Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:44 am

Order re Donald J. Trump's Counsel's Letter [James M. Trusty] of 10/20/22 is Untimely
Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, Case No. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON
by Judge Raymond J. Dearie
10/21/2022

ORDER. The Special Master notes Plaintiff's counsel's letter of October 20, 2022 151 . To the extent Plaintiff asserts that the government's letter of the same date "is not fully accurate as to the Plaintiff's position on various documents," any submission by Plaintiff to the contrary is now untimely pursuant to my Order of October 7, 2022, which required the parties to submit their final log of positions regarding certain Filter Materials by October 20, 2022. Plaintiff may submit his position no later than the close of business today, October 21, 2022. Signed by Special Master Raymond J. Dearie on 10/21/2022. (Entered: 10/21/2022)

**********************

Letter From James M. Trusty to Judge Raymond Dearie
Re: Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, Case No. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON – Filter A Documents Respecting Document Categorization and Executive Privilege
10/20/22

The Timeline:

Thur, Oct 20. Briefs and Logs are due. DOJ Submits their filing.

Thur, Oct 20. "What? Our Homework is due? This is too hard!!". Team Trump declares they'll turn in their assignment on Oct 24th.

Friday Oct 21. Dearies says Trump's lawyers can turn in their homework a day late, but it's gotta be in by EOD on the 21st.

[Almost Certainly] Oct 21, 11pm EST. Cannon extends Team Trump deadline to December (because Oct 24 is too soon).

-- by iZoooom, Reddit, Oct. 21. 2022


Ifrah Law
Hands-on Counsel, Gloves-off Litigation
ifrahlaw.com
(202)524-4140
1717 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 650, Washington, D.C. 20006

By ECF and Courtesy Copy October 20, 2022

Judge Raymond J. Dearie
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11202

Re: Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, Case No. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON – Filter A Documents Respecting Document Categorization and Executive Privilege

Dear Judge Dearie:

As noted in the Defendant’s October 20, 2022 submission (ECF 150) the parties met and conferred regarding Filter A documents on October 19, 2022. Up until receipt of the Defendant’s October 20, 2022 filing, we anticipated that there would be a joint submission and an exchange between the parties preceding that joint submission to confirm both parties’ positions. This is consistent with the process that was undertaken for the October 3, 2022 joint submission with the Filter Team. Instead, the government filed its own log and presented its legal positions on the documents for which there is dispute between the parties.

Unfortunately, the log submitted by the government is not fully accurate as to the Plaintiff’s position on various documents.

In light of these facts, the Plaintiff will file our position on the documents that remain in dispute by the close of business on October 24, 2022.

Sincerely,

James M. Trusty
Ifrah Law PLLC
1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 650
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 524-4176
Email: [email protected]

Christopher M. Kise
Chris Kise & Associates, P.A.
201 East Park Avenue, 5th Floor
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Telephone: (850) 270-0566
Email: [email protected]

Lindsey Halligan
Florida Bar No. 109481
511 SE 5th Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Email: [email protected]

M. Evan Corcoran
SILVERMAN|THOMPSON|SLUTKIN|
WHITE, LLC
400 East Pratt Street – Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 385-2225
Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff President Donald J. Trump

CC: Jay I. Bratt, [email protected]
Julie A. Edelstein, [email protected]
Anthony W. Lacosta, [email protected]
Stephen Marzen, [email protected]
Juan Antonio Gonzalez, Jr., [email protected]
Benjamin Hawk, [email protected]
Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Doc

**********************

Letter From James M. Trusty to Judge Raymond Dearie
Re: Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, Case No. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON – Filter A Documents Respecting Document Categorization and Executive Privilege
10/21/22

Ifrah Law
Hands-on Counsel, Gloves-off Litigation
ifrahlaw.com
(202)524-4140
1717 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 650, Washington, D.C. 20006

October 21, 2022

By ECF and Courtesy Copy
Judge Raymond J. Dearie
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11202

Re: Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, Case No. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON – Filter A Documents Respecting Document Categorization and Executive Privilege

Dear Judge Dearie:

As articulated in the Special Master’s Order dated October 7, 2022 (ECF 138) the parties were directed “to confer and attempt to resolve or narrow the disputes regarding the claims of executive privilege and designations pursuant to the Presidential Records Act.” Further, by October 20, 2022, the parties were directed to “submit to the Special Master an updated log containing any remaining disputes” regarding the following documents:

• A-001 through A-005;
• A-017 through A-022;
• A-025-A-026;
• A-029-A-030;
• A-033;
• A-036 through A040;
• A-043 through A052;
• A-053 through A-055; and
• A-056-through A-058.

(ECF 138).

The parties conferred on October 19, 2022, discussing their respective positions on the documents, with the government identifying certain documents that it recognized were personal to the Plaintiff, as reflected in the Defendant’s submission, dated October 20, 2022 (ECF 150).

During the October 19, 2022 conference between the parties, Plaintiff’s counsel stated generally its position regarding personal records under the Presidential Records Act; both parties acknowledged that their positions regarding personal versus Presidential characterizations, as well as whether executive privilege could be waived by the incumbent Administration, would require further briefing for the Court.

The log presented by the Defendant on October 20, 2022 does not accurately reflect the Plaintiff’s position as discussed during the October 19, 2022 conference. The Defendant’s submission mischaracterizes the Plaintiff’s position as to the following documents: Document 8 (A-021 to A-022 and A-025 to A-026), Documents 9 (A-029-A030) and 11 (A-033), Document 12 (A-036 to A-040), Document 13 (A-043 to A-052), Document 15 (A-054), and Document 16 (A-055). We clarify Plaintiff’s position as to these documents below.

• Document 8 (A-021 to A-022 and A-025 to A-026): Plaintiff asserts claim of Executive Privilege;
• Documents 9 (A-029-A-030) and 11 (A-033): Plaintiff is not asserting any privilege, but we did not agree that these documents should be designated Presidential;
• Document 12 (A-036 to A-040): Plaintiff asserts claim of Executive Privilege;
• Document 13 (A-043 to A-052): Plaintiff asserts claim of Executive Privilege;
• Document 15 (A-054): As the parties agree to the personal records designation, there is no further matter to resolve;
• Document 16 (A-055): As the parties agree to the personal records designation, there is no further matter to resolve.

We apologize for any confusion the multiple filings from the respective parties may cause. Again, Plaintiff’s counsel was surprised that the Defendant did not attempt to confirm the contents of its log at ECF 150 to ensure the parties’ respective positions were accurately represented. The above discrepancies could have been addressed prior to any submission.

We will be happy to represent Plaintiff’s positions ourselves and will confer with the Defendant for a briefing schedule on the substance of the categorization arguments. And going forward, Plaintiff’s counsel will not assume that orders requiring submissions “from the parties” means a jointly drafted document.

Sincerely,

James M. Trusty
Ifrah Law PLLC
1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 650
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 524-4176
Email: [email protected]

Christopher M. Kise
Chris Kise & Associates, P.A.
201 East Park Avenue, 5th Floor
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Telephone: (850) 270-0566
Email: [email protected]

Lindsey Halligan
Florida Bar No. 109481
511 SE 5th Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Email: [email protected]

M. Evan Corcoran
SILVERMAN|THOMPSON|SLUTKIN|
WHITE, LLC
400 East Pratt Street – Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 385-2225
Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff President Donald J. Trump

CC: Jay I. Bratt, [email protected]
Julie A. Edelstein, [email protected]
Anthony W. Lacosta, [email protected]
Stephen Marzen, [email protected]
Juan Antonio Gonzalez, Jr., [email protected]
Benjamin Hawk, [email protected]
Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Doc
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Sat Oct 22, 2022 6:21 am

Movant-Intervenor (Pro-Se) Raj K. Patel's Third Amended Reply to Defendant-United States of America's Response at Dkt. 48.
by Raj K. Patel
Donald J. Trump v. United States of America
Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC
10/3/22

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

DONALD J. TRUMP,
Plaintiff  
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant

No. 9:22-cv-81294-AMC

Dated: October 3, 2022

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MOVANT-INTERVENOR (PRO SE)-RAJ K. PATEL'S THIRD AMENDED DKT. 87

I, T.E., T.E RAJ K PATEL, the undersigned movant-intervenor pro se, in the above-named case, with a pending motion at Dkt. 36, hereby submit this third amended reply to Defendant-United States of America's Response at Dkt. 48, which is written to be an addition to Dkt. 60 (duplicate filing at Dkt. 61), or as my response to Defendant's Motion at Dkt. 69. L.R. 7.1(c)(2) (10 pages, front and back). Amendments. Second Amendments. Third Amendments.

WHEREAS, "Attorney General Brewster explained more than a century ago, '[t]here are two kinds of official terms' ... One kind of 'term' refers to a period of personal service. In that case, 'the term is appurtenant to the person' ... Another kind of 'term' refers to a fixed slot of time to which individual appointees are assigned ... There, 'the person is appurtenant to the term' ... In other words, a 'term of office' can either run with the person or with the calendar," United States v. Wilson, 290 F.3d 347, 353 (D.C. Cir. 2002)(quoting Comm'rs of the Dist. of Columbia, 17 Op. Att'y Gen. 476, 476-79 (1882)); Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 723, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2672 (2013); and,

WHEREAS, the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2209, makes the former President a part of the Executive Branch, and more specifically the Presidency, Wilson, 290 F.3d at 353 & Federalist 78; and,

WHEREAS, executive privilege "safeguards the public interest in candid, confidential deliberations within the Executive Branch; it is 'fundamental to the operation of Government,'" Trump v. Mazars U.S., LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2032 (U.S. 2020); and,

WHEREAS, all Presidential data "[ is] presumptively privileged," Nixon v. Siriea,487 F.2d 700,716 (D.C. Cir. 1973); and,

WHEREAS, "information subject to executive privilege deserves 'the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice,''' Mazars, 140 S. Ct. at 2024 (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 715 (1974)); and,

WHEREAS, "[t]he high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive .. . is a matter that should inform the conduct of the entire proceeding," Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681,705, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 1650-51 (1997), and that there is a tradition of federal courts' affording "the utmost deference to Presidential responsibilities Clinton, 117 S. Ct. at 1652," In re Lindsey, 158 F.3d 1263, 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting Nixon, 418 U.S. at 710- 11) (internal quotation marks omitte)); and,

WHEREAS, "[t]he authority to protect national security information falls on the President," Dep't of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988), see also, e.g., Murphy v. See'y, U.S. Dep't of Army, 769 Fed. Appx. 779, 792 (11th Cir. 2019), & Dkt. 69 at 13; and,

WHEREAS, for purposes of Presidential Records Act, the incumbent President who transitions to former President, is an "agent" of the people, Egan, 484 U.S. at 529, Federalist 78, & Dkt. 69 at 18; and,

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court has emphasized that privilege claims, "must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law" and "[t]he need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system," Nixon, 418 U.S. at 708-09 & Dkt. 69 at 9; and,

WHEREAS, "[ i]n the performance of assigned constitutional duties, [Executive branch] of the Government must initially interpret the Constitution, and ... The President's counsel, as we have noted, reads the Constitution as providing an absolute privilege of confidentiality for all Presidential communications," Nixon, 418 U.S. at 703-4, 28 U.S.C.§ 516, Vargas v. United States, 114 Fed.CI. 226, 236 (2014) ("The government's reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 516 is misplaced."); & see generally David A. Strauss, "Presidential Interpretation of the Constitution," 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 113, 113-135 (1993)1; and,

