Trump Gag Order Still In Force To Bring Fines From Judge Merchan Because Of What He Says During Debate

[mudwhistle]

Trump is forbidden to mention the names of the jurors or their addresses or phone numbers.

But I would agree with you that he has a right to complain about it being a phony court.

I'm not so sure that bringing the 34 guilty verdicts up would be to his advantage. He's better off making it all about Biden's deficiencies.

Is Biden going to have to stand on his feet for 90 minutes?

Expect a 'commercial' break. or two?

What makes you think Trump even knows any of that information?

 

[WorldWatcher]

"Trump Gag Order Still In Force To Bring Fines From Judge Merchan Because Of What He Says During Debate"

Maybe one of the more reasonable posters could explain something.

The gag order does not apply to Justice Merchan or the elected DA Bragg. It limits the ability of Ex-President Trump to comment on and incite followers to threaten or harm those in the following categories:

• Court Staff doing their job.
• Non-Elected Prosecutors doing their job.
• Jurors
• Witnesses (which I think will be modified post trial for witnesses that choose to make public commentary)
• Family members of those involved in the case

The 90-minute debate will be divided up into 15 minutes segments for different topics. I'm guessing things like:

• Illegal Immigration
• Abortion
• Taxes
• Health Care
• Abortion
• etc.

.
.
.
.
So could someone explain why limitations on discussing specific participants (and some non-participants, such as family members) in any way limits the ability of Ex-President Trump to respond to issues like those listed above.

I see no logical connection.

WW

 

[Donald H]

What makes you think Trump even knows any of that information?

I don't give a fk.

Trump has finally become antiwar!

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't give a fk.

Trump has finally become antiwar!

Trump has always been antiwar, but what does that have to do with this topic?

 

[Synthaholic]

Then he should watch what he says in the debate.

 

[WEATHER53]

The gag order is still in effect to protect those to whom it applies.

Trump won't mention any of those people, or feel any need to violate the gag order.

No one needed protection due to criticism
Now go hand wring and faint

 

[WEATHER53]

Then he should watch what he says in the debate.

Which is the set up you loons have contrived but he won’t obey illegal dictates

 

[WEATHER53]

"Trump Gag Order Still In Force To Bring Fines From Judge Merchan Because Of What He Says During Debate"

Maybe one of the more reasonable posters could explain something.

The gag order does not apply to Justice Merchan or the elected DA Bragg. It limits the ability of Ex-President Trump to comment on and incite followers to threaten or harm those in the following categories:

• Court Staff doing their job.
• Non-Elected Prosecutors doing their job.
• Jurors
• Witnesses (which I think will be modified post trial for witnesses that choose to make public commentary)
• Family members of those involved in the case

The 90-minute debate will be divided up into 15 minutes segments for different topics. I'm guessing things like:

• Illegal Immigration
• Abortion
• Taxes
• Health Care
• Abortion
• etc.

.
.
.
.
So could someone explain why limitations on discussing specific participants (and some non-participants, such as family members) in any way limits the ability of Ex-President Trump to respond to issues like those listed above.

I see no logical connection.

WW

What they are trying to scare him about is no mention of the witch hunt against him
He will talk about that as he pleases.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What they are trying to scare him about is no mention of the witch hunt against him
He will talk about that as he pleases.

So nothing to do with the policy questions that have no bearing on the subject of the debate.

Just as I figured.

WW

 

[WEATHER53]

So nothing to do with the policy questions that have no bearing on the subject of the debate.

Just as I figured.

WW

Let’s say he gets asked about the guilty verdict
Lib loons and judgey boy want him to say complimentary things or else
UnAmerican and he rightfully won’t do that

 

[WorldWatcher]

Let’s say he gets asked about the guilty verdict
Lib loons and judgey boy want him to say complimentary things or else
UnAmerican and he rightfully won’t do that

If he gets asked about the case in the national debate, I'll 100% agree with you.

