Dear Editor:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." – 8th Amendment, United States Constitution
* * * * *
The first ten amendments of the United States Constitution are known as "The Bill of Rights." These original proclamations provide the foundation for the entirety of our enumerated freedoms, and government restrictions outlined within the document.
If one Amendment is violated – like a row of dominoes – it affects, in some way, all the others.
Equally certain, the social standing, political influence or accumulated wealth of an individual is not supposed to be a factor when deciding, and proclaiming an individual's fate before a court judge.
Only facts, evidence, witnesses and allegations of the case are primary issues.
Fines and penalties are prescribed as a viable enforcement tool to help ensure a defendant will comply with a court's ruling.
Likewise, in announcing judgement, a judge is not lawfully permitted to impose too harsh requirements as to make compliance with his orders nearly impossible.
Which is the basis of the 8th Amendment.
The judge in Donald Trump's case in New York City, pronounced such a lamebrained decision as to question whether he was actually familiar with the case, or simply imposing his personal, biased opinions.
He ordered Trump to pay nearly half-a-billion dollar fine because he thought Trump had intentionally overestimated the worth of his assets (collateral) when applying for a commercial loan.
The judge believed Trump's 20-acre Mar-a-Lago resort property in southern Florida is worth $18 million. Commercial appraisers estimated it at more than ten times as much. Nearby one- and two-acre vacant lots are selling for several million dollars each.
Yet, when testifying, lenders said they'd compiled their own estimates on Trump's financial situation and determined he satisfactorily qualified.
Trump repaid the loans – with interest.
Ordinarily, end of story.
Except in heavily Democratic New York City, where party politics appear to rule over nearly everything. Including, the law.
As a result, this case has become another blatant example of the extreme lengths liberal Democrats will go in order to hinder Trump from running for reelection.
However, in their maniacal zeal to toss Trump into jail, the Dems may have overplayed their hand. Folks with little political interest are beginning to question why the Biden Administration has become nearly unhinged in its quest to silence Trump.
What jokingly was referred to as "Trump Derangement Syndrome," has morphed into a full-blown panic attack by the media and Democrat Party.
The closer we get to the Nov. 5 General Election, the more unstable they act.
Which could be an explanation for the judge's perplexing decision. What rational mind could hatch the notion to place a $454 million fine upon someone – without considering the lawfulness or consequences of such a ludicrous decree – was a good idea?
Equally bewildering, how was the $454 million penalty determined? What is the procedure used in calculating these numbers? Or, is it just at whim, depending upon the mood of the attorney general and judge at the time?
Interest on the fine is estimated to be costing around $87,000 per day.
Rubbing a little more salt into the wound, it's my understanding Trump is denied appeal without first paying the fine.
In other words, Trump's legal process cannot continue unless he ponies up nearly half-a-billion dollars in court mandated fines.
If he doesn't pay, New York State can lien – or, seize – some of his commercial properties to satisfy the fine.
For an alleged crime that produced no victims, this whole cockamamie burlesque show is almost unbelievable. Even after an appeals court reduced the fine to "only" $175 million.
What? – This is justice in New York?
Wait a minute. Even a Gila River Tamarack Beetle can easily figure out something is way out of wack. This isn't fairness, it's blatant political vindictiveness.
Sort of like you might see in Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba and other communist countries.
Obviously, a state attorney general – who campaigned for the office by pledging to "Get Trump" – and an equally supportive judge not only wished to impose excessive fines upon Trump, but made certain the financial penalty was so harsh as to threaten the continued existence of his business.
Trump is a prosperous real estate developer, but court fines of this magnitude are staggering. Certainly, far in excess of what is normally imposed.
Especially, in New York City, where assault, battery, looting and civil disturbance cases are viewed as more of a court annoyance than obligation to adjudicate.
But why didn't the judge demand a one billion dollar fine? How about six billion? Or, round it off to an even trillion. Where's the limit?
Maybe, it depends upon which country club, university attended, wine preference or political party is in favor at the time.
As long as unbridled punishment from the bench is the order of the day, perhaps New York's AG and judge could first confiscate everything of value Trump owns and then sentence him to debtor's prison for the remainder of his life.
This whole convoluted mess is nothing more than a prime example of what can happen when a judicial system runs amuck; overseen by a few hyper-egotistical government lawyers and judges who believe they can do just about anything they want, as long as it's in compliance with the wishes of their local friends, fans and campaign donors.
To assist in the con, we're being spoon-fed a giant bowl of artificially flavored crapola, carefully prepared by a puffed-up assembly of self-promoting political and media hucksters, determined to convince us into not believing what we see and hear with our own eyes and ears.
Same old smoke and mirrors illusion, only enhanced with contemporary terminology, visual effects, and a new cast of characters.
Nevertheless, their magical tricks can't conceal the reality words have meaning: "Excessive fines" means the same today as it did 250 years ago – $454 hundred or $454 million.
Reinforcing, in real time, why we have a United States Constitution with an 8th Amendment.
From all appearances, it's beginning to look like we've come full circle from where we started in 1776.
As Trump has often said "If they can do this to me, they can do it to you. I'm just standing in their way."
Sadly, I believe he's right, and that's what really pisses off the Dems and RINOs. Imagine, a wealthy former president with the temerity to stand before some goofball, state employed judge, and counter every incorrect accusation of a fabricated case, then the judge dares to pronounce a $454 million fine as a sort of "icing on the cake" of this monumentally stupid fiasco.
This is the mess we've gotten ourselves into. Our borders are being overrun with millions of who-knows-who, from who-knows-where, doing who-knows-what, with the approval of a president whose brain is wandering around somewhere else, while our legal system is more concerned with destroying a former president because it simply doesn't like him, or his family, or the people who voted for him.
That, friends, is the whole damn smelly concoction in a nut shell.
Less than 220 days until Nov. 5, 2024 . . .
Mike Bibb
Safford, AZ