In general, our legal system is the product of 200 years of a drive to create a system that encourages the courts to find any smallest excuse to let people go free. “Sure, you murdered your wife but you’re right that the police didn’t say please and thank you during question and that created undue mental hardship on you during the trial phase and otherwise maybe you’d have been able to sweet talk the jury into liking you too much to convict you, despite the clear evidence. You’re free to go.”
Creating a system that gives people an infinite number of opportunities to try and find the smallest nick in the armor effectively turns laws into pudding against anyone who’s simply bullheaded enough to keep pushing against it.
It’s not a bug, it’s the feature that liberals have pushed for, received, cheered for, and now get to enjoy the gifts of.
C’mon man. Dude can’t even tell the difference between criminal and civil law systems, let alone understand the nuance of having protections against governmental intrusions enshrined in the Constitution. Cut him some slack. He had his “everything is the liberals fault” speech ready. Can’t let it go to waste.
Are you saying you’re skeptical about the reasoning that weakening due process will lead to equal treatment of poor people and rich people under the law?
Well, I don’t know that I quite agree with THAT characterization. I do know that there are some instances in which I feel due process protections interfere with the timely administration of justice. I feel that most particularly in a situation such as this where (IMO) the accused is pretty damned clearly guilty of SOMETHING illegal. (Another instance I thought of lately was the Highland Park parade shooter. His public defenders want a trial date in 2025! Or all the crooked Illinois politicians whose trilas drag on and on.)
But there ARE limited personnel and resources - in terms of judges, prosecutors, and public defenders. Perhaps if the public wished to spend a great deal more to beef up all of those? (Unlikely.)
Over recent decades it just impresses me that EVERYTHING ends up in court. We are becoming an evermore litigious society - and I just do not know how our system could better handle that. We are becoming a society in which many MANY people think they ought to resort to the courts to litigate any perceived interest. And making litigation expensive for the other party is a good strategy in many cases.
Then we have the situation in which we do not trust our governments to be making well-reasoned policy for the public good - rather than benefitting some special interests. Given such a situation, it is understandable that people who feel left out of that process turn to the courts to be heard. But again, more and more cases result in more and more delay…
If the system was unjust for the poor when there was less due process and unjust for the poor when there was more due process, then due process isn’t the issue. Talking about it like it is, is a false dilemma and all you achieve by trying to keep an unlimited level of due process is to let more people go free who shouldn’t at the low end and allowing pure lawlessness at the top end.
Minus magic, there’s no amount of due process that’s going to achieve the goal of ensuring that the guilty go to jail and the innocent stay free. Talking about things more doesn’t cause more or less evidence to come to fore, it just causes you to spin your wheels and talk yourself into making bad decisions. There’s a right amount of time to spend on decisions. Too fast and you’re going to make bad choices because you haven’t had time to go through the evidence and logic. Too slow and you’ll get off into the weeds, battling windmills. You don’t get a better result, you get a overengineered, bizarro-world results like Donald Trump being inherently immune to everything and newspaper headlines and whataboutism mattering more than the law.
Getting everyone into the same window of time allotment equalizes the system more than an open-ended system that lets the participants choose how much they want to muck around. That doesn’t create an equal system, it creates inequality that benefits the wealthy and the bullheaded.
I see sentiments along this line a lot and I just don’t think Trump works that way. It reminds me of a Metallica documentary where we see Lars wrapping up sandwiches from the craft services table to go. Somebody says to him “dude, you have millions of dollars, why are you taking these leftovers with you?” He responds “I’ve got plans for those millions… and it ain’t for fuckin’ sandwiches!”
Trump is much the same. He isn’t going to fleece piles of money from the rubes and then use it for such a pedestrian purpose as paying bills! Suckers and losers pay bills. Not Trump! Trump pays his bills in the currency of grievance! He is going to make his creditors chase him to the ends of the earth before they get a nickel out of him and if they sue him or get various other kinds of judgments against him, it’s just more proof that the system is out to get him. He might fleece people by saying he needs money for this fight but he’s never going to use it like that.
If the AG NY gets the judgment she’s hoping for, she won’t have to pursue him to the ends of the earth. She just starts putting tax liens and judgment writs on all the real estate Trump Org owns in New York state.
But I thought the whole point of the lawsuit is to prevent Trump from doing business in NY. Doesn’t that mean he will be removed from Trump Org, and lose ownership of the real estate? So how does putting a tax lien on the real estate take money from Trump? Wouldn’t it be punishing the new owner of Trump Org?
Yes, what I was indicating is that if the court rules in favour of AG NY, that judgment then has to be enforced against the property owned by Trump Org that is covered by the judgment. How that would work exactly? Dunno. IANAUSL. But generally, enforcement of judgments requires further proceedings, usually by things like registering writs or tax liens.
In this case, the court has already appointed a retired judge who is supervising Trump Org’s management of its properties. I wouldn’t be surprised if the court could expand her powers to handle the sale of properties, if that’s what the judgment directs.
How does this work during the appeal? Are the properties bascially frozen such that neither Trump or the state of New York can sell them? Does the Trump organization still make money off of these propoerties until the appeal is litagated? Where does the rent go, into a trust? Is the Trump organization in New York defunct on the day of the judges ruling? Or is that delayed on appeal? If the sale of properties exceeds the judgement amount doesn’t Trump get the excess monies?
And how does this impact the Carrol case? She has a judgment against him now, with another starting next week. Would she be able to get a property or money from ny?
If the tax liens are placed on the properties before Trump is forced to sell them, that’s just a liability that comes out of the sales price. It punishes the seller (Trump), not the buyer.