But to claim he can't participate in the debate because he can't attack jurors, court staff and their families is bogus as they are the ones covered under the gag order. Trump is free to talk about how unfair the case was and the judge and DA are not covered under the gag order.

WW

 

[Synthaholic]

Which is the set up you loons have contrived but he won’t obey illegal dictates

Already making excuses for his embarrassing failure?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes, we know.

I'm way ahead of you on that.

A judge may issue a “gag order” to prevent the attorneys, parties, or witnesses in a pending lawsuit or criminal investigation from discussing the matter with the general public. As with any prior restriction, a court will examine any gag order in light of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to free speech and apply a strong presumption that it is unconstitutional. Carroll v. Princess Anne, for example. In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, the U.S. Supreme Court examined the following elements while determining whether a gag order was constitutional:

• The type and volume of news coverage before the trial.
• If other actions are likely to lessen the consequences of unrestricted pretrial publicity.
• The effectiveness of a restraining order in averting the alleged threat [of an unfair trial for the defendant.

Table of Contents

• Examples of gag orders:
  • Criminal Case Illustration
  • Civil Case Illustration
• Court sets a high standards for media gag orders.
• Gag orders are viewed as a First Amendment
• Who is subject to a gag order? Does this rule apply to the media?
• Public Prosecutor decides to seek a gag order

Examples of gag orders:​

1. Police agencies issue gag orders to conceal the identities of victims, particularly minors, and to prevent the public from learning details of current investigations where doing so would endanger the cases or the people involved.
2. A judge will frequently issue a gag order to prevent parties to a lawsuit from talking about it outside of Court.
3. Gag clauses may be included in contracts for joint ventures, employment, and termination to safeguard confidential information, intellectual property, proprietary information, and, occasionally the company’s reputation.

Criminal Case Illustration​

Anyone accused of a crime in the United States is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty by law since our judicial system is designed to be blind. Gag orders are frequently utilized when the defendant (or person charged with the offense) is well known or renowned so that many other people’s opinions won’t decide their case.


Imagine Benjamin Franklin was facing charges in 1776 for taking the Declaration of Independence from John Hancock’s desk. If every jury member traveled about town soliciting opinions from everyone, Benjamin Franklin would have had a difficult time receiving a fair trial, given his notoriety.

Civil Case Illustration​

A civil case is a private lawsuit between two parties that do not involve criminal charges, as was previously explained. A gag order is frequently used to prevent the case or result discussion.

Court sets a high standards for media gag orders.​

The Supreme Court declared in Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) that defendants have a right to fair trials and that judges in trial courts must take concrete action to protect that right. Judges saw Sheppard as permitting them to slap gag orders on defendants, but some even started doing so for the media. In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, the Court refuted this latter assumption and established a high standard for such orders (1976). This case developed from Erwin Simants’ 1975 murder trial, in which he was accused of killing six people.


The order was issued by the pretrial news coverage judicial process prohibiting the media from publishing Simants’s confession, his words to others, the contents of the notes he made the night of the killings, as well as any other potentially incriminating details. The Supreme Court overturned the judge’s order, holding that courts must rigorously justify media gag orders and meet a high standard of proof.It is necessary to investigate impartial jury influence potential jurors and disruptive courtroom behavior.


The federal or state district gathers names from a variety of sources when choosing a jury, including registered voters, unemployment benefit recipients, and holders of driver’s licenses or state identification cards. This is referred to as a “jury pool,” and its size fluctuates depending on the criminal cases.



Courts can think about several options instead of enforcing gag orders, including changing the trial location, delaying the trial until the public’s attention wanes, tough voir dire (or jury selection procedures), and jury sequestration.

Gag orders are viewed as a First Amendment​

Judges in appellate court jurisdictions uphold and overturn gag orders, although most are not challenged. Gag orders have detractors who contend that judges should be held to high criteria before placing gag restrictions on defendants. They claim that judges regularly employ gag orders without considering any other options, that many orders are overbroad and should only apply to specific facts, impede the press’s ability to gather news, and impede the flow of information to the general public. In conclusion, while courts view the orders as intrinsically important to uphold the fairness of the legal system, many civil libertarians and journalists consider them a threat to the First Amendment’s protection of a free press.