WHEREAS, in other words, "executive branch. must interpret the Constitution before it can decide what to do," see generally Strauss, 15 Cardozo L. Rev. at 113-135; and,

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court has "reject[ed] the argument that only an incumbent President may assert" separation-of-powers claims, Nixon v. Adm'r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425,439 (1977); and,

WHEREAS, there is an internal, horizontal and vertical, separation of powers on interpreting the Constitution within the Executive Branch; and,

WHEREAS, privilege and immunities may be used to sustain separation of powers inside branches of government and across governments under the United States Constitution; and,

WHEREAS, the United States Department of State is responsible for interpreting and elaborating on the Privileges and Immunities Clause, U.S. const. art. IV, § 2;

WHEREAS, the United States Department of State shows its elaboration on the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the United States Order of Precedence by the Office of the Chief of Protocol, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/upload ... y-2022.pdf (revised Feb. 11,2022) & U.S. const. art. IV, §2; and,

WHEREAS, the United States Department of Justice, the Attorney General, or U.S. Attorney Juan Gonzales, did not follow the United States Order of Precedence duly established by the Office of the Chief of Protocol, ld.; and,

WHEREAS, the incumbent President of the United States has supported the United States Order of Precedence housed by the United States Department of State Office of the Chief of Protocol, which shows that former President Trump outranks incumbent Attorney General Merrick Garland, ld. & 3 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq., and Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. at 2673-74 (proponents "are not elected" and "decide for themselves, with no review, what arguments to make and how to make them" in defense of the enacted initiative, ... those same charges could be leveled with equal if not greater force at the special prosecutors just discussed"); and,

WHEREAS, thus, the United States Department of State and the United States Department of Justice are adversaries in our system of rule of law, in order to create a separation of powers and checks and balance, but cf. Doctrine of Comity, U.S. const. art. N, § 2, & 28 U.S.C. § 516; and,

WHEREAS, the incumbent President of the United States has not cleared, nor may ratify unconstitutional acts to make them constitutionaI,2 breach of protocol; and,

WHEREAS, the executive Departments and its Heads have been created, by an Act of Congress, and appointed by the President, with advice and consent from the Senate, Freytag v. Comm'r, 501 U.S. 868, 886, 917 (1991) (discussing Heads and principal officers of the executive departments); and,

WHEREAS, the Executive Branch's "interpretation of its [own] powers .. .is due great respect from the others," Nixon, 418 U.S. at 703-4; and,

WHEREAS, former Presidents retain "actual authority" to bind the Government of the United States to contractual obligations necessary to carry out the duties of their unique legal offices, including in Congress' United States Court of Federal Claims, The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(a) &1491 1 Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259, 1304-06 (Fed. Cir. 2002), see supra, p. 15 n. 5, and but d. Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. at 2667; and,

WHEREAS, "[all] powers of law enforcement ... are assigned under our Constitution to the Executive and the Judiciary," Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161 (1955).

THEREFORE, only a unit of the Executive Branch, the current Attorney General, has brought charges against former President Trump in violation of the inter-workings of the executive branch protocol, ordered by the incumbent President Biden, as housed by President Biden's subordinates, who are also either the Attorney General's superiors or coequals on the subject-matter, in the United States Department of State.

FURTHERMORE, the President, the courts, or the Executive Branch cannot mute distinctions of office, person, state, and government, as they are an elaboration of the United States Constitution Privileges and Immunities Clause, which lays out the structure and lanes of enforcement.
Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270,290 (1884) (tithe distinction between the government of a State and the State itself is important, and [shall] be observed.") (underline added).

WHEREAS, in order for a federal district court of law to have personal jurisdiction, under Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(2), traditional notions of "natural justice," "fair play," and "substantial justice" must at all time not be violated, McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U.S. 90,92 (1917), Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 123 (1951), Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432,435 (1957) (shock the conscience, traditional notions of fair play and decency, indicia of not a peaceful transition of power caused by Defendant-DOJ is a violation of the conscience), Gonzales v. United States, 348 U.S. 407, 412 (1955) ("underlying concepts of procedural regularity and basic fair play"), Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 324 & 326 (1945), United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 796 (1977) (due process embodies "fundamental conceptions of justice" and "the community's sense of fair play and decency") (see Federalist 77, United States as a community), Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833,847 (1998) (conscience-shocking behavior is "so 'brutal' and 'offensive' that it [does] not comport with traditional ideas of fair play and decency.") (abuse of executive power) (decencies of "civilized conduct," epitomized in U.S. const. art. IV, § 2) (bowing and curtsy amongst and to state actors or the effect in our community), & Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204,1212 (2018) (required by both "ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law."); and,

WHEREAS, traditional notions of natural justice states a former T.H. (T.E.) President of the United States (T.E. President of the United States for all documents foreign affairs), from the Natural State, is more fit than the current court (judge and Defendant) and the Natural Order demands that the incumbent Attorney General yield to pressing charges against Plaintiff, our former Head of State, see United States Order of Precedence-United States Dep't of State-Office of the Chief of Protocol, U.S. const. art. IV, § 2, & Dkt. 60 at 2, 5, 5 n. 3, & 7; and,

WHEREAS, traditional notions of basic fair play and substantial justice have been violated, see e.g. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 742 (2015) (harsh treatment is not fair play) (gays and lesbians have been denied the Natural Order, pursuant to their achievements in civil society, as the wealthiest community, particularly, gay men, in the United States; the same illness has entered state and governmental institutions, preventing the Natural Order, including in governing the Defendant's decisions) (Plaintiff has been denied rightful place in the aftermath of his honor's incumbency as President of United States)3 & Pet. for Writ of Cert. * 58-9, Patel v. United States, No. 22-5280 (U.S. 202_); and,

WHEREAS, even with explicit informed consent the Plaintiff cannot avail himself before this court because his availment cannot overcome the violation traditional notions of fair play, natural justice, and substantial justice as applied to the court and any possible ruling by this court, U.S. const. art. IV, § 2 & see also United States Order of Precedence-United States Dep't of State-Office of the Chief of Protocol; and,

WHEREAS, this court cannot attach personal jurisdiction to the Plaintiff as it would violate the traditional notions of fair play, natural justice, and substantial justice, and, thus, its opinion would only be advisory; and,

WHEREAS, in addition, the corollary to Plaintiff's former Presidential privilege, immunity, is the court's limited judicial review, Federalist 78, U.S. const. art. IV, § 2, art. ill (original intent), & amend. V. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

THEREFORE, this Court should dismiss sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b )(2), as the Court does not have personal jurisdiction for Plaintiff, or Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as there is no enforcement mechanism to require the Plaintiff, the former Head of State and former President, who is also Privileged, per the Natural State, and is Immune, per the Natural State too; the deficiencies can only be cured by new charges brought directly by the incumbent President, by his own counselor, rather than the incumbent Attorney General.

FURTHERMORE, the notions of natural justice, fair play, and substantial justice buttress castle doctrine, as generally applied, and Plaintiffs castle can uniquely, along with the past Presidents, can withstand all forces except those directly and constitutionally commanded by the incumbent President, e.g. United States Secret Service or United States Armed and Space Force.
See Dkt. 60 at 2,5,5 n. 3, & 7. This is also because due process cannot override a Privilege or Immunity, and substantive due process is considerate of Privileges and Immunities, per the Federalist and Anti-Federalist contract of the Bill of Rights, and the interest of the Founders and Amenders to preserve the culture of our Nation. U.S. const. art. IV, § 2 & amend. XIV, § 2, cl. 1; Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 796; Federalist 80 ("It may be esteemed the basis of the Union, that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States." And if it be a just principle that every government OUGHT TO POSSESS THE MEANS OF EXECUTING ITS OWN PROVISIONS BY ITS OWN AUTHORITY."); Pet. for Writ of Cert. * 58-9, Patel v. United States, No. 22-5280 (U.S. 202.J; & compare U.S. const. art. IV, §§ 1-27 with U.S. const. art. VI, § 1 referring to Articles of Confederation (1781), art. IV, paras. 1 & 3 ("The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union [ i.e., Doctrine of Comity in U.S. const. art. IV, § 21, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; ... provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them." // "Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.") (("magistrates" replaced with "citizen") (see Dkt. 21 at 13) (see also Patel v. United States, No. 1 :21-cv-02004-LAS (Fed. CI. 202J, Dkt. 1 at 9-10 n. 6)).

UNDER FED. R. CIV. P.24, I have a common question of law or fact or interest in the transaction because a favorable ruling to the Defendant can violate my Excellencies, the style/titles, and my career and statesmanship by extension of this ruling amongst licensed Governmental actors, local, state, federal, and international, who might sympathize with this Court's unconstitutionality.

Image
Raj K. Patel THE EXCELLENT THE EXCELLENT U.S. const. art. IV. §2


WHEREAS, the Supreme Court has held that a former President may not successfully assert executive privilege against review by "the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked," Nixon, 433 U.S. at 447-48. & Dkt 69 at 8;4 and,

WHEREAS, executive Privilege and executive Immunity are corollaries, but distinct concepts, U.S. const. art. IV, § 2 & amend. XlV, § I, d. 2; and,

WHEREAS, asserting one necessarily imputes the assertion of the other, Id.; and,

WHEREAS, former United States President Trump may assert executive Immunity from United States Governmental force which is not under the command of the incumbent United States President, Id.; and,

WHEREAS, in the happenings related to Nixon, 433 U.S. at 425, incumbent President Gerald Ford was intimately involved in prosecuting former President Nixon, Id. & cf Dkt. 1 at 10; and,

WHEREAS, here, as unlike in the happenings related to Nixon, 433 U.S. at 425, the incumbent President is not intimately involved against the prosecution of President Biden, PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 839 F.3d 1, 12-13 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (Madisonian presidential control), see Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 22 (1938) (holding that it is "not the function of the court to probe the mental processes of the [Executive]"), and Dkt. 1 at 10; and,

WHEREAS, here, the topics of documents are related to foreign policy, unlike in Nixon, 433 U.S. at 425, where, the documents were related to domestic policy; and,

WHEREAS, more specifically and materially, a former President/Head of State outranks the incumbent Attorney General in foreign relations and diplomatic matter, which are exclusively reserved for the President's recognition, see generally Providence Journal, 485 U.S. at 701 (more than one "United States" is "startling"); and,

WHEREAS, the incumbent President, the United States Order of Precedence duly established by the Office of the Chief of Protocol, and the Presidential Records Act show that the former presidents carry on official duties, which come with omnipresent privileges and immunities, which are absolute except at against an incumbent President, Nixon, 418 U.S. at 703-4 & Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 239, 241, 244, & 248, (1974); and,

WHEREAS, the Constitutional power of executive Privilege and/or executive Immunity of a former President, thus, may be lawfully asserted against the incumbent Department of Justice, U.S. const. art. IV, § 2 & amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 2, Murray v. Bush, No. 06-C-0781 * 1 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 31, 2006) ("whether the action is frivolous or malicious, or seeks relief from an immune party, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.") (italics added) (internal citations omitted); cf 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii)i Williams v. Holmes, No. 1:17-cv-00799-KOB * 1 (N.D. Ala. Sep. 5, 2017); Malcolm v. City of Miami, No. 22-cv-20499-KING/DAMIAN * 2, 4, & 6 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2022); & Lister v. Dep't of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309 (10th Cir. 2005); and,

WHEREAS, the Plaintiff can lawfully possess the disputed United States records, 44 U.S.C. § 2202; and,

WHEREAS, the Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1) allow for the affirmative defenses of illegality (Defendant's play in obtaining Presidential Records) license (U.S. const. art. IV, § 2), laches (Defendant should have acted quicker if truly suspicious of national security), or unclean hands (Defendant should have involved the incumbent President of the United States); and,

WHEREAS, this Court is in Comity with both Plaintiff and Defendant, and has the privilege of serving each party in his/her/their individual capacity, Doctrine of Comity, U.S. const. art. IV, § 2.

