Donald Trump: Judge issues gag order on former president in NY fraud case

[Social Media]

 

The judge presiding over Donald Trump's civil fraud case issued a limited gag order after the ex-president made "disparaging" remarks about a court clerk.

Mr Trump had attacked Judge Arthur Engoron's clerk in a post on his social media site, Truth Social.

The judge warned of "serious sanctions" if the order was disobeyed.

Mr Trump has repeatedly made personal attacks on the judge and called him "deranged" and a "rogue adjudicator".

But Tuesday's gag order is limited and restricted to public comments against members of court staff.

Mr Trump on Tuesday posted a picture of principal clerk Allison Greenfield with Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer at a campaign event. In the post, he called Ms Greenfield "Schumer's girlfriend" and said that the case against him should be dismissed.

 

After a court break, Judge Engoron did not mention anyone by name but referenced the social media incident saying that a defendant "posted to a social media account a disparaging, untrue and personally identifying post about a member of my staff".

"Personal attacks on members of my court staff are unacceptable, inappropriate and I will not tolerate them under any circumstances," he said. "Failure to abide by this order will result in serious sanctions," he said.

Justice Engoron said that his statement should be considered a gag order forbidding any posts, emails or public remarks about members of his staff.

The post on Mr Trump's social media site, Truth Social, was removed following the judge's order.

Mr Trump has called the trial a "fraud" and a "scam" and pledged to take the stand in his own defence.

Asked if he would testify in the case, he said: "Yes, I will. At the appropriate time, I will be."

 

The former president, his two adult sons and the wider Trump Organization are accused of massively inflating the value of their properties by over $2bn (£1.65bn), in order to secure favourable loans.

Attorney General Letitia James is seeking $250m (£207m) and sanctions that could prevent the Trump family from doing business in the state of New York.

None of the defendants will face jail time if convicted, because this is a civil case not a criminal one.

The trial is a bench trial, meaning that the ultimate decision on whether the co-defendants are liable and any damages or penalties rest on Judge Engoron alone, not a jury.

 

FULL STORY

 

 

 

 

 

[Tug]

I ish they would just jail the guy,he’s going sooner or later might as well get it over with.we all know he has absolutely zero self control let that pampered trust fund baby cool his heels at rikers island 

[Skipalongcassidy]

2 minutes ago, Tug said:

I ish they would just jail the guy,he’s going sooner or later might as well get it over with.we all know he has absolutely zero self control let that pampered trust fund baby cool his heels at rikers island 

You hate soo much that you wish for a lynching... you are pathetic.

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You hate soo much that you wish for a lynching... you are pathetic.

Hyperbole has a grip on you.

 

Trump is facing Justice, it’s not a lynching.

 

Though stripping Trump of hundreds of millions of dollars he shouldn’t have in the first place is going seem like a course haired rope around his neck.

[Tug]

7 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You hate soo much that you wish for a lynching... you are pathetic.

Who said anything about lynching?unless you are talking about what Trump instigated against the Vice President.that being said it’s illegal to threaten intimate cause harm to witnesses jurors or court officers.Trump should get equal treatment just like everyone else period all stop 

[2baht]

38 minutes ago, Social Media said:

issued a limited gag order

????Try shutting this loud mouthed, lying buffoon up! Hahaha!

[2baht]

20 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You hate soo much that you wish for a lynching... you are pathetic.

Oh blossom, that's rather harsh!

[bendejo]

He wants to get arrested and taken away by uniform cops as a photo op for fund raising.  The rubes will take out second mortgages and send him the $$$

He knows his people.

 

But yeah, a weekend in the hoosegow will help him put things in perspective.

 

[Skipalongcassidy]

39 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hyperbole has a grip on you.

 

Trump is facing Justice, it’s not a lynching.

 

Though stripping Trump of hundreds of millions of dollars he shouldn’t have in the first place is going seem like a course haired rope around his neck.

You must have missed the fact that "TUG" wants to imprison someone because he hates him so much... the jury is still out and he's calling for a "lynching"... I really wouldn't expect you to understand...

[Tug]

3 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You must have missed the fact that "TUG" wants to imprison someone because he hates him so much... the jury is still out and he's calling for a "lynching"... I really wouldn't expect you to understand...

