• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘Boilerplate Doesn’t Cut It’: Judge Finds Donald Trump in Contempt of Court for Flouting an Order to Comply with Letitia James’ Subpoena

lurchadams said:
"DB will comply". I don't think they've even complied with congress' subpoena for trump's tax returns. No way will trump ever really have to pay for his crimes. He won.
Click to expand...
They have never violated a court order. They're a bank. They're not going to break the law by violating a court order. They have no basis to fight an attachment on his account because they aren't a party to the case. You're just really spreading a bunch of doom and gloom that doesn't exist.

He's appealed the contempt order. They probably will refuse to hear the case, and if they do he'll lose, then the contempt order will be upheld. If he continues not to comply then the daily fee will rise in a subsequent order.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
They have never violated a court order. They're a bank. They're not going to break the law by violating a court order. They have no basis to fight an attachment on his account because they aren't a party to the case. You're just really spreading a bunch of doom and gloom that doesn't exist.

He's appealed the contempt order. They probably will refuse to hear the case, and if they do he'll lose, then the contempt order will be upheld. If he continues not to comply then the daily fee will rise in a subsequent order.
Click to expand...
Ok - let's go at this another way: When has trump or anyone in their family ever been accountable for anything? Anyone who says, "oh, yeah, they've got him now" is exactly like "Lucy and the football".
 
lurchadams said:
Ok - let's go at this another way: When has trump or anyone in their family ever been accountable for anything? Anyone who says, "oh, yeah, they've got him now" is exactly like "Lucy and the football".
Click to expand...
No, let's not go at this another way. He's held in contempt already. He's appealing. He'll lose his appeal. Then he'll have to pay. It doesn't matter what you think about how untouchable they are. He was already held in contempt. I think you're not understanding that point.
 
lurchadams said:
In NY. Ok. He has more assets. How much do you think that will smart - all the while his creditors for the properties that were seized now has to fight for their repayment. I'm sorry, the state of NY has zero leverage to inflict real pain. Trump's never coming back to NY.
Click to expand...
When you "register" a judgment from "Jurisdiction A" in "Jurisdiction B" then that judgment is as full and effectual in "Jurisdiction B" as it was in "Jurisdiction A".

Have I (as a lawyer in "Jurisdiction A") ever "registered" a judgment from "Jurisdiction B" in "Jurisdiction A"? Yes I have.

Was I able to realize on that judgment? Yes I was.

Has a Florida lawyer ever "registered" a New York judgment in Florida? Want to bet that none ever has?

Was that Florida lawyer ever able to realize on that judgment? Want to bet that none ever has?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
No, let's not go at this another way. He's held in contempt already. He's appealing. He'll lose his appeal. Then he'll have to pay. It doesn't matter what you think about how untouchable they are. He was already held in contempt. I think you're not understanding that point.
Click to expand...
Yep, you're saying it - you're saying, "we've got him this time" :)
 
Khayembii Communique said:
No, let's not go at this another way. He's held in contempt already. He's appealing. He'll lose his appeal. Then he'll have to pay. It doesn't matter what you think about how untouchable they are. He was already held in contempt. I think you're not understanding that point.
Click to expand...
The primary point in Mr. Trump's appeal is
​
Alina Habba, Trump’s lawyer, argued in her appeal that the ex-president responded adequately to the subpoena, saying that James failed to show that Trump’s actions were “calculated to defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice” the probe.​
[SOURCE]​
​
The secondary point in Mr. Trump's appeal is
​
Habba also said James refused to engage in “good-faith discussions” before seeking to have Trump fined.​
[SAME SOURCE]​
​
Unfortunately why Mr. Trump failed to comply with the court order is (absent "impossibility") irrelevant to the fact that he did not comply with the court order. Not only that, but whether or not the prosecution was willing to enter into "good-faith (or any) discussions" with respect to the defendant's failure to comply with the court order is also irrelevant to the fact that Mr. Trump did not comply with the court order.

However, it is nice to see that Mr. Trump is being consistent in the quality of lawyer he engages as Widener University--Delaware is ranked No. 147-192 in Best Law Schools and No. 53-69 in Part-time Law and that is where his lawyer graduated from.
 
The contempt order was lifted after Trump racked up $110,000 in associated fees. He has until May 20 to comply or the contempt order will be back in effect, including retroactive daily $10k fees.

www.nytimes.com

Judge Lifts Contempt Order Against Trump in Civil Inquiry

The former president must pay a $110,000 fine that accumulated during the two-week contempt period and meet other conditions or the order will be reinstated, a judge said.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The contempt order was lifted after Trump racked up $110,000 in associated fees. He has until May 20 to comply or the contempt order will be back in effect, including retroactive daily $10k fees.

www.nytimes.com

Judge Lifts Contempt Order Against Trump in Civil Inquiry

The former president must pay a $110,000 fine that accumulated during the two-week contempt period and meet other conditions or the order will be reinstated, a judge said.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
It's beyond me why these judges keep giving him more chances.
 
Liberal7360 said:
The judge held trump in contempt and now imposing 10 grand a day fine on him for not complying with a court order.

I don't know why trump and his people believe that he and they are special and don't have to follow our laws. Thankfully this judge is holding trump to the same laws the rest of us have to follow.

I'm sure he will appeal and lose.

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...
What if Trump is telling the truth about not having what they want?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The contempt order was lifted after Trump racked up $110,000 in associated fees. He has until May 20 to comply or the contempt order will be back in effect, including retroactive daily $10k fees.

www.nytimes.com

Judge Lifts Contempt Order Against Trump in Civil Inquiry

The former president must pay a $110,000 fine that accumulated during the two-week contempt period and meet other conditions or the order will be reinstated, a judge said.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
Just send in the federal marshalls and seize the files.
 
trouble13 said:
What if Trump is telling the truth about not having what they want?
Click to expand...
That possibility exists in the very low end of the scale. Given Trumps record on telling lies and obstructing and delaying every investigation into him, I doubt he's telling the truth.

So, do you think it's best to let him off without any further investigation? Never mind, I already know the answer.
 
The AntiDonald said:
That possibility exists in the very low end of the scale. Given Trumps record on telling lies and obstructing and delaying every investigation into him, I doubt he's telling the truth.

So, do you think it's best to let him off without any further investigation? Never mind, I already know the answer.
Click to expand...
Do you think it's best to fine him endlessly without proof that he is in possession of what they want? Nevermind I already know your answer.
 
trouble13 said:
Do you think it's best to fine him endlessly without proof that he is in possession of what they want? Nevermind I already know your answer.
Click to expand...
While lawyers for the former president said that they had conducted a thorough search for the records being sought by Ms. James’s investigators, Justice Engoron said in April that the lawyers had not provided enough detail in official legal documentation about how and when those searches were conducted and who conducted them, and he moved to hold Mr. Trump in contempt.
 
trouble13 said:
Do you think it's best to fine him endlessly without proof that he is in possession of what they want? Nevermind I already know your answer.
Click to expand...
The AG may have some other information that shows he has what she wants. The bottom line is he's not cooperating. I don't know honestly if fining him is the correct thing to do. That's up to the judge and the lawyers.

Supposedly this will be coming to a head soon. Since it's a civil suit, the non-cooperation will be used to infer guilt at any trial. Trump really thinks he's above the law. He brought this on himself. All he needed to do was comply.
 
The AntiDonald said:
It's beyond me why these judges keep giving him more chances.
Click to expand...
Judges are lenient in many ways because they don't want to create a case for a successful appeal on account of their own conduct. Trump's lawyers also did file paperwork that led in the right direction. The removal of the contempt charge for a week or two makes sense IMO. He still has to pay the $110k which he is apparently extremely upset about lol
 
trouble13 said:
What if Trump is telling the truth about not having what they want?
Click to expand...
Then his lawyers need to file the appropriate documentation showing that the search was sufficiently thorough and nothing was found, which they failed to do previously.
 
The AntiDonald said:
It's beyond me why these judges keep giving him more chances.
Click to expand...
The whole purpose is to "get relevant information before the court".

It is NOT "to beggar Mr. Trump and then send him to jail".

BTW, did you know that the courts can "draw a negative inference" concerning the accuracy and completeness of the documents that are eventually forced out of a party? The most striking example of that that I know of where the court concluded that - since the Respondent in a divorce action was eventually forced to disgorge documents that established that their net worth was double the amount they had originally stated - the Respondent's net worth was actually double the amount revealed in their latest set of documents and, accordingly, awarded the Petitioner 100% of all of the assets that the Respondent had revealed. The court also gave the Respondent 90 days to appear before the same judge and have the ruling varied based on any further documents which the Respondent wished to release. The Respondent didn't bother to either come back or to appeal - which leads me to conclude that the Petitioner actually got less than 50% of the net family assets. (However, since what the Respondent DID get was in the low eight figures, I don't think that she was overly displeased with the results.
 
trouble13 said:
What if Trump is telling the truth about not having what they want?
Click to expand...
Then his companies are in a real mess because what is being asked for are the types of documents which every well run organization keeps as a matter of course.
 
trouble13 said:
Do you think it's best to fine him endlessly without proof that he is in possession of what they want? Nevermind I already know your answer.
Click to expand...
All Mr. Trump has to do is to detail the reasonable and normal efforts which he has made to be able to produce the documents requested. It is NOT required that he produce documents over which he has no control in order to satisfy the terms of the court order.

You have a basic misunderstanding of court procedures which it might behoove you to rectify before exposing your lack of knowledge and delivering opinions based on that lack of knowledge and misunderstanding.
 
MTAtech said:
While lawyers for the former president said that they had conducted a thorough search for the records being sought by Ms. James’s investigators, Justice Engoron said in April that the lawyers had not provided enough detail in official legal documentation about how and when those searches were conducted and who conducted them, and he moved to hold Mr. Trump in contempt.
Click to expand...
Mr. Trump's "lawyer" has adopted the "Did too. Did TOO. DID TOO. DID TOO!" defence.

That defence seldom works.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Then his lawyers need to file the appropriate documentation showing that the search was sufficiently thorough and nothing was found, which they failed to do previously.
Click to expand...
From the actions, so far, of his lawyers, I'm not confident that they actually know how to do that.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Then his companies are in a real mess because what is being asked for are the types of documents which every well run organization keeps as a matter of course.
Click to expand...
Do well run organizations save their old cell phones?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom