bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

385

Joined

2 yr. ago

I still don't understand why cash bail is necessary. If you grant bail you're saying that this person is safe to release. Cash bail doesn't stop recidivism. Without cash bail you still have the option to remand the accused to custody until trial. If showing up is the concern, in serious cases, take passports and use ankle monitors.

There's simply no need for a system that ruins lives based on economic status, especially in a system that presumes innocence.

At some point you're going to stop proving how ignorant you are, right?

Listing a property with a broker on the open market is going to get you fair market value. Levying and selling that same property is an entirely different process and is going to net you far less money, usually closer to fifty cents on the dollar. No fraud involved.

I'm not trying to be rude, but it really sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

If the properties can't get the amount they are claimed to be worth, then they are not worth that much.

Have you ever been involved in levying and selling real property? Do you think that process ever nets fair market value? Most times you don't get 50 cents on the dollar.

Ther is a massive downside, which is rewarding fraud, both by only having a punishment equal to the fraud and also going easy the bigger the fraud is.

Again, this has no bearing on the current case. No one is rewarding fraud and no one is going easy. The court didn't reduce the judgment, the court didn't reduce the interest, all the court did was reduce the amount of bond that had to be posted. If you had some way in which the state of New York was materially disadvantaged by this action, you would have brought it up by now. You don't.

In fact, this might actually work out better for them, because at least now they have $175 million in cash to satisfy a portion of the judgment. As difficult as it can be to litigate a civil action, I think every attorney will tell you that it's often much more difficult to find, levy, and sell assets to satisfy the judgment. If the assets are in another jurisdiction then you have to domesticate your judgment, some states make that simple, some states make that fairly difficult.

You also indicated that this is "record breaking levels of fraud", whatever that means, but advocate for the "standard action and fraud cases". Perhaps such a record-breaking event should warrant actions other than the standard. But that concept would require thought, so don't worry about it.

You know what puts people in more danger, complete and utter stupidity. Please stop.

Even if your opinion were true, what you are saying at its core, is that you are willing to trade everyone's rights in the hope that it will bolster your rights.

Who fucking cares?

About the rule of law? Obviously not you.

You want a specific action taken because you don't like the person involved. Congratulations, you can replace Alito and Thomas when they get off the court. You are fine with changing the law to hurt the people you don't like.

I on the other hand would prefer to preserve the rule of law. There are absolutely no downsides for the action taken by the appeals court, Trump posted $175 million Bond and the properties that they would have seized are still there to be seized in the future if necessary.

If the state levy and sells those properties, it is going to be a nightmare to try and unwind if the appeal were successful. In the meantime, if Trump did somehow sell those properties it would be a fraudulent conveyance, and those sales would be overturned. Other than hating Donald Trump (and I'm with you), there is no downside to this, but I'm not willing to destroy our legal system for him.

I'm sorry that I can advocate for free speech protections and believe that trans rights are human rights all at the same time and you can't.

It's like the cases the ACLU would take on, defending the free speech rights of reprehensible people, because the only way they can be sure that they can say whatever they want, is to be sure that bigots can do the same. It's the only way it works.

My understanding is that they're all from the last period.

I'd love to see the legislators that pass these bills quizzed on the subject. You ban it at 6 weeks, what does the baby look like at 2 weeks? I bet none of them respond, it may not have even been conceived yet.

It's not policy that's rationally decided, it's theater to woo evangelical Christian's whose religion exists to persecute others while claiming they themselves are being persecuted.

Ok keep defending hate speech, I think your a bigot and are a bad person.

And I think you're naive, and terrible at grammar (it's "you're" not "your"). Am I pro-murder too because I don't like the death penalty either? I know that you have a tiny inept brain, but try to imagine that I could dislike something and not want to criminalize it.

Oh look, they're already following the obvious playbook. If you make speech criminal it's not going to be used against the people you want it used against.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/01/trump-stephen-miller-anti-white-racism-plan

Assume for a moment that the appeal comes back and overturns the judgment. Let's even assume that it is a completely legitimate reason for it being overturned.

How do you unwind taking that property and selling it? My understanding is that NY doesn't have a redemption law for property that is levied and sold.

The appeals court has to at least consider the possibility of legitimately overturning the case.

Arguments about free speech are just a way to ignore the issue and do nothing as transphobia continues to thrive and spread.

No, arguments about free speech recognize that there is no more important right that a free society can have. If a group can dictate that the language that they find distasteful is criminal, then so can any other group.

Without protections for free speech, what happens when an authoritarian like Trump determines that support for trans people is actually misogyny, or that support for POC is racist against white people and then criminalizes that speech? These are arguments they already make.

You're talking about prior restraint which, at least in the US, has always been harshly scrutinized. As it should be. A line needs to be drawn, but promoting violence should be that line, not merely that which is distasteful.

No, not even a little bit. There is a difference between being an asshole and committing a hate crime.

I'm not sure there is a difference with this law.

Hate crime laws, when properly crafted and enforced, are an important component of a functional society.

I'm not sure that's true. Freedom of speech is an important component, and sometimes that means tolerating distasteful speech.

They can act as a deterrent, but they are also a way for those materially harmed by a hate crime to get justice.

What constitutes harm though? The UK tends to include offense (or offence) as a harm.

Free speech is never a universal right, anywhere in the world. There are always legitimate restrictions to ensure the public's overall health and safety.

Absolutely, but being offended by a bigot probably shouldn't be criminal without some component of advocacy for violence.

A person commits an offence if they communicate material, or behave in a manner, "that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive," with the intention of stirring up hatred based on protected characteristics.

Certainly sounds like custody to me.

I didn't say go anywhere. I said, "Leave and go elsewhere". The idea is simple. Are there restrictions on their ability to move, to leave?

The question is whether they are in legal custody.

Are they unequivocally, without limitation or restriction, free to leave and go elsewhere? If not, they are in custody.

Take away their veto, it belongs to the Soviet Union, which they are not. Give it to Ukraine while you're at it, they have roughly as much claim to it.

Violence against women is a sadly vastly bigger problem rooted in eons of misogyny.

According to the CDC, more than one in three women (35.6 percent) and more than one in four men (28.5 percent) in the U.S. have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

So the proportion isn't vastly bigger, only about 7%. Also men are much more likely to be the victims of violence generally.

Religions should never get a special license to violate the law. If the law can safely be ignored, then maybe it shouldn't be a law. If it is necessary, then religious beliefs should not be taken into account.

Lastly, and tangentially, why would a corporation have a religion? If you want the protection that comes with a separate legal entity then fine, but it's separate, as in not you, and you don't get to imbue it with your mythology.

I am extremely skeptical of all of this. The story has already changed, from I paid off his debts to he committed fraud and stole the money.

Also, how do you not notice $4.5m missing? He must have accountants and money managers. And most questionable, why would your interpreter have the access and ability to transfer millions of dollars?

Time will tell.

I can't say I'm surprised by this, and while I hate Trump, it's not for the cynical reason. It's going to be quite the nightmare unwinding those transactions. My understanding is that NY doesn't have a right of redemption after a Sheriff's sale. While this is judicious, I would prefer Trump be given no quarter.

Is it really that surprising? They have Michael Steele as a regular guest for having held literally the exact same position

To my understanding, Michael Steele isn't part of the MAGA movement nor has he spoken out in favor of the big lie. The difference between him and Ronna McDaniel is monumental. They're not nearly the same because they both were RNC chairpersons.