Hey I’d settle for a good old fashioned tar and feathers! Lol ???? and calm down I said he can’t keep his mouth shut he will continue to threaten it’s what he does he needs do go cool his heals at rikers island it would do him good 

[Skipalongcassidy]

46 minutes ago, Tug said:

Who said anything about lynching?unless you are talking about what Trump instigated against the Vice President.that being said it’s illegal to threaten intimate cause harm to witnesses jurors or court officers.Trump should get equal treatment just like everyone else period all stop 

The proverbial lynching... "throw him in Rikers now"... you are like the brat who can't wait for his participation trophy... 555

[Skipalongcassidy]

2 minutes ago, Tug said:

Hey I’d settle for a good old fashioned tar and feathers! Lol ???? and calm down I said he can’t keep his mouth shut he will continue to threaten it’s what he does he needs do go cool his heals at rikers island it would do him good 

As much as an ass that trump may be... his right to be outspoken is as sacrosanct as yours... what if someone wanted to throw your ass in prison for what you say?  Why do you hate trump so much yet defend the same type of offspring coming from Biden family... your description of trump also fits Hunter to a T

[Tug]

18 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

As much as an ass that trump may be... his right to be outspoken is as sacrosanct as yours... what if someone wanted to throw your ass in prison for what you say?  Why do you hate trump so much yet defend the same type of offspring coming from Biden family... your description of trump also fits Hunter to a T

Nope he and I anyone for that matter isent allowed to threaten obstruct intimidate period all stop.can you show me we’re the Biden’s have threatened witnesses or officers of the courts?

[2baht]

37 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You must have missed the fact that "TUG" wants to imprison someone because he hates him so much... the jury is still out and he's calling for a "lynching"... I really wouldn't expect you to understand...

I distinctly get the impression that ol' Donzo has broken the law on several occasions hence the situation he's in, i tend to agree with Tugg, you are dramatizing things, "lynching" is your word, Petal!

[2baht]

29 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Why do you hate trump so much

He just asks for it, the arrogant, lying buffoon!

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You must have missed the fact that "TUG" wants to imprison someone because he hates him so much... the jury is still out and he's calling for a "lynching"... I really wouldn't expect you to understand...

There isn’t jury, it’s a Bench trial.

 

Trump (all the best people) employed an idiot lawyer who neglected to tick the ‘trial by jury’ box.

 

The trial is in any case a civil litigation, nobody is going to jail - although Trump could be sent to jail for contempt of court ‘Doxing court officials’ being his first strike.

 

Getting sent to jail for contempt of court is a matter of the judges discretion, again nothing to do with a jury.

 

I agree with Tug, ‘Doxing a court official’ should have earned Trump time in the slammer.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

But Tuesday's gag order is limited and restricted to public comments against members of court staff.

So, not much of a gag order then.

The Donald will still have his opportunity to cause upset to the forces of darkness as they seek to make him vanish from the campaign to retake the big chair.

[Skipalongcassidy]

16 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There isn’t jury, it’s a Bench trial.

 

Trump (all the best people) employed an idiot lawyer who neglected to tick the ‘trial by jury’ box.

 

 

 

 

"the jury is still out" is a colloquialism in this case... 

There was no box to tick as you say... the DA chose to prosecute under a statute that does not allow for one to select whether or not you want a jury... 

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

There was no box to tick as you say... the DA chose to prosecute under a statute that does not allow for one to select whether or not you want a jury... 

Prove it. And good luck with that. It's clear that either you're making this up or you got this information from some garbage dump of a website.

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

https://aseannow.com/forum/158-world-news/

 

Trump Gripes It’s ‘Unfair’ He Doesn’t Have A Jury—But He Never Asked For One In N.Y. Fraud Case

"Trump’s attorneys, acting on his behalf, waived his right to a jury trial earlier this year, according to online court records.

Trump also falsely said on Monday “we’re not entitled to a jury, which is pretty unusual in the United States of America.”

Trump was entitled to a jury, but his lawyers chose to have a bench trial, meaning the judge will make the final determination"

.https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/10/02/trump-gripes-its-unfair-he-doesnt-have-a-jury-but-he-never-asked-for-one-in-ny-fraud-case/?sh=15e44b415172

[Skipalongcassidy]

47 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Prove it. And good luck with that. It's clear that either you're making this up or you got this information from some garbage dump of a website.

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

https://aseannow.com/forum/158-world-news/

 

Trump Gripes It’s ‘Unfair’ He Doesn’t Have A Jury—But He Never Asked For One In N.Y. Fraud Case

"Trump’s attorneys, acting on his behalf, waived his right to a jury trial earlier this year, according to online court records.

Trump also falsely said on Monday “we’re not entitled to a jury, which is pretty unusual in the United States of America.”

Trump was entitled to a jury, but his lawyers chose to have a bench trial, meaning the judge will make the final determination"

.https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/10/02/trump-gripes-its-unfair-he-doesnt-have-a-jury-but-he-never-asked-for-one-in-ny-fraud-case/?sh=15e44b415172

Trumps attorney didn't "forget" but was never given the choice by law... "I have to address this one common misconception in the press, and unfortunately it just keeps getting repeated, which is that we have this great option to have a box checked for a jury. 