THEREFORE, the Plaintiff is immune from prosecution from the Defendant, and the Court should return all records to plaintiff, President Trump, and order charges against The Honorable Garland for conversion, "treason"/"war"/"attack," and rebellion or insurrection. U.S. const. art. ill, § 3; 18 U.S.C. § 2381; & Providence Journal, 485 U.S. at 701.

FURTHERMORE, under the Constitutional fiction, which starts, at a minimum, with the corporate charters mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (1776), the local, excellent corporations and other local authorities have devolved power to the Federal Sovereign, much more than the Sister States have to the Federal Sovereign; thus, the interest in the transaction is a check on the Devolved Sovereignty, Faithfully ordered by me, the intervenor, and as a taxpayer. U.S. const. art. IV, §§ 1-2 & art. VI, § 1; Federalist 78; & 42 U.S.. §§ 2000bb et seq. See also White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, https: / /www.whitehouse.gov/iga/.

WHEREAS, barring subordinate Executive Branch from reviewing and using the classified records for criminal investigative purposes is a meaningful way of protecting "the confidentiality of Presidential communications," Nixon, 418 U.S. at 705 & contra. Dkt. 69 at 10; and,

WHEREAS, the reasons Presidents or the courts allow independent personnel across the Intelligence Community to review the very same records for other closely related purposes but not the remainder of the Executive Branch do not have to be revealed in order to protect the confidentiality of Presidential Records, Nixon, 418 U.S. at 705; and,

WHEREAS, technocrats are the personnel across the Intelligence Community who usually receive these records and whose narrow objectives are precisely codified, unlike in the not-independent Executive Branch were partisans, party members, former members of Congress, and bureaucrats who are accountable to varying interests, such as foreign Heads of State and inter-governmental organizations and those hierarchies, are likely to receive and be exposed these records; and,

WHEREAS, an affirmance of the default protectionist rule of Presidential Records will allow the Republic to remain One and intact, Nixon, 418 U.S. at 705, Providence Journal, 485 U.S. at 701, Nixon, 433 U.S. at 447-9, & Rein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587 (2007) (Rather, they were "created entirely within the executive branch ... by Presidential executive order." (quoting Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. Chao, 433 F. 3d 989,997 (7th Or. 2006)); and,

WHEREAS, the Department of Justice is not an independent agency of the Executive Branch; and,

WHEREAS, here, the "trial" is of a former President, which was not initiated by the incumbent President; and,

WHEREAS, the enforcement of Nixon, 418 U.S. at 705 is different due to the advancement of technology; and,

THEREFORE, preventing the United States Department of Justice from gaining access to the material Presidential Records is lawful, as well as the appointment of the special master, but the Presidential Records are properly returned to President Trump at the earliest convenience; if not, at least a copy of all records, as the Plaintiff maintains his presumption of correctness until proven otherwise.

FURTHERMORE, this transaction could extent to local governments, a set of Devolvers of Sovereignty, and interfere with local jurisdictions' record keeping practices and the privileges and immunities of their agents, including when those jurisdictions were demarcated in another state.

WHEREAS, Dkt. 69 at 10-11 equivocates about the Executive Branch-generally with the more specific terminologies of executive Privileges and/or Immunities applied to the Executive Branch-incumbent-President and Executive Branch-former-President; and,

WHEREAS, Defendant is unpersuasively arguing, that in addition to its trespass to a former President's castle, its Governmental unit's needs are of more national importance than the status quo established by the Executive Branch-incumbent-President, which does not discriminate against the Executive Branch-former-President-Plaintiff, and made publicly available through the United States Department of State-Office of the Chief of Protocol (whether the Executive Branch-incumbent-Attorney-General is a state actor or a governmental actor is irrelevant due to the order of precedence and the Executive Branch-incumbent-President's establishment of the national security agenda; nonetheless, these distinctions cannot be muted), Egan, 484 U.S. at 527; see also, e.g., Murphy, 769 Fed. Appx. at 792 ("The authority to protect national security information falls on the President [directly]."), &; Dkt. 69 at 13, Poindexter, 114 U.S. at 2905; and,

WHEREAS, the President is an agent, in the terms of the Presidential Records Act and Federalist 78; and,

WHEREAS, the courts must protect the President from aggression from unknown sources within Executive Branch, which concurrently politically answer to varying interests, Dkt. 69 at 18 quoting Egan, 484 U.S. at 529; and,

WHEREAS, the courts must be sensitive to the inter-workings and inter-politics of the executive branch;

WHEREAS, hypothetically, Executive Branch-incumbent-Attorney-General-DOJ-and-FBI could have been denied access to Presidential Records of Executive Branch-former-President-Trump by Executive Branch-incumbent-President-Biden; and,

WHEREAS, therefore, the current happenings in the case-at-hand are appeasement to vital parts of the Government and possible political parties and factions the President must appease, PHH Corp., 839 F.3d at 1 & 12-13 (As the Supreme Court has explained, our Constitution "was adopted to enable the people to govern themselves, through their elected leaders," and the Constitution "requires that a President chosen by the entire Nation oversee the execution of the laws.") (quoting Free Enterprise Fund v. Pub. Co. Acct. Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 499 (2010)); Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. at 2667 ("They are free to pursue a purely ideological commitment to the law's constitutionality without the need to take cognizance of resource constraints, changes in public opinion [including polls factoring the opinions of social outcasts, U.S. const. art. IV, § 2 & amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 2], or potential ramifications for other state priorities[,]" [appropriation through genomics]); United States v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434 * 23,594 U.S. __ (2021) (Roberts, C.J., The Constitutional hierarchy requires "the exercise of executive power [to remain] accountable to the people."); & Dkt. 69 at 18 quoting Egan, 484 U.S. at 527 (unauthorized persons); and,

WHEREAS, there is rule of law, the Courts must protect the Executive Branch-incumbent-President and the Executive Branch-former-President from aggressions; and,

WHEREAS, the current acts are aggressions against the United States, found in some Western Hemisphere's- and Sister Common Law jurisdictions'-governmental fashion for coups de tat.

THEREFORE, the Court should enter judgement in favor of Plaintiff, who is immune from prosecution by the Defendant-Mr. Gonzalez.

WHEREAS, in addition to Dkts. 21, 36, and 60, the Political Question Doctrine, under Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962) (a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department); and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Political Question Doctrine the issue is reserved for the Presidency directly, for the interest of maintaining Presidential Autonomy (i.e. in an earlier draft of the Declaration of Independence of 1776, Thomas Jefferson addressed the Grievances against the Parliament, which he thought caused the denial of the Olive Branch Treaty; but, The King was still giving power to Parliament), compare Original Draft ("we utterly dissolve all political connection which may heretofore have subsisted between us and the people or parliament of Great Britain: and finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states, and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.") with Final Draft;6 and,

WHEREAS, Robert Yates, who refused to sign the United States Constitution thought that the judiciary would be able "to mould" the role of the presidency; 7 and,

WHEREAS, "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process ... [a] President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way that many would be unwilling to express except privately," Nixon, 418 U.S. at 705 & 708; and,

WHEREAS, "[ i]n designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence," Nixon, 433 U.S. at 442-3 (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)); and,

WHEREAS, the Attorney General might be appropriate if Congress' interests were violated with the Presidential Records Act, but cf, Id., 2 U.S.C. §§ 192 & 271-288n, & Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204 (1821) (only when Congress' interests are violated, the Segreant [sic. Sergeant]- at-Arms does the enforcement; see generally Title 2 of the United States Code); and,

WHEREAS, "[t]he essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around[,]" Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. at 2675; and,

WHEREAS, the incumbent President of the United States is the "next friend" of the 'the real party in interest," the unique Sovereign, of all the natural persons, each a sovereign, of the United States, Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. at 2665 & 2674.

THEREFORE, the Court should enter judgement, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) or (b)(6), in favor of Plaintiff, who is immune from prosecution by the Defendant-Mr. Gonzalez, and advise that prosecution is most proper from the incumbent President himself or his honor's counselor, i.e. Counselor to the President (Mr. Steve Ricchetti, J.D.), but not the Attorney General (The Hon. Merrick Garland, J.D.). But cf. White House General Counselor (Mr. Stuart F. Delery, JD.). In re Lindsey, 158 F.3d at 1280-2 (White House General Counsel under the command of the incumbent President v. DOJ. Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. at 2665 & 2673 (referring to Providence Journal Co., 485 U.S. at 700). Federalist 78. Maine Cmty. Health Options, 140 S. Ct. at 1334 (Alito, J., dissenting) (Head of Washington, D.C. should direct its nat'l State and Government, an ordinary federal common law matter). All documents should be returned to Plaintiff.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, the court may dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.12(b)(7).

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, since the Defendant's acts are unconstitutional and cannot be ratified to become constitutional, as Defendant omitted the incumbent President-Head of State and -Head of Government against the incumbent President's own Order for Protocol, the court may dismiss and rule in favor of Plaintiff for the Defendant's unclean hands.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, the court may issue an Order to Show Cause to the Defendant for law enforcement jurisdiction.

AT ALL COSTS, this Court should avoid creating a slippery slope so that the incumbent President will be subject to arrest by the incumbent Attorney General, who, but, serves at the honor's pleasure, or create an unconstitutional autonomy of executive departments, which will not be accountable to the People, - or, sometimes, to their varying interests - the epitome of executive tyranny.

"[A] pro se [motion], however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

I use my Constitutional Privileges, honors, and rights of knowing from my undergraduate and law school, juris doctor candidacy, educations, and political offices and from reading law outside of formal schooling for the writing and discussions, arguments, and motions of these filings, see Dkt. 21 at 5 & 20 and supra, p. 20 (signature line). Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. at 2667 & 2670-71 ("unique legal status").

I move for leave to file this third amended Dkt. 87.

I move to reinstate my Motion to Continue Without Pre-Paying Filing Fees at Dkt. 22, to avoid default and interest charges on other monetary commitments.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Raj K. Patel
T.E., T.E. Raj Patel (pro se)
6850 East 21st Street
Indianapolis, IN 46219
Marion County
317-450-6651 (cell)
[email protected]
http://www.rajpatel.live

Image
Raj K. Patel THE EXCELLENT THE EXCELLENT U.S. const. art. IV. §2
Article IV, Section 2.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.


J.D. Candidate, Notre Dame L. Sch. 2015-2017
President/Student Body President, Student Gov't Ass'n of Emory D., Inc. 2013-2014 (corp. sovereign 2013-present)
Student Body President, Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp./President, Brownsburg High Sch. Student Gov't 2009-2010 (corp. sovereign 2009-present)
Rep. from the Notre Dame L. Sch. Student B. Ass'n to the Ind. St. B. Ass'n 2017
Deputy Regional Director, Young Democrats of Am.-High Sch. Caucus 2008-2009
Co-Founder & Vice Chair, Ind. High Sch. Democrats 2009-2010
Vice President of Fin. (Indep.), Oxford C. Republicans of Emory D., Inc. 2011-2012

_______________

Notes:

1. David A. Strauss, "Presidential Interpretation of the Constitution," 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 113, 113- 135 (1993), https:/chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1 &article=3006&context=journalarticles;Presidential.

2. Under the common law, the incumbent King may change protocol at-will against a former Head of State or a preceding Monarch; those vested powers are embedded in the United States Constitution and remain constant until lawfully amended. Besides, as the complaint and Attorney General's Merrick Garland's public, apolitical, and legal comments show, currently, ]only a unit of an Executive branch has acted, i.e. the Department of Justice-F.B.I., rather than the Executive branch as whole. Dkt. 1 at 10. To no surprise, even against a former president, in order to legally condition the peaceful transition of power, the Executive power is much weaker than of a common law King's. United States v. Providence Journal Co., 485 U.S. 693, 701 (1988) (more than one "United States" is "startling"). Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1308, 1334 (Alito, J., dissenting) (internal citations omitted) "federal common law" has unique interests).

3. https://hrc-prod-requests.s3-us-west-2. ... pendix.pdf.

4. An F.B.I. cannot claim executive Privilege against the incumbent Attorney General, but a former President can claim executive Privilege (i.e. Presidential Privilege) against the incumbent Attorney General. Respectively, the independent concept of executive Immunity applies, which favors the former President against the incumbent Attorney General.

5. Poindexter, 114 U.S. at 290 ("In common speech and common apprehension they are usually regarded as identical; and as ordinarily the acts of the government are the acts of the State, because withi: the limits of its delegation of power, the government of the State is generally confounded with the State itself, and often the former is meant when the latter is mentioned. The State itself is an ideal person, intangible, invisible, immutable. The government is an agent, and, within the sphere of the agency, a perfect representative; but outside of that, it is a lawless usurpation. The Constitution of the State is the limit of the authority of its government, and both government and State are subject to the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States, and of the laws made in pursuance thereof ... This distinction is essential to the idea of constitutional government. To deny it or blot it out obliterates the line of demarcation that separates constitutional government from absolutism, free self-government based on the sovereignty of the people from that despotism, whether of the one or the many, which enables the agent of the State to declare and decree that he is the State; to say "L'Etat c'est moi."" [I am the State"].

6. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/doc ... pendence./

7. https:/www.heritage.org/courts/report/against-judicial-supremacy-the-founders-and-the-limits-the-courts ("Every body of men invested with office," Yates observed, "are tenacious of power." Moreover, this love of power would "influence" judges "to extend their power, and increase their rights," with the result that the courts will tend to "give such a meaning to the Constitution in all cases where it can possibly be done, as will enlarge the sphere of their authority." ... The end result of all this would be a Supreme Court with power to rule the country in the most important matters according to its own will -- to not only exceed its authority but to usurp others' authority. "This power," Yates said, "will enable" the justices of the Supreme Court "to mould the government into almost any shape they please." ... Yates further contended that the Supreme Court would not only be supreme over all other courts, but that it would, in fact, be the supreme power in the government to be created by the Constitution. This supremacy, Yates contended, would follow from the Court's power of settling for all other political actors the authoritative meaning of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, he observed, "has the power, in the last resort, to determine all questions that may arise in the course of legal discussion, on the meaning and construction of the Constitution.").  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I served a copy of the foregoing Raj K. Patel's (Pro Se) Third Amended Dkt. 87 on 10/3/2022 to below individuals via the e-mail:

James M. Trusty
IFRAH, PLLC
1717 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 650
Washington, DC 20006
202-852-5669
Email: [email protected]

Lindsey Halligan
511 SE 5th Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
720-435-2870
Email: [email protected]

Christopher Michael Kise
Chris Kise & Associates, P.A.
201 East Park Ave. Ste, 5th Floor
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850) 270-0566
[email protected]

M. Evan Corcoran
Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin, & White, LLC
400 East Pratt Street, Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21230
410-385-2225
[email protected]

Juan Antonio Gonzalez
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
99 NE 4th Street, 8th Floor
Miami, Fl33132
Telephone: (305) 961-9001
Email: [email protected]

Jay I. Bratt, Chief
Counterintelligence & Export Control
Section Nat'l Security Div.
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 233-0986
[email protected]

President Joe Biden
c/o Marina M. Kozmycz, Associate Gen. Counsel
The E.O.P. at the White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Phone: 202-457-1414
[REDACTED]

Dated: October 3, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Raj K. Patel
T.E., T.E. Raj Patel (pro se)
6850 East 21st Street
Indianapolis, IN 46219
Marion County
317-450-6651 (cell)
[email protected]
http://www.rajpatel.live
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Sun Oct 23, 2022 2:51 am

The Incredible Mystery of How Trump Got Judge Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago Case: There are a number of incredible coincidences that led to the former president getting his preferred judge.
by Jose Pagliery
Updated Oct. 18, 2022 12:17PM ET / Published Oct. 18, 2022 4:43AM ET

When Donald Trump’s legal team filed their court paperwork protesting the Mar-a-Lago raid, a lawyer took the rare step of actually filing the paperwork in person. At a courthouse 44 miles from Mar-a-Lago. And they got a judge to oversee the case that was outside both West Palm Beach—where the raid took place—and the district where they filed.

Those incredible coincidences have led lawyers and legal experts to suggest that something may not be above board with how Trump’s team filed their lawsuit, which serendipitously ended up in the MAGA-friendly hands of Judge Aileen Cannon.

For one, Trump’s team blamed a “technical issue” with the court’s computer system. But The Daily Beast has discovered that the system was working just fine for dozens of other lawyers making hundreds of filings that day.

For another, lawyers typically file lawsuits at the district where an issue took place. Trump’s lawyers filed at a courthouse in a neighboring division.

And third, lawyers will mark a case as “related” when it deals with a similar matter. Trump’s legal team did not—despite the fact that another magistrate judge at the right courthouse had approved the FBI’s search warrant to recover those classified government documents from Mar-a-Lago.

“It’s clearly related. I don’t think there’s a plausible argument that it’s not related… it was related to another case in the district—in the same courthouse as a matter of fact,” said Carl Tobias, a law school professor at the University of Richmond.

Questions continue to swirl over how exactly Trump managed to get Cannon, who has shocked legal scholars by issuing mind-boggling orders that always favor Trump. She has temporarily halted the FBI investigation, appointed a “special master” to slow down the probe, and kept the case far from its natural home in Washington, D.C.

“It was basically a home run to get her,” said Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. “They clearly made the correct calculation, because Judge Cannon’s rulings legally don’t make sense. They only make sense if you’re trying to help the former president.”

Levinson said Trump’s team was clearly “judge shopping.”

“They did not want the magistrate judge to make this decision,” she said. “There was already a captain of this ship. They just didn’t like the direction this was taking.”

Trump’s lawyers filed in one division, Fort Lauderdale, selected the venue in a second division, West Palm Beach, and got a judge in a third division, Fort Pierce. And the way Trump handled this matter was odd from the start.

On Aug. 8, the FBI raided Trump’s oceanside estate in Palm Beach. But he did nothing to intervene or legally protest the search over the following two weeks—inaction that surprised two lawyers who have done significant work for Trump or his associates, who told The Daily Beast about their frustration.

It wasn’t until Aug. 22 that Trump finally sued the government to assert his rights were being violated—at a courthouse an hour’s drive south of Mar-a-Lago. A relatively new addition to the former president’s ever expanding cadre of lawyers, the 33-year-old Lindsey Halligan, went in person to the Fort Lauderdale courthouse near her listed address to submit a copy of the 27-page lawsuit, according to a receipt of the transaction. West Palm Beach was selected as the proper venue. The clerks entered the document into the court system at 4:50 p.m.

The move was so peculiar that Trump’s legal team had to explain themselves, which they did in an official document electronically signed by Halligan, Washington lawyer James M. Trusty, and Baltimore attorney M. Evan Corcoran.

“A technical issue with access to the Court’s CM/ECF system precluded electronic filing today, and the CM/ECF Help Desk advised undersigned counsel to file conventionally,” they attested.

To fact-check that, The Daily Beast examined timestamps for all 1,370 court filings made in the Southern District of Florida that day and interviewed lawyers who used the system throughout the afternoon.

Five lawyers who filed documents in the district that day told The Daily Beast that the court’s electronic system was working fine and some even provided receipts that showed their electronic filings were submitted successfully. The district’s head clerk, attorney Angela E. Noble, also confirmed that her court experienced no technical difficulties that day.

Court docket timestamps provide further proof. A lawsuit against a pizzeria was filed electronically at 4:08 p.m. Pissed-off restaurant employees sued their boss over missing tips at 4:14 p.m. A cruise line got sued three minutes later at 4:17 p.m. And the system was still working at 4:43 p.m., just three minutes before Trump’s lawyers filed their lawsuit, when a woman sued over the way she tripped on a pallet at a Costco aisle.

The system was up and running afterwards too, when a food producer sued French businessmen at 5:10 p.m.

When South Florida lawyers who regularly practice in this district were told about Trump’s in-person filing—and the excuse that the system wasn’t working—they all responded with disbelief.

"I don’t know anybody who files in person. I didn’t even know you could do that anymore. It looks like this person was trying to select a particular judge,” one said, suggesting that a Trump lawyer may have had sway with a court employee.

"I find it bizarre. The only people who file in person are ‘pro se,’” said another, referring to people who sue on their own without the help of a lawyer.

“People don’t do this anymore. It’s extremely odd. I guess you could do this if you wanted to get a particular judge—or avoid getting a particular judge,” speculated a third.

For weeks on social media, legal scholars and paid news commentators have been wondering the same thing—and openly suggesting that Trump’s legal team figured out how to game the system.

“Could the 4th estate PLEASE get to the bottom of this,” tweeted former DOJ prosecutor Andrew Weissmann. “If there wasn’t at least the potential to judge shop why on g_d’s green earth would Trump have gone all the way to her district to file and do so physically, when he could have electronically filed at the court in his backyard?”

Lawyers spoke on background, citing a concern that they may have future cases assigned to Judge Cannon.

Some lawyers raised the possibility that Trump’s lawyers tried to be deliberately vague when they blamed “a technical issue with access to the court's” system, which could technically mean they couldn’t get their own computers to work.

“It lacks the ambiance of candor,” one lawyer said. “What do you mean by technical issue? Are you saying the court system was down? Or your computer was down?”

Trump’s own lawyers seem to disprove that notion. In court documents, Halligan attested that she was able to send a copy of the lawsuit “via electronic mail” that day to two Department of Justice lawyers: top Miami federal prosecutor Juan Antonio Gonzalez and Jay I. Bratt, chief of the DOJ National Security Division’s counterintelligence and export control section.

Halligan did not respond to questions for this story.

Trump’s lawyers’ claim that the system wasn’t working makes even less sense when you consider that they could have filed sooner or even later.

“There was nothing that imposed a deadline on them to file. They could have done it the next day,” one South Florida lawyer said.

“I think somebody pulled a fast one in the clerk’s office to rotate it to a friendly judge. It doesn’t sound like it was done by the blind filing system,” mused another.

The Daily Beast contacted a court employee with direct knowledge of how the Trump lawsuit filing was handled, and this person said the case was placed into the federal court system’s automatic random judge “assignment wheel.”

Noble, the head of that office, also said that the proper procedure was followed on their end—and that this is backed up by a log that “is not publicly available.” She said the Trump lawsuit was placed on the West Palm Beach civil wheel, which consists of nine judges. Cannon is in a neighboring division, so she can occasionally get West Palm Beach cases.

Theoretically, that would give Trump a 1-in-9 chance of getting Cannon on the case.

