Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit over New York tax returns

[Charlemagne]

Published November 11, 2019

Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit over New York tax returns

By Ronn Blitzer, Bill Mears | Fox News

A federal judge dismissed President Trump's lawsuit that attempted to block a newly passed law that would allow Congress to obtain his New York state tax returns — but allowed for Trump to try again in the future.

The law, known as the TRUST Act, was signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo in July and calls for the commissioner of the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance to release the president's tax returns if requested by the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Senate Finance Committee, or the Joint Committee on Taxation.

So far, no such request has been made, and District Court Judge Carl Nichols – a Trump appointee – ruled that the D.C. federal court did not have jurisdiction over the New York tax commissioner or the state Attorney General.

"Mr. Trump bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction, but his allegations do not establish that the District of Columbia’s long-arm statute is satisfied here with respect to either Defendant," Nichols wrote in a decision handed down Monday. "Mr. Trump has also not demonstrated that jurisdictional discovery is warranted. Mr. Trump may renew his claims against the New York Defendants should future events trigger one or more provisions of the D.C. long-arm statute, and he may, of course, sue either New York Defendant in another forum (presumably in New York)."

The judge noted that in theory there could be a situation where the D.C. court could have jurisdiction over the New York officials in this matter, such as if the commissioner hand-delivered Trump's tax returns to a congressional committee.

"But speculation that they might occur is insufficient to exercise jurisdiction over the Commissioner now," Nichols wrote. In a footnote, Nichols also cited potential legal complications involved in having a D.C. federal court rule on the constitutionality of a New York state law.

Trump has argued that the law poses a First Amendment issue, claiming that it targets him due to his political beliefs and speech. New York Republicans also opposed the law, claiming that is what is known as a "bill of attainder" meaning one that singles out an individual for punishment –which is prohibited by the Constitution.

The language of the law does not mention Trump at all, but Democrats like state Sen. Brad Hoylman, who sponsored a version of the bill, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., specifically mentioned Trump in reference to the legislation before it passed. Nadler described it in the context of House Democrats' quest to get Trump's tax returns, calling it "a workaround to a White House that continues to obstruct and stonewall the legitimate oversight work of Congress."

The president's attorneys are reviewing the decision, Fox News has learned.

Trump's lawsuit also named the House Ways and Means Committee as a defendant. The case against the committee is still proceeding in federal court.

Fox News' John Roberts contributed to this report.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-dismisses-trump-case-against-ny-tax-return-law

 

[bver_hunter]

In other words the losing streak for Trump continues. Wonder why he has such a problem releasing his tax returns if he has nothing to hide. All other Presidents and those competing in the Democratic race have done so. To his cult followers, just another "Witch Hunt".

 

[Dutch Oven]

These lower court decisions on political issues are just a waste of time and money. These cases are almost a certainty to end up before SCOTUS, and there is no indication that SCOTUS gives any deference to the courts below. In other words, Federal Court decisions on these issues just don't matter. They are just an opportunity for politically biased judges to express their politics pending a more meaningful decision by SCOTUS.

 

[Frankfooter]

These lower court decisions on political issues are just a waste of time and money. These cases are almost a certainty to end up before SCOTUS, and there is no indication that SCOTUS gives any deference to the courts below. In other words, Federal Court decisions on these issues just don't matter. They are just an opportunity for politically biased judges to express their politics pending a more meaningful decision by SCOTUS.

Right, so you mean it doesn't matter because Trump can take it to the SCOTUS where he can appoint cronies so he can break the law whenever he likes?

 

[bver_hunter]

The Supreme Court has become a kangaroo Court with all the recent politically biased appointed judges. The district courts on the other hand have handled all the cases based on their merits.

Newly-Discovered Trump Tax Documents Show Mysterious Inconsistencies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FI45BfSefE

 

[Dutch Oven]

Right, so you mean it doesn't matter because Trump can take it to the SCOTUS where he can appoint cronies so he can break the law whenever he likes?

"The law" will end up being what SCOTUS says it is. So yes, Trump can take the decision of a Democrat or Never-Trumper GOP appointed Federal judge up to SCOTUS - a court with a mixture of politically biased appointees.

 

[Frankfooter]

"The law" will end up being what SCOTUS says it is. So yes, Trump can take the decision of a Democrat or Never-Trumper GOP appointed Federal judge up to SCOTUS - a court with a mixture of politically biased appointees.

So you think it'll be ok when the next president, say Warren, comes in adds a couple more judges and does whatever she wants through executive orders knowing that the SCOTUS back up whatever she does?
That what you want?

 

[Anbarandy]

These lower court decisions on political issues are just a waste of time and money. These cases are almost a certainty to end up before SCOTUS, and there is no indication that SCOTUS gives any deference to the courts below. In other words, Federal Court decisions on these issues just don't matter. They are just an opportunity for politically biased judges to express their politics pending a more meaningful decision by SCOTUS.

So you are saying District Court Judge Carl Nichols – a Trump appointee – is a politically biased judge who was just using this ruling as an opportunity to express his personal politic beliefs?

 

[Dutch Oven]

So you are saying District Court Judge Carl Nichols – a Trump appointee – is a politically biased judge who was just using this ruling as an opportunity to express his personal politic beliefs?

You can assume that I can read, and that I did read the OP post before posting myself.

Every judge is politically biased, and despite the administration's best efforts, and given the numerous judges the Trump administration has appointed, they haven't managed a perfect record of only appointing judges who are perfectly aligned with their politics.