No, we didn't have that. That's not how this works. They brought it under Section 63(12), which is a very narrow, not appropriately used section of the law, which is for consumer protections, not this. And that is why we're sitting here in front of a judge."

Go ahead and read the statute...

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Trumps attorney didn't "forget" but was never given the choice by law... "I have to address this one common misconception in the press, and unfortunately it just keeps getting repeated, which is that we have this great option to have a box checked for a jury. 

No, we didn't have that. That's not how this works. They brought it under Section 63(12), which is a very narrow, not appropriately used section of the law, which is for consumer protections, not this. And that is why we're sitting here in front of a judge."

Go ahead and read the statute...

First, go ahead and give me the source of the quote.

[Skipalongcassidy]

Just now, placeholder said:

First, go ahead and give me the source of the quote.

 "this information from some garbage dump of a website"... oh yeah... it's was picked up on cnn after snopes sourced it.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Trumps attorney didn't "forget" but was never given the choice by law... "I have to address this one common misconception in the press, and unfortunately it just keeps getting repeated, which is that we have this great option to have a box checked for a jury. 

No, we didn't have that. That's not how this works. They brought it under Section 63(12), which is a very narrow, not appropriately used section of the law, which is for consumer protections, not this. And that is why we're sitting here in front of a judge."

Go ahead and read the statute...

I unreservedly apologize. You are correct in your statement about that statute. 

That said, Trump's lawyers made no attempt to appeal the use of the statute which is odd, gi

given the propensity of Trump's lawyers to litigate everything...

"“It’s not entirely clear whether Trump would have been entitled to a jury trial under New York law – that would depend on nuanced legal determinations about the nature of the remedy sought by the attorney general,” said Elie Honig, a CNN senior legal analyst and former federal and New Jersey prosecutor. “But Trump’s legal team absolutely could have requested a jury, litigated the issue, and then appealed had they lost.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/04/politics/trump-new-york-case-no-jury/index.html

[Skipalongcassidy]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I unreservedly apologize. You are correct in your statement about that statute. 

That said, Trump's lawyers made no attempt to appeal the use of the statute which is odd, gi

given the propensity of Trump's lawyers to litigate everything...

"“It’s not entirely clear whether Trump would have been entitled to a jury trial under New York law – that would depend on nuanced legal determinations about the nature of the remedy sought by the attorney general,” said Elie Honig, a CNN senior legal analyst and former federal and New Jersey prosecutor. “But Trump’s legal team absolutely could have requested a jury, litigated the issue, and then appealed had they lost.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/04/politics/trump-new-york-case-no-jury/index.html

They are smarter than you give them credit for... the appeal will come over the fact that the statute is unconstitutional and was used by the DA to be punitive... the legal system in the USA is convoluted and perverse.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

They are smarter than you give them credit for... the appeal will come over the fact that the statute is unconstitutional and was used by the DA to be punitive... the legal system in the USA is convoluted and perverse.

Not so smart. The time to raise that issue would be before the trial. I haven't seen any evidence that Trump's lawyers raised the issue. Appeals courts tend to be very sceptical when lawyers raise an appeal on issues that they should have previously addressed. More likely, though it's only my opinion, given Trump's often stated belief that he couldn't get a fair jury trial, his lawyers were acting at Trump's direction.

[daveAustin]

The bloke is a donkey, but anyone with half a brain could see that he’s being rightly or wrongly systematically shutdown. If they’re doing that to Trump, perhaps same should happen to the current doddery president and his family. American politics is almost as comical as Thailand’s. 

[placeholder]

34 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

The bloke is a donkey, but anyone with half a brain could see that he’s being rightly or wrongly systematically shutdown. If they’re doing that to Trump, perhaps same should happen to the current doddery president and his family. American politics is almost as comical as Thailand’s. 

Thanks for completely disregarding the issue of evidence.

[placeholder]

Trump reposted this X (formerly Twitter) post on Truth Social

https://nypost.com/2023/10/03/trump-shares-court-sketch-of-him-sitting-next-to-jesus

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

"the jury is still out" is a colloquialism in this case... 

There was no box to tick as you say... the DA chose to prosecute under a statute that does not allow for one to select whether or not you want a jury... 

False.

 

Trump’s lawyers elected for a Bench Trial, they had the option of a Jury and turned it down.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

They are smarter than you give them credit for... the appeal will come over the fact that the statute is unconstitutional and was used by the DA to be punitive... the legal system in the USA is convoluted and perverse.

Perhaps the legal system was designed by lawyers so they have to be used, as no normal person has a hope of understanding the rules.