However, The Daily Beast analyzed new case assignments in West Palm Beach in the week preceding Trump’s lawsuit and found that Cannon actually got a much higher share, nine of the 29 new complaints—roughly a third of all cases.

But the system still appears random. The previous Friday in West Palm Beach, Cannon got the first lawsuit of the day. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks got the next three. Cannon got the last one.

On Monday, Aug. 22, in West Palm Beach, Cannon got the first case. Trump’s lawsuit was the second of the day in that division, and she got that too.

A head clerk of federal courts in another state told The Daily Beast that lawyers sometimes time filings as if they’re players at a casino. Sometimes it works.

“If you play cards and count the cards, I suppose they could say, ‘I’ll hold this here until I see if other judges got assignments.’ But it would be very risky because it’s random,” she said.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Thu Oct 27, 2022 12:52 am

Is America Headed to Another Civil War? Jordan Klepper Fingers the Pulse
by Jordan Klepper
The Daily Show with Trevor Noah
Oct 24, 2022

Is America headed towards another Civil War? Jordan Klepper chats with Rep. Adam Kinzinger and polls Arizona liberals and conservatives to find out. #DailyShow #Comedy



Transcript

There's no question that America is becoming
0:02
more and more polarized.
0:04
And it has a lot of people wondering--
0:06
could this division turn into violence?
0:09
Well, we sent Jordan Klepper to find out for another episode
0:12
of "Fingers the Pulse."
0:13
[music playing]
0:20
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): When you've
0:21
been to as many rallies as I have,
0:23
you get used to hearing things you don't encounter
0:26
in everyday life, like "Go to hell,"
0:28
and "Klepper is a bitch."
0:30
But lately, the. crowds have been
0:31
coalescing around one particular idea
0:34
that nobody wants to hear
0:35
- Civil War. - Civil War.
0:37
- Civil War. - Civil War.
0:38
Civil War.
0:39
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): The Civil War--
0:40
our country's bitter attempt at divorce
0:42
that ended with mom and dad back together in a state
0:45
of constant resentment.
0:46
43% of Americans think it's very
0:48
likely there's a Civil War in the next decade.
0:51
OK.
0:52
I'm going to be perfectly straight up and honest.
0:53
It's going to happen much sooner than that.
0:55
How soon?
0:56
Because I have an Airbnb rented in the Outer Banks.
0:58
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): But it turns out
1:00
a lot of Americans think this way and not just your uncle
1:03
who has been hoarding weapons and Vienna sausages
1:05
in his basement bunker.
1:06
Even sitting members of Congress, like January 6
1:09
Committee Member Adam Kinzinger.
1:10
How close are we to another Civil War?
1:13
I think we're closer than we'd like to think.
1:15
And I used to be afraid to talk about it.
1:17
Now I think it's important for us to talk about it.
1:19
To talk about a Civil War?
1:20
Yeah.
1:21
Because I think we have to be aware of where we're at.
1:23
I don't think it's going to be North and South
1:25
with large marching armies.
1:26
You know, if I live in Illinois,
1:28
there's going to be Republicans and Democrats in Illinois.
1:31
I do think it could get violent easily.
1:33
I mean, that's scary.
1:34
That is scary.
1:35
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): If a sitting representative
1:37
like Kinzinger thinks a second Civil War is possible,
1:39
it's something we need to take seriously.
1:41
So I decided to gather Americans
1:43
in one of our most sacred traditions of civic unity--
1:46
the corporate focus group, bringing together
1:48
conservatives and liberals in purple Arizona
1:51
who all think Civil War is a real possibility.
1:53
The Civil War is tomorrow.
1:55
What is the skill set you bring to the battlefield?
1:57
Well, I'm good with a gun.
1:58
- Yeah? - Yeah.
1:59
OK.
2:00
James?
2:02
[laughs] I have survival skills.
2:03
I was in the military.
2:05
I know how to shoot a weapon, hand-to-hand combat
2:06
if I have to.
2:08
I could stick you with a knife and not cry about it.
2:10
[laughs]
2:12
We're laughing about sticking people with a knife, but--
2:14
OK. Lansing, what skills?
2:15
Leadership JORDAN KLEPPER: Leadership?
2:16
Yeah.
2:17
I just feel there's going to need to be some leaders.
2:19
Bo, what skills do you have?
2:20
Critical thinking.
2:22
Jesus, for all of the liberals in here,
2:24
we have a leader and a critical thinker.
2:27
This is why the blue side is [bleep]..
2:28
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): But if America was going
2:30
to be divided in a Civil War, where would the modern day
2:33
Mason-Dixon Line fall?
2:35
It was time for a state-by-state fantasy draft--
2:37
well, nightmare draft.
2:39
JORDAN KLEPPER: We've terraformed
2:40
the states that have been red and blue to create
2:44
one land mass.
2:46
Who sees himself as conservative part
2:47
of the red map here?
2:50
Are these the states you would want?
2:52
Oh, I much prefer the red states.
2:54
What breaks your heart?
2:56
What are you going to miss?
2:57
Well, Arizona-- isn't that supposed
2:59
to be a red state now?
3:00
Let's say we give you Arizona.
3:02
Where do you want to travel to?
3:03
Well, I love California.
3:05
But it's turned into such a shithole.
3:06
Let's be fair.
3:08
As a red state guy, the blue state has the best food.
3:10
Oh, yeah.
3:11
Right.
3:12
Bo, what would you miss?
3:14
Not a ton.
3:15
As a liberal, you're feeling pretty
3:17
good about the states you get.
3:18
Honestly, I feel all right.
3:20
We got Hawaii.
3:21
JORDAN KLEPPER: You do have Hawaii.
3:22
James, what are you missing?
3:24
You're going to be in this red conglomerate, right?
3:25
Well, the family's from back east in Ohio, so, yeah,
3:27
I mean-- that would be.
3:28
You'd miss Ohio?
3:29
I wouldn't trade Cleveland for anything.
3:30
I'd trade Texas for California
3:32
so I can go to San Diego. - OK.
3:34
Any other trades?
3:35
Texas for California-- blue side,
3:36
would you allow that trade?
3:37
I'll take Austin for Cleveland,
3:39
but I don't need all of Texas.
3:40
We'll do an Austin for Cleveland.
3:41
I don't want Cleveland. He's in Cleveland.
3:43
I want San Diego.
3:44
What will you give up for San Diego?
3:45
I would give up Florida.
3:48
No thanks.
3:49
There's no takers on Florida?
3:50
No.
3:51
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): OK.
3:52
So I guess the ocean can have Florida,
3:54
which is helpful because it will probably take it anyway.
3:57
And now that we have our newly divided States of America,
4:00
we get to draft some new constitutions.
4:02
If there is a new America, you're going to need new laws.
4:06
Are there any laws you would want to change?
4:08
Get rid of the petty ones.
4:11
I mean, there's lots of petty laws out there.
4:13
I mean, if you pee in public, I mean,
4:14
are you really going to be in the sex crime registry
4:16
now because you peed in public?
4:17
It's stupid.
4:18
It's a crack in the system.
4:20
That's the first law that comes to head?
4:22
It's the petty laws.
4:23
You get put in the federal sex crimes registry
4:27
if you take a leak outside.
4:29
It's just pretty dumb.
4:30
That's just an example.
4:31
We just talked about a Civil War
4:33
tearing this country in two.
4:34
[laughter]
4:35
You finally get your way-- - Well, you know, I mean--
4:37
--and the first law that jumps
4:38
to mind is peeing in public.
4:41
Does your side not have toilets?
4:42
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): With the vision
4:44
of the new Confederacy already collapsing under the burden
4:47
of sewage infrastructure, I thought
4:49
it was time to cut to the chase and ask
4:51
the biggest question of all.
4:52
Which side wins?
4:53
We all lose.
4:54
We all lose, yeah.
4:56
There's no winning there.
4:57
What if one side loses and then refuses to concede?
5:04
JORDAN KLEPPER (VOICEOVER): Well,
5:05
I don't know if I feel any better
5:06
about the future of America.
5:07
But for now, at least we still have elections.
5:10
In fact, check out my new half hour special where I dive
5:13
into the midterms and ask the very important question--
5:16
democracy, we still cool?
5:19
If you knew you got fewer votes, you wouldn't concede.
5:21
What is conceding mean?
5:23
Yeah.
5:24
It means accepting loss.
5:25
- No. - No.
5:26
Why?
5:27
Is democracy [bleep]?
5:28
We can be [bleep] tomorrow if the wrong thing happens.
5:32
You were there January 6.
5:33
It was the most beautiful thing I ever saw.
5:35
Birds chirping, police officers screaming.
5:37
No.
5:39
[music playing]
5:45
[applause]
5:46
Thank you so much for that.
5:47
Jordan Klepper, everybody.
5:48
Before to check out--
5:50
be sure to check out Jordan's special next Tuesday at 11:30
5:52
right after this show.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Thu Oct 27, 2022 1:18 am

'Deep trouble': Consultant during Trump's impeachment gives his take on DOJ move
by Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law Professor, Harvard Law School
CNN
Oct 26, 2022

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to force the top two lawyers from Donald Trump's White House counsel's office to testify about their conversations with the former President. This comes as the DOJ tries to break through the privilege firewall Trump has used to avoid scrutiny of his actions on January 6, 2021, according to three people familiar with the investigation.



Transcript

[ERIN BURNETT] TONIGHT, A CNN EXCLUSIVE. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT NOW ASKING A FEDERAL JUDGE TO FORCE TWO TOP LAWYERS FROM DONALD TRUMP'S WHITE HOUSE TO TESTIFY ABOUT CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM. THOSE LAWYERS ARE FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE, AND PATRICK PHILBIN. TRUMP WAGED A SECRET COURT FIGHT TO BLOCK FORMER ADVISERS FROM TESTIFYING BEFORE A FEDERAL GRAND JURY INVESTIGATING THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6th. OUR SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT, EVAN PEREZ, IS OUT FRONT. EVAN, THIS COULD, I THINK, HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON THE INVESTIGATION IF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUCCEEDS, AND GETS THESE FORMER TRUMP LAWYERS TO TESTIFY, RIGHT?

[EVAN PEREZ] RIGHT. IT REALLY DOES HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING PROSECUTORS INTO THE INNER CIRCLE OF DONALD TRUMP, AND HIS WHITE HOUSE. PAT CIPOLLONE WAS THE FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. PATRICK PHILBIN WAS HIS DEPUTY. AND THEY WERE THERE DURING SOME OF THESE CONVERSATIONS AS THE FORMER PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO IMPEDE THE TRANSFER OF POWER IN 2020, WHICH IS AFTER THE 2020 ELECTION. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PROSECUTORS OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ARE INVESTIGATING. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, SO FAR, HAS BEEN WINNING THESE SECRET PROCEEDINGS THAT ARE GOING ON AT THE COURTHOUSE HERE IN WASHINGTON. THEY GOT GREG JACOB, AND MARK SHORT, FORMER AIDES TO THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT PENCE, TO COME BACK IN AND ANSWER QUESTIONS. THESE ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, ABOUT CONVERSATIONS THAT THEY HAD WITH THE FORMER PRESIDENT. SO, THE FACT THAT THEY'RE WINNING THESE FIGHTS DOES BODE WELL FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AS THEY TRY TO GET THE COMPELLED TESTIMONY OF CIPOLLONE AND PHILBIN.

