The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected the use of a special master in the Mar-a-Lago case as well as broad challenges from the lawyers of former President Donald Trump. Notably, the three-judge panel included three Republican appointees, including two Trump appointed judges. While Democratic members and pundits have attacked Trump appointees as activists and ideologues, these jurists have repeatedly ruled against the former president in major cases like this one.
The panel was headed by Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr., who was appointed by George W. Bush and reportedly considered by Trump for the Supreme Court. It also included Judge Andrew L. Brasher, and Elizabeth “Britt” Cagle Grant, both Trump appointees.
The per curiam decision was not unexpected after an oral argument where the judges expressed great reservations over the rare appointment of a special master to review these documents by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon.
Cannon was motivated by a number of factors, including the broad scope of the search. It allowed the seizure of any box containing any document with any classification of any kind — and all boxes stored with that box. It also allowed the seizure of any writing from Trump’s presidency.
Judge Cannon noted that the Justice Department’s own taint team missed privileged material and rejects the government’s assurance that it still caught the errors (emphasis added below):
“Counsel from the Privilege Review Team characterized them as examples of the filter process working. The Court is not so sure. These instances certainly are demonstrative of integrity on the part of the Investigative Team members who returned the potentially privileged material. But they also indicate that, on more than one occasion, the Privilege Review Team’s initial screening failed to identify potentially privileged material. The Government’s other explanation—that these instances were the result of adopting an overinclusive view of potentially privileged material out of an abundance of caution—does not satisfy the Court either. Even accepting the Government’s untested premise, the use of a broad standard for potentially privileged material does not explain how qualifying material ended up in the hands of the Investigative Team. Perhaps most concerning, the Filter Review Team’s Report does not indicate that any steps were taken after these instances of exposure to wall off the two tainted members of the Investigation Team [see ECF No. 40]. In sum, without drawing inferences, there is a basis on this record to question how materials passed through the screening process, further underscoring the importance of procedural safeguards and an additional layer of review.“
After her decision, the judge was subjected to vicious attacks for her order by pundits who dismissed her and other Trump appointees as virtual ideological robots. MSNBC host Joy Reid hosted a frenzy of condemnations of this “corrupt” judge. Reid said that Cannon is little more than an extension of Trump like other possessions stolen by the former president.MSNBC regular (and columnist for Above the Law and The Nation) Elie Mystal declared
“She’s biased and corrupt. Like, I don’t know what to tell everybody anymore. Like, I’ve been saying this since he took office. When you allow Republicans to control the courts you get nothing. Trump judges do not believe in the rule of law, they do not believe in precedent, they do not believe in facts, they do not believe in logic—they just believe in whatever’s going to help Donald Trump, and they’ve proven it again and again and again.”
Lawyers like former top Obama official Neal Katyal, said that Judge Cannon’s decision appeared designed to “protect their guy” or at the very least, “delay justice.” Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe declared that an order to appoint a special master to review the documents is analogous to the Dred Scott decision as an abuse of judicial power.
Notably, Donald Trump has criticized his own appointees recently for adverse decisions.
Despite these attacks on the integrity of Trump appointees as a group, the panel roundly rejected the claims of Trump and noted that
“Despite the certification from Plaintiff that “[a]ny and all” documents bearing classification markings had been produced, fifteen of the thirty-three seized boxes, containers, or groups of papers contained documents with classification markings, including three such documents found in desks in Plaintiff’s office. All told, the search uncovered over one hundred documents marked confidential, secret, or top secret.”
That does not sound like judges “protecting their guy,” as Katyal claimed.
The opinion itself has been inaccurately described by some. The panel did not reject the ability of courts to use equitable powers to appoint special masters. Previously, I noted that, while such an appointment is extremely rare and this appointment might be overturned by the Eleventh Circuit, it was not (as claimed by some) outside of the authority of courts to appoint special masters to help review seized material.
The panel found that the basis for such an appointment was refuted by the actions and arguments of the Plaintiff in this case, particularly in failing to establish a “callous disregard” of constitutional rights under Richey v. Smith: “Because the vast majority of subjects of a search warrant have not experienced a ‘callous disregard’ of their constitutional rights, this factor ensures that equitable jurisdiction remains extraordinary.”
Reports have zeroed in on the rejection of claims based on Trump’s status as a former president. That was actually one of a number of claims, not the sole or even the core claim in the case. The panel, however, correctly rejected that claim:
The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations.
Here is the opinion: Trump v. United States
Professor Turley must be exhausted, being pulled in many directions, or enrolled in the witness protection program given his excellent article today in the Hill:
Censorship by surrogate: Why Musk’s document dump could be a game changer
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3760753-censorship-by-surrogate-why-musks-document-dump-could-be-a-game-changer/
Be safe JT
Democrats just get ruling after ruling until they get their way.
Elon Musk has given Matt Taibbi the task of revealing the “Twitter Files”, the collusion between Biden Inc and Twitter. Now we know why Biden has targeted Trump with failed Attorney General Merrick Garland, to distract from Biden’s illegal manipulation of social media behemoth Twitter while violating the First Amendment. No doubt Professor Turley will be all over this development and David Brock as well to deflect, lie and engage in the Left’s signature calling card: a dictatorship of relativism. Nazis indeed
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
1. Thread: THE TWITTER FILES
6:34 PM · Dec 2, 2022
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394
Did you notice Tweet #22?
“Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence – that I’ve seen – of any government involvement in the laptop story.”
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598833927405215744
And then there are the screenshots of content moderation policy executives earnestly debating content moderation policy. The horror!
They removed dick pics. God forbid they remove porn.
Meanwhile, Taibbi couldn’t even be bothered to black out people’s personal email addresses, including a member of Congress. No doubt OK since the Rep. is a Democrat.
Circling the wagons, preserving the status quo, deny, obfuscate, attack, classic Democrats
“NBC News:
Taibbi’s characterization of the documents amounted to a sharp criticism of how Twitter’s previous management — before Musk bought it in October for $44 billion — handled the situation and ran the company, alleging without clear evidence that it was biased toward Democrats. ”
without “clear evidence”
😂
I fail to see how appointing a special master somehow “blocks a government investigation after execution of a search warrant”…the special master is only there to determine what can fairly be used against the target. It’s the same as objecting in court to a prosecutor introducing something into evidence that they shouldn’t be. When there are obvious, egregious problems with the search warrant AND execution of the warrant then citizens deserve the right to object or we have no rights. Once we are targeted, we lose all of our rights.
Lost in the discussion, unsurprisingly, is that the Federal Judge the Leftists are taking down, nay, raping, is a woman, an immigrant and a Latina. Democrats would have no standards if not for double standards, racists and bigots that they truly are as history has shown
I’ll have them n******** voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.
― Lyndon B. Johnson
… say someone who doesn’t understand actual rape.
What is the likelihood of SCOTUS ruling in favor of President Trump upon an appeal ?
Zero.
Won’t even take the case… It’s moot now anyways right?
Prof, Turley the decison is OBVIOUSLY wrong, and the reasoning of the decision is self evidently flawed.
The conduct of the person whose rights are allegedly violated has ZERO bearing on the adjudication of those rights.
Yet, this decision repeatedly claims that Trump’s conduct precludes AS A MATTER OF LAW his ability to go to court to protect his rights.
The error in this decision is self evident in the final paragraph you cited.
I have no idea whether “the law is clear”.
I do know that it is almost never possible to challenge a search warrant PRIOR to its execution.
Therefore the ONLY way for a person to protect their 4th amendment rights is AFTER the search warrant is executed.
And YES, this decision significantly impairs 4th amendment rights.
If effectively means that almost the only way to correct a violation of 4th amendment rights is in the context of a criminal procedure.
If as this court claims – that is “the law” – then the law is OBVIOUSLY wrong.
If as the court claims that acting otherwise would require a radical reordering of caselaw – which I think is inarguably FALSE,
That would still not matter – constitutional right trump caselaw when the result is the loss of a right.
The separation of powers argument is unbelievably specious. It is ALWAYS the duty of the courts to protect the constitutional rights of individuals. That is literally one of the primary purposes of the courts.
The old adage better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail – while not literally “the law” is a clear expression of the FACT that protection of individual rights is a duty of the courts that is superior to all executive powers.
Regardless, there is absolutely nothing that a court can ever do that would limit govenrment that would not “violate separation of powers” as this court claims.
This decision actually chips away at Marbury Vs. Madison.
The 4th amendment is part of the bill of rights. It is unarguably a constitutional right of individuals.
It is inarguable – anywhere but apparently the 11th circuit that each of us has the right to challenge government actions that infringe on our individuals rights.
There is no constitutional distinction between the first amendment and the 4th amendment.
People we deem good as well as those we deem bad still have 1st amendment rights.
People who say bad things, People who fail to dot their i’s and cross their t’s still have first amendment rights.
This decision is an abomination.
If as these jurist claim the caselaw is at odds with a constitutional right – it is the caselaw that must go.
But there is no actual rule that must be written here.
I would note that not only is the 4th amendment implicated here – but 5th amendment violations of property rights are also.
Each of us has the right to DEMAND in court that our 4th AND 5th amendment rights are protected.
This court makes much of claims that Trump did not act as DOJ/FBI wished – pretending that there is some “you brought this on yourself” provision in the Constitution. There is not.
But it ignores the fact that the government failed to follow procedure at every step of the way.
Subpeonas are demands, they are not orders of the court.
Whether NARA or FBI or any of the rest of government beleive they are entitled to something, even if they might be correct, they are not free to just take it. Subpeona’s are enforced by court orders, not by jumping jurisdictions and getting warrants.
This entire mess escalated – because this administration CHOSE to escalate it.
NARA could have gone to court to get a court order. Had they done so claims of executive priviledge etc. would have been proplerly adjudicated in civil courts. It is my view that the government chose not to do so, specifically because the caselaw is unfavorable, and Trump likely would have won. Regardless, they did not do so. And THIS court should question why the government avoided going to court, and instead criminalized a civil conflict.
Instead of NARA going to court in FL, The governments next step was a GJ subpeona in DC.
Once again the government claims the subpeona was not complied with, and then skips going to the courts in DC to get a court order to enforce the subpeona. Instead jumping to a freindly magistrate in FL to get a warrant.
Thus far the unredcated portion of the affadvait reminds us of the Cater Page affadavit – nothing to support the claims in the warrant.
Further the Government bypassed the FL FBI office – and instead used the known to be corrupt DC FBI office to execute a warrant in Florida.
I mostly do not care about the nonsense regarding Trump as president. For the most part that is not something that alters the LAW or the 4th amendment. But it does have to do with very relevant questions of FACT.
Whether this court likes it or not, classified documents, and the ownership of white house papers is a QUESTION OF FACT, that is altered when one of the parties was president.
As a QUESTION OF FACT it is not within the purvue of the appellate courts at this time.
Yet as with the prior stupid 11th appellate decision the appellate court took upon itself to decide questions of FACT in favor of the moving party.
A fundamental appellate court error.
All this court has done is prove to those on the right that the courts are biased against them and have no interest in the constitution.
And that this is true all to often even for republican appointed judges.
” Instead jumping to a freindly magistrate in FL to get a warrant.”
Wasn’t it Trump who shopped for a friendly magistrate in Florida, one he appointed?
Cannon is an article III judge not a magistrate.
She is the federal Judge that oversees Magistrate Reinhardt so DOJ selected her when they went to Reinhardt for a warrant.
And finally she is the circuit judge that handles the MAL region.
Trump did not “shop” for anyone, Trump and DOJ got her because the search was conducted in her district.
You seem to have a different sewt of facts than I’m familiar with. This story indicates Trump filed outside of his district, in=person instead of electronically, and took other steps in hopes of getting Judge Cannon. Is anything in this story incorrect?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-incredible-mystery-of-how-donald-trump-got-judge-aileen-cannon-in-the-mar-a-lago-case?ref=scroll
Why would I trust a news story over the 11th circuits web set.
Reinhardt is the Magistrate Judge that handles Mar-A-Lago.
According to the 11th circuit Web Site he is he magistrate judge that serves Cannon and another 11th circuit judge.
While I am not familiar with a sharing arrangement. EVERY Article III federal judge has an Article II magistrate judge assoicated with them.
My wife clerked for a federal Judge. This is not some secret. It is the norm.
Magistrate judges are essentially administrators with SOME judicial authority that serve Article III judges.
It is typical to go to a magistrate judge for a warrant – just as in my state warrants are handled by district magistrates – which are not judges, but are called judges,
One of the other things magistrate judges often do is manage negotiations between parties, scheduling, conflicts. They will often conduct informal hearings and advise the parties what the likely outcome of an actual trial will be.
But at the end of the day they are not judges in the constitutional sense. Nothing they do constitutes judicial review.
Any action that a magistrate judge takes because they are not article III judges does not meet the article III requirements of the constitution.
Article II judges are not part of the judiciary. They are part of the executive. And the executive can not conduct judicial review of its own actions.
This BTW is a massively litigated area of the law. The IRS has its own Article II court system. As does Social Security, and Immigration.
There are other areas in which we have magistrate judges, administrative law judges etc.
These have a great deal of power, But ALL are ultimately re-viewable to the Article III court system. Because they are part of the executive branch.
Cannon is an 11th circuit judge. I am not sure that she is the ONLY 11th cir judge handling MAL. It seems that way from the 11th cir web site.
But it is possible that there is another judge that also handles MAL.
I beleive the way judicial assignments within a circuit are assigned is up to the circuit.
And by all appearances that is done geographically in the 11th.
Such assignments are not by rule of god. Where there is a conflict another judge will be assigned.
My wife clerked for a 3rd circuit judge who was the normal 3rd circuit judge for several counties in Pennsylvania.
Federal cases in those counties always started with his magistrate judge and nearly always ended with him.
There are many many additional complications in the process. There are senior judges and overworked judges and underwoked judges.
But from what I can tell on the 11th circuit web site The moment FBI searched MAL Trump had between a 50:50 and a 100% chance of getting Cannon unless she chose not to take the case. In which case it likely would have been randomly assigned to a senior status judge who was willing to take the case.
In the federal courts the judge you will get is to a large extent determined by where the case is filed.
In many many instances there is no choice about where to file the case.
I am not sure how Trump could have avoided the Federal Courthouse serving MAL – especially given that Reinhardt was the Magistrate Judge already.
Whether you like it or not, The magistrate in question, and the article III judge in question are a consequence of the fact that the search was of MAL.
There are 14 regular judges and 1 chief judge for the entire Southern district of Florida. There are 12 senior judges.
My wife served as a clerk for a judge in the eastern district of Pennsylvania. She specifically served the Judge in the Reading Federal courthouse. There are many judges in the eastern district of PA – most of them operate out of Philadelphia. If you file in Philadelphia – you get a judge assigned round robin. Most cases operate out of Philadelphia. I would expect that the Southern district of Florida is the same
Most cases are filed in Miami and get a judge round robin from miami.
But in PA if your case takes place in Reading or Allentown it is going to the judge(s) in the Reading Federal Court – unless there is some issue.
And then you will get a specific judge or at most one other.
But even in places like Miami and Phildelphia – there are scheduling orders and the order in which cases are assigned to judges is generally known. So there is some small degree to which you MIGHT be able to chose your judge even in a large courthouse.
Unless the article is wrong, and I’m not sure from your response whether you actually read it. Trump didn’t file in MAL but his lawyers went to Ft. Lauderdale and filed in person, a very unusual step given the availability of electronic filing. You have yet to indicate anything in the story is wrong, just that you chose to use a different methodology. It also seems there are at least nine judges in the West Palm Beach civil Wheel Ciruit and Cannon is assigned cases on an overflow basis.
“Unless the article is wrong, and I’m not sure from your response whether you actually read it.”
Didn’t read it. Have no reason to read it.
I do not are what it says.
I do know something about how cases are assigned in federal court.
“Trump didn’t file in MAL but his lawyers went to Ft. Lauderdale and filed in person, a very unusual step given the availability of electronic filing.”
So ?
I have filed many motions and lawsuits.
Never filed on electronically.
Do not confuse spin with facts.
MAL is a private island, not a federal court.
“You have yet to indicate anything in the story is wrong”
Don’t know anything about the story. Possible the only thing wrong with the story is spin.
Frankly, the whole story does not matter much.
It is not like the federal government has not judge shopped just about everything they have done.
” just that you chose to use a different methodology.”
No I have discussed how the courts typically work.
I doubt it matters what courthouse Trump files in.
You claim that Trump’s lawyers went to Ft. Lauderdale.
Cannon is in Ft. Peirce which is 2hr north of ft. lauderdale.
If as you claim Trump went to Ft. Lauderdale to get a specific judge – it was not Cannon he was after.
“It also seems there are at least nine judges in the West Palm Beach civil Wheel Ciruit and Cannon is assigned cases on an overflow basis.”
There are only 14 normal judges in the entire SDFL. Most are based out of Miami.
There are only 2 regular judges in West Palm Beech.
Don’t count Senior Judges THEY are only given overflow cases. None are likely to have been given this case.
Senior Judges tend to take the least workload they can to continue to draw salary an the other perqs of being a federal judge.
Cannon is a regular judge not a senior judge.
Deary is a senior Federal Judge serving in Brooklyn. Special Masters are the types of roles that Senior Judges get.
They do not work very hard at all.
Senior Federal Judge is a great job – almost no work and great pay, and two law clarks, and chambers, and all kinds of expenses covered, and staff.
Willful ignorance, the article was well-researched with facts you didn’t wish to avail yourself of. If you read it and said they were wrong or did shoddy work that would be one thing. You just didn’t bother. That’s one way to win every argument, don’t open yourself up to any other information.
“It’s clearly related. I don’t think there’s a plausible argument that it’s not related”_Tobias
“one said, suggesting that a Trump lawyer may have had sway with a court employee.”
That is the type of evidence you want people to waste their time on. “Don’t think”, “suggesting” are words that aren’t close to proof especially when dealing with spin misters. This is why what you say is discounted so heavily. You either are smart enough to know what proof is or you aren’t. In this case it is the latter.
Nobody could get a feel for the article from the two lines you quoted. Here;s the entire article that John Say chose not to read:
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.”
When you use words like “feel” you destroy your argument.
If you are allegeing malfeasance – it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Any conclusions you can only reach by “Feeling” are obviously wrong.
As is typical you draw conclusions of malfeasance from thin evidence and claims that overstate the facts.
Something is unusual ? Why ? Because you say it is ? People can file however they like.
One reason for filing in person at a courthouse is there is absolutely no doubt that and precisely when a case is filed and at each step of the way YOU have an immutable record.
Your lawyer takes the motion to the court house, submits it gets a date and time stamped official copy and returns with that.
They can not be any claims of computer glitches.
next, you are making a meaningless argument.
While neither you nor your article have made your case.
If you had – so what ?
I expect Trump’s lawyers to seek every possible advantage for him in court.
While your claim that he gamed the system to get Cannon is far fetched.
If he did – So What ?
That is done all the time. Though not usually in the way you are claiming.
The DOJ games the system by choosing what federal circuit and what district to file in – whenever a case has multiple choices.
My use of the word “feel” had nothing to do with any argument. It had to do with the two quotes from Someone not being representative of the article. Neither is your deflection by talking about the word feel.
If Trump’s lawyers routinely made filings in person you might have a case, if they did it only once and lied about the rationale it raises suspicion.
As to the so what if he shopped for a judge he appointed that miraculously made never before seen rulings in his favor. The so what means that justice can be bought. Did you read the article? You still aren’t pointing out any errors.
“f Trump’s lawyers routinely made filings in person you might have a case, if they did it only once and lied about the rationale it raises suspicion.”
I routinely put my outgoing mail in my mailbox for the mailman to take. I had to pay my property taxes which have a fine attached if not received by a certain day. For some electronic reason, I couldn’t pay it over the net so I took the check to the post office.
Now you can attach all sorts of crazy reasons as why I took one check to the tax collector. Are you going to say I did so because they gave me a lower rate? Do you see how crazy your examples sound?
Did ylu lie to anyone about the reason you did it, making up an imaginary electronic glitch that affected nobody else?
“Did ylu lie to anyone about the reason you did it, making up an imaginary electronic glitch that affected nobody else?”
How do you know it didn’t affect anyone else? You don’t.
I once paid big bucks to have an attorney go to an office to pick up documents. I wouldn’t even let his legal assistant go. You assume which makes an ass u me, makes an ass of you and me, but in this case only you because I can provide fact and you can’t.
Why do you destroy your credibility?
These electronic glitches occur and sometimes people actually read about them in the newspapers.
“My use of the word “feel” had nothing to do with any argument.”
Then do not use it.
“It had to do with the two quotes from Someone not being representative of the article.”
In otherwords instead of addressing the facts, you jumped to emotion.
“Neither is your deflection by talking about the word feel.”
Then do not make emotional appeals.
This is not hard. I do not care if you actually strip the emotional words and adjectives from your arguments – because after I attack them, I will strip them to see if there is anything of substance left.
If you are making an argument and you wish to be taken seriously – atleast by me. Try reading it without adjectives and emotion and see if it holds together. Nearly all of those made by the left do not.
“If Trump’s lawyers routinely made filings in person you might have a case”
Nope, they are free to file however they wish in every single case.
One of the problems with your entire argument is that not only are you wrong.
But even if you were right – you would STILL be wrong. Any lawyer is not only allowed to try to use the legitimate processes of the court to the advantage of their client – but OBLIGATED to do so.
The requirement that judges follow the constitution is one we impose through the constitution and that we should enforce through legislative and judicial oversight.
As a lawyer representing your client you are obligated to do what you can to get your client the judge most favorable to their case.
Whether that is a left leaning or a right leaning lawyer.
I am livid that the courts and prosecutors in NY gave the molotov cocktail arsonists 15months – but complete kudos to their lawyers who obviously did a great job.
“if they did it only once and lied about the rationale it raises suspicion.”
Not at all, Again this is constant through your idiocy.
You are literally mirroring old conservative arguments about evil defense attorney’s.
In so many ways the modern left is a mirror of every single error of past conservatives.
We are reliving the MaCarthy era – except driven by stupid woke children and those like yourself that should be old enough, experienced enough and smart enough to grasp you are driving down the highway to hell.
I think that the efforts of Trump’s attorneys had little to do with Cannon getting this case.
But if your claim is that Trump’s attorney’s tried really hard to get the judge they thought would be most favorable.
That is absolutely true, AND it is an ethical obligation of all attorneys.
Btu from the FACTS as I see them in the 11th – the odds HEAVILY favored their getting Cannon no matter what Trump’s attorney’s did.
Most of the claims you and your article made are NONSENSE and do not reflect the actual operations of real federal courts.
It is clear that both you and the reporter are speaking out of your ass, and make all kinds of assumptions based on your personal political biases.
While I know more – from personal experience than either you or your reporter. Alot of what I know from experience should be trivial to guess.
There is a strong preference for geographical assignment of cases in the court system. In some cases it is even absolute.
Senior Judges hear a small percent of cases, tend to get to pick the cases they want. Rarely take anything complex, and are not typical on rotations. Workload at any given time is NOT evenly distributed, so case assignments are not evenly distributed.
An argument that I do not think you stupid article made, but is again a means to stack the odds in a plantifs favor is that it is possible that Trump delayed the lawsuit a bit to wait for other judges to get busier and Cannon to become open. If you have long enough to file the lawsuit and you watch the docket carefully you have a good chance of getting exactly the judge you want – left or right.
And if you do not think that the government does not play that game too – you are an idiot.
It is not relevant in this case – but in many other instances – plantifs or prosecutors have choices of Venue – or they TRY to claim they have choices. Venue fights are quite common in cases where venue is not strongly geographically dictated.
No one with an R behind there name wants to be tried for Jaywalking anywhere Near DC – they will be convicted and sentenced to death.
The DC courts are thoroughly politically corrupt.
“As to the so what if he shopped for a judge he appointed that miraculously made never before seen rulings in his favor.”
There was a special master appointed in the Micheal Cohen case in SD NY – only a MORON would make your claim.
That is part of the problem with the 11th’s appelate claim – they went far further than we disagree with some of Cannon’s rulings, but to there is no right of judicial review for a claim of infringement on 4th amendment rights. If the 11th appeal ruling holds no one anywhere ever has a right to ask for a special master, or any other judicial review of a warrant. The 11th appeal has essentially said that Warrants are unreviewable except in criminal trials. That would be singling out the rights or person, papers and property as different from other rights.
I would note that the lefts right to privacy – which is the foundation of ALL the cases that you are terrified that Conservatives are going to overturn, is based in the 4th amendment. If you gut the 4th amendment for Trump, you gut it for birth control, and for homosexuality, and for interracial marriage.
Btu then left wing nuts are constantly blind to the consequences of their own stupid actions.
“The so what means that justice can be bought.”
non-sequitur.
“Did you read the article?”
Why ? your takeaways are self evidently wrong.
Further Why should I take the oppinions and narratives of a reporter over facts and reality and logic ?
“You still aren’t pointing out any errors.”
I do not need to the entire premise is wrong.
As I have said repeatedly – the OBVIOUS facts in this case, the location, the circuit, the judges and their locations, the ages of the judges,
and the probable workloads made it atleast 50:50 that Cannon was getting this case.
Why on earth would I read YOUR or some other left wing nut journalists idiotic ranting that something evil happened
When it did not.
There are multiple reasons that you are full of schiff.
It is not merely moral it is an ethical obligation for a lawyer to try to get his clients the most favorable judge.
That is not easy to do, but lawyers try all the time.
Courts are full of judges of all persuasions. Plantiffs are going to get judges. Those on the left are LESS entitled to dictate who gets what case than the actual plantiff. Regardless, Cannon is going to get cases, and you are not going to like the outcome.
I would further note that I would bet you $1000 that if Cannon got exactly the same case – except the plantiff was a democrat that it is likely SHE would have ruled the same way, and likely the appeals court would have ruled the opposite way.
Cannon’s reasoning was constitutionally solid.
The appeals court went out of their way to talk about Trump throughout their ruling.
Making it quite clear – this was a one-of decision, THEY made it clear their determining factor was Trump. Not the law, not the constitution.
You can pretty much count on the fact that when a court says “no man is above the law” in a decision – that means they are violating the law.
Enigma, you are black and rightfully proud. I give you credit for attempting to right the wrongs of the past, even though you go about it wrongfully.
John is telling you about the law and how it is supposed to protect the rights of individuals. Post Civil War blacks were mistreated. Many, including myself, fought for the rights of black people and others facing discrimination. In the south (and north), Constitutional rights were violated, causing great harm to those facing discrimination.
Despite your obvious hatred of how people broke the law, making black citizens inferior, you have taken up the hatred of the racist southerner. It is now you, not the racist southerner, that is trying to bend the laws to infringe on the rights of your ideological enemies. You are doing to others what you complained others were doing to you during Post Civil War years, yet you believe you are righteous in denying rights to others that you fought for when those rights were your own.
Your article tries to make claims about the odds – but as I have pointed out to you – those are not the odds.
Most of the judges in you 1:9 game do not count.
Cases are not automatically and randomly and evenly assigned among all possible judges.
Senior judges get far fewer cases than the rest.
Of the remaining judges, nearly all are both in miami – the wrong court and incredibly busy and unlikely to get cases assigned to them
Of the remainder that are eligable, their assignments will not be random chance, they will be based on existing caseload.
Your article notes that cannon got the lionshare of cases on the day the Trump lawsuit was filed – probably becuase she had the lightest schedule at that time.
EB
massively cut and pasting from an article risks having your post blocked for exceeding fair use.
It is also abusive posting as it risks getting Turley sued for copyright violation.
Your sumarized this article and linked to it before.
Others can choose to follow the link and read it or not.
Cutting and pasting large portions to try and FORCE others to do as you want them too and
make a mountain out of your molehill is just more left wing nut beleif that you should have control of other people.
I can not FORCE you to engage in critical thinking.
I can not FORCE you to recognize the myriads of obvious conflicts in your own posts and arguments.
I am stuck with the fact that you are who you are, that your rational abilities are poor, that you draw important conclusions based on feelings,
and that your views are self evidently self contradictory and this does not matter to you.
That you take the spin of left wing nut journalists as fact. That you are when of the spinning left wingnuts trying to distort reality with spin and feelings rather than facts.
You are stuck with the fact that I do not care about your feelings.
That not only does my experience strongly suggest that your claims is likely wrong.
But that even if it was not – that does not matter.
If it was actually possible for Trump’s lawyers to try to control the judge they got – they would do so.
It would be malpractice for them not to.
“Nobody could get a feel for the article from the two lines you quoted.”
In a way you are right. I quoted some of the best arguments the article had to offer. If the article had a better one you would have quoted it. You didn’t.
What you think is proof, is opinion. A lawyer (probably a legal assistant) went to Ft Lauderdale is your big revelation. But you don’t show the rules involved or prove why the lawyer went. Instead, as stated in my first response,
“one said, suggesting that a Trump lawyer may have had sway with a court employee.”
That is the totality of your evidence. It’s junk. It makes your opinion look like rubbish. I am sure you can do better than the article.
Your massive cut and paste proves that the article is all poorly thought conjecture.
It can not even make up its own mind regarding its claims.
The article claims a 1:9 chance of getting Cannon – when iI have given you myriads of reasons to KNOW that is false.
It was HIGHLY unlikely this case was going to a senior judge – that removes almost half the 11th judges.
It was almost impossible that it was going to a miami judge – that removes almost 2/3 of those left.
Of the handlful of judges left – cases would be divied out based on each judges caseload.
You noted that Cannon got 1/3 of all cases that day.
The very facts that you think are proof, undermine your own article.
So you understand that the fact that Cannon got the largest share of the cases that day proves BOTH that cases are not assigned puely randomly AND that the clerks did not assign the cases with political bias.
And NO the article is NOT very well researched.
Being long tedious and full of inuendo is NOT well researched.
As I have pointed out EXTENSIVELY, it is clear the authors know very little about federal courts, and how they work.
The article as well as your arguments are full of massive amounts of assumptions that are just plane wrong – such as that cases are doled out evenly with little respect for caseload or geography.
I would strongly advise – both the authors of the article and YOU to strip all the adjectives out of your writing and see if after doing so there is anything of substance left.
The place for adjectives is in fiction where they add color and emotion.
The actual communication of facts is impeded by color and emotion.
Regardless, if you are trying to report “the truth”,
And you take what you have written and remove the adjectives and discover that in doing so the story has gone away.
Then you are engaged in spin.
The odds of something are of a great deal of importance – they are a strong indicator of intentionality or corruption.
But that is only true when you get the odds correct, and when you know all the factors driving something and when
you are dealing with a phenomena that is truly random.
After the 2020 Election there was a very strong sounding argument that the statistical analysis Benford numbers method proved fraud in the 2020 election. Inarguably a benford analysis of precinct returns in many many places showed statistical indications of being manipulated.
If these results were found by the IRS on a tax return or by an accounting firm conducting an audit they would be proof of fraud.
But there was a problem with the benford analysis – benford detects non-random patterns – in random data.
The problem is that precinct returns are not random. The size of precincts – the number of voters is not random, it is close to uniform.
The percent of voters voting for one candidate over another is not random.
The assignment of cases to judges is not random in the way that the authors of your article presume. It is weighted heavily for geography, senior status, and current caseload. The fact that Reinhardt was the Magistrate judge alone may have determined the assignment or heavily weighed it. Cannon is not the only Article III judge that Reinhardt serves, but he still only serves a few Article III judges,
and when DOJ/FBI used Reinhardt for the Warrant, they either determined the Article III judge that would get the case or they radically increased the odds.
I also have not noted – nor did your article other non random factors in assignment.
Once a judge is assigned a case – they get all related cases. You claim 9 cases were filed on that day.
Yet, your article makes no effort to determine whether any of the other 8 cases filed were assigned to specific judges because those were cases within their existing portfolios.
I strongly suspect that if you actually had all the information regarding the factors driving the assignment of this case you would find that the odds of cannon getting it were somewhere between 50:50 and 100%.
But your article wastes thousands of words chasing feelings that are irrelevant and pretending that case assignmnet is purely random when it obviously can not be.
You like some republicans are chasing your own misunderstanding of statistics and statistical methods.
There are a large number of statistical anomalies in the 2020 election that are very disturbing and not explainable by incorrect application of statitical tools. But the benford numbers claims of fraud in 2020 like SOME of the claims regarding DVS voting machines. are false.
As to your article – it attempts to create malfeasnace out of conduct that if true is not malfeasant.
Rather than fixate on whether it is possible for lawyers to try to get conservative or progressive judges, maybe you should consider the FACT that should not matter, but it obviously does.
The most important issue that YOU and those on the left completely miss is the significance of the difference between the 11th appeals and Cannon.
11th appeals has just concluded that there is no 4th amendment right to be secure in your home, person and papers.
Because a right that can be infringed without judicial review is not a right.
That is HUGE, and a HUGE difference. It is a decision that ultimately is not – or should not be conservative/progressive.
And the final question I would leave you is, it if was ex-president Obama that the FBI searched in Chicago, would you expect progressive federal judges in Illinois to block Obama’s 4th amendment claims ?
When the outcome of cases varies based on who the plantiffs are and/or who the judges are, then there is something other than the law going on.
There are real problems with conservative judges reading more constitutional protections dependent on the class of the person making the claim of constitutional rights violation. But the problems with conservative judges pale compared to the much larger and more obvious problem with progressive judges having no foundation but ideology for a very large percent of their cases.
“Once a judge is assigned a case – they get all related cases.”
There was a related case that Trump lawyers purposefully left out.
The other consideration is was this judge sought out because of legal views, or for other reasons. Trump thinks he owns the judges he appointed, this is one time he was right.
(I laughed when you mentioned wasting thousands of words, you’re the king of that)
“Trump thinks he owns the judges he appointed”
Reading minds again? You have difficulty putting facts together, so I suggest you skip reading minds.
I’m reading your mind about Walker losing the GA Senate race and the Trump Organization being found guilty of 17 criminal charges. Stay tuned, , ,
Republicans are not going to win close elections – Republicans grasp that.
We can debate precisely how the elections are being rigged, It does not matter. When democrats win something like 49 out of 50 elections that are within 1% or less – obviously something that stinks is going on.
Where it is actually true that voters prefer one candidate over another – races are not close.
No one is thinking abut Challenging races that democrats or republicans won by 4-10 pts.
You can disagree with me that the fact that democrats win ALL close elections today and have for 3 cycles is evidence of rigging – obviously it is. But you are free to beleive that Democrats have flipped a coin 50 times in a row and got heads.
But there is zero doubt that YOU have destroyed trust in elections.
I have been fighting for election integrity since 2000. We can not repeat that mess.
It does not matter who wins a close election so much as that the vast majority of people – whether they like the outcome or not, accept that it was honest.
The first requirement for that is transparency – and the left has MASSIVELY fought against that.
The next requirement is minuscule rates of problems and errors.
The more mistakes you make in a razor close election, the less people will trust the results.
Whether you like it or not something like 80% of people beleive our current elections are not worthy of trust.
YOU did that.
I would further note the more complicated you make elections – the worse things will be.
ALL democrats efforts to make things easy – also make them complicated.
The Current AZ election is a beautiful example of how to F’up an election.
It is possible that SOME of the stupid ideas in this election came from republicans – though I doubt it.
On Demand Ballot printers are an idea that just about any sand person could tall you was going to be a disaster.
First ANYTHING that does not involve ballots printed by the state in a fashion similar to Currency enables election fraud.
We saw that in 2020.
While it is possible to counterfeit a state printed ballot – just like it is possible to counterfeit money, it is not easy,
it requires special paper, and typically offset presses – not laser printers and paper from office max.
But that is just the first majro stupidity about On demand ballot printers.
This was supposed to be a convenience – voters could go to any precinct to vote and the printer would print the correct ballot for them.
If you can not see the myriads of ways that is going to go wrong your an idiot.
Voters of course had to log into the system to get a ballot printed.
Once they did they were stuck voting at the precint they were at.
If the ballot printed for them could not be made to scan they were SOL.
Then of course we got the infamous – put it in Bin 3.
I have no idea what bin 3 was supposed to be for – aparently many already scanned and counted ballots went into bin 3
and ballots that were spoiled went into bin 3.
But people whose ballots did not scan went into bin 3 to be counted by had elsewhere.
Except that now they are mized in with ballots that were already counted or were supposed to be spoiled and not counted.
No matter what – once ballots are mixed – the election is over – you have an uncorrectable problem
Nor do we know in AZ what the cause of the problem was – meaning – this could have been error, or it could have been a deliberate effort at fraud. F’up the printers so people who vote on election day end up disenfranchised – which they did – nearly all republicans.
Add to that AZ had absentee voting, early voting, mailin voting and drop off your mailin ballot on the day of the election.
To prevent people from voting twice – a problem that is very very very hard to create if you only have one way to vote,
You must count ballots very carefully – esentially in Last In first out order.
You must count in person on election day ballots first – those you do not have to check for duplicates.
Then you count all these other forms in an order of preference – generally mailin last so that you discard mailin ballots for people who already voted.
Does this sound complicated and time consuming ? Absolutely – and you wonder why ballot counting took so long ?
And talking a long time counting ballots is a GIANT red flag for fraud.
The greater the time from the close of polls to the completeion of counting the more oportunity there is to inject ballots into the count.
If mailin ballots which are purportedly received first are counted last – which is how it SHOULD be done.
That means that the person losing the race or nefarious supporters that the candidate does not even need to know are at work, can be off in back rooms manufacturing ballots, all that they need is copies of voter registration rolls or anything else that provides them with names of people who probably did not vote, so they can produce lots of ballots with a high probability of getting counted.
Of course – you do not have to inject these as mailin ballots. You can go to your laser printer print ballots out and you do not need names if you can get those ballots into “bin 3” without anyone noticing. But if you are going to inject them through mailin voting – into the mail, or into dropoff ballot boxes, then you need counterfeit ballots (unless those opening the ballots are not checking for laser printed ballots. and you need to know names and addresses and enough information to get pass piss por signature checking.
Regardless the point is the messier you make voting the easier you make Fraud, and the longer you make counting the greater the incentive for people to sneak just enough ballots in to flip the election.
And when you have close elections going 50:1 one way – you have election fraud.
And possibly more importantly
People do not and should not trust the election results.
If you want to know what happenes when people do not trust government – and that is where we are.
Look to China or Iran or Lexington and concorde.
And then you compbine this with the morally corrupt and illegal conduct of democrats that has been exposed by the twitter files
Why should anyone trust people who openly admit the ends justifies the means and have already done immoral and illegal things.
And just in case it is not clear, If Social media agrees with a user to terms of service, and a third party pushes SM to renige on that contract,
That is a tort. It is an illegal act to cause one party in a contract to violate the contract rights of another.
It is not a crime, it is a tort, but it is still illegal. It is also immoral.
You can rant about censorship all you want, You can demand the censoship of someone else for any reason you want.
But when you make that demand to one party in a contract, and they capitulate to that demand in violation fo the contract – that is a tort, and it is an illegal act. It is also immoral.
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.
Once you start acting immorally and worse illegally, there is no reason to believe you stopped with censorship.
And you have destroyed trust.
That is where we are now.
And it is a very bad and dangerous place to be.
And democrats and the left brought us here.
The Trump case is idiocy.
Despite the rants from the left the actual claim is that a bunch of Trump employees received perqs they did not pay taxes on.