Gag orders placed on jurors are a topic that is receiving more attention. Even though the courts are split on the subject, recent decisions have tended to support trial judges’ ability to forbid the following: (1) news interviews with jurors about jury deliberations; (2) inquiries about specific votes or comments made by jurors other than the one being interviewed; and (3) repeated requests for interviews after a juror has expressed a desire not to be interviewed. The legality of such orders is in doubt because the state’s interest in a fair trial appears unaffected by media contact with jurors after the problem is over.

Who is subject to a gag order? Does this rule apply to the media?​

All parties are subject to a gag order. The gag order will be broken by anyone who releases any information that could be used to identify the protected individual.



Also Read: Everything You Need To Know About The San Francisco Superior Court


People who are proven to have violated gag orders may face legal action. In particular, a person may be convicted in contempt of Court if it is shown that they purposefully broke a gag order. Depending on the wording of the specific provision that has been violated, a breach of a gag order may result in a fine or even jail. For instance, violating a gag order by Section 7(3) of the State Courts Act may result in a fine of up to $5,000 or a period of imprisonment of not more than 12 months.

Public Prosecutor decides to seek a gag order​

In general, the Public Prosecutor may request a gag order to protect the identity of the victim or witness in:

• Cases involving sexual offenses, such as rape, insulting a woman’s modesty, sexual penetration of a minor, and other such crimes;
• Cases in which the victim or witness is a kid or minor, that is, under the age of 18. A very young victim of violence or situations of child abuse may be involved;
• Situations in which victims of trafficking were sexually exploited.

Gagging orders are not just used in situations involving sexual offenses or young victims. In appropriate circumstances, the Public Prosecutor may also request a gag order to allow witnesses to testify freely during a trial without worrying about embarrassment. Your defense attorneys parties involved in various roles during the course of your case . Several legal rules forbid releasing specific material about court cases without a gag order. Therefore, even in the absence of a gag order, it is illegal for anybody to publish pertinent protected information.

Gag order: 3 Examples of Gag Orders - The Law Around Here

A judge may issue a "gag order" to prevent the attorneys, parties, or witnesses in a pending lawsuit or criminal investigation from discussing the matter with

thelawaroundhere.com

.
And we all know the gag order is legal.

Why it bothers you is .. hilarious

 

[Crepitus]

The Gag Order enforced by Judge Merchan is still in full-force even though the trial is over. Why?

Because Biden wants to keep Trump from responding to questions from mods during the first (and probably only) debate.

Trump is going into next week's debate with one hand tied behind his back.

Judge Merchan will probably be announcing contempt of court fines the moment the debate is concluded, if Trump talks about something he feels is covered under the gag order.

LEGAL EXPERTS SPEECHLESS: Why Is The Gag Order Against Trump Still in Effect? | Joe Pags

Former President Donald Trump is still subject to the gag order imposed by Judge Juan Merchan which now that the trial has ended, legal experts are crying foul claiming its blatantly unconstitutional. Trump had a gag order imposed on him before the NYC hush money trial even began and a New York...

joepags.com

tRump can talk all the politics and policy he wants. He cannot attack the jury, the judge, the prosecutors, or their family.

That's all the gag order covers.

He can say how unfair the trial was.

He can repeat "witch hunt" as often as he wants.

He can say he's innocent.

He can claim it was p9olitically motivated.

All the old favorites are open to him.

 

[Crepitus]

I hope Merchan does fine him. In fact, I hope he throws him in Jail. Every time dimocrap scum pull some shit like this, OMB's poll numbers go up.

I also hope that Merchan enjoys the rest of his life in prison. There' going to be a special prosecutor appointed just for him. Count on it. For those who know why, it's obvious. For those who don't -- Eat a bag of dicks.

