Thursday, February 22, 2024

Put Up Or Shut Up

Clifford Robert filed a letter in the New York City civil court addressed to Justice Arthur Engoron complaining of the landmark ruling that also banned Trump from doing business in the state for three years. 
Robert argues Trump was “deprived” the chance to speak out against the ruling before it was filed. 
“Because the decision ordinarily entails more complicated relief, the instruction contemplates notice to the opponent so that both parties may either agree on a draft or prepare counter proposals to be settled before the court,” Robert argues. 
“Defendants therefore request that the Court set a return date for the Proposed _Judgment that affords Defendants sufficient time to submit a proposed counter-judgment.”
I’m not familiar with New York procedure, but my first thought is, this needs to be a motion for new trial, not a letter.

A motion for new trial is the standard start to an appeal. It’s the last step in preserving error. I haven’t heard of Trump filing one yet, but: Maybe it’s the motion that’s taking up their time. Although usually such a motion is filed shortly after entry of the final judgment, and they had several weeks after final arguments to prepare one.

This letter sounds like Robert belatedly thought of this “strategy” and wanted to raise it on appeal. But to do that, he must raise it in the trial court first. This is where I question if a letter to the judge is sufficient make a record for appeal. I think this should be a motion, not an informal “Wait, I wasn’t ready! I get another chance!” plea to the judge. Especially when Robert had time while waiting for the final judgment to piss all over the judge and raise Engoron’s righteous wrath.

What Robert is talking about sounds familiar to me, in concept. In cases where the judgement is a fairly direct matter of finding for one party and granting or denying the relief requested, it’s SOP for the judge to rule from the bench and then ask the parties to submit a judgment consistent with the ruling for entry. This leads to a little back and forth between lawyers, a document both sign off on, and submission to the judge for signature. In a case where the judge feels a memorandum opinion is necessary, however, it’s a different matter. So I don’t know what leg Robert has to stand on m, aside from “No fair!”

Turns out Lisa Rubin has the receipts (and a better handle on what’s going on than that story reported):
Trump is simply playing for more time. There aren’t any substantive changes to the proposed judgement possible, but Trump wants to have a motion and hearings to argue about the language. Not because Trump has an argument, but because Trump doesn’t have the money, and nobody wants to lend it to him. Real estate makes piss-poor collateral for an appeal bond; especially if that real estate is already collateral for other loans.

I’ve never heard of motions being argued over the language of a judgment. The usual practice is, the trial court says “take it up on appeal,” and signs the judgment so they can. Except that’s what Trump literally can’t afford to do.

And Letitia James smells blood in the water. She wants Trump to come up with that bond:
New York Attorney General Letitia James said she's ready to seize former President Trump's buildings and other assets if he can't pay the penalty imposed on him and his companies in the state's civil fraud case. 
What she's saying: "If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets," James told ABC News on Tuesday.
He's got 30 days left after the court enters the judgment (which is why he wants the delay), before the state demands payment. He’d better be beating the money bushes.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)