| Author |
|
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4504
|
| Posted: 05 October 2022 at 9:53pm | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
The 11th Circuit has taken up the expedited appeal from the DoJ regarding Judge Cannon’s jurisdiction. This might all go away before the end of the year. We shall see.
In Trump v. CNN, the lawyers for CNN will be able to request financial records, emails, etc. and ask anyone affiliated with the Trump Organization to sit for deposition. The lawsuit alleges financial harm as well as defamation. The suit will be dropped before any records are sent. It sure does look like a stunt because the potential for exposure is too great for the Trump Organization to see this to the end.
Edited by Eric Ladd on 06 October 2022 at 2:38am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew Bitner
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7550
|
| Posted: 06 October 2022 at 3:42am | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
The CNN "lawsuit" is a stunt. It won't go anywhere for the reasons Eric lists: it opens him to all kinds of discovery, exposing his weaknesses, and it would inevitably fail. So today's news coverage is as much as that "lawsuit" is worth.
Also, it's good news that the 11th is expediting the appeal here. Cannon's "judgments" have been appallingly free of judicial reasoning. Her only value to Trump is to slow things down and gum up the works so that any trial seems like old news and more a persecution than a prosecution. If so, he's getting his money's worth out of this corrupt hag. I'm really hoping she can be taken off the bench, as she clearly has no idea what to do with the authority she's been given--except to twist the law in favor of her conservative stakeholders.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Floyd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 8809
|
| Posted: 06 October 2022 at 5:55pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
There needs to be a law that a sitting judge absolutely cannot be involved in any case that has to do with the person who appointed them or that person's family or immediate staff.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4504
|
| Posted: 07 October 2022 at 11:00am | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
Brian, that would be a horrible law. We trust judges to recuse themselves in cases with a conflict of interest. This recent and obvious favouritism is rare.
The most recent development is that Judge Cannon’s court accidentally released something they should not have released. It outlines the privilege review team’s initial effort in cataloging the documents removed from Mar-a-Lago. I don’t think Judge Cannon will hold her position very long.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4504
|
| Posted: 13 October 2022 at 10:43pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
Supreme Court rejects Trumps request to intervene.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4504
|
| Posted: 13 October 2022 at 11:08pm | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
And the response is rather short.
(ORDER LIST: 598 U.S.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2022 ORDER IN PENDING CASE 22A283 TRUMP, DONALD J. V. UNITED STATES The application to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on September 21, 2022, presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is denied.
Nothing cited, discussed or expanded on for the matter.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew Bitner
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7550
|
| Posted: 14 October 2022 at 2:01am | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
Interesting that not a single Justice dissented. Trump must have been counting on at least a few.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew Bitner
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7550
|
| Posted: 14 October 2022 at 2:08am | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
Eric: We trust judges to recuse themselves in cases with a conflict of interest. This recent and obvious favouritism is rare.
***
We shouldn't. Judges who are not accountable are not beholden to the law or to justice. The Supreme Court's reckless lack of a code of ethics and standard by which they MUST recuse themselves is a judicial nightmare--and they will not fix it. Congress should. As well as imposing a term limit on justices. The Constitution does not require that justices be allowed to serve lifelong terms.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew Bitner
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7550
|
| Posted: 14 October 2022 at 2:09am | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
Most recent case in point: Clarence Thomas. His wife is a fucking lobbyist for the right and he is a justice. He refuses to recuse himself from cases that involve the very issues in which his wife is most entangled. A REAL judge would recuse himself; Thomas refuses.
Because he is not required by any code or rule to do so.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 18178
|
| Posted: 14 October 2022 at 4:15am | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
Andrew Bitner wrote:
| Interesting that not a single Justice dissented. Trump must have been counting on at least a few. |
|
|
I don't think it works quite that way. You appeal to a single Justice. If the Justice is willing to take it up he brings it to the court, where they have a vote to take the case. A case needs four votes to be accepted.
So it could have gotten three votes. It probably got at least one, Justice Thomas. But you don't go into detail at this point in the process. Just a straight up-or-down vote.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4504
|
| Posted: 17 October 2022 at 1:35pm | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
Andrew, I feel that the courts involve a great deal of trust. If the people don’t trust the courts then they will become meaningless. This is evident by the declining trust in the Supreme Court from recent rulings, Judge Thomas’ refusal to recuse himself regarding matters obviously involving his wife and the incredibly biased rulings by Judge Cannon involving Trump. I still say the people need to trust the decisions made by the courts. To have a law where a “sitting judge absolutely cannot be involved in any case that has to do with the person who appointed them or that person's family or immediate staff“ would be a nightmare. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had two Trump appointed judges and they ruled in favour of DoJ regarding a temporary stay. That same court will be deciding on a complete stay of Judge Cannon’s ruling later this year.
The US Democracy relies on some form of trust and good faith that has served the country well for 200+ years. This waive of dishonesty, false statements and underhanded behaviour is trying to skirt the law like Max Cady in Cape Fear. It is also as blatant as Roger Stone saying on camera, “Possession is 9/10ths of the law”, regarding the Presidency. There is nothing about Stone’s statement that involves trust or good faith. And the heartbreaking cherry on top is the throng of supporting people claiming to be preserving a democracy that is torn apart by their actions. A law forcing recusal seems like a slippery slope to me. |
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4504
|
| Posted: 17 October 2022 at 1:40pm | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
Kevin is correct on the “surgical” appeal to Judge Thomas to put the classified documents back with the Special Master. Judge Thomas decided not to get involved. If he had taken up the decision then the other Supreme Court Justices would have an opportunity to get involved. As it stood, he alone denied the request. And perhaps that will allow enough plausible deniability to say he isn’t in Trump’s pocket for future cases. Time will tell.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