You know who this is really resonating with? Blacks. Especially Black Men. Black women are so far gone, they're all but unreachable. Even the males of their own race can't stand them. But Black Men know what it's like to have false evidence and a skewed Justice System used against them.

Extra Bonus. This is how incredibly scummy the dimocrap FILTH movement is......

Biden's Now-Disbanded "Homeland Intelligence Experts Group" Plotted to Cultivate a Network of Spies Among Government School Teachers Who Would Inform on Parents and Children Who Resisted Their Trans and DEI Agendas​

—Ace of Spades HQ​

Dark thoughts.

They weren't just hoping to recruit spies among teachers. They hoped to also recruit AWFL mothers to inform on their family members.

Miranda Divine:




You say you want to recruit spies and agents of influence in corporations, ay?

How about professional associations which professionals are forced to join just to practice their trade?

Does that grab you, Communist John Brennan?



No matter how much you HATE, despise and detest dimocraps and their diseased political/Crime party -- It isn't enough

 

[Crepitus]

He's got no choice but to decline

Decline what?

 

[Rawley]

The gag order is still in effect to protect those to whom it applies.

Trump won't mention any of those people, or feel any need to violate the gag order.

He's prohibited from explaining how the trial was rigged by a partisan judge who refused to recuse himself.

 

[Crepitus]

Yes, we know.

I'm way ahead of you on that.

A judge may issue a “gag order” to prevent the attorneys, parties, or witnesses in a pending lawsuit or criminal investigation from discussing the matter with the general public. As with any prior restriction, a court will examine any gag order in light of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to free speech and apply a strong presumption that it is unconstitutional. Carroll v. Princess Anne, for example. In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, the U.S. Supreme Court examined the following elements while determining whether a gag order was constitutional:

• The type and volume of news coverage before the trial.
• If other actions are likely to lessen the consequences of unrestricted pretrial publicity.
• The effectiveness of a restraining order in averting the alleged threat [of an unfair trial for the defendant.

Table of Contents

• Examples of gag orders:
  • Criminal Case Illustration
  • Civil Case Illustration
• Court sets a high standards for media gag orders.
• Gag orders are viewed as a First Amendment
• Who is subject to a gag order? Does this rule apply to the media?
• Public Prosecutor decides to seek a gag order

Examples of gag orders:​

1. Police agencies issue gag orders to conceal the identities of victims, particularly minors, and to prevent the public from learning details of current investigations where doing so would endanger the cases or the people involved.
2. A judge will frequently issue a gag order to prevent parties to a lawsuit from talking about it outside of Court.
3. Gag clauses may be included in contracts for joint ventures, employment, and termination to safeguard confidential information, intellectual property, proprietary information, and, occasionally the company’s reputation.

Criminal Case Illustration​

Anyone accused of a crime in the United States is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty by law since our judicial system is designed to be blind. Gag orders are frequently utilized when the defendant (or person charged with the offense) is well known or renowned so that many other people’s opinions won’t decide their case.


Imagine Benjamin Franklin was facing charges in 1776 for taking the Declaration of Independence from John Hancock’s desk. If every jury member traveled about town soliciting opinions from everyone, Benjamin Franklin would have had a difficult time receiving a fair trial, given his notoriety.

Civil Case Illustration​

A civil case is a private lawsuit between two parties that do not involve criminal charges, as was previously explained. A gag order is frequently used to prevent the case or result discussion.

Court sets a high standards for media gag orders.​

The Supreme Court declared in Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) that defendants have a right to fair trials and that judges in trial courts must take concrete action to protect that right. Judges saw Sheppard as permitting them to slap gag orders on defendants, but some even started doing so for the media. In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, the Court refuted this latter assumption and established a high standard for such orders (1976). This case developed from Erwin Simants’ 1975 murder trial, in which he was accused of killing six people.