[ERIN BURNETT] EVAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO GO NOW TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, WHO ALSO CONSULTED HOUSE DEMOCRATS FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THEN PRESIDENT TRUMP. SO, PROFESSOR, WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR DONALD TRUMP IF THE DOJ SUCCEEDS HERE, AND GETS IN THIS INNER CIRCLE, GETS PAT CIPOLLONE AND PAT PHILBIN'S TESTIMONY?

[LAURENCE TRIBE] IT MEANS HE'S IN DEEP TROUBLE. THERE'S NO REASON THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT SUCCEED. WHEN A GRAND JURY DEMANDS THE TESTIMONY OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF SOMEONE WHO APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN AN INSURRECTION AND A SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO GET THAT INFORMATION. IF THERE WERE AN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FOR A FORMER PRESIDENT -- AND THAT'S DOUBTFUL -- IT WOULD BE OVERCOME BY THE CONTEXT: THE INFORMATION IS NEEDED FOR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. IT WAS UNANIMOUS IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, IN BOTH CASES WHERE THE ISSUE AROSE, THAT THE NEED FOR INFORMATION IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING TRUMPS -- NO PUN INTENDED -- ANY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. SO THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THEM TO RESIST THE ORDER THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET FROM THE DEPARTMENT MOTION WITH THE COURT. AND THERE'S NO REASON FOR THE COURT TO DENY THAT MOTION.

[ERIN BURNETT] SO, OBVIOUSLY, THAT IS SIGNIFICANT. THERE IS ALSO WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION IN GEORGIA. YOU'VE BEEN VERY CRITICAL OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS GIVING SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM A TEMPORARY FREEZE FROM TESTIFYING BEFORE THAT GRAND JURY IN GEORGIA. WHY DO YOU THINK THOMAS' DECISION -- WHICH, BY THE WAY, WENT AGAINST WHAT TWO OTHER COURTS ALREADY RULED, WHICH IS THAT GRAHAM SHOULD HAVE TO APPEAR BEFORE THAT GRAND JURY -- WHY DO YOU THINK THOMAS DOING THIS IS SO EGREGIOUS?

[LAURENCE TRIBE] IT'S EGREGIOUS BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL. IT WASN'T THE FACT THAT HE GRANTED LINDSEY'S REQUEST -- EVEN DENYING LINDSEY'S REQUEST WOULD'VE BEEN UNLAWFUL. BECAUSE 18 U.S. CODE -- ACTUALLY 28 U.S. CODE SECTION 455 -- SAYS THAT A JUSTICE OR JUDGE -- BUT IT INCLUDES A "JUSTICE" -- AND THE LANGUAGE IT USES IS "SHALL" DISQUALIFY HIMSELF IN ANY PROCEEDING IN WHICH HIS IMPARTIALITY MIGHT REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED. SO EVEN DENYING LINDSEY'S REQUEST WOULD'VE BEEN WRONG. HE SHOULD'VE JUST HANDED IT OVER TO ANOTHER JUSTICE. BUT THERE'S ANOTHER PART OF 28 U.S. CODE THAT IS SLAM DUNK APPLICABLE. IT SAYS THAT A JUSTICE "SHALL "-- AND I KEEP EMPHASIZING THE WORD "SHALL" -- IT'S NOT DISCRETIONARY -- DISQUALIFY HIMSELF. AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE THE LANGUAGE, IF "HIS SPOUSE IS KNOWN BY THE JUSTICE TO HAVE AN INTEREST THAT COULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOME." NOW, WE KNOW THAT GINNI THOMAS HAS AN INTEREST. SHE MADE IT CLEAR. IT'S NOT EVEN SECRET. SHE WAS AT THE JANUARY 6th RALLY. SHE SENT AT LEAST 29 TEXTS A FEW WEEKS EARLIER TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF, MARK MEADOWS, URGING HIM TO BACK UP THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORT TO PREVENT THE TRANSFER OF POWER TO BIDEN. SHE SAID THE WHOLE BIDEN FAMILY SHOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON. THEN THERE WERE TEXTS THAT SHE SENT TO THE LEGISLATORS OF ARIZONA AND WISCONSIN, URGING THEM TO SUBMIT PHONY ELECTORAL SLATES TO PREVENT THE TRANSFER OF POWER. SO SHE IS INTIMATELY INTERESTED IN THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDING IN GEORGIA WHERE THE SAME QUESTION, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE, INCLUDING SENATOR GRAHAM, WERE ENGAGED IN AN EFFORT TO STRONG-ARM PEOPLE, LIKE RAFFENSPERGER, TO CREATE PHONY VOTES. SO SHE IS IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. HE HAS TO KNOW THAT. IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF PILLOW TALK. EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY KNOWS IT. IT'S OPEN AND SHUT.

[ERIN BURNETT] WELL, AS YOU SAY, IT'S NOT DISCRETIONARY, IT'S "SHALL." AND THAT OPERATIVE WORD CARRIES SO MUCH WEIGHT IN THIS CASE. PROFESSOR, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Tue Nov 01, 2022 4:05 am

Pastor Jamal Bryant DEMOLISHES Herschel Walker. White Evangelicals in Disarray
by Pastor Jamal Bryant
The Benjamin Dixon Morning Show
Oct 31, 2022

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Don’t get mad now. White evangelicals stay preaching politics in their pulpits. Jamal Bryant does it better.

Transcript

[Pastor Jamal Bryant] Ladies and gentlemen, when the Republican party of Georgia moved Herschel Walker from Texas to Georgia so that he could run for Senate, it's because change was taken too fast in the post-Antebellum South. The state had been flipped blue, and there are some principalities that were not prepared for a black man, and a Jewish man, to go to Senate at the exact same time. So they figured that they would delude us, by picking somebody who they thought would in fact represent us better with a football, than with a degree in philosophy. They thought we were so slow, that we were so stupid, that we would elect the lowest caricature of a stereotypical broken black man, as opposed to somebody who is educated, and erudite, and focused.

Y'all aren't ready for me today.


Since Herschel Walker was 16 years old, white men been telling him what to do. Telling him what school to go to, where to live, where to eat, where to buy a house, where to walk, where to sit down, where to sleep, where to pay for abortions, where to buy a gun. And you think they not gonna tell him how to vote in 2022?

We don't need a Walker, we need a runner. We need somebody who gonna run, and tell the truth about January 6. We need somebody who gonna run, and push for the cancellation of student loan debts. We need somebody who gonna run, and make the former president respond to a subpoena.

We don't need a Walker, we need somebody who will be steadfast, unmovable, always abounded, knowing that your labor is not in vain.

Georgia, I need you to know: the slave Negroes y'all are used to don't live here no more. We can think by ourselves, function for ourselves, and vote for ourselves. Why? Cause we don't need a Walker.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Wed Nov 02, 2022 8:05 am

Trump-backed Wisconsin GOP candidate and 2020 election denier claims Republicans will 'never lose another election' in the state if he gets voted into office
by Hannah Getahun
Business Insider
11/2/22

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image
Wisconsin Republican gubernatorial candidate Tim Michels speaks as he appears with former President Donald Trump at a rally in Waukesha, Wis., on Aug. 5, 2022. AP Photo/Morry Gash, File

* Wisconsin GOP gubernatorial candidate Tim Michels said Republicans would never lose an election in the state.

* "Tim Michels is a danger to our democracy," Gov. Tony Evers said on Twitter.

*The Michels campaign clarified the comment, saying that Michels would boost support for Republicans.

Wisconsin GOP candidate Tim Michels said Republicans would never lose a race in the state should he become governor, concerning opponents that he would take steps to alter election results once in office.

American Bridge 21st Century, a left-leaning political action committee, released an audio clip Monday of Michels recorded during a campaign event in Jackson County, Wisconsin. Michels is running for governor against Democratic incumbent Governor Tony Evers.

"Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin after I'm elected governor," Michels, who co-owns the state's largest construction company, can be heard saying.

In response to the audio clip, posted on Twitter, Evers replied, saying: 'Tim Michels is a danger to our democracy."

"Democracy is on the ballot in this election," Sam Roecker, a spokesperson for Evers told Insider. "Tim Michels has made it clear he will do anything in his power to make it harder for Wisconsinites to vote and could even overturn the fair results of our elections if he doesn't like the outcome."

Tony Evers@Tony4WI·Follow
Governor candidate, WI

Folks, we’ve known this for awhile – Tim Michels is a danger to our democracy.

When you head to the polls on Election Day, remember that we’re fighting to protect our democracy, voting rights, and free, fair, and secure elections.

American Bridge 21st Century @American_Bridge

GOP #WIGov nominee Tim @MichelsForGov said the quiet part out loud: "Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin after I'm elected governor."

Democracy is on the line in Wisconsin. Michels must be stopped.

Embedded video


3:59 PM · Oct 31, 2022


Michels, a candidate endorsed by former President Donald Trump, has questioned the results of the 2020 election and has declined to answer questions as to whether or not he would certify presidential election results as governor should a Democrat win the state in a national election.

Michels also suggested that he could pursue an unconstitutional effort to decertify Biden's 2020 win in Wisconsin once he became governor, telling local station WKOW that he would "need to see the details."

In a statement to Insider, the Michels campaign denied the audio had anything to do with election integrity. Rather, the campaign said, Michels would garner more support for Republican candidates in the state by implementing "lower taxes, better schools, uniform election laws and safer communities."

"While revving up supporters to get out and vote, Tim was referring to winning and leading and then being rewarded by voters for doing a good job," Brian Fraley, a spokesperson for Michels, told Insider in a statement.

"Any attempt to make more out of that quip shows just how pathetic and desperate Tony Evers and his supporters are getting as we approach election day. They want to talk about anything other than his four years of failure."

An NBC analysis found 60% of Republican candidates in five key battleground states deny or question whether or not President Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

Experts told The New York Times that election deniers who win key offices could refuse to accept the 2024 elections, resulting in legal battles across the country.

Michels is looking to unseat Evers next Tuesday in a race that has been rated a "toss-up" by Inside Elections, The Cook Political Report, and Sabato's Crystal Ball.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:38 pm

Trump lawyers saw Justice Thomas as 'only chance' to stop 2020 election certification: “We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt,” Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro wrote in an email exchange.
by Kyle Cheney, Josh Gerstein and Nicholas Wu
Politico
11/02/2022 10:17 AM EDT
Updated: 11/02/2022 03:09 PM EDT
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/0 ... n-00064592

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image
The emails were part of a batch that lawyer John Eastman had sought to withhold from the Jan. 6 select committee but that a judge ordered turned over anyway, describing them as evidence of likely crimes committed by Eastman and Donald Trump. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

Donald Trump’s attorneys saw a direct appeal to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as their best hope of derailing Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 presidential election, according to emails newly disclosed to congressional investigators.

“We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt,” Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro wrote in a Dec. 31, 2020, email to Trump’s legal team. Chesebro contended that Thomas would be “our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by Jan. 6, which might hold up the Georgia count in Congress.”

“I think I agree with this,” attorney John Eastman replied later that morning, suggesting that a favorable move by Thomas or other justices would “kick the Georgia legislature into gear” to help overturn the election results.

The messages were part of a batch of eight emails — obtained by POLITICO — that Eastman had sought to withhold from the Jan. 6 select committee but that a judge ordered turned over anyway, describing them as evidence of likely crimes committed by Eastman and Trump.


They thought we were so slow, that we were so stupid, that we would elect the lowest caricature of a stereotypical broken black man, as opposed to somebody who is educated, and erudite, and focused.

Y'all aren't ready for me today.


-- Pastor Jamal Bryant DEMOLISHES Herschel Walker. White Evangelicals in Disarray, The Benjamin Dixon Morning Show, Oct 31, 2022


They were transmitted to the select committee by Eastman’s attorneys last week, but remained largely under wraps until early Wednesday morning.

House General Counsel Douglas Letter acknowledged Wednesday afternoon that his office effectively released the messages by including a link to them in copies of messages publicly filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We were not aware that the links in Dr. Eastman’s email remained active, and had no intention to provide this type of public access to the materials at this stage. Providing public access to this material at this point was purely inadvertent on our part,” Letter told the appeals court in a brief letter. The emails, as produced to the committee, included formatting errors that removed “i”s and “l”s. POLITICO has included the missing letters for clarity.

Image

[DELETE]

From: Eastman, John [DELETE]
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Kenneth Chesebro [DELETE] Bruce Marks [DELETE] Kurt Hilbert [DELETE]
Cc: Chris Gardner [DELETE] Kaufman, Alex B. [DELETE] Nina Khan [DELETE] CMitchell [DELETE] Tom Sullivan [DELETE]
Subject: Re: Confidential

I think I agree with this. If the court were to give us "likely", that may be enough to kick the Georgia Legislature into gear, because I've been getting a lot of calls from them indicating to me they're leaning that way.

John

_____________________________________________

From: Kenneth Chesebro [DELETE]
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 7:35 AM
To: Bruce Marks [DELETE] Kurt Hilbert [DELETE] Eastman, John [DELETE]
Cc: Chris Gardner [DELETE] Kaufman, Alex B. [DELETE] Nina Khan [DELETE] Tom Sullivan [DELETE]
Subject: Re: Confidential

I see.

I haven't focused on the relief sought, but if what we're seeking as something that TENTATIVELY holds, either by way of PI or DJ, that very likely the electoral votes sent in by the Biden electors aren't valid, because the election failed, as long as that's what the district court, or 11th Cir., or Supreme Court says, that's the key, and probably good enough.

The point is to have the court say that probably the election was void, which ought to be enough to prevent the Senate from counting the Biden electoral votes from Georgia, right?

Merely having this case pending in the Supreme Court, not ruled on, might be enough to delay consideration of Georgia, particularly if Pence has the legal ability and will to insert himself at least enough to win delay.

So I would go for non-final relief, trying to get a statement by a court helping Trump-Pence by Jan. 6.

Possibly Thomas would end up being the key here -- circuit justice, right? We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt. Realistically, our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by Jan. 6, which might hold up the Georgia count in Congress, is from Thomas -- do you agree, Prof. Eastman?


Ken

[DELETE]


Thomas is the justice assigned to handle emergency matters arising out of Georgia and would have been the one to receive any urgent appeal of Trump’s lawsuit to the Supreme Court — a fact that seemed to be part of the Trump legal team’s calculus.

Rulings from so-called circuit justices are typically stopgap measures aimed at preserving the status quo until the full Supreme Court weighs in, but the Trump lawyers hoped a favorable order from Thomas would embolden state GOP-controlled legislatures, Congress — or then-Vice President Mike Pence — to block final certification of Joe Biden’s victory.


In another Dec. 31 email, Chesebro explicitly laid out this strategy:

"[ I]f we can just get this case pending before the Supreme Court by Jan. 5, ideally with something positive written by a judge or justice, hopefully Thomas, I think it’s our best shot at holding up the count of a state in Congress,” Chesebro said.

Image

[DELETE]

From: Kenneth Chesebro [DELETE]
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 9:55 AM
To: Kurt Hilbert [DELETE] Bruce Marks [DELETE] Eastman, John [DELETE]
Cc: Chris Gardner [DELETE] Kaufman, Alex B. [DELETE] Nina Khan [DELETE] Tom Sullivan [DELETE]
Subject: Re: Confidential

I know we're at the district court level, and late in the day, but if we can just get this case pending before the Supreme Court by Jan. 5, ideally with something positive written by a judge or justice, hopefully Thomas, I think it’s our best shot at holding up the count of a state in Congress.

WI and PA have strong cert. petitions, but in both cases, at least the state courts involved issued timely rulings, and Trump & Pence have had an opportunity to file cert. petitions, and thus a chance to have the Supreme Court weigh in before the count.

But the Georgia courts just sat on this for weeks. No opportunity for judicial review. On a showing of a reasonable chance of success of the merits, it would be unconscionable for Congress to count the electoral votes for Biden. It would set a horrible precedent -- that a State can be represented in the Electoral College despite serious concerns about the regularity of the election, which it suppressed through its courts.

Maybe that should be one argument for preliminary relief, that to deny relief would incentivize the denial of due process in future presidential elections. States could do what they wanted, and ignore the rule of law, confident that there would be no judicial interference.
What's the point of having life-tenured federal judges if they won't intervene to stop state courts from doing this?

Ken

[DELETE]


Chesebro’s emails continued to offer detailed strategy proposals about ways to delegitimize Biden’s victory on Jan. 6 and beyond.

In one scenario, Chesebro proposed encouraging Senate Republicans to filibuster long enough to delay the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, ignoring limitations on the length of debate. He also described how Trump allies could use inaction by the courts to build political pressure against Biden’s inauguration.

“Hard to have enormous optimism about what will happen on Jan. 6, but a lot can happen in the 13 days left until then, and I think having as many states still under review (both judicially and in state legislatures) as possible is ideal,” Chesebro wrote Trump campaign attorney Justin Clark on Dec. 24, 2020. It’s unclear how or whether Clark responded to Chesebro’s message.

The New York-based lawyer has been scrutinized by the Jan. 6 select committee, as well as prosecutors in Fulton County, Ga., who are investigating Trump’s efforts to subvert the election there.

The Trump’s team’s effort found virtually no traction at the high court. The only outward signs of dissension among the justices were mild, like a Dec. 11 order where the court rejected a bid by Texas to challenge the vote counts in four other states. Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito issued a brief statement saying they’d have accepted jurisdiction over the case, but joined the other justices in denying Texas any relief.

Eastman, an architect of Trump’s last-ditch bid to subvert the 2020 election, once clerked for Thomas and had corresponded with his wife, Virginia, in the weeks before Jan. 6.

Eastman played a central role in pressuring Pence to single-handedly subvert the 2020 election when he presided over the Jan. 6 session of Congress — a legally required proceeding to count electoral votes and certify the election results.

In his conversations with Pence’s staff on Jan. 4 and 5,
Eastman suggested that he believed Thomas would likely support their efforts.
Eastman’s emails, which he has fought to keep from the select committee, have yielded some of the most potent evidence against Trump’s team — including a March 28 ruling from a federal judge declaring it likely that Trump and Eastman had criminally conspired to subvert the election.

Federal prosecutors have also scrutinized Eastman, who pleaded the Fifth in testimony to the Jan. 6 panel. FBI agents seized Eastman’s cell phone in June as part of a wide-ranging investigation related to efforts by Trump allies to undermine the election results.

Ginni Thomas became the focus of congressional investigators after text message emerged showing her urging Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to continue efforts to keep Trump in power despite losing the 2020 election. She interviewed with the Jan. 6 panel earlier in the fall.

The emails also shed new light on an effort to get Trump to sign documents connected to a Dec. 31, 2020, federal lawsuit challenging the election results in Georgia, including acute concerns Trump’s lawyers voiced during that chaotic period that Trump might put himself in legal jeopardy if he attested to the voter fraud data contained in it.

Image

From: Eastman, John [DELETE]
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 12:15 PM MST
To: Kaufman, Alex B. [DELETE] Kurt Hilbert [DELETE]
Subject: RE: Link to entire case

Keeping Bruce and his team off this for the moment.

Here's the issue. The complaint incorporates by reference the state court challenge. Although the President signed a verification for that back on Dec. 1, he has since been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate. For him to sign a new verification with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate. And I have no doubt that an aggressive DA or US Atty someplace will go after both the President and his lawyers once all the dust settles on this.

I know it is late in the day, but do we need to incorporate that complaint by reference?

John

[DELETE]


“I have no doubt that an aggressive DA or US Atty someplace will go after both the President and his lawyers once all the dust settles on this,” Eastman wrote in an email to two other private attorneys working on Trump election challenges, Alex Kaufman and Kurt Hilbert.

After some exchanges, including with Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann, the lawyers agreed they would remove some of the specific figures before Trump swore to the accuracy of the lawsuit.

But they also debated whether the federal complaint should “incorporate by reference” the voter fraud data included in an earlier state-level lawsuit. Eastman warned that since the state lawsuit was filed, evidence had disproved some of the voter fraud data contained in it — and having Trump point to the earlier data would be erroneous.

“I know it is late in the day, but do we need to incorporate that complaint by reference?” Eastman wondered.


It’s unclear how the other attorney responded to Eastman. But in a separate email chain with additional lawyers, an intensive effort was underway to get the court filings in front of Trump so they could be signed and notarized in time to file the lawsuit that evening.

Trump, they were informed, was on a plane back to D.C. and they needed him to sign and notarize the document. Trump attorney Cleta Mitchell said Trump’s personal assistant had informed her they had no access to a notary until Monday.

“So, now what?” she wondered. “Can we figure out a way to file this without a verification?

“There’s no one they can call to come to the White House that’s a notary?” Chris Gardner, a Virginia attorney and former GOP House aide assisting the president’s legal team, asked in an email sent just before 4 P.M. on New Year’s Eve. “I don’t know how we file without it. Presidential trip to a UPS store?”

Mitchell later said she was exploring the possibility of getting a notary to certify Trump’s signature via a Zoom call.

Court records show Trump’s signature was ultimately attested to by William McCathran, an assistant executive clerk working for the White House.

Trump’s signature was key to U.S. District Court Judge David Carter’s Oct. 19 ruling that the emails must be disclosed to the House Jan. 6 committee. Carter said Trump signed the verification to a federal court complaint under penalty of perjury despite evidence that he’d been told many of the fraud claims in the lawsuit were inaccurate.

The messages “show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public,” wrote Carter, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Sat Nov 05, 2022 5:15 am

Trump's company to get a court monitor, judge rules: Former president’s lawyers fight bid for restraints on Trump’s business empire
by Josh Gerstein
11/03/2022 02:27 PM EDT
Updated: 11/03/2022 09:37 PM EDT

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


NEW YORK — A judge Thursday granted the New York attorney general’s request that former President Donald Trump’s business empire be overseen by an independent monitor.

New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron issued an order after a daylong hearing, requiring that the Trump Organization’s dealings with banks and sale of major assets be subject to supervision by a third-party expert to be named by the court.

One provision in the order requires 14-days notice to the court before Trump can dispose of any “non-cash asset” listed in a financial statement his firm prepared last year.

The judge’s order came over strenuous objections from Trump’s lawyers in Manhattan earlier Thursday, where Trump’s team pleaded with Engoron to reject Attorney General Tish James’ bid to impose potentially far-reaching supervision of Trump’s business empire as litigation proceeds over her claims that the firms engaged in vast bank and insurance fraud in real estate transactions.

Engoron said in his ruling the evidence of fraudulent valuations by Trump and his businesses was “more than sufficient” to indicate that James is likely to prevail in the lawsuit she filed in September, which is seeking strict limits on the Trump businesses’ activities in New York and a ban on the former president and his three eldest children from serving as an officer of any New York corporation.

The legal setback for Trump came after the two sides squared off in court for the first time since James drew national attention for her civil lawsuit taking on the former president and his businesses. She was quick Thursday to hail the judge’s decision as a step toward justice for Trump.

“Time and time again, the courts have ruled that Donald Trump cannot evade the law for personal gain,” James said in a statement. “Today’s decision will ensure that Donald Trump and his companies cannot continue the extensive fraud that we uncovered and will require the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee compliance at the Trump Organization. No number of lawsuits, delay tactics, or threats will stop our pursuit of justice.”

A Trump Organization spokesperson denounced the decision and suggested that the judge was aiding James politically. She is seeking a second term Tuesday.

Trump himself ripped James’ case, continuing his war of words with the Democratic attorney general of his native state.

“A puppet judge of the New York Attorney General and other sworn enemies of President Trump and the Republican Party has just issued a ruling never before seen anywhere in America. It is Communism come to our shores,” he said in a statement.

Later, at a rally in Iowa, Trump knocked James and “a radical left lunatic judge.”


“They’re weaponizing the Justice Department. They weaponized things that are not supposed to be weaponized,” Trump continued. “Companies are already fleeing New York, as you probably read … What they’re doing in New York is unbelievably sad, and it’s all coming from Washington D.C.”

During the hearing, Engoron — who has overseen earlier rounds of legal jousting between the attorney general and the former president — sounded highly skeptical of Trump’s legal arguments against imposing restrictions and oversight on the businesses during the year or more it could take for the case to go through fact-finding and trial.

Trump’s decision during a long-delayed deposition in August to repeatedly invoke his constitutional right not to incriminate himself came back to haunt him in the ruling Thursday.

“Although not dispositive on any single issue, this Court is permitted, and is here persuaded, to draw a negative inference from Mr. Trump’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right … more than 400 times in response to questions posed to him during his deposition,” Engoron wrote.

Trump’s history of clashes with regulators and prosecutors undermined his drive to avoid court supervision: Among the decisions Engoron cited in his order was a 2016 ruling involving allegations of fraud by Trump in connection with his Trump University venture.

The judge rejected Trump’s arguments that disclaimers on his financial statements meant that banks and insurance companies were not entitled to rely on them. Engoron said those warnings were supposed to insulate Trump’s longtime accounting firm, Mazars, from responsibility, not Trump.

“The Mazars’ language…does nothing to alert its recipients that Mr. Trump himself cautions them not to rely on its contents,” Engoron wrote.


During the court session, Engoron declared that the government had to meet a “heavy burden” to get immediate relief, but he suggested Trump’s case against doing so consisted of little more than hot air, such as arguments from their attorneys without evidence to rebut the extensive collection of documents and deposition excerpts James presented from their three-year investigation.

“Let’s be real here …They submitted all these documents,” the judge said to a lawyer for Trump, Christopher Kise. “What kind of evidence do you want? This is a motion for preliminary injunction.”

An attorney from James’ office, Kevin Wallace, pressed Engoron’s point, arguing that the evidence the AG submitted should be weighed against the lack of proof offered by the other side.

“The Trump Organization didn’t field a team,” Wallace said. They didn’t put in any documents. … Most of the evidence is in their custody and they presented nothing.”

Kise, a Florida attorney who is also deeply involved in Trump’s response to the federal investigation into sensitive White House documents the former president kept at his Mar-a-Lago home after leaving office, repeatedly complained that the safeguards James is seeking now would amount to a “nationalization” of Trump’s businesses, effectively placing them into receivership.

“The order itself really borders on nationalization of a private enterprise,” said Kise, who said it would amount to “tremendous and staggering interference” in the ability of the Trump businesses to manage their own affairs. “It’s really more in the nature of seizing control of a successful corporation and interfering on a day-to-day basis with its financial arrangements.”

But the judge chided the Trump side for exaggerating the severity of the oversight the attorney general is proposing.

“Your papers kept using the word receiver. ... They’re not asking for one and that’s very different from a monitor. True or false?” the judge said to Kise.


Engoron, who issued no immediate ruling but promised to do so later Thursday, made clear his familiarity with the case. He noted that one of the claims raised by James is that Trump claimed to lenders that his Trump Tower apartment was 30,000 square feet, even though it was actually 11,000.

“Could that be a good faith disagreement ... ?” the judge asked.

“I would submit that it could be,” Kise replied, contending the claim was part of a broader financial statement that was reasonable when taken as a whole.

However, the judge ruled that the central issue wasn’t whether Trump, his family members or his employees intended to deceive anyone. The promotion of wildly inflated valuations can amount to fraud under New York law “whether or not” the figures were intentionally misstated, Engoron wrote.

During the court hearing, Kise also accused James of pursuing the injunction to score political points, looking to grab headlines as she campaigns for reelection next week.

“We’re a few days out from an election,” Kise told the judge. “I’m hoping that’s not behind the motivation and the timing here, but I’m candidly a little bit cynical about it. ... I hesitated to bring it up, but this really shouldn’t be about political theater.”

The former Florida solicitor general also said that by delving into business transactions between the Trump organization and banks and insurance companies he called “corporate titans,” James was encouraging businesses to flee the state.

“Look at what’s happening in Florida, go down to Miami, see the businesses that are moving from California, the businesses are moving from New York,” Kise told reporters. “This is why. Because there’s this extraordinary interference with the free marketplace. And it’s a dangerous precedent to set.”

Trump has fought a series of unusual and unsuccessful legal battles against James’ probe, beginning long before the attorney general’s massive suit against his business empire was filed in September.

The latest maneuver came just Wednesday in a state court in Florida, where Trump sued James for allegedly interfering with a Florida-based trust that holds many of the former president’s business assets.

As is typical with Trump suits, the complaint departs from the usual dry legalese to unleash withering rhetorical attacks on James that sounded more like fodder for political speeches.

The Florida suit details a series of sharply critical statements James made about Trump while running for office and accuses her of mounting a “political and personal vendetta” against the former president.

One shot the suit takes at James says she had no intention of fulfilling her oath of office when she took it in 2019. “Unfortunately, she must have had her fingers crossed behind her back when she did so,” the Florida suit says.

“What began as a cartoonish, thinly-veiled effort to publicly malign President Trump for personal political gain has morphed into a plot to obtain control of a global private enterprise ultimately owned by a Florida revocable trust,” the 41-page complaint says.

The Florida suit, filed in Palm Beach County, which became Trump’s legal residence in 2019, seeks to block James from interfering with the trust and even from obtaining a copy of it. It doesn’t seek a money judgment against James, but says in a footnote that a move for that sort of compensation is planned.


The Trump lawsuit rehashes a series of arguments Trump’s lawyers have previously made in other venues without success, including in proceedings before Engoron where Trump resisted efforts to force him to testify in connection with the probe. Trump finally sat for such questioning in August, invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination more than 440 times.

Kise insisted in court Thursday that the former president has no plans to try to evade James’ suit by moving any assets out of New York. He said just two of Trump’s New York buildings, Trump Tower and 40 Wall Street, could amply cover the $250 million in disgorgement that James seeks in her suit.

Kise said Trump shouldn’t be penalized for seeking to vindicate any rights he may have under Florida law, but the attorney also seemed to distance himself from that litigation. “I don’t represent the trust in Florida,” he said. “I didn’t file it, obviously.”

Trump had also filed a federal court lawsuit last year trying to shut down James’ investigation, but a district court judge in Syracuse tossed that case in May. Trump has appealed that decision to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which is expected to hear arguments on the case early next year. He also attempted to get James’ suit assigned to a different judge, but struck out on that effort.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certificat

Postby admin » Mon Nov 07, 2022 5:19 am

Arizona Republican [Rusty Bowers] who crossed Trump sees bad omens
by Romain Fonsegrives
AFP
Wed, November 2, 2022 at 8:03 PM

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

In three decades of involvement in conservative politics, Rusty Bowers has never been so worried by the gap between perception and reality that currently plagues Arizona's Republican Party.

Ahead of the November 8 midterm elections, masked poll watchers, some of them armed, have been looming over ballot drop boxes in a bid to prevent a repeat of the vote-fixing they are convinced took Donald Trump's presidency away from them in 2020.

No such conspiracy exists, says Bowers, and a party that was once more pragmatist than propagandist is now fully in thrall to unhinged theories -- and it's dangerous.

"It's intimidation," Bowers -- the 70-year-old speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives -- says of the men and women wearing paramilitary gear who set up camp at ballot boxes in parts of the southwestern state.

"If you take voting away and make it insecure, and you increase the violence, to me that's a fertile ground for fascism," he tells AFP in an interview in Arizona's state Capitol.


On Tuesday a judge this week ordered the self-appointed poll watchers to keep their distance from the drop boxes. But a toxic political climate that has swirled since the last election has persisted, and ensnared Bowers.

In November 2020, after campaigning for Trump in the presidential race, Bowers watched with dismay as Joe Biden's vote tally in Arizona squeaked past those of the GOP incumbent.

A mere 10,000 ballots separated the two candidates, but under the first-past-the-post rules, the state's electoral college votes all went to Biden, helping tip the Democrat over the national line and into the White House.

Multiple investigations, including a recount organized by the Republican Party, found no evidence of wrongdoing; nothing to throw any doubt on the results.

Image

In line with his constitutional duty as leader of the state House, Bowers readied to certify the results. And that should have been that.

But then his phone rang.

On the other end, Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani set about assuring Bowers that an old Arizona law -- which he has never found -- allowed the Republican-controlled assembly to change the state's electors, the people responsible for formally electing the president after the election, in defiance of the popular vote.

"I said, 'Mr. Trump, I voted for you, I walked for you, I campaigned for you, I was at your campaigns with you, but I will do nothing illegal for you,'" he recalls.

"When they asked me to break my vow to the Constitution, it's like saying: 'We want you to throw away your religion, your faith, the foundation of who you are.'"

- 'RINO coward'? -

Bowers stuck to his guns, and Arizona's electoral college votes went to Biden.

As it has for others before and since who have taken a principled stand in defiance of Trump, that decision tipped his world upside down.

Bowers is no wilting liberal; he is fiercely pro-life, wants the southern US border strictly controlled, and wears his Mormonism proudly.

Image

Since Trump smeared him as a "RINO coward" -- a Republican In Name Only -- Bowers has been besieged by death threats and a torrent of abusive emails.

The father-of-seven was called to Washington to testify before the committee investigating the January 6 US Capitol assault about the pressure he came under to rig the election.

For weeks, Trump supporters and far-right militia members demonstrated in front of his home, sometimes armed, sometimes carrying signs that accused him of paedophilia and other insults favored by QAnon conspiracists.

Even as the physical intimidation died down, Bowers found himself the target of a political assassination.

Like many who cross Trump, he was faced with a far-right challenge in the Republican primary for a state senate seat.

He lost.

But until he leaves office in January, Bowers says he will keep fighting.

A Republican state bill introduced this session would have given the Arizona House authority to summarily dismiss the results of a popular election, Bowers said, calling it "dangerous legislation."

"It doesn't say they may 'if....', it doesn't say they may 'when....', or why. Nothing, no criteria," according to Bowers.

"I killed it," he says.

Whether it stays dead is another matter.


Arizona voters are being offered Republican candidates for governor, secretary of state and US senator who all subscribe wholly to Trump's election denialism.

"The strength of the leadership of the current party is just anger," Bowers says, adding it is "leaning towards the Mussolini model," referring to Italy's WWII-era Fascist leader.

And that, he concludes, is not good for the country as a whole, whose polity is hanging by a thread.

"It's a very shallow civilization," he says, gesturing with his thumb and his forefinger squeezed tightly together.


"About that thick."
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37523
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to United States Government Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests