aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

My understanding is that the statute of limitations is a limit on how long they have to charge the crimes, not on the age of evidence to prove or disprove the case.

And the statute of limitations is the result of a legislative proceeding. They can change the statute of limitations if they wish. That is what happened in the E Jean Carroll case. Anyone who thinks that is improper should take it up with the New York legislature, not the court system.

---

They cannot change SOL on crimes and render a prosecution otherisw time barred to be reinstated. That's ex post facto. In certain crimes there is no SOL, for instance murder.

They can change SOL on civil matters but that law is still subject to court review as is any piece of legislation.

---

MarquisHenri said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

annie88 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

That ($175mm bond) number is a little more fair.

---

It should be 0.

---

It will be 0 when this is over.

---

You think that an appellate court will eventually relieve Trump and the other judgment debtors of any bond requirement at all during the pendency of the appeal?

That is vanishingly-unlikely.

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

More likely Engeron was banging his clerk, as she sat right next to him and reportedly was seen passing him notes throughout the trial. if he got confused, she told him what to say.

---

I didn't watch the show trial, but I'm sure from seeing his picture I probably don't want to see her's?

---

eric76 said:

---

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that fines are a penalty intended to make people not want to commit whatever infraction led to the penalty and that disgorgements are the state taking back the money that was gained by illegal activities. So really, two different things, not just mere semantics.

---

Quote:

---

I thought that an Ex Post Facto law would involve making something illegal after the fact even though it was legal at the time of the act.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that fines are a penalty intended to make people not want to commit whatever infraction led to the penalty and that disgorgements are the state taking back the money that was gained by illegal activities. So really, two different things, not just mere semantics.

---

You are wrong.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I thought that an Ex Post Facto law would involve making something illegal after the fact even though it was legal at the time of the act.

---

Same principle. The law in effect at the time you committed the act (excluing murder) includes the SOL at that time. If a suspect had not been prosecuted before the SOL expired, it is time barred, period. Applying the change retroactively is what makes it ex post facto. It could b applied going forward to acts done after the effective date but not retroactively.

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I thought that an Ex Post Facto law would involve making something illegal after the fact even though it was legal at the time of the act.

---

Same principle. The law in effect at the time you committed the act (excluing murder) includes the SOL at that time. If a suspect had not been prosecuted before the SOL expired, it is time barred, period. Applying the change retroactively is what makes it ex post facto. It could b applied going forward to acts done after the effective date but not retroactively.

---

That's interesting. I would have thought that they could at least extend the statute of limitations prior to them expiring.

---

annie88 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

That number is a little more fair.

---

It should be 0.

No crime, no victims.

This is insane.

---

How does Trump deal with corrupt lawfare him:
pic.twitter.com/hv4iB3AVc2

— Steven Miller, MD, PhD (@SageListener) March 25, 2024

TXAggie2011 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

That number is a little more fair.

---

It should be 0.

No crime, no victims.

This is insane.

---

FWIW, we have lots of laws regarding lying where there "isn't a victim" in the sense y'all are using it.

If you lie on all sorts of documents or you lie in all sorts of settings, it's a crime whether or not someone else is "victimized" by it.

I'd love to watch one of you defend yourself in court by saying "well judge, you/the police/the FBI/the jury/whoever knew I was lying!"

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that fines are a penalty intended to make people not want to commit whatever infraction led to the penalty and that disgorgements are the state taking back the money that was gained by illegal activities. So really, two different things, not just mere semantics.

---

You are wrong.

---

p_bubel said:

---

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

An appraisal is an opinion

The value of a building is an opinion

A difference of opinion in a building valuation is not a lie. As long as both sides can present evidence and support their opinion there should be no issue.

Of course I know who I'm speaking to and it doesn't matter what I state.

The media and the dims have told you trump is lying therefor trump is a no good orange man bad

---

aggiehawg said:

---

He was testifying in East Texas for a child support modification, again, and her brother asked the wrong question, "When was the last time you smoked marijuana?" The Hubs replied, "That would have been with you in our garage in 1985. You brought the pot, don't you remember?" I think that one even was reported in some bar journals under the Wish I Hadn't Asked That sections.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I thought that an Ex Post Facto law would involve making something illegal after the fact even though it was legal at the time of the act.

---

Same principle. The law in effect at the time you committed the act (excluing murder) includes the SOL at that time. If a suspect had not been prosecuted before the SOL expired, it is time barred, period. Applying the change retroactively is what makes it ex post facto. It could b applied going forward to acts done after the effective date but not retroactively.

---

That's interesting. I would have thought that they could at least extend the statute of limitations prior to them expiring.

---

If the defendants agree to a tolling, or there are other circumstances such as fleeing the country for years before being captured and extradited back. That could toll the criminal SOL.

There was some silly argument that the time Trump was President and in theWH meant he was out of NY and thus the SOL was tolled. That got ignored as being stupid and rightfully so. they have to be out of state or country and their whereabouts unknown, both.

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I thought that an Ex Post Facto law would involve making something illegal after the fact even though it was legal at the time of the act.

---

Same principle. The law in effect at the time you committed the act (excluing murder) includes the SOL at that time. If a suspect had not been prosecuted before the SOL expired, it is time barred, period. Applying the change retroactively is what makes it ex post facto. It could b applied going forward to acts done after the effective date but not retroactively.

---

That's interesting. I would have thought that they could at least extend the statute of limitations prior to them expiring.

---

If the defendants agree to a tolling, or there are other circumstances such as fleeing the country for years before being captured and extradited back. That could toll the criminal SOL.

There was some silly argument that the time Trump was President and in theWH meant he was out of NY and thus the SOL was tolled. That got ignored as being stupid and rightfully so. they have to be out of state or country and their whereabouts unknown, both.

---

Interesting. So all you have to do to free a crime is to flee the country for some place that won't extradite you and send a change of address to the courts to tell them where you are?

I wonder why Roman Polanski hasn't returned to the US.

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I thought that an Ex Post Facto law would involve making something illegal after the fact even though it was legal at the time of the act.

---

Same principle. The law in effect at the time you committed the act (excluing murder) includes the SOL at that time. If a suspect had not been prosecuted before the SOL expired, it is time barred, period. Applying the change retroactively is what makes it ex post facto. It could b applied going forward to acts done after the effective date but not retroactively.

---

That's interesting. I would have thought that they could at least extend the statute of limitations prior to them expiring.

---

If the defendants agree to a tolling, or there are other circumstances such as fleeing the country for years before being captured and extradited back. That could toll the criminal SOL.

There was some silly argument that the time Trump was President and in theWH meant he was out of NY and thus the SOL was tolled. That got ignored as being stupid and rightfully so. they have to be out of state or country and their whereabouts unknown, both.

---

Interesting. So all you have to do to free a crime is to flee the country for some place that won't extradite you and send a change of address to the courts to tell them where you are?

I wonder why Roman Polanski hasn't returned to the US.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I thought that an Ex Post Facto law would involve making something illegal after the fact even though it was legal at the time of the act.

---

Same principle. The law in effect at the time you committed the act (excluing murder) includes the SOL at that time. If a suspect had not been prosecuted before the SOL expired, it is time barred, period. Applying the change retroactively is what makes it ex post facto. It could b applied going forward to acts done after the effective date but not retroactively.

---

That's interesting. I would have thought that they could at least extend the statute of limitations prior to them expiring.

---

If the defendants agree to a tolling, or there are other circumstances such as fleeing the country for years before being captured and extradited back. That could toll the criminal SOL.

There was some silly argument that the time Trump was President and in theWH meant he was out of NY and thus the SOL was tolled. That got ignored as being stupid and rightfully so. they have to be out of state or country and their whereabouts unknown, both.

---

Interesting. So all you have to do to free a crime is to flee the country for some place that won't extradite you and send a change of address to the courts to tell them where you are?

I wonder why Roman Polanski hasn't returned to the US.

---

Because countries do not have to extradite people, if they don't want to. Why is Britain holding onto Assange?

---

eric76 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

the statute of limitations bars claims, not evidence.

---

Except in the 30-year old case of E Jean Caroll where the sol doesn't bar claims or evidence.

You see, in New York the statute of limitations is fluid depending on the political persuasion of the victim and the defendant.

Non binary / SOL fluid is the term they use in NY.

---

My understanding is that the statute of limitations is a limit on how long they have to charge the crimes, not on the age of evidence to prove or disprove the case.

And the statute of limitations is the result of a legislative proceeding. They can change the statute of limitations if they wish. That is what happened in the E Jean Carroll case. Anyone who thinks that is improper should take it up with the New York legislature, not the court system.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Interesting. So all you have to do to free a crime is to flee the country for some place that won't extradite you and send a change of address to the courts to tell them where you are?

I wonder why Roman Polanski hasn't returned to the US.

---

Why do you always go to a Swiftian response? Channeling KBJ from the Supreme Court? The time you take to come up with such absurd hypotheticals instead of just informing yourself really is amazing in a bad way.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Interesting. So all you have to do to free a crime is to flee the country for some place that won't extradite you and send a change of address to the courts to tell them where you are?

I wonder why Roman Polanski hasn't returned to the US.

---

Why do you always go to a Swiftian response? Channeling KBJ from the Supreme Court? The time you take to come up with such absurd hypotheticals instead of just informing yourself really is amazing in a bad way.

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

TexAg1987 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

The banks were not gorged. No reason to disgorge Trump if you will. I stand corrected and will get with the vernacular.

---

the way I am reading it is that Trump illegally "engorged" himself monetarily by fraud and thus needs to be "disgorged"


I don't know the interest rates at the time, but how much of a discount could he have received on loans based on "inflated" valuations? How much is the banks just giving discounts due to being a good repeat client?

Isn't this just free market at work? Like your credit report, you get better deals if you pay on time and don't default? And they ask you for your info, but always do their due diligence and check what you reported?


This is all completely ridiculous.

---

He received no discount. Every bank that testified said Trump did not get lower interest rates based on his valuations. They did their own valuations. There is nothing to "disgorge".

---

Quote:

---

"The NY appellate court's unexplained reduction from $454M to $175M in the bond Trump must post in 10 days to secure the judgment pending appeal is a travesty of justice," wrote retired Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe. "Let's hope public disgust with this preferential treatment will come back to bite Trump politically."

"NY's justice system," wrote Tristan Snell, a former New York prosecutor who handled the Trump University case. "Appellate judges hand Trump a gift, cut bond down to $175 million, give him 10 extra days; Imagine a basketball team down by 40 points, and with 1:00 left in the game, refs give the losing team 5 more minutes and lower the hoop from 10ft to 6ft."

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

An appraisal is an opinion

The value of a building is an opinion

A difference of opinion in a building valuation is not a lie. As long as both sides can present evidence and support their opinion there should be no issue.

---