State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization

[Maybenaut]

Trump asks New York appeals court to throw out $454 million civil judgment

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/22/politics ... index.html

Lawyers for Donald Trump asked a New York appeals court Monday to throw out the $454 million judgment in his civil fraud trial, arguing that the monetary penalty was unconstitutional and that most of the case should have been barred because the conduct was too old.

The former president’s attorneys raised several other legal arguments they lost at the trial court-level, including that no bank or counterparty lost money on loans, saying the judge made reversal mistakes in his rulings.

<snip>

I find this sort of commentary so, so annoying. If they hadn’t made and lost these issues at the trial level, they’d likely be considered waived on appeal.

Parenthetically, when I practiced, the government would invariable say something like, “The defense trots out the same tired arguments that failed at trial.” If I responded (sometimes I just let it go), my response ranged from snarky (“So?”) to indignant (“It is indeed regrettable that the United States considers the guarantees of our Constitution “tired,” but in any event…”).

[Sam the Centipede]

The former president’s attorneys raised several other legal arguments they lost at the trial court-level, including that no bank or counterparty lost money on loans, saying the judge made reversal mistakes in his rulings.

I find this sort of commentary so, so annoying. If they hadn’t made and lost these issues at the trial level, they’d likely be considered waived on appeal.

I wonder how many non-lawyers understand that aspect (object now or forever hold your peace)? It's only relevant to what happens inside courts, not to ordinary folks trying to stay legal. I wouldn't have known it absent my ediculation at Teh Yooniversity of Teh Fogbone. Even then I don't know how universal the principle is in legal systems with a similar heritage, e.g. Britain, other former British colonies, etc.

But YES!! of course you're right Mayb!! Journos or commentators writing about legal activities should understand those relatively elementary facts. They shouldn't be more ignorant than me, which is setting a low bar.

[Maybenaut]

The former president’s attorneys raised several other legal arguments they lost at the trial court-level, including that no bank or counterparty lost money on loans, saying the judge made reversal mistakes in his rulings.

I find this sort of commentary so, so annoying. If they hadn’t made and lost these issues at the trial level, they’d likely be considered waived on appeal.

I wonder how many non-lawyers understand that aspect (object now or forever hold your peace)? It's only relevant to what happens inside courts, not to ordinary folks trying to stay legal. I wouldn't have known it absent my ediculation at Teh Yooniversity of Teh Fogbone. Even then I don't know how universal the principle is in legal systems with a similar heritage, e.g. Britain, other former British colonies, etc.

But YES!! of course you're right Mayb!! Journos or commentators writing about legal activities should understand those relatively elementary facts. They shouldn't be more ignorant than me, which is setting a low bar.

It’s not universal. Some things are never waived. Varies with jurisdictions (states and fed each have their own rules), and varies depending on civil vs. criminal.

But most things are waived. My main problem with the commentary is that the writer is trying to show that the arguments are weak solely because they failed at trial. Maybe they are weak; maybe they’re not. But *almost* every successful appeal started with an argument that failed at trial.

[bob]

But *almost* every successful appeal started with an argument that failed at trial.

And it simply better (and more accurate) writing to say, "His lawyers argued the trial court made several errors."

Compare

The former president’s attorneys raised several other legal arguments they lost at the trial court-level, including that no bank or counterparty lost money on loans, saying the judge made reversal mistakes in his rulings.

with

The former president’s attorneys said the trial judge made reversal mistakes in his rulings, and highlighted no bank or counterparty lost money on loans.

[Slim Cognito]

I know this is a very simplistic comparison, but whenever I read that, I think to myself, Sure judge, I was doing 120 on the interstate, but I didn't crash and nobody was injured.

[Foggy]

the trial judge made reversal mistakes

No. The trial judge made reversible mistakes. Sheesh.

That's a diction error.

[p0rtia]

It always bugs me when, after some obvious and gruesome crime, the culprit pleads Not Guilty at the arraignment, and MMS and SM lose their collective shizzle at the audacity. No one explains that the NG plea at that point is (always/often?) mandatory.

[bob]

No one explains that the NG plea at that point is (always/often?) mandatory.

Not guilty is the presumptive plea. If the defendant refuses to plea (and some do), the court just enters a not-guilty plea on their behalf.

Sometimes there are guilty pleas at arraignment when there's a pre-arraignment deal already in place.

And, very rarely, sometimes defendants do plead guilty at the outset, believing they'll get a lighter sentence if they do. (That's when it would be appropriate to lose the shizzle; it is that rare.)

[RTH10260]

Trump Gag Orders: Here’s Everything The Ex-President Can’t Say In The Cases Against Him As Appeals Court Upholds Order

Alison Durkee Forbes Staff
Aug 1, 2024,01:29pm EDT

Topline Former President Donald Trump still can’t speak out against court staff or prosecutors involved with his Manhattan criminal trial despite already being convicted in the case, a New York appeals court ruled Thursday, as the former president faces a number of restrictions on his speech in the ongoing criminal cases against him following his repeated attacks on prosecutors, judges and others involved in the proceedings.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... lds-order/

[RTH10260]

FWIW
15 GOP-led states support Trump’s appeal of $355M in NY court fines

By: Jessica Holdman -
July 31, 2024 1:10 pm


Former U.S President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he leaves Manhattan Criminal Court on April 18, 2024, in New York City. (File/Brendan McDermid-Pool/Getty Images)

COLUMBIA, South Carolina — South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson is heading up a coalition of 15 GOP-led states supporting former President Donald Trump in his appeal of court fines ordered in a New York real estate case against him.

New York state court Judge Arthur Engoron in February ordered Trump to pay $355 million, plus interest, in a civil trial finding his company and executives, including his two eldest sons, conspired to deceive banks and insurers by inflating his wealth on financial statements. The judge also barred Trump from serving as an executive at any New York company, including the Trump Organization, for three years and imposed a two-year ban on Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.

Trump appealed the fine to New York’s intermediate appellate court.

Wilson’s office authored a court brief supporting the appeal, which 14 other states joined.

“Our brief isn’t about Donald Trump, it’s about upholding the rule of law and the Constitution,” Wilson said in a statement after Friday’s filing.

Other states in the coalition are Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia.

The attorneys general argue the fine is excessive, violating the Eighth Amendment and a similar clause in the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting states from imposing a “grossly excessive” punishment.



https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/15- ... urt-fines/

[pipistrelle]

So if I find myself having to pay fines beyond my reasonable financial abilities, those states would all step in for me, right?

[Rolodex]

So, I think a bunch of states should sue Alabama for passing laws that injure people and/or are unconstitutional. I don't know how much tax money our state has spent defending unconstitutional laws they pass which the state ultimately loses. Maybe all that money should be counted as election funds because they only pass these laws to get votes.