Patterico's Pontifications

10/25/2023

Trump fined $10,000 after violating gag order for second time in civil fraud case

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:14 pm



[guest post by Dana]

This morning :

Donald Trump was fined $10,000 by a New York judge for again violating a gag order barring the former president from making statements about a law clerk involved in the state’s $250 million civil fraud trial.

The fine issued Wednesday by Justice Arthur Engoron comes after Trump referred to the person sitting beside the judge as “partisan.” The Oct. 3 gag order had barred Trump from publicly discussing his law clerk after he posted her photograph on social media and spread a false rumor about her.

If you recall, Justice Engoron fined Trump $5,000 after learning that he had not taken down a post disparaging the judge’s law clerk.

Details:

On Wednesday, during a break in the trial over a lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James over Trump’s business practices, Trump told reporters, “this judge is a very partisan judge, with a person who’s very partisan sitting alongside of him, perhaps even much more partisan than he is.”

Engoron, surmising that Trump was referring to his clerk, called the comments a “blatant” violation of the gag order. The judge imposed the fine after Trump briefly took the witness stand to take questions.

After a short conversation with Trump’s attorneys about the ruling, Justice Engoron cautioned:

“I’ve reconsidered, the ruling stands. Don’t do it again or it’ll be worse. “

–Dana

63 Responses to “Trump fined $10,000 after violating gag order for second time in civil fraud case”

  1. Surely he’ll pop off again. It is not in his disposition to be silent, especially when its in his own best interest.

    Dana (932d71)

  2. Lock him up!

    Appalled (557249)

  3. Sheesh…

    His attorneys needs a stipulation that for every fine the courts levies, he owes them twice that amount for not listening to them.

    whembly (5f7596)

  4. If you recall, Justice Engoron fined Trump $5,000 after learning that he had not taken down a post disparaging the judge’s law clerk.

    He had taken down the post immediately when ordered. The copy of the post, archived on his campaign web site had not also been taken down.

    I suppose the fine was only $10,000 because it wasn’t in writing, indicating no gteat thought went into it, and Trump used no name, and he just did it in passing..

    Trump told reporters, “this judge is a very partisan judge, with a person who’s very partisan sitting alongside of him, perhaps even much more partisan than he is.”

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  5. It’s entire possible that Trump is correct, of course. There are quire a few people who would like to see Trump hanging from the yardarm. The ACLU says that the judge is overreaching wrt criticism of himself of his staff.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  6. The judge will accept criticism of himself, and of the government, but not of his staff.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  7. The judge will accept criticism of himself, and of the government, but not of his staff.

    What is the difference, from a 1st Amendment perspective?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  8. From a first amendment standpoint the judge looks like whiner and it also makes him look like he is protecting a biased law clerk.

    steveg (6f8978)

  9. There’s a side story to that law clerk. She’s looking to be elected municipal judge.

    We had one like that in Chicago. Some politically-connected lady, already elected to a judgeship, waiting to be sworn in. She was clerking for another patronage judge who let her put on a robe and preside in court.

    She was brought up on disciplinary charges which may have disqualified her from both the judgeship and the practice of law altogether. The story was too pettily sordid for me to follow any farther.

    nk (d97a06)

  10. Latest body count 22 dead in Maine. AR-15 style assault gun. Republicans in congress so?

    asset (9a0c8d)

  11. Quick! Time to pass national concealed carry reciprocity while the bodies are warm!

    Randolph Carter (01effb)

  12. Trump can just shift to “I was criticizing the Judge for his choices. I think they show a lot about a Judge” “It isn’t about the individuals chosen, but of the person doing the choosing” Play the victim; “Why would someone choose to promote people who say hateful things about me if the Judge doesn’t agree with those statements?
    Trump can rake in another half million and the Judge can get a big book deal for a book no one reads, but everyone who puts it on the coffee table claims to have. Kudos all around

    steveg (6f8978)

  13. @10

    Latest body count 22 dead in Maine. AR-15 style assault gun. Republicans in congress so?

    asset (9a0c8d) — 10/25/2023 @ 8:02 pm

    Horrible tragedy.

    Shooter was already a prohibited possessor.

    Not sure why you bring in “Republicans in congress so?”…

    whembly (5f7596)

  14. For traditionalists: During the Civil War, some Union troops added a verse with “hang Jeff Davis to a sour apple tree” to The Battle Hymn of the Republic”.

    (I think at least the Loser should at least be spanked and sent to bed without supper.)

