As predicted, an appellate judge has tossed out Donald Trump's lawsuit against the trial judge in his business fraud case:
The appeals court, in a terse two-page order Thursday, effectively turned aside for now a lawsuit Mr. Trump filed against the trial judge, Arthur F. Engoron. The lawsuit had sought to delay the trial, and ultimately throw out many of the accusations against the former president.
"Terse"! It's amazing the way things work when you can't forum shop for a Texas judge you appointed yourself.
Anyway, the trial judge has already pronounced Trump guilty, so all that's left is for him to decide on Trump's punishment. This might happen as soon as next week.
Trump, of course, will also appeal that, so tack on another year or so before everything becomes final. It's possible that by Election Day Trump will be a quarter of a billion dollars poorer; no longer in control of his company; banned from doing business in New York; and on his way to prison. It couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.
My question is, if he's banned from doing business in New York can he still own a business in New York as long as he has nothing to do with it, retaining ownership of his various buildings in some kind of trust monitored by the state?
Well, he could just *own* them, I suppose. Like, literally, let them sit there empty. But to lease space -- you know, make any money and pay utilities, taxes, mortgages, etc. -- he would have to be "doing business," and it looks like he won't be able to do that much longer. And I don't think just creating a shell corporation to manage the buildings that just funnels the profits back to the banned entity (i.e. the Trump Org) is allowed either.
Also, isn't anyone in your family using shell corporations to do business now an impeachable offense? Trump had better watch out on that one!
Public officials who are barred from active ownership put their assets in a "blind trust." The trustee conducts the various activities of ownership, while the owner has no input into the actions of the trustee.
My understanding is, no. The judge canceled all licenses of business controlled by him or the boys, and I can't imagine they'd be allowed to just create new ones and transfer assets to those.
I also understand that the businesses have not been formally dissolved, which suggests that they still exist but can't do anything. And I know there's an overseer who's in charge of them, but I don't know what her purview is. So, for example, could assets be transferred to a business in another state (eg FL)? Does that qualify as "doing business?" I'd guess they couldn't do that -- it seems like an obvious dodge -- but I dunno.
I vaguely recall them trying that with "Trump2.0" and were shot down.
My understanding is a receiver will be appointed to liquidate the businesses. Presumably Trump could set up a shell company with front operators to bid on the assets and reacquire the businesses, but it would be difficult to finance that. He wouldn't have access to the proceeds from the sale. No legitimate finance company in the western world has been willing to lend Trump money for decades. Hence why he owes the Russian mob 100s of millions. (But yes, the type of people who bought the DC Trump hotel, i.e. wiling to lose 10s of millions in their devotion to Trump) could finance it.
And the front people would almost inevitably end up going to prison.
All of Trump's past and upcoming appeals must be costing him some big legal fees. Could it be that the amount is comparable to what he would have to pay in court judgements against him? I know that his possible liability in the NY case is $250 million. I guess, even expensive lawyers won't cost that much.
Yes, Trump will try to get his deluded marks to send in contributions. But even so, that is money they won't have to spend on the actual campaign.
Still, lawyers still willing to work for him stand to get significantly richer.
There's an article about this today in, I think, the NYT. According to it, with all the co-defendants' legal costs he's funding, finances are starting to become strained, and there's the possibility that some of them could be cut loose. And that's before any of the conflict-of-counsel issues are resolved.
He's already cut a lot loose. The most he was willing to do for Guiliani was host a fund raiser, which didn't cost him one red cent. (Just a few hours of time.)
I have no doubt Trump’s finances are strained, but I’m not so sure this situation will have much of an impact on his ability to campaign. He gets virtually unlimited free coverage by the media.
Aggression and determined ignorance are not a happy combination.
A person can only count on inheritance bailing them out of trouble for so long, and after that, it's just them and no one else.
Shakespeare would have a field day with Trump. Shakespeare only wrote two kinds of plays; comedies and tragedies, and the tragedies were never "A meteor fell out of the sky and created chaos." Nope. The tragedies were all about how a man's own faults would bring him down.
