijit. You refused to read it.
"The law under which Ms. James sued, known by its shorthand 63(12), requires the plaintiff to show a defendant’s conduct was deceptive. If that standard is met, a judge can impose severe punishment, including forfeiting the money obtained through fraud. Ms. James has also used this law against the oil company ExxonMobil, the tobacco brand Juul and the pharma executive Martin Shkreli."
Look dude, I'm just cutting and pasting from my post were I did your research for you. Now it's like I have to read it aloud to you multiple times and pause and quiz you about it after each paragraph or 2. You appear to have an elementary school learning level combined with a failing memory. SHEESH!!
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud, dude.
"The law under which Ms. James sued, known by its shorthand 63(12), requires the plaintiff to show a defendant’s conduct was deceptive. If that standard is met, a judge can impose severe punishment, including forfeiting the money obtained through fraud. Ms. James has also used this law against the oil company ExxonMobil, the tobacco brand Juul and the pharma executive Martin Shkreli."
Look dude, I'm just cutting and pasting from my post were I did your research for you. Now it's like I have to read it aloud to you multiple times and pause and quiz you about it after each paragraph or 2. You appear to have an elementary school learning level combined with a failing memory. SHEESH!!
Forfeiting the money obtained through fraud, dude.
1-25 of 34