The order was issued by the pretrial news coverage judicial process prohibiting the media from publishing Simants’s confession, his words to others, the contents of the notes he made the night of the killings, as well as any other potentially incriminating details. The Supreme Court overturned the judge’s order, holding that courts must rigorously justify media gag orders and meet a high standard of proof.It is necessary to investigate impartial jury influence potential jurors and disruptive courtroom behavior.


The federal or state district gathers names from a variety of sources when choosing a jury, including registered voters, unemployment benefit recipients, and holders of driver’s licenses or state identification cards. This is referred to as a “jury pool,” and its size fluctuates depending on the criminal cases.



Courts can think about several options instead of enforcing gag orders, including changing the trial location, delaying the trial until the public’s attention wanes, tough voir dire (or jury selection procedures), and jury sequestration.

Gag orders are viewed as a First Amendment​

Judges in appellate court jurisdictions uphold and overturn gag orders, although most are not challenged. Gag orders have detractors who contend that judges should be held to high criteria before placing gag restrictions on defendants. They claim that judges regularly employ gag orders without considering any other options, that many orders are overbroad and should only apply to specific facts, impede the press’s ability to gather news, and impede the flow of information to the general public. In conclusion, while courts view the orders as intrinsically important to uphold the fairness of the legal system, many civil libertarians and journalists consider them a threat to the First Amendment’s protection of a free press.


Gag orders placed on jurors are a topic that is receiving more attention. Even though the courts are split on the subject, recent decisions have tended to support trial judges’ ability to forbid the following: (1) news interviews with jurors about jury deliberations; (2) inquiries about specific votes or comments made by jurors other than the one being interviewed; and (3) repeated requests for interviews after a juror has expressed a desire not to be interviewed. The legality of such orders is in doubt because the state’s interest in a fair trial appears unaffected by media contact with jurors after the problem is over.

Who is subject to a gag order? Does this rule apply to the media?​

All parties are subject to a gag order. The gag order will be broken by anyone who releases any information that could be used to identify the protected individual.



Also Read: Everything You Need To Know About The San Francisco Superior Court


People who are proven to have violated gag orders may face legal action. In particular, a person may be convicted in contempt of Court if it is shown that they purposefully broke a gag order. Depending on the wording of the specific provision that has been violated, a breach of a gag order may result in a fine or even jail. For instance, violating a gag order by Section 7(3) of the State Courts Act may result in a fine of up to $5,000 or a period of imprisonment of not more than 12 months.

Public Prosecutor decides to seek a gag order​

In general, the Public Prosecutor may request a gag order to protect the identity of the victim or witness in:

• Cases involving sexual offenses, such as rape, insulting a woman’s modesty, sexual penetration of a minor, and other such crimes;
• Cases in which the victim or witness is a kid or minor, that is, under the age of 18. A very young victim of violence or situations of child abuse may be involved;
• Situations in which victims of trafficking were sexually exploited.

Gagging orders are not just used in situations involving sexual offenses or young victims. In appropriate circumstances, the Public Prosecutor may also request a gag order to allow witnesses to testify freely during a trial without worrying about embarrassment. Your defense attorneys parties involved in various roles during the course of your case . Several legal rules forbid releasing specific material about court cases without a gag order. Therefore, even in the absence of a gag order, it is illegal for anybody to publish pertinent protected information.

Gag order: 3 Examples of Gag Orders - The Law Around Here

A judge may issue a "gag order" to prevent the attorneys, parties, or witnesses in a pending lawsuit or criminal investigation from discussing the matter with

thelawaroundhere.com

TL;DR.

Tell us, in one paragraph or less, what this gag order covers.

 

[0311]

Republican donor money being wasted on a criminal's legal feels is just delicious

P01135809 has shelled out upwards of $100M in legal fees. He soaks his suckers for even more money.

 

[Crepitus]

He's prohibited from explaining how the trial was rigged by a partisan judge who refused to recuse himself.

First, that' fake news.

Second, what does it have to do with the debate?