It would be the first Shakespearean tragi-comedy. Imagine Macbeth, but where the tragic protagonist is just a phenomenal, mentally decompensating moron. *He's* the idiot, full of sound and fury.
"Shakespeare would have a field day with Trump."
Doubtful. There were ample buffoons in Elizabethan England to begin with, and the Bard wouldn't have thought Trump anything special. Let's not elevate the man: he's not singularly anything--he's merely a mistake, and while it's taking longer than I would have thought, the country is moving past him.
OMG, how I wish this were so.
Trump, of course, will also appeal that, so tack on another year or so before everything becomes final.
Not clear. I've seen language that says the appeals court can decline to hear it, as they apparently more or less did today (still can't find a copy of the order). And IIRC, this is a state matter, so he can't appeal to the Federal system. The legal noise could be over and done with in a few months. And given that nobody has stayed any orders so far, and that an overseer (or special master or whatever she is) is already at work, I can see where some big chunks might be taken out of his ample hindquarters fairly soon.
Fortunately, I'm stocked for popcorn right now ...
You can always appeal to the US Supreme Court. They don't have to take the case, but you can always try.
You say "always," but is that true? I think probably not.
But to do that it has to concern a matter of Federal law, and only matters pertaining to Federal law can be so appealed. I don't know if this case qualifies.
I find it vanishingly unlikely his lawyers won’t be able to come up with some bullshit constitutional issue. It may not fly with the federal judiciary, true, but they will certainly try.
I find it amusing that you think you couldn't appeal. You can always appeal.
As for whether the Supreme Court is supposed to take up a case - if the court does rule and the loser decides they shouldn't be able to, they can always appeal to the next higher court.
Technically, you can always apply for leave to appeal, what SCOTUS calls "a grant of certiorari". Appeals "as of right" are more limited, although you pretty much always get at least one appeal as of right.
If I understand this correctly this can cost far far more than the $250 million fine
The various lenders who were lied to can ask for damages
The businesses can be moved to a neutral operator and if debt is larger than assets they become worthless - bankruptcy would normally "protect" the owners but if fraud is involved .......
Why do I think he will be able to delay forever, and suffer no lasting consequences? I despair.
Besides, his martyr status only grows. Each legal issue only proves that "they" are out to get him.
Oy.
Fear not! Of course his martyr status grows and there is more proof that "they" are out to get him -- among his cult of personality. But that cult is perhaps half of people who self-identify as Republican, who in turn are roughly half of the polity right now. It's true they get LOTS of publicity -- FAR more than their numbers deserve, which makes them seem larger than they are -- but they're committed body and soul, and there's really no more committed they can become.
And MEANwhile, the other 75% of the polity are seeing him criminally indicted -- by grand juries in multiple jurisdictions -- and found liable TWICE now in civil matters, one for sexual assault and another for massive business fraud, and for people who are NOT of the cult that ... doesn't look so good.
Dems have over performed massively since 2020, and there's no reason to assume that's gonna stop. Vote! Donate! Volunteer! And do not despair. "Despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt. We do not."
Given Trump's age and dubious health, he might not have to delay very long before he escapes his legal problems by dying.
"The appeals court, in a terse two-page order Thursday, ..."
Decisions of the Appellate Division — the intermediate appellate court in New York — are usually pretty short. I wouldn't infer anything from a two-page order other than that the appeal was treated business as usual in that court.
DISCLAIMER: I am a lawyer, but not licensed to practice in New York State, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
There has been some loose talk by non-lawyers about the recent developments, so I'd like to try to clarify a couple of things. In no particular order:
1. This case (People v. Trump) is a civil case, not a criminal case. The NY Attorney General, Letitia James, is in charge of enforcing, among other things, the state's laws concerning the conduct of business in the state. Because this is a civil case, neither Trump nor any of the other defendants can receive jail time or any other criminal penalty. In particular, Judge Engoron did not find Trump "guilty." "Guilty" and "not guilty" are verdicts in a criminal trial. Instead, he determined that the defendants in this case are "liable" on Count I of the petition the NY AG filed.
2. When businesses are incorporated or organized in a particular state, that state's laws can control how they do business. In general, state laws usually authorize the state attorney general (or some other state official) to police the actions of businesses in that state. Here, the Trump Organization and its various subsidiaries were organized under NY law, so that's why the NY AG gets to police the actions of those businesses and their owners and principals.
3. States can impose a number of sanctions on businesses to correct malfeasance. In egregious cases, those sanctions can include canceling the organizations certificates; that is, revoking their right to do business. This used to be more common in the 1800s, but it's still a remedy available today.
4. The NY AG's case against the Trump Organization has been ongoing for a couple of years now. It is set for trial next week.
5. Normally, cases are tried to a "factfinder." That factfinder is usually a jury, but sometimes it can be the judge. The factfinder hears the evidence, decides what it believes, and enters a verdict. The judge then later enters a judgment, which determines what actually happens in the case.
6. A judgment can then be appealed. In this case, the trial court is the New York Supreme Court. An appeal would go to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, which is the intermediate appellate court in New York State. That appeal is by right; you don't have to get permission. Depending on how the intermediate court rules, you can then appeal to the highest court, which in New York is the Court of Appeals. That court can choose which cases it wishes to take. After that, one of the parties could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari, but that would require the party seeking the writ to identify some federal law or right being violated. Because this is purely a matter of state law, I don't see how there are grounds for certiorari. So they can file it, but it would probably be dismissed out of hand.
7. Before a case goes to trial, it is common for defendants (here, Trump et al.), and sometimes plaintiffs (here, NY AG) to file what are called "motions for summary judgment." Essentially, they say that the law or the facts (or both) are so one-sided that no reasonable jury could reach any other decision. This is also called "judgment as a matter of law."
8. In this case, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asking the judge to completely dismiss the case. That was denied. The NY AG also filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asking the judge to determine that the defendants were liable as a matter of law on Count I of her petition. The judge granted that motion.
9. Anything for which summary judgment is not granted then goes to trial. So the trial will go forward to determine the defendants' liability on the remaining counts of the petition, as well as to determine the amount of damages (including restitution and disgorgement) that the defendants will owe on Count I and any other count for which they are held liable.
10. The defendants did not file a separate lawsuit against Judge Engoron. Instead, they filed a petition with the Appellate Division for a "writ of mandamus." Generally speaking, you can only appeal a final judgment, which would happen after the trial. But in certain circumstances, you can seek a writ of mandamus, which asks the appellate court to order the trial court to do something before there is a final judgment. Here, the defendants wanted the Appellate Division to order Judge Engoron to clarify the scope of the claims being tried and to hold that Judge Engoron had to take certain steps or would lack jurisdiction to have the trial. As expected, the Appellate Division said "Nope." As alkali19 said, this is just business as usual.
Thank you for the details.
Picking up on my post above about how you can always appeal to the Supreme Court: "one of the parties could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari, but that would require the party seeking the writ to identify some federal law or right being violated. Because this is purely a matter of state law, I don't see how there are grounds for certiorari. So they can file it, but it would probably be dismissed out of hand."
I'm a little amazed that some people don't know this. I was taught in grade school you can always appeal to the Supreme Court. And OF COURSE it would be dismissed out of hand... well, I supposed if the court was so corrupt that it replaced the rule of law with their own one party rule, then they wouldn't dismiss it. But I couldn't even imagine living in such a country like that. Lucky we live in America so I never have to wonder about the integrity of our highest court.
This utterly breaks my heart! Why oh why couldn't any other judge have been this hard on t-Rump.... No guts, no glory. Oh ya, I forgot, t-Rump stacked the courts and the Supremes with his rightist friends cause he knew this was coming.