• 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!

Appeals court throws out Trump's $454 million civil fraud judgment

dcsports said:
They agreed that the trial should not have taken place under that judge. They 'reluctantly' agreed to leave the verdict in place to continue appeal.
Click to expand...

Only 1 of the 4 judges said that. 4 felt the trail was correct, of those 4 -- 2 felt that Judge Engoron made an error on some technical aspect and that it should be returned to the trial court and retried.

WW
 
WorldWatcher said:
Only 1 of the 4 judges said that. 4 felt the trail was correct, of those 4 -- 2 felt that Judge Engoron made an error on some technical aspect and that it should be returned to the trial court and retried.

WW
Click to expand...
There were five judges, not four. A majority (three of the five) believed the verdict should be tossed, but could not agree on whether the case should be retried or thrown out altogether, so two of them joined with the only two who agreed with the verdict and "reluctantly" left it in place so that it could go on to the next court.

All five judges agreed that Engoron's fine was batshit crazy.
 
Taylor said:
There were five judges, not four. A majority (three of the five) believed the verdict should be tossed, but could not agree on whether the case should be retried or thrown out altogether, so two of them joined with the only two who agreed with the verdict and "reluctantly" left it in place so that it could go on to the next court.

All five judges agreed that Engoron's fine was batshit crazy.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the correction. I should have said "Only 1 of the 5 judges said that...".

Other than that, the rest is correct. 1 was batshit crazy. 2 agrreed with the trial Judge but felt the disgorgement was to high, and the remaining 2 agreed with the trail judge on substance but may have made a technical error and felt the case should be returned to the lower court to address the error.

That totals the 5.

WW
 
WorldWatcher said:
Only 1 of the 4 judges said that. 4 felt the trail was correct, of those 4 -- 2 felt that Judge Engoron made an error on some technical aspect and that it should be returned to the trial court and retried.

WW
Click to expand...
You are restating what I just said. 1 felt the trial should not have happened at all. Two felt the court (the judge) should not have heard the case, and should be retried. In other words, 3 of 5 felt it shouldn't have happened under that judge. They weren't re-trying the merits of the case, only stating that the court that heard it was wrong to do so, and the outcome void. Again, they (per the article) left the case continue to the next stage of appeal.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Thank you for the correction. I should have said "Only 1 of the 5 judges said that...".

Other than that, the rest is correct. 1 was batshit crazy. 2 agrreed with the trial Judge but felt the disgorgement was to high, and the remaining 2 agreed with the trail judge on substance but may have made a technical error and felt the case should be returned to the lower court to address the error.

That totals the 5.

WW
Click to expand...
lol. See post #176 - that poster disagrees with you. Again - 1 said the case should not have been heard. 2 felt the judge shouldn't have heard the case, and the case should be retried. That's 3 of 5 who said the court shouldn't have tried the case.

The other two probably agreed with the verdict - 'Trump bad' - but what they were ruling was that the case was fairly decided. Appeal courts don't re-try the case.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It appears to be a complicated way of saying that the judge made some very bad decisions, so Trump’s excessive fine must be waived.
Click to expand...
I think the appellate court didn't want to strike it down - in general that state is for some reason very anti-Trump. But the judges felt they didn't have a choice, because the case was so unusual with so many issues. So they tried very hard to explain it as technicalities.
 
dcsports said:
I think the appellate court didn't want to strike it down - in general that state is for some reason very anti-Trump. But the judges felt they didn't have a choice, because the case was so unusual with so many issues. So they tried very hard to explain it as technicalities.
Click to expand...

The (initial liability) ‘verdict’ amounted to: despite nobody having been identified as a victim of fraud, Trump must pay NYC loads of money as a penalty for being disliked by NYC ‘officials’.
 
WorldWatcher said:
the remaining 2 agreed with the trail judge on substance but may have made a technical error and felt the case should be returned to the lower court to address the error.
Click to expand...
They didn't "agree on substance." They thought the process was so flawed and unfair that a valid decision could not be made. They called for the judgment to be vacated, and a new trial held.
 
Taylor said:
They didn't "agree on substance." They thought the process was so flawed and unfair that a valid decision could not be made. They called for the judgment to be vacated, and a new trial held.
Click to expand...
The decision of the appeals court was 300 pages. Here is an article explaining this decision by a law professor at Cardoza. I have reprinted a couple of paragraphs but the entire article needs to be read to understand what the decision actually says, or does not say. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-york-appeals-court-throws-out-500m-fraud-penalty-against-trump

There was one point of commonality among all the justices. And that was that the trial court's order could not stand as it was written. But beyond there, we had disagreement among the justices. The effect of the decision of the Appellate Division today is to affirm the judgment, the verdict against Trump, his sons, their business associates and their businesses, finding them liable under New York's civil fraud law of engaging in persistent fraud.

Two of the justices thought that actually that finding was supported by the record and was appropriate under the law. Two other justices thought that the record was problematic and that there were errors in the conduct of the trial and would have sent the case back to the trial court for a new trial.

But those two additional judges who thought there were problems in the trial decided to sign on to the judgment of the first two judge's justices in order to get the case up to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of New York, for a final decision.

And the effect of those two justices joining essentially in the decision of the first two justices is that we now have a majority effectively affirming the verdict of liability against Trump and the other defendants.

Also, it should be pointed out (as the above article does) that the money fine wasn't the only punishment. There were other punishments that the appeals court let stand, such as the company could no longer operate in NY and it had to have a monitor to oversee that the company didn't commit fraud in its further dealings,
 
dockside said:
The decision of the appeals court was 300 pages. Here is an article explaining this decision by a law professor at Cardoza. I have reprinted a couple of paragraphs but the entire article needs to be read to understand what the decision actually says, or does not say. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-york-appeals-court-throws-out-500m-fraud-penalty-against-trump

There was one point of commonality among all the justices. And that was that the trial court's order could not stand as it was written. But beyond there, we had disagreement among the justices. The effect of the decision of the Appellate Division today is to affirm the judgment, the verdict against Trump, his sons, their business associates and their businesses, finding them liable under New York's civil fraud law of engaging in persistent fraud.

Two of the justices thought that actually that finding was supported by the record and was appropriate under the law. Two other justices thought that the record was problematic and that there were errors in the conduct of the trial and would have sent the case back to the trial court for a new trial.

But those two additional judges who thought there were problems in the trial decided to sign on to the judgment of the first two judge's justices in order to get the case up to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of New York, for a final decision.

And the effect of those two justices joining essentially in the decision of the first two justices is that we now have a majority effectively affirming the verdict of liability against Trump and the other defendants.

Also, it should be pointed out (as the above article does) that the money fine wasn't the only punishment. There were other punishments that the appeals court let stand, such as the company could no longer operate in NY and it had to have a monitor to oversee that the company didn't commit fraud in its further dealings,
Click to expand...
I've tried to point that out several times. It just doesn't stick in the "mind" of Trump acolytes.
 
dockside said:
The decision of the appeals court was 300 pages. Here is an article explaining this decision by a law professor at Cardoza. I have reprinted a couple of paragraphs but the entire article needs to be read to understand what the decision actually says, or does not say. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-york-appeals-court-throws-out-500m-fraud-penalty-against-trump

There was one point of commonality among all the justices. And that was that the trial court's order could not stand as it was written. But beyond there, we had disagreement among the justices. The effect of the decision of the Appellate Division today is to affirm the judgment, the verdict against Trump, his sons, their business associates and their businesses, finding them liable under New York's civil fraud law of engaging in persistent fraud.

Two of the justices thought that actually that finding was supported by the record and was appropriate under the law. Two other justices thought that the record was problematic and that there were errors in the conduct of the trial and would have sent the case back to the trial court for a new trial.

But those two additional judges who thought there were problems in the trial decided to sign on to the judgment of the first two judge's justices in order to get the case up to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of New York, for a final decision.

And the effect of those two justices joining essentially in the decision of the first two justices is that we now have a majority effectively affirming the verdict of liability against Trump and the other defendants.

Also, it should be pointed out (as the above article does) that the money fine wasn't the only punishment. There were other punishments that the appeals court let stand, such as the company could no longer operate in NY and it had to have a monitor to oversee that the company didn't commit fraud in its further dealings,
Click to expand...
It's very curious that the three of five didn't just vacate the verdict and refer it for a new trial. They probably know the case is going to get appealed up the NY supreme court (and possibly SCOTUS) anyway, and this probably keeps it on life support to get to that process quicker.

As far as the sanctions... most (including barring the Trump sons from serving as corporate officers in NY) are two years - from Feb 2024 - so six more months. Trump is 3 years, but he of course has a job, and has been out of the role for almost a decade anyway. It's probably in their best interests to let the clock run out during the appeal anyway.
 
dcsports said:
Two felt the court (the judge) should not have heard the case, and should be retried.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what they "felt."

Those two judges believed there were errors in the first trial, and that it should have been remanded for another trial, in front of the same judge.

Only one judge thought the case shouldn't have been heard.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
No, that's not what they "felt."

Those two judges believed there were errors in the first trial, and that it should have been remanded for another trial, in front of the same judge.

Only one judge thought the case shouldn't have been heard.
Click to expand...
OK - the two judges "stated in the ruling". 3 of 5 stated it should be retried or voided.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
It's not "curious" at all. Only two judges thought it should be remanded.
Click to expand...
Two thought it should be remanded, and one not heard at all. Only two 'thought' it should be upheld, so its' strange that the outcome was to uphold the verdict.
 
dcsports said:
Two thought it should be remanded, and one not heard at all. Only two 'thought' it should be upheld, so its' strange that the outcome was to uphold the verdict.
Click to expand...
It's not strange at all, the evidence is overwhelming. The only issue was one of procedure. I've already opined that it will be appealed, and I expect by both parties.

I find it's usually best not to play in an unfamiliar sandbox. Clearly this is not your playground, or even your neighborhood.
 
NWRatCon said:
It's not strange at all, the evidence is overwhelming. The only issue was one of procedure. I've already opined that it will be appealed, and I expect by both parties.
[deflection removed]
Click to expand...
The appeals court is there to evaluate whether 'procedure' (also called due process) was followed. 3 of 5 judges in a very unfriendly appellate jurisdiction ruled it was. Yet they didn't kick it back for a new trial. That is very strange - highlighted by the 300 page opinion.

'Evidence' isn't the issue here - and that's certainly one that could be debated. But the process was clearly not an appropriate one, and the judge was not impartial in the case. That's a problem.

FYI - there is no genius level thought process needed to know that any decision in this case is going to be appealed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom