Jump to content

45 indicated


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, 'stache said:

In Oklahoma the judge doesn’t respond, the parties in interest respond. I assume it’s the same there. It would be trumps lawyers saying she’s right and smiths team saying she’s wrong. Naming the judge as the respondent is a matter of form because the order would be for her to do or not do something. 

Same in Texas.  Just is listed as the "respondent" but has not real role in the appellate proceedings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TexasEd said:

image.thumb.png.388d53367856b72991b088fc1b38ce6b.png

 

Haha, bond company not eligible to post bond in NY

 

What's the big deal, Donald?  It's only $175M  I thought you were a Billionaire.  Don't you carry this around in your wallet?

I'm just noticing the date Knight Specialty Insurance's Undertaking. I suspect if the appellate court affirms we'll hear about the "April Fool's Defense" about why it's not really owed.

 

 

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m sure he will totally be held accountable 

IMG_0425.thumb.jpeg.167a7986240fc9c8e5a2ecf9c870e66d.jpeg

 

If either the "$200,000,000 in CASH" or the "ZERO DEBT" part of this can be verified to be false, this is a real problem for him.

However, he'll almost certainly be cleared with a defense of, "Do you really think I wrote that entire paragraph with only a handful of grammar and spelling mistakes?" 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Some think Jack will use her unwillingness to rule on this for 11 circuit smackdown 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.431.0.pdf

IMG_0426.thumb.jpeg.387fc4ae4a285f66a7bef63f5a908152.jpeg

Under ordinary circumstances, I tend to agree with the idea that you don't lock down jury instructions at this stage of the proceedings.  But trial judges also tend not to ask the parties to submit jury instructions (or briefing thereon) at this stage of the proceedings.  So to the extent that she is entertaining an instruction that does not comport with the law (despite her statement that she is not) and to the extent that such an error (if she gave that instruction) could not be appealed be the government since jeopardy already attached, her refusal to rule might be properly subject to mandamus review.

 

She brought the question about the jury charge.  Her saying now that it shouldn't be interpreted as anything but her trying to learn about this novel case is like her holding a lighted match near a pile of gasoline soaked rags and saying, "Don't worry.  I just wanted to see if these matches were any good."

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/judge-cannons-clerkship-problem/

I think the problem is that she has no help.  I often want to punch these two hosts, but this is a pretty good podcast that stressed me the fuck out at not only how over her head she is, but how she's going to self-destruct.

 

4 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

there is a small possibility that her refusal to issue any rulings is also related to her whimpering in the corner in a fetal position, knowing she’s gonna fuck up whatever decision she makes and be a laughing stock, so she does nothing. The fact that it helps Trump may be a secondary reason. 

The issue is whether it is malice or stupidity. Feel free to put a why not both gif after this.

Cannon was given this case for a reason -- loyalty, inexperience or stupidity all aid Trump's efforts to delay this past the 11/5 election. His only way to "win" is to win back POTUS and he can snap his fingers and make the legal shit go away. Delaying past 11/5 is winning in a sense because there's no way he beats the rap in all these trials if they're legitimately tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Under ordinary circumstances, I tend to agree with the idea that you don't lock down jury instructions at this stage of the proceedings.  But trial judges also tend not to ask the parties to submit jury instructions (or briefing thereon) at this stage of the proceedings.  So to the extent that she is entertaining an instruction that does not comport with the law (despite her statement that she is not) and to the extent that such an error (if she gave that instruction) could not be appealed be the government since jeopardy already attached, her refusal to rule might be properly subject to mandamus review.

 

She brought the question about the jury charge.  Her saying now that it shouldn't be interpreted as anything but her trying to learn about this novel case is like her holding a lighted match near a pile of gasoline soaked rags and saying, "Don't worry.  I just wanted to see if these matches were any good."

Yep. Ironic that she chides Smith for asking for an early resolution on the jury instructions THAT SHE FUCKING ORDERED THEM TO SUBMIT. 

Also the denial of the motion to dismiss is somewhat inconsistent with the jury instructions ruling. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep. Ironic that she chides Smith for asking for an early resolution on the jury instructions THAT SHE FUCKING ORDERED THEM TO SUBMIT. 

Also the denial of the motion to dismiss is somewhat inconsistent with the jury instructions ruling. 

Right.  Isn't that the subject of the dumb jury instruction submitted by Donald?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dcbc said:

Right.  Isn't that the subject of the dumb jury instruction submitted by Donald?

Well she actually ordered both sides to prepare jury instructions modifying 18 USC 793 with the PRA, which Smith contends is a grievous error of law. And Trumpco loves. 

It's fucking nuts. 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well she actually ordered both sides to prepare jury instructions modifying 18 USC 793 with the PRA, which Smith contends is a grievous error of law. And Trumpco loves. 

It's fucking nuts. 

Okay, so she denied the motion to dismiss, but that doesn't foreclose her sending the issue to the jury on the PRA.  

 

Asking them to submit jury questions is just dumb.  Just ask for a trial brief on the issue of the interplay between the PRA and Section 793 if you want to learn something.  Or, I don't know, research it yourself, your Honor.

 

But as a generalization:  Did facts happen = fact question (jury).  Does law apply to certain set of facts = legal question (court).  What is the law = also a legal question, but cannot be misapplied.

 

To the ELEVENTH!  No stay.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

Nothing will come of this other than continued delays.  But the good news is being 'betrayed' by an allied judge will press the rodent farther into the corner.  And while his arrogance shields him from any self-reflection or doubt, his cardiovascular system will ramp up its concern about his fate.  The plan was never for him to do jail time.  The plan was for his obese, ragged ass to perish given his carnival of errors.  It would appear there's been another huge step towards that goal today.  He'll stay up late tonight to post truth social/trump socialist shit about these 'outlandish' rulings.  And if fake subscriber bots will reply and engage him to keep him awake and angry........his already obvious demise will accelerate.  And then the next one.  And the one after that.  And so on.  This is how to end false gods.  

0e69673e-b54f-4316-a110-102f313ac497_tex

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

Cannon was given this case for a reason -- loyalty, inexperience or stupidity all aid Trump's efforts to delay this past the 11/5 election. His only way to "win" is to win back POTUS and he can snap his fingers and make the legal shit go away. Delaying past 11/5 is winning in a sense because there's no way he beats the rap in all these trials if they're legitimately tried.

She was "given" this case mostly because she's the sole judge in the Fort Pierce Division. There's another judge from another division that takes some cases there, but apparently not many because he has to travel to that courthouse. 

The Chief Judge can reassign, but usually needs a reason to do so. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Chief Judge can reassign, but usually needs a reason to do so. 

Well it's a good thing that Aileen hasn't done anything questionable in her handling of this case then

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

Looks like a desperation bid to get the 11th circuit to think she is not favoring Trump due to Jack’s latest filing. She probably thinks the pain is coming and wants to get ahead of it.

 

Judge Cannon just rejected Trump's bogus Presidential Records Act defense, but only for now. She has (weirdly and pointedly) refused to actually decide the issue, despite Jack Smith's warning that double jeopardy would then apply. I think Smith has no choice but to go to the 11th Circuit on mandamus. It's a tough standard, but it is met here.
 

GKV7UiWXMAA6MOQ?format=png&name=medium

 

GKV8DZoW4AAkhV6?format=jpg&name=large

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

She was "given" this case mostly because she's the sole judge in the Fort Pierce Division. There's another judge from another division that takes some cases there, but apparently not many because he has to travel to that courthouse. 

The Chief Judge can reassign, but usually needs a reason to do so. 

And didn't Smith file the case there to eliminate any semblance that he was seeking a sympathetic/partisan Dem judge? I wonder if he's rethinking that strategy yet.

  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, C-Man said:

And didn't Smith file the case there to eliminate any semblance that he was seeking a sympathetic/partisan Dem judge? I wonder if he's rethinking that strategy yet.

It seems like I recall something like that.  God knows we should give dotard every fucking benefit there is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

4 corner offense until election day 

if he goes to the 11th, that takes time

new judge means this whole trial starts over ?

I think new judge steps in where old judge left off.  Doesn't mean previous rulings couldn't be reheard.

 

But I don't think Cannot, er Cannon, is going to be replaced, if I were called upon to predict the future.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, C-Man said:

And didn't Smith file the case there to eliminate any semblance that he was seeking a sympathetic/partisan Dem judge? I wonder if he's rethinking that strategy yet.

We don't know what he was thinking. However, I believe venue would have been proper anywhere within the Southern District of Florida, although Trump could have asked to move it closest to his residence and where the acts occurred, which is her court. So educated speculation is that Smith filed it in the most "proper" venue to avoid all that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I googled for us non-lawyers -  the purpose of a "motion in limine" is to prevent the jury from being exposed to potentially prejudicial information before a ruling on admissibility can be obtained.)

Edited by The Dog
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, safe sex said:

Seems like a judge that doesn't have a good support staff around her and has made several really questionable decisions would be a great candidate for reassignment

Maybe. But when I said reason, I meant also that the judge is recused on motion by a party or requests that the case be reassigned. It's highly unusual for a chief judge to just reassign based on her own evaluation. Sometimes it happens based on redistributing case load. 

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals could conceivably remand after appeal to another judge. They are not really constrained by much. 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, The Dog said:

I googled for us non-lawyers -  the purpose of a "motion in limine" is to prevent the jury from being exposed to potentially prejudicial information before a ruling on admissibility can be obtained.)

That’s all we let the public think. The sacrifice to the All Seeing Eye and the examination of the pigeon entrails - we keep that off wiki. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, The Dog said:

(I googled for us non-lawyers -  the purpose of a "motion in limine" is to prevent the jury from being exposed to potentially prejudicial information before a ruling on admissibility can be obtained.)

I agree with the MIL tactic, but given what we've seen from Cannon thus far, she won't rule on it and just say that the jury instructions will be given to the jury when the time comes. Can you get to the 11th when a judge continues to say "I haven't made any ruling yet."

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Foosters said:

I agree with the MIL tactic, but given what we've seen from Cannon thus far, she won't rule on it and just say that the jury instructions will be given to the jury when the time comes. Can you get to the 11th when a judge continues to say "I haven't made any ruling yet."

The latter is the rub. There needs to be some sort of ruling to appeal. Currently, there isn't one.

A motion in limine is usually filed on the eve of trial but there is nothing that says it has to be. They are also usually evidentiary in nature, while this one would be more to resolve something as a matter of law (PRA does not apply here). 

But I think her denial of one would give Smith the ruling he needs. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

60371458-de92-4de6-b8f0-c007087a32a2_tex

2c0eda47-e607-4717-bf75-47111895b476_tex

 

Naaah.  There's nobody around who can capture what he has, yet be a greater threat, as the two things are mutually exclusive.

To capture the mood like Trump, you have to be a true "idiot whisperer," and speak fluent idiot.  Which Trump does.  Brilliantly.  Perfectly.  It's his native tongue, and he's better at it than anyone in the past century.  But you really can only do it if you ARE an idiot.  Which he is.  Nobody else can come close.  We watched people like DeSantis flame out trying.

But to be a greater threat, you have to be smarter and more cunning.  Plenty of people out there who match up with that....but it comes with an IQ, which means they can't speak fluent idiot. They'll come across as fake if they try, and the masses can smell that sort of fakeness a mile away.

So, in summary: please have him choke on a hamberder tonight.  The world will be a much better place because of it.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

I agree with the MIL tactic, but given what we've seen from Cannon thus far, she won't rule on it and just say that the jury instructions will be given to the jury when the time comes. Can you get to the 11th when a judge continues to say "I haven't made any ruling yet."

Interesting question. I think you can mandamus the failure to rule, but that is a less severe error than making the wrong ruling and less likely to be overturned. However given the stakes and the potential for her refusing to rule on jury instructions and MIL before jeopardy attaches, there might be some traction there. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The latter is the rub. There needs to be some sort of ruling to appeal. Currently, there isn't one.

A motion in limine is usually filed on the eve of trial but there is nothing that says it has to be. They are also usually evidentiary in nature, while this one would be more to resolve something as a matter of law (PRA does not apply here). 

But I think her denial of one would give Smith the ruling he needs. 

 

But if she grants it, they come to the bench, offer to admit it at that point, and she agrees to admit it at that point. the jury has already been empaneled and jeopardy has attached.  Granting a motion in limine is just another way for her to kick the can down the road past the non-jeopardy barrier.

Edited by dcbc
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, dcbc said:

But if she grants it, they come to the bench, offer to admit it at that point, and she grants the admission, the jury has already been empaneled and jeopardy has attached. 

Fuuuuck.  

Edit to add that that is somewhat common with evidentiary MIL, maybe not so much with the question of law type. But it would be a helluva yoink. 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Prepare your anus 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I swear to God, this is like that steam roller scene in Austin Powers. It's been happening in slow motion and nobody has lifted a finger to stop the inevitable and completely foreseeable terrible outcome 

I like the one in a fish called Wanda better 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I swear to God, this is like that steam roller scene in Austin Powers. It's been happening in slow motion and nobody has lifted a finger to stop the inevitable and completely foreseeable terrible outcome 

This is the legal system working 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Macanudo said:

For Trump.   Not for everyone else.  

That’s why he has 91 indictments and is struggling to pay his second multi-million dollar bond…after losing yet another trial.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...