However, you miss/ignore my broader point. It doesn't matter how this lower court decision was decided, or which political bias underpins it. The decision is a placeholder pending a ruling by SCOTUS.

 

[Gooseifur]

The Supreme Court has become a kangaroo Court with all the recent politically biased appointed judges. The district courts on the other hand have handled all the cases based on their merits.

Newly-Discovered Trump Tax Documents Show Mysterious Inconsistencies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FI45BfSefE

What decision has the Supreme court made that you consider "Kangaroo"?

 

[Anbarandy]

You can assume that I can read, and that I did read the OP post before posting myself.

Every judge is politically biased, and despite the administration's best efforts, and given the numerous judges the Trump administration has appointed, they haven't managed a perfect record of only appointing judges who are perfectly aligned with their politics.

However, you miss/ignore my broader point. It doesn't matter how this lower court decision was decided, or which political bias underpins it. The decision is a placeholder pending a ruling by SCOTUS.

1) Glad you confirmed that u can and did read the OP post.

2) Doubly glad you have also confirmed that even a Trump appointee judge can put aside his political bias in favor of Trumpian Law and base his ruling upon the judicial merits of this particular case before him.

3) Will be triply glad if you can also confirm that if or when this gets to the SCOTUS that anyone of those McConnell appointed justices can put aside their political biases and base their ruling upon the law and merits of the case before them.

Here's hoping against hope.

 

[shack]

There is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will accept the case.

 

[Dutch Oven]

So you think it'll be ok when the next president, say Warren, comes in adds a couple more judges and does whatever she wants through executive orders knowing that the SCOTUS back up whatever she does?
That what you want?

It doesn't matter what you or I want. Do you think it does? The next President will appoint whoever they want to SCOTUS, as long as they can convince the Senate to play along. It's far from utopia, but the test of the American model of democracy is in its results. Last time I checked, still one of the highest standards of living for its citizens in the world, still the dominant economic and financial success story of the world, still one of the societies where there is a connection (albeit an imperfect one) between merit and social mobility, and still the most benevolent dominant military power in history. Hard to say they have it all wrong.

 

[Dutch Oven]

1) Glad you confirmed that u can and did read the OP post.

Curious choice of barb, given your next comment.

2) Doubly glad you have also confirmed that even a Trump appointee judge can put aside his political bias in favor of Trumpian Law and base his ruling upon the judicial merits of this particular case before him.

You need to re-read.

3) Will be triply glad if you can also confirm that if or when this gets to the SCOTUS that anyone of those McConnell appointed justices can put aside their political biases and base their ruling upon the law and merits of the case before them.

Here's hoping against hope.

Unfortunately (in your eyes, I think), Congress will likely leave SCOTUS in the position of having to make up the law on these points, and plenty of judges like to do exactly that. Not sure what you were hoping for is any better, but don't despair, the American people get to VOTE on who the next President will be!

 

[oldjones]

…

Not sure what you were hoping for is any better, but don't despair, the American people get to VOTE on who the next President will be!

And here you go claiming the people will decide, having moments ago stated popular vote doesn't count in the USA. As youi very well know, it won't matter much how the people vote given that one vote in Wyoming outweighs sixty in California, the way the Electoral College is rigged.

What matters is where they vote. And as so many have already pointed out here before you, the empty states and empty minds may rule again. Donny may yet become the first and only two term President to never have been the people's choice.

 

[Dutch Oven]

And as so many have already pointed out here, it won't matter much how the people vote when one vote in Wyoming outweighs sixty in California, the way the Electoral College is rigged.

What matters is where. The empty states and empty minds rule.

That sounds kind of elitist - just the kind of thing those empty-headed empty state voters don't like.

But not to worry, the system is operating exactly as designed. The Electoral College is even more effective than a southern border wall in preventing certain states from assuming more electoral power than the founders ever intended.

 

[bver_hunter]

That sounds kind of elitist - just the kind of thing those empty-headed empty state voters don't like.

But not to worry, the system is operating exactly as designed. The Electoral College is even more effective than a southern border wall in preventing certain states from assuming more electoral power than the founders ever intended.

Well to you it is probably working. But I think that our Canadian Electoral System is the best in that case!!

 

[oldjones]

That sounds kind of elitist - just the kind of thing those empty-headed empty state voters don't like.

But not to worry, the system is operating exactly as designed. The Electoral College is even more effective than a southern border wall in preventing certain states from assuming more electoral power than the founders ever intended.

'Empty minds' or 'elite minds', everyone is free to decide which they prefer, and on what basis even by where they live. But I doubt the Founders ever intended anything like today's gross over-privileging of rural votes that their anti-populist scheme has produced.

I'm baffled how a southern border wall might have any effect in preventing any American state from assuming any electoral power. Never mind how the power you say they have can square with your assertion the people will elect the next President.

 

[Charlemagne]

And he loses another one

Trump loses golf resort lawsuit against Scotland and is forced to pay hundreds of thousands
https://occupydemocrats.com/2019/11/12/trump-loses-golf-resort-lawsuit-against-scotland-and-is-forced-to-pay-hundreds-of-thousands/

 

[bver_hunter]

And he loses another one

Trump loses golf resort lawsuit against Scotland and is forced to pay hundreds of thousands
https://occupydemocrats.com/2019/11/12/trump-loses-golf-resort-lawsuit-against-scotland-and-is-forced-to-pay-hundreds-of-thousands/

That is why he needs political appointees in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for him, Scotland is beyond his jurisdiction and Justice triumphs!!