Tag Archives: The Eighth Amendment

Does The New York Legal System Recognize The Eighth Amendment?

Posted on by

The Eighth Amendment states:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

On February 27th, The American Thinker posted an article explaining how that amendment applies to the New York judgement against President Trump.

The article reports:

On February 16, 2024, a judge in New York State imposed fines totaling just over $360 million on former president Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization, and several related Trump companies and trusts in the civil case brought by the New York attorney general.  President Trump’s sons Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump were fined just over $4 million each.  The court imposed additional sanctions, including injunctions against former president Trump; Donald Trump, Jr.; and Eric Trump from serving as officers or directors in New York corporations for specified numbers of years, among other sanctions.

The media reporting on the court’s decision has been massive since the decision was rendered.  However, little or no reporting focused on the constitutionality of the fines under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  President Trump and his co-defendants all have substantial 8th Amendment “excessive fine” challenges to raise.  In fact, a review of the facts and applicable law reveal that this decision is simply more election interference.

The article concludes:

Applying these factors to the New York court’s decision reveals that the fines are clearly excessive.  There are no victims in the Trump case.  No one was harmed.  Each and every financial institution involved was fully repaid and made money on its loans.  Further, a review of case law in New York demonstrates that there simply are no cases ordering a defendant to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in disgorgement without any victim being deprived of anything.  Finally, just how “reprehensible” is it to obtain loans and credit facilities and then pay the lenders back, in full, on time, in compliance with the agreement?  The answer is, not very.

Once again, a court in New York issued yet another political decision masquerading as justice.  The fines imposed by this New York court on former President Trump and his sons and businesses are grossly and unconstitutionally excessive.  While President Trump and his co-defendants undoubtedly have many defenses to the claims to raise on appeal, chief among them should be a constitutional challenge to these grossly excessive fines.

The U.S. Constitution is an amazing document. It is impartial when followed. My hope is that it will be followed in this case.

Our Justice System Has Turned Political

Posted on by

On Sunday, The American Thinker reported the following:

One of the most visible signs of our federal government’s corruption is the treatment being meted out to the January 6 prisoners, who have been deprived of their express and inherent rights under the Constitution, one of which is the right to an impartial judge. Dustin Thompson, however, was not accorded that right, as Judge Reggie Walton explicitly showed his political bias and hostility to Thompson. Walton should have recused himself before the trial. With the trial over, at the very least, the judgment should be reversed. Ideally, Walton would be removed from the bench and disbarred.

The Bill of Rights describes rights inherent in the individual; they are not “gifts” from the government. All Americans enjoy them automatically and the government may override these rights only by showing an overwhelming need to do so.

When it comes to the January 6 martyrs, however, the federal government under Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland has deprived these martyrs of multiple rights. Specifically:

    • the First Amendment (most of the defendants were peaceably assembling because the police let them into the Capitol),
    • the Fifth Amendment (for they have been deprived of life, liberty, and property for over a year without due process),
    • the Sixth Amendment (they’ve been deprived of speedy trials and the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them), and
    • the Eighth Amendment (being denied bail is tantamount to impermissible excessive bail).

This is a disgrace. The January 6th prisoners are political prisoners in what is supposed to be a free country.

The article concludes:

The worst thing, though, was Judge Walton, who insulted Thompson in front of the jury for daring to support a president of whom Walton disapproved:

As the defense played Trump’s speech before the jury, he spoke words of disdain for President Trump and Rudy Giuliani. He did not stop.

“Anyone who follows Trump is weak-minded. Thompson is a flight risk,” Walton continued, as Thompson was shackled and taken from the courtroom.

Judge Walton, “Trump is a charlatan who caused an insurgency. He is tearing America apart. That’s the reason why our country is falling apart. I am proud of the jury for doing this.”

In 35 years as a lawyer, almost all in the leftist San Francisco Bay Area, I’ve never seen a judge show this type of bias in front of a jury, and I have seen some pretty horrible judges over the years. Walton should be disbarred. That won’t happen but his disgraceful, indecent, unprofessional conduct certainly justifies a reversal and dismissal on appeal. 

What has happened to our judicial system?