Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ4,742 | |
| 2 | Ṁ3,083 | |
| 3 | Ṁ1,048 | |
| 4 | Ṁ911 | |
| 5 | Ṁ902 |
@LivInTheLookingGlass If trump is held in contempt for violating the gag order and is held in jail, that's not a "conviction" in the usual sense, would that count?
@Shelvacu You could probably bet on this market if you're interested in that:
Hypothesis: he knows he’ll only get fined for violating gag orders and that kind of money means nothing to him so he’s just plowing ahead. My relative confidence in this hypothesis makes me want to keep my NO positions.
Or he’s completely lost it. And he’ll be held in contempt and/or jailed before any of his criminal trials have even started. In this case I’m screwed.
I think your hypothesis is probably correct, he gains political momentum from each fine. Edit:(And is confident it will be only fines.)
Will he be able to balance the Line between the political rally gains vs going to far?
@KevinMason he would still need to be prosecuted for the violation and in this particular case I'm not entirely sure how that would work since it's in a civil trial.
@NicoDelon The judge today in the civil case already set the penalty for the next violation of the order - 30 days in jail.
@BTE But that doesn’t happen automatically does it? Can the judge convict him on the spot?
@NicoDelon Yes, it could go down just like the movies in this case. It’s not the same thing as being indicted, but in a courtroom the judge is god and he could have Trump bound and gagged Bobby Seale style if he didn’t like the look on his face. (See sketch below). Judges are typically very restrained and the only way Trump could get out is emergency injunction by an appellate court but for reasons sorta understandable judges are not inclined to tell each other how to manage their courtroom and look after the safety and wellbeing of their staff and other court employees. Trump had until this incident kept it mostly personal with the judges themselves, but the clerks of judges are in large part their legacy. DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer or judge, but I did live with a former girlfriend while she was in law school so the value of my opinion is slightly below hers and slightly better than the dudes waking up right now at Holiday Inn Express.
@NicoDelon The same thing is done with uncooperative witnesses who are ordered to testify and then refuse for whatever reason. I am thinking of Judith Miller but also Chelsea Manning I believe for refusing to testify against Julian Assange.
@NicoDelon Also dudes who don’t pay child support or spousal support. Famous recent example in Chicago was the Pat Archer situation.
@BTE Super interesting thank you, of course my next Q: is this called convicted though? Does convicted imply "not a summary judgement" or something along those lines.
@KevinMason Some research suggests that a summary judgment is only a thing for civil cases (which can't lead to a jail sentence). You'd have a summary proceeding, like in traffic court, which is technically a trial and technically a conviction.
@NicoDelon You don't go to jail for anything else, afaict. Contempt of court is definitely a criminal offense
@Frogswap Jail sure but if there’s a summary judgment and a fine? (I’m not familiar at all with gag orders)
@NicoDelon Summary judgment would be civil, but I assume you mean summary proceeding (I didn't know these were two different things until an hour ago). If it's over contempt of court I would think even a fine is a criminal conviction, but I'm not a lawyer.
I have introduced the summary judgment terminology incorrectly. I am not sure it's the correct term for when a judge enforces or punishes in real time.
I guess the info I need to dig down for is,
Can a judge hand down something that is considered a "Conviction" very quickly
I.E. Trump flagrantly violates the gag order and receives immediate reproductions, has he been convicted?
Does this give a pathway for trumps bombasity to result in fast (before the end of the year) "Conviction" even through a civil case.
I'll try and invest some research later tonight
@KevinMason Some interesting discussion here: https://www.businessinsider.com/gag-order-trump-fraud-case-consequences-unlikely-violation-legal-analysis-2023-10#:~:text=The%20potential%20penalties%20for%20violating,he%20has%20broken%20the%20rules.
An excerpt:
The potential penalties for violating the gag order include fines and even prison time — but a legal expert told Insider that Trump is unlikely to face those types of consequences, even if the judge in the fraud trial finds he has broken the rules.
...
Alexander, who has been an attorney for more than 30 years and specializes in employment law and civil rights cases, said the court has several different options for how it can sanction Trump if he violates the gag order. Any decision the court makes, he said, will have to balance his right to free speech against the legal objective of achieving a fair trial.
"For one thing, the judge can prevent Trump's legal team from presenting certain evidence. But judges prefer not to put their thumb on the scales of justice that way," Alexander said. "Another option is for the judge to inform the jury that Trump has violated his order. The judge could instruct the jury to consider that conduct and give it the weight that the jury thinks it deserves in considering Trump's evidence and credibility."
Alexander added that the court could impose a fine "but that would be meaningless" given Trump's wealth, and said that judges in civil matters generally don't order people to go to jail, so the judge will have to be creative in implementing a sanction that would work to dissuade Trump from continuing to violate the order.
Okay with some time invested I'm incline to believe that this theory is plausible. That is, a judge can convict criminally in real time if its Direct Criminal Contempt. It may be confirmation bias, here are my notes, mostly quotes but wit some snips.
- The words convicted and criminal seem to be the main choke points.
[Wiki for Contempt_of_court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court)
- Criminal contempt
- Criminal contempt includes anything that could be considered a disturbance, such as repeatedly talking out of turn, bringing forth previously banned evidence, or harassment of any other party in the courtroom...
- Direct contempt is that which occurs in the presence of the presiding judge (_in facie curiae_) and may be dealt with summarily.
- Contempt of court in a civil suit is generally not considered to be a criminal offense, ..snip... However, some cases of civil contempt have been perceived as intending to harm the reputation of the plaintiff, or to a lesser degree, the judge or the court.
- Sanctions .... may be criminal .... to be punished criminally, .... contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but once the charge is proven, then punishment (such as a fine or, in more serious cases, imprisonment) is imposed unconditionally.
[sog.unc.edu](https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/204-2)
- Direct criminal contempt, committed in the presence of the court and likely to interfere with court proceedings, may be punished in a summary proceeding.
- A conviction for criminal contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and is considered a criminal conviction for double jeopardy purposes, but it is punished pursuant to its own sentencing statutes and does not count for prior record level purposes.