    Jim Miller (808bdf)

  15. Shooter was already a prohibited possessor.

    Link? He was a reservist and a firearms instructor.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  16. By definition, an “assault rifle” has a selector switch for burst or automatic fire. An AR-15 does not have that capability.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  17. Link? He was a reservist and a firearms instructor.

    Two weeks commitment to a mental health facility in the summer. Reportedly. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lewiston-maine-shooting-robert-card-what-know-rcna122262

    nk (d97a06)

  18. Trump was questioned by the judge. He claimed that the person he attacked as partisan was witness Michael Cohen, The judge did not find himn credible.

    The judge said he’d called his assistant partisan but MC always by name. Trump’s lawyers said he had much worse synonyms for MC.;;

    Meanwhile MC was floundering. It seems like Trump never told him specifically to make up figures,

    Sammy Finkelman (1f563c)

  19. @16

    Shooter was already a prohibited possessor.

    Link? He was a reservist and a firearms instructor.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/26/2023 @ 8:02 am

    It looked like he was involuntarily committed, and not only that made public threats to shooting up his base.

    If true, you are a prohibited possessor at that point.

    See federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4).

    Lots of questions here…
    Was there a protocol for followup?

    Was he being currently treated?

    whembly (5f7596)

  20. I don’t know who coined this, and if anyone has the original, please do let me know.
    I’m going from memory, so I’m paraphrasing.

    Here’s how you start/end the gun-control debate:

    Do you trust those in government, now and forever in the future, to not take your life, liberty, or property through the force of government?

    If that answer is “no”, then the debate is over.

    whembly (5f7596)

  21. Did any database have him as a prohibited person? Did anyone serve him with a order to surrender his guns? For all we know he bought the guns yesterday.

    Saying he should be prohibited due to his mental health issues (and I agree he should be) is meaningless if no action is taken to address it.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  22. @22

    Saying he should be prohibited due to his mental health issues (and I agree he should be) is meaningless if no action is taken to address it.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/26/2023 @ 8:26 am

    That’s the question, isn’t it?

    whembly (5f7596)

  23. If falling trees are prohibited, but a tree falls in the forest anyway, was it really prohibited? Here we see the difference between the legal and actual world-views.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  24. @24

    If falling trees are prohibited, but a tree falls in the forest anyway, was it really prohibited? Here we see the difference between the legal and actual world-views.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/26/2023 @ 8:52 am

    You do make the case that gun control doesn’t work rather succinctly there…

    whembly (5f7596)

  25. Like clockwork:

    President Biden urged Congress on Thursday to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, similar to the ones suspected of being used by a gunman in Maine Wednesday night at two shootings that left 18 people dead.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  26. More Trump Litigation News:

    A Colorado judge on Wednesday denied the latest attempt by former President Donald Trump to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to remove him from the state’s 2024 ballot because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

    The decision comes just days before a trial on Trump’s eligibility for the ballot is expected to begin.
    ………
    In a 24-page ruling, Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace pushed back on Trump’s argument that Congress, not courts, should handle questions related to his ballot eligibility. She also sided against Trump’s claim that state election officials lack the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

    Wallace noted that that clause “clearly gives Congress the ability to remove a constitutional disability should a person be disqualified” under the provision, but “it says nothing regarding what government body would adjudicate or determine such disability in the first instance.”
    ……….
    The court will convene Monday to consider whether “there is any evidence or argument at trial that provides the Court with additional guidance on whether the issue of presidential eligibility has been delegated to the United States Congress,” Wallace wrote.
    ……….
    Wallace’s ruling Wednesday comes after Chief U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer denied Trump’s request to move the Colorado ballot case to federal court.
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  27. You do make the case that gun control doesn’t work rather succinctly there…

    How surveilly do you want your surveillance society? Because if the Chinese can do it with $12,500 GDP per capita, we can do it with $70,259 GDP per capita.

    nk (d97a06)

  28. President Biden urged Congress on Thursday to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, similar to the ones suspected of being used by a gunman in Maine Wednesday night at two shootings that left 18 people dead.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/26/2023 @ 9:23 am

    And like clockwork it will be ignored.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  29. Never mind that a federal judge has ruled that both bans on AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines are unconstitutional, despite President Biden’s Newspeak definitions.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  30. Wallace’s ruling Wednesday comes after Chief U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer denied Trump’s request to move the Colorado ballot case to federal court.

    And he did so on the merits — he agrees that there is cause for a state action.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  31. How surveilly do you want your surveillance society? Because if the Chinese can do it with $12,500 GDP per capita, we can do it with $70,259 GDP per capita.

    Well, we could copy them on the income as well.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  32. steveg (6f8978) — 10/25/2023 @ 7:34 pm

    the judge looks like whiner and it also makes him look like he is protecting a biased law clerk.

    The judge is afraid that in an “overheated atmosphere” there could be n attack by a lone wolf. As ajudge he has to take that kind if risk as a result of cases he hears but not his staff,

    Sammy Finkelman (1f563c)

  33. They can ban any type of weapons, just so long as they ban them from the police as well.

    Sammy Finkelman (1f563c)

  34. Wallace’s ruling Wednesday comes after Chief U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer denied Trump’s request to move the Colorado ballot case to federal court.

    And he did so on the merits — he agrees that there is cause for a state action.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/26/2023 @ 9:29 am

    The federal judge did not decide based on the merits and that there is a cause for state action.

    In a four-page order, Brimmer sent the lawsuit back to the same state court in Denver County where it was filed on behalf of the group of voters.

    Brimmer, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, said Trump had not properly served Colorado’s Democratic secretary of state, Jena Griswold, or gained her consent to move the case. For those reasons, he said, he found Trump’s effort to move the case “defective.”

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  35. Gubman still on the loose, possibly in Massachusetts. The toll is now given as 18 dead (not 22) and 13 injured. Gunman earlier this year spent two weeks in a mental institution or mental section of something. Had reported hearing voices, which means dreaming outside of sleep. Also something that sounds like OCD. Did he have a history of taking some kind of illegal drugs?

    Sammy Finkelman (ee92a5)

  36. Well, I guess it depends on what you call “the merits.”

    Trump had attempted to remove this to federal court, claiming there was no reason for the state courts to be involved. Since the CO SoS had 1) the power under state law to make the 14th Amendment determination and 2) did not consent to it being removed, and 3) is not just a nominal party, the judge ruled on the merits of the removal case.

    Other cases of this sort, such as the NM county commissioner case, were left in state court simply as a procedural issue (deal with it there before you come here).

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  37. The toll is now given as 18 dead (not 22) and 13 injured

    Four were only “mostly dead.”

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  38. Other cases of this sort, such as the NM county commissioner case, were left in state court simply as a procedural issue (deal with it there before you come here).

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 10/26/2023 @ 9:59 am

    Couy Griffin’s case remained in state court because the federal court determined that it lacked due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  39. Well, I guess it depends on what you call “the merits.”

    In my opinion, a ruling on the “merits” would have said that the lawsuit could (or not) go forward for these constitutional or statutory reasons, not some three-part parsing of a very simple ruling about service.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  40. Couy Griffin’s case remained in state court because the federal court determined that it lacked due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing.

    They sent it back because the issue he raised — denial of due process — had to wait until there was some state action to complain about.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  41. Rip,

    The only case he had was whether it would or could be transferred to federal court. He was not asked to rule on anything else, and therefore did not. The “merits” of the case involved jurisdiction, and only that. The Couy Griffin case did not reach anything more than “no harm is shown” (yet).

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  42. When Couy Griffin later appealed to the NM Supreme Court, his case was dismissed for lack of timely filing.

    The New Mexico Supreme Court denied an appeal from former Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin in the case that removed him from office based on his actions during the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection.

    The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Griffin failed to file a statement of issues within 30 days of his notice of appeal.

    Some reports neglect to mention the reason, implying that the NM ruled on the merits.

    Not sure if that makes a federal appeal moot. It seems he, like Trump, has a crappy lawyer.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  43. Switzerland and the Czech Republic have thriving gun cultures and generally allow citizens to own the same guns available in America. However, those citizens must pass in-depth training courses, rigorous tests, and expanded background checks before obtaining a firearm.

    Rhetoric about mental health service or “good guys with guns” ain’t cutting it. Neither is describing an AR-15 as a “weapon of war” or using the oblique label “assault rifle”. Let’s acknowledge that mass shootings are hard to preempt. This shooter was a shooting instructor. His mental health problems emerged after he had weapons. There was no practical mechanism for him to have lost his access to his weapons.

    AJ_Liberty (1295e6)

  44. Couy’s Supreme Court appeal lawyer is Peter Ticktin, a Trump stalwart and QAnon devotee. He’s had a number of problems lately with federal judges and the Florida bar.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  45. @44

    Switzerland and the Czech Republic have thriving gun cultures and generally allow citizens to own the same guns available in America. However, those citizens must pass in-depth training courses, rigorous tests, and expanded background checks before obtaining a firearm.

    Except, those countries do NOT have an enshrined 2nd Amendment right.

    Furthermore, I don’t know about the Czech Republic, but Switzerland heavily regulate/tax ammo sales as well to the point that you might as well not have the guns.

    And additionally, the both countries are not good analogue to the massive territories of the US.

    Rhetoric about mental health service or “good guys with guns” ain’t cutting it.

    No. That is *THE* discussion that needs to be had. The pro-gun control crowd refuses to acknowledge and discuss these topics.

    Neither is describing an AR-15 as a “weapon of war” or using the oblique label “assault rifle”.

    Just mock those who pushes that narrative as it’s really insipid.

    Let’s acknowledge that mass shootings are hard to preempt. This shooter was a shooting instructor. His mental health problems emerged after he had weapons. There was no practical mechanism for him to have lost his access to his weapons.

    AJ_Liberty (1295e6) — 10/26/2023 @ 12:12 pm

    So… the law says he’s a prohibited possessor…

    What additional law would’ve made this guy NOT commit murder?

    This is what we have to face with this nation – in an OPEN society that’s heavily armed, your only real defense is to be armed/trained yourself.

    whembly (5f7596)

  46. @44:

    I don’t hold with unlicensed carry (open or concealed), but such a license should be based only on 1) a reasonable amount of training, and 2) a showing of good judgement, and 3) no evidence of potential danger to others.

    I could accept some in-depth examination of 2 & 3, but I worry that it would become discriminatory like voter-literacy tests once were.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  47. Upcoming gun case: United States v. Rahimi (scroll down)

    Texan Zackey Rahimi was involved in five shootings in December 2020 and January 2021, including one incident in which he was involved in a car accident and shot at the driver of the other car and another in which he fired into the air after his credit card was declined at a fast-food restaurant. When police identified Rahimi as a suspect and obtained a warrant to search his home, they found a rifle and pistol. Because Rahimi had been the subject of a Feb. 2020 protective order after the alleged assault of his former girlfriend, which specifically barred him from having a gun, he was indicted on charges that he had violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which bars anyone who is the subject of a domestic-violence restraining order from possessing a gun.

    Rahimi asked the court to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the law violates the Second Amendment. Both a federal district court and a panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit initially upheld the law, rejecting Rahimi’s challenge. But after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, the panel issued a new opinion vacating Rahimi’s conviction and deeming the statute unconstitutional. The federal government, the panel stressed, could not point to a historical tradition of similar restrictions, as Bruen requires.

    Rahimi seems like the kind of person who should not be allowed sharp objects, let along guns, but the case in question occurred before he acted out. Still, it cannot escape anyone that any gun rights he may have had should now be revoked for cause.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  48. I sense that the “historical tradition” test is not going to stand for long, as it is weak in several respects. It seems a bit of a kludge.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  49. And, now, back to The Donnie Show:

    Jack Smith says Trump is ‘threatening’ witness, asks judge in DC case to reimpose gag order

    In a Truth Social post late Tuesday, Trump suggested that Smith had coerced Meadows into maligning him.

    “Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation. I don’t think that Mark Meadows is one of them, but who really knows?” wrote Trump.

    nk (d97a06)

  50. nk (d97a06) — 10/26/2023 @ 1:01 pm
    What was the threat?

    A general gag because the former baby, sorry former potus is an absolute jerk doesn’t merit the gag.

    whembly (5f7596)

  51. Trump is just trying to denigrate Meadows’ credibility, but he’s not sure he wants to – Meadows might not really say anything that implicates him in a crime – and the reason he can think that is that he never conspired with him in anything he thought was a crime.

    He’s not trying to intimidate Meadows – he’s positioning himself to either cite Meadows in his support or to call him a liar and it seems like he’s leaning toward not disputing much if anything Meadows has to say. He thinks the odds are what Meadows has to say won’t really hurt him so why make Meadows angry at him?

    (Trump is trying to influence opinion, but of his followers, not the future jury.)

    Sammy Finkelman (7a85f9)

  52. “Connie, if you don’t listen to me, and marry this man, you’ll disappoint me.”

    nk (d97a06)

  53. 46. whembly (5f7596) — 10/26/2023 @ 12:26 pm

    So… the law says he’s a prohibited possessor…

    Maybe a prohibited purchaser but not a prohibited owner.

    What additional law would’ve made this guy NOT commit murder?

    People pretend sometimes that “red flag” laws will do it.

    If you study this case, you may find something that makes sense.

    Maybe “green light” laws (insurance) which he might lose. Even if there is no procedure to take them away – people would be more cautious in giving the green light and would stay in touch if guessing wrong cost them money.

    The NRA and others would say “Lock him up” for hearing voices.

    Sammy Finkelman (7a85f9)

  54. @54 Sammy Finkelman (7a85f9) — 10/26/2023 @ 1:47 pm
    No Sammy.

    In federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), once you’ve been mentally instituted you are defacto a prohibited possessor.

    The crux of the debate is this: Now he’s a prohibited possessor… who makes sure he doesn’t have the firearm?

    Is it a honor system that the crazy guy must give it up?

    Is it a family member, who likely has power of attorney due to that dude being committed?

    Is a judge, signing a warrant for the police to “clear” his house of firearms?

    Furthermore, what medication was given to him during his treatment? And why did they believe it was safe enough for him to be released to the public?

    And, again, I’ve mentioned this before, but most states (if not all) has a court pathway where you can petition the court to deem a person “unfit” and from there, seek to remove not only firearms, but anything that can hurt the person or public (ie, car, knife collection, etc…)

    whembly (5f7596)

  55. To be clear, here’s the deet:
    https://www.atf.gov/file/58791/download#:~:text=Any%20person%20who%20has%20been,possessing%20any%20firearm%20or%20ammunition.

    Any person who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution” is prohibited under Federal law from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing any firearm or ammunition.

    whembly (5f7596)

  56. If the judge keeps doubling the fines, they will get up to the “real money” level very quickly.

    The Loser is acting like a little boy who refuses to accept a “timeout”.

    Jim Miller (21d557)

  57. @ whembly (5f7596) — 10/26/2023 @ 2:04 pm

    As someone who is very interested in mental health care, I wonder if he was “cured” after 2 weeks or that was all that his military or private insurances allowed.

    Joe (141406)

  58. Trump seems to be baiting the judge, to show he isn’t impartial, and the judge seems to be taking the bait. Barring criticism of his court, outside of his court, touches on 1st Amendment protections.

    I also wonder about more general orders. Trump is, ffs, a presidential candidate of a major party. The 1st Amendment was designed particularly to protect political speech from those that would throttle such.

    As much as I would like Trump to fall, accidentally, into a vat of piranha, he has certain rights. As a presidential candidate they may be stronger than those of, say, a barfly. Even though they might sound similar.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  59. @Joe@58 My guess would be stabilized on medication probably. Of course that only works if he continues to take the medication.

    Nic (896fdf)

  60. Bad Timing:

    The Senate has approved a measure that would ease some veterans’ access to guns, brushing aside objections from most Democrats and the Department of Veterans Affairs that doing so could hinder suicide prevention efforts.

    The legislation would prohibit the VA from reporting veterans who are found incapable of managing their own finances to the FBI’s national background check database without first getting a judge’s consent. The Senate passed the measure by Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., in a 53-45 vote Wednesday afternoon.

    The VA reports the names of veterans who are deemed mentally incompetent to a national criminal background check database used during the purchase of firearms, but the practice has drawn criticism from gun rights advocates in Congress. …….
    ……….
    Since 1998, under its interpretation of the gun control legislation known as the Brady Law, the VA has reported the names of veterans appointed fiduciaries to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is the system used to determine whether someone is legally prohibited from buying a gun.
    ………
    ………House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost, R-Ill., said one of his top priorities was to pass a bill to bar the VA from reporting someone to NICS solely on the basis that they were appointed a fiduciary — without a judge’s order saying the veteran is a danger to themselves and others.

    The VA, though, has firmly opposed the bill, pointing to statistics that show a correlation between suicidal ideation and financial issues, and that show suicide attempts involving firearms are more lethal than other methods.
    ………..
    “We’re not talking about people who just need some assistance with their financial affairs,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said on the Senate floor. “One-third of the veterans we’re talking about in this category are diagnosed schizophrenics. And this amendment allows for every single one of them to have their gun rights restored.”
    ………..

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  61. “One-third of the veterans we’re talking about in this category are diagnosed schizophrenics. And this amendment allows for every single one of them to have their gun rights restored.”

    Except it doesn’t. It just means that their schizophrenia diagnosis has to be used rather than some wider proxy. “Cannot manage their financial affairs” also discriminates anyone who is not very good with math. Some may be senile or schizophrenic or otherwise impaired, but others might just be, well, stupid. Bureaucratic ease is not a good enough reason.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  62. Mike johnson is a mega! Trump.

    asset (74ba29)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1547 secs.