The value of the fringe benefits in question is only 1.7M, The taxes on that are a small fraction of that.
This is all the result of a single witness who the AG blackmailed into testifying in return for protection for his own personal tax fraud charges.
And even those are dubious.
None of this connect to Trump.
this will either be settled for next to nothing or appealed and won.
This is just another left wing nut effort to make news.
So they only committed 17 small crimes? If you believe Trump had nothing to do with this, “I don’t even want to know you.”– Mrs. Landingham The Manhattan D.A. is winding up to prove just that point.
Who is “they” ?
I do not know the details here, but given what is public, this sounds like the NY AG trying to turn a legitimate effort to minimize taxes for employees into a crime.
Businesses pay for perqs for employees all the time. It is likely that your health insurance is paid for atleast partly by your employer – and that you are not taxed on on the value you receive for that perk. Further it is likely that your employer deducts the cost of that health insurance as an expense.
All of that is normal. Not a crime, not even mispayment of taxes.
Employers also often pay for other perqs for some employees. As an example, executives, as well as plumbers and electricians often are provided company paid vehicles. So long as these are primarily used for business purposes they are not a taxable benefit to the employee and a legitimate expense to the company.
Sometimes employers pay for meals for employees during working hours or travel. It is unlikely that a Manhattan lawyer ever pays for food, it is nearly always paid for by someone else.
Meals attracted the attention of politicians and as such are only partly deductible – god forbid our senators had something more important to worry about than whether some middle management type was getting a three martini lunch without having to pay taxes on the last two martinis.
Regardless, as a rule of thumb benefits provided to employees that provide a benefit to the company are considered expenses of the company, and not taxable benefits to the employee.
And THAT is what is being fought over here.
Further, there is no IRS case here – this is Purely a NY case.
The Trump organization is CONSTANTLY audited by the IRS, it is also audited by a private accounting firm which has a legal duty to comply with the law. One of the reasons for outside accountants and auditing is to avoid exactly this kind of nonsense.
Those auditors are suppose to ensure legal compliance, tax compliance and preclude middle management from gaining improper personal benefits and creating tax liabilities.
Regardless, it is near certain whatever occured here – the IRS has already accepted it as legitimate.
So that leaves a claim that NY tax law on benefits is different from federal tax law.
That is entirely possible. Though most states strongly synchronize their tax laws and deductibility constraints with those of the federal govenrment, so that both individuals and accountants do not have to deal with lots of federal state, local quirks, it is still possible that something is deductible with the IRS but not the state. It is not common, but it happens.
So what this is devolving to is that the Trump Organization provided some benefit to some or all employees – there are rules about benefits that make it very hard to give a benefit to individual or small groups without giving it more broadly.
Regardless, this is aabout a Benefit that the Trump Organization provided, to employees.
For there to be a tax issue, there must be a claim that the benefit was a PERSONAL benefit to the employee.
Because if it was a benefit to the company it is an expense and not taxable.
I do nto know this is about cars – but cars are a good example. If you are provided a company car, and that car is used primarily for business purposes, that car is an expense to the business and not subject to any taxes.
But if you use that care for personal purposes too – then you MIGHT have to pay personal income taxes on the non-business use of the car, because the use of that car is essentially a form of income.
So assuming this is about cars – I doubt it is but the issue is much the same regardless,
The claim by the AG here is that TO provided some benefit to many employees, and the personal value of that benefit – according to the AG and jury is 1.7M – it is near certaint hat the employees and company beleive the personal benefit is much lower.
And that TO shoudl have collected taxes from the employee for that $1.7M benefit. That would be state or local taxes – so again we are talking about a max of $170K in taxes – probably far less. And we are talking about an organization that is with certainty paying the state tens of millions in taxes.
And repeating – this is for failure to collect taxes from employees.
It is NOT for failure to pay taxes that TO owes.
TO will with certainty end up eating these taxes and interest and penalties and fines.
But as this is a claim about taxes on Benefits – this is about Taxes owed by employees – not by the TO.
Did Trump have anything to do with this ?
You can beleive whatever you want.
If you can you can try and prove whatever you want.
But just on the few facts we know – it is highly unlikely that Trump knew anything about this.
Frankly it is highly unlikely that what was done was actually illegal.
Do you really think Trump sits there and talks to people in accounting and says – “I want you to go out of the way to make sure that no one in the personell department has to pay income taxes on the company car” ?
What you do not appear to grasp is that a failure to pay taxes on Benetis means a failure to collect taxes from EMPLOYEEs
This did not save Trump or TO a dime.
If as you claim Trump was deeply involved – then your claim is that DJT was personally agressively and criminally working to minimize the taxes his employees had to pay.
That seems to make him Robbin Hood.
I do not think that is where you were trying to go.
1. Trump signed off on many of the payments–he knew. Insiders often described him as a micromanager who was aware of everything that went on in his relatively small company.
2. The Trump Organization saved money from the scheme by not having to pay the employer portion of payroll taxes. These were not independent contractors (though he tried calling some of his employees that including Ivanka in a different tax fraud scheme). It saved TO and Trump money.
3. A jury found it very likely, beyond the shadow of a doubt that 17 things the Trump Organization did was illegal. You refusing to accept that doesn’t make it untrue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/12/06/trump-organization-found-guilty-of-tax-fraud-at-trial/?sh=3e806bd67e73
“Trump signed off on many of the payments–he knew. Insiders often described him as a micromanager who was aware of everything that went on in his relatively small company.”
And we are supposed to trust you and the press ?
I managed a 55 person business and I would not have been involved in decisions like this.
“The Trump Organization saved money from the scheme by not having to pay the employer portion of payroll taxes. These were not independent contractors (though he tried calling some of his employees that including Ivanka in a different tax fraud scheme). It saved TO and Trump money.”
A left wing nut myth. There are no such things as an employer portion of payroll taxes. Every single employer in existance looks at the entirety of taxes and benefits paid for each employee as part of the compansation package for that employe.
“employer” payroll taxes are just an effort by government to hide from workers the full extent of taxes they are paying.
You noted that these employees were not independent contractors. If you are an independent contractor YOU owe the “employer” portion of taxes. Put more simply ALL payroll taxes are part of the compensation of every employee – regardless of what label you put on them.
Just typical left wing nut nonsense that labels change reality.
” A jury found it very likely, beyond the shadow of a doubt that 17 things the Trump Organization did was illegal. You refusing to accept that doesn’t make it untrue.”
Juries find all kinds of things that are not true all the time. The legal a standard is not shadow of a doubt, it is reasonable doubt.
Regardless, in my county a man was convicted of murder based on the testimony of a witness based on their dream.
Juries do stupid things all the time.
You also seem to think I care about this left wing nut BS.
Everything you do falls into the catagory of “self punishing acts”.
What I object to is that all to often your stupidity results in MY punishment too.
As I noted in a prior post – this verdict will have consequences.
In the short term companies will revise how they pay taxes on benefits in NY.
But in the long term some will leave NY. Maybe not alot, but far more than the revenue that NY is pretending it lost.
Bussinesses are not inclinded to headquarter themselves in places where they are criminally prosecuted for trying to benefit their employees.
You still completely miss the fact that this was taxes on Perqs – BENEFITS to employees.
We are talking about providing employees with cars, meals, travel,
Again you do not think of the consequences of your actions.
Employers in NY will first change how they pay taxes, then they will reduce benefits,
Then they will move elsewhere.
Just what NY needs – more businesses leaving.
“Weisselberg testified last week as the star prosecution witness claiming it was his “own personal greed that let to this case.”
He copped to taking $1.7 million in perks that he didn’t report on his taxes, including rent on an Upper West Side apartment, luxury cars and tuition for his grandkids private school. He is set to receive five months behind bars as part of his plea agreement.”
So it appears that the Jury found TO guilty of failing to pay taxes on what a key executive was embezzling.
You claim Trump micromanaged the business – so you think he allowed Weisselberg to steal from the company.
BTW Bender from Trump;s accountants testified that Weisselberg hid all this from the accounting firm and auditors.
This whole mess is nonsense.
NY is just after a headline.
Trying to make a crime of failing to pay taxes on embezzeled perqs.
Bender said he also personally handled the taxes for ex-Trump Org CFO Allen Weisselberg for several years.
He denied being aware that the company allegedly paid the exec cushy perks for 12 years – including rent, utilities, parking garage fees, thousands in Christmas tips to his doorman and furniture for his Florida home.
Hoffinger asked how Bender was sure that he’d never seen evidence of the alleged off-the-books compensation for Weisselberg and other top managers.
“Because I probably would’ve had a heart attack,” Bender responded.
“Former President Donald Trump reported losses on his tax returns each year for a decade – including close to $1 billion in a two-year span alone, his onetime accountant testified at trial this week.
Donald Bender, a partner at accounting firm Mazars USA, took the stand in Manhattan Supreme Court Tuesday as part of the criminal tax fraud case against the Trump Organization.
From 2009 to 2018, Bender said he filed 76-year-old Trump’s taxes and “There are losses for all these years.”
So when the Democrats finally leak Trump’s taxes they will be a dud.
“1. Trump signed off on many of the payments–he knew. Insiders often described him as a micromanager who was aware of everything that went on in his relatively small company.”
Enigma, you sound so foolish. The Trump Organization involves around 500 businesses yet you think he looks at all the checks written. You have no credibility. Are you now trying to prove you have no brains? I hope not.
He seems to beleive that Weiselberg was able to hide his embezzelment from Mazzars, from its auditor, From IRS auditors,
But that by some miracle Trump was personally aware and gave his approval.
Regardless, This story has only two purposes.
To generate a headline,
and to empower NT AG James to try to confiscate the entire Trump organization.
The fight over the latter may prove brutal, but James will lose.
And the ultimate consequence will be the Trump organization leaves NY.
I do not know if they will sell their NY Holdings.
They may well.
But it is near certain they will move the business and management to a less hostile place.
“2. The Trump Organization saved money from the scheme by not having to pay the employer portion of payroll taxes. These were not independent contractors (though he tried calling some of his employees that including Ivanka in a different tax fraud scheme). It saved TO and Trump money.”
Do you have a housekeeper? You are probably involved in ‘fraud’.
Do you have a car for business? You probably are involved in ‘fraud’
Do you take deductions in hour house for an office? You probably are involved in ‘fraud’.
Do you take any personal expenses off your taxes? You probably are involved in ‘fraud’.
Do you give money to charities and go to their events? ‘You probably are involved in fraud.?
If none of the above apply, a deep investigation will probably find that you were involved in ‘fraud’.
You have said you sell real estate. You probably were involved in criminal activities whether you know it or not.
If only we had some mechanism to determine whether people have committed crimes or not. Oh wait, we do. Trials! The Trump Organization was found guilty of all seventeen charges. They weren’t probably guilty of fraud, and other crimes, they are actually guilty, and the prosecuter said in court that Trump knew. Stay tuned for round 2.
“If only we had some mechanism to determine whether people have committed crimes or not. Oh wait, we do. Trials! ”
When they are not politically corrupt they are.
I seem to recall lots of people ranting and raving about the first Rodney King Trial.
You do not get to claim that Trials are the ultimate authority – except for the ones you do not like.
This is a stupid, verdict, not based on the obvious evidence.
The decision here is that if someone steals from you – you owe taxes on the theft.
Really ?
Regardless, this is of little import.
“The Trump Organization was found guilty of all seventeen charges.”
Yes, they were found guilty of not paying taxes on the money that Weiselberg stole.
“They weren’t probably guilty of fraud, and other crimes”
Correct Weiselberg was guilty of the actual crime here and he is going to jail.
He cut a deal and testified against the Trump Organization,
but his testimony consisted of
“I Stole from TO, and they did not pay taxes on what I stole”
That is the actual case, that is what went to the jury
“the prosecuter said in court that Trump knew.”
And I am supposed to trust the idiot who does not know the difference between a public charity and a private trust,
Whose idea of victory is driving billions in capital out of NY ?
What positive benefit do you think came of the Trump Trust case ?
The trust was disolved. That money was returned to the donors – ALL THE TRUMP FAMILY.
The Trump Family is barred from starting another trust in NY – there are 49 other states in the country and 400+ countries in the world.
What is the consequence of this case ?
A piddling amount of taxes collected – far less than the cost of the trial.
And an increase in capital flight from NY.
“According to a report from New World Wealth and Webster Pacific, the combined wealth in the Big Apple fell by $336 billion in the 12 months ending June 30.
New York City’s total wealth was valued at $2.66 trillion, compared with $3 trillion during the same period last year.”
“What positive benefit do you think came of the Trump Trust case ?
The trust was disolved. That money was returned to the donors – ALL THE TRUMP FAMILY.”
It’s not important but it is the Trump Foundation 501C3 see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation
The money in the foundation was given to charity but I don’t think the Trump’s had final say on where the money went.
This is a very common entity for people who wish to provide charity to others. One can take an amount of money and place it in a 501C3 without payment of taxes. Then they can give money to whatever charity they wish as long as it is approved. Most good charities are approved. The money in the Foundation pays no tax as long as all the money earned by the foundation is spent on charity. If not that excess money is taxed.
I do not want to beat this to death but I do not think you are completely correct.
The word Trust has legal meaning – both to the IRS and to states.
There are complications because every state has different trust laws, though they are similar.
The fact that the Trump foundation was also a 501C3 MAY modify some of what I say – two things can both be true.
But as a rule Trusts hold already taxed money.
Trust pay taxes ONLY on monies earned by the investment of Trust funds.
Trusts file tax returns every year.
Trusts have trustees and beneficiaries – and there are a bunch of complications here, because they can have multiple classes of beneficiaries.
The trustees are obligated to use the trust funds to serve the beneficiaries – again lots of complications because of different classes of beneficiaries.
But the trustees have a great deal of power in doing so.
Malfeasance by trustees is addressed by lawsuits by beneficiaries.
“I do not want to beat this to death but I do not think you are completely correct.”
I don’t know how I can not be “completely correct.” I am discussing Trump’s 501C3. I do not argue with one using various names, correct or not. My only claim is that Trump’s is known as a 501C3 foundation.
“The word Trust has legal meaning – both to the IRS and to states.”
No one has said anything different.
“There are complications because every state has different trust laws, though they are similar.”
States have different laws for setting up and maintaining a 501C3 in their state. That DOES NOT change the basic 501C3 regulatory policy.
“The fact that the Trump foundation was also a 501C3 ”
It wasn’t also a 501C3. It WAS a 501C3 functioning under the state laws permitted by the 501C3.
” two things can both be true.”
Yes. That is true everywhere. However, Trump’s 501C3 Foundation is the discussion at hand.
“But as a rule Trusts hold already taxed money.”
This statement tells us where you are confused. The money placed into a 501C3 is pre-tax. A certain amount of funds must be paid to charities yearly based on a complex formula, generally involving an accountant. If you have a living trust for your children taxes have already been paid.
“Trusts have trustees and beneficiaries – and there are a bunch of complications here, because they can have multiple classes of beneficiaries.”
Such trusts are not the basic 501C3. I assume they can be set up for a 501C3 so institutions can provide charity to those designated by the owner.
“Malfeasance by trustees is addressed by lawsuits by beneficiaries.”
You are confusing a different type of trust with a 501C3 and obviously don’t understand what a 501C3 is.
In its simplest form, an owner deposits pre-tax money into a 501C3 created to provide charity gifting. The owner has full discretion over where that money goes as long as it goes to a valid charity. The terms regarding distribution are complex, so accountants are generally needed to tell how much money to give to charities to prevent penalties.
It seems that Enigma is intent on looking and sounding foolish.
Most NYC businesmen would be in jail if we held everyone to your standards. You would be as well, and Joe Biden for life.
I pointed out some of the places where you might be guilty. Should we prosecute and jail you?
The prosecutor wants his headline. He can say what he wishes, but why haven’t they provided proof of guilt against Trump? Because Trump didn’t do anything wrong. Weisselberg may have and may go to jail because he pled guilty, but usually this type of problem doesn’t end up with a jail sentence. Political prosecution is dangerous for a free nation, but you seem to prefer despotism.
Did you listen to the Harold Root video? Of course not. Why would you want to know what you are talking about? It would kill your arguments. You would think Harold Root guilty, but he was entirely innocent and spent $25 million proving it. That is the type of government you want. Being unable to learn from experience, you want the type of politics that made blacks second-class citizens.
Ah, the Harold Root video.
Everyone should watch that.
Prettending that the US government is not vile and malicious after viewing that is impossible.
The only reason this was not settled long ago is the prosecutors desire to get a “criminal conviction” headline.
It is highly unlikely anyone is going to jail for this. The corporate sheild protects Trump, owners and much of management so long as they stayed within their legally defined rolls.
It is likely the only person facing actual criminal liability is the one who cut a deal and testified.
It is likely th e Trial cost more than $1.7M to both NY and TO.
And this for a fraction of that in taxes.
I strongly suspect this is appealable – and the NY appelate courts have been friendly to Trump.
Or put differently they are not so bat$hit as local courts.
But I suspect there will be no appeal – because it is cheaper to pay the taxes and fines.
The “Big ” deal for this will be its impact on the NY AG James effort to steal the Trump organization.
She will use this to claim the STate must take over.
That will be a brutal and expensive battle that she will lose.
And the moment the TO has the ability to do so they will move the corporate headquarters out of NY.
The same office (different AG) shut down the Trump Foundation for their fraud. I like their track record.
Again more stupidity.
You think it was wise to close a charity ?
There was absolutely nothing to the Trump foundation case.
It was just another bit of headline seeking idiocy.
So the NY Trump foundation is closed and the Trumps are barred from opening charities in NY.
Wow, Great accomplishment.
All that office has done is succeeded in having the Trump’s move billions in capital from NY to FL.
But you got your headline.
The whole thing was bogus. The Trump foundation was a PRIVATE trust.
Private Trusts contain post tax money – money that has already been taxed.
And can generally spend that money on beneficiaries of the Trust anyway they please.
The ONLY parties that can object to the spending of private trusts are the beneficiaries of the Trust.
What We have seen in NY is that the only way that NY Prosecutors have been successful is to bring ludicrously stupid cases with little basis that winning does them more harm than good.
Yup, they are working hard to drive capital out of new york.
But they get headlines for you.
Trump’s foundation didn’t act differently than most of the foundations in NY. All the money went to charity. I keep everything I can away from NYS. Many of my friends have sold their second homes in NYC not wanting to be under the gun of NY prosecutors.
The trump foundation was a private Trust – not a public charity. Those are radically different things.
Trusts have near infinite discretion in what they do with their money – so long as the beneficiaries of the trust do not challenge them.
Public charities are highly regulated, they accept public donations and the state stands in to protect the interests of public donors.
That is not true of trusts.
Trump had a 501C3 also known as a private foundation. It is not public and privately administered by the owners. I never called it a public foundation. We have had this discussion before so you know I am talking about a 501 C3 not a public foundation. You are stuck on names which are used differently in different settings. The use of 501C3 clearly defines what the foundation is so like before and now recognize I am discussing the 501C3.
In the past you didn’t think Trump’s foundation was a 501C3 but everything points to that being so. I hate to point to Wikipedia, but you can look there. They think it’s a 501C3 as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation
Since you have forced me to,
Trusts are a function of state law.
501C3 is an entity form with the IRS.
a 501C3 can be a trust – in some states.
a trust can be a 501c3 – in some states.
The IRS recognizes state trusts and has long before there was such a thing as a 501C3
If something is a Trust by state law – it is a Trust in IRS tax law. It may also be a 501C3
I do not think 501C3 has any meaning at all in state law. The TF case was tried in NY under NY law.
We are talking abut two overlapping sets.
And it is near certain that the Trump foundation fits into both.
There are 50 states with 50 different sets of Trust laws.
So I need to be careful about generalizing.
But it is likely in most states 501C3 has no meaning in state courts, but Trust does.
HOWEVER both 501C3 and Trust have meaning to the IRS
“Since you have forced me to,
Trusts are a function of state law.”
John, I am not forcing you to do anything. I am correcting the record. Trump’s charity was called a 501C3 Foundation. Because previously we had a dispute about it being a 501 C3, I looked it up on Wikipedia to provide you with a citation you might believe.
You focus on the name, trust and foundation, but the important thing isn’t the name but the federal code unless a state has a specific designation they desire.
Trump’s Foundation was designated as a 501C3 Foundation.
I also corrected the record of how the state distributed the foundation’s money after the state closed it. Trump did not have the final say in where the money went. I don’t know if he had any say. But it did not go back to the donors as you suggested.
(NYS receives a $100 filing fee a year, and no other money is paid to any government entity unless the earned money was left unspent or there was a penalty for using the money outside of the scope of charity designated by the 501C3)
“501C3 is an entity form with the IRS.”
You can say that.
“a 501C3 can be a trust – in some states.”
I do not know about the other states and do not care. I care only about Trump’s 501C3 Foundation located in NYS.
“If something is a Trust by state law – it is a Trust in IRS tax law. It may also be a 501C3”
That is confusing, and I think you are confused.
“I do not think 501C3 has any meaning at all in state law. The TF case was tried in NY under NY law.”
The 501C3 sets the rules for pre-tax money to be spent on charities. The states have their own schtick.
“We are talking abut two overlapping sets.”
I don’t know what you are talking about, except possibly, the feds have their rules, and under those rules, the states have theirs.
“And it is near certain that the Trump foundation fits into both.”
As stated more correctly, the Trump Foundation fits under federal and state rules. It must comply with federal regulations for the money to be deposited pre-tax. (be careful, most trusts people have are taxed differently)
“So I need to be careful about generalizing.”
Yes, you do need to be careful. That is why I am not commenting on the rest of your statement. I think you have confused two different things.
I would further suggest this is another stupid and self destructive move on the part of left wing nuts.
Not well considered is that EVERY consequential business in NY is likely watching this.
And the response is that many will move atleast their state of incorporation out of NY.
They may move operations out of NY.
I do not know what benefit was involved here – but it is near certain that companies like Goldman Saks will be looking at this and saying – that could be us.
Left wing nuts think – So they will pay more taxes.
Wise people think – so they will seriously think about relocating out of NY.
NY already has significant problems with capital flight.
Decisions like this just accelerate that.
So let’s not prosecute criminals because we might make them angry and leave?
Weiselberg was prosecuted for embezzelment.
That was appropriate.
Trying to prosecute the Trump Organization for not paying taxes on the funds that Weiselberg embezzeled is completely stupid.
This was not a crime – and that is obvious. You can not intentionally do something, when the thing you purportedly intentionally did was not pay taxes on funds that were being embezzeled from you.
This proves much stupider than I initially thought.
From what I can see – aside from getting your headline, the big loser here will be Mazzars.
It is near certain the Trump organization will sue them for this.
And win based on Benders testimony.
Weiselberg was embezzeling, and Mazzars(Benders) job was to audit the books. They failed to catch it.
They are liable.
The only actual culpability in this is for Mazzars and Weiselberg.
Independently this also highlights other left wing nut failures.
There are many ways to pay for government,
But the worst and most common are to try to do so with multiple different forms of taxes.
Sweden as an example actually has fairly low income taxes – but they have a very high VAT and the result is a very high overall tax rate.
But it is also a distorted tax system because somethings are not taxes at all, some once, and some twice.
This is bad as it pushes people to make tax driven decisions, which is never how you want people to make decisions.
You can pay for government through corporate taxes. There is nothing wrong with that. Those taxes will get passed on to consumers regardless.
There are small efficiency problems, but generally corporate taxation is amonth the highest in efficiency – least economic damage for each $ taxed.
The biggest problem with corporate taxes is that thy are paid by consumers, but not in a way they can see, so there is an impetus to increase taxes because the cost is masked.
You can do income taxes – these are more work and less efficient, but they have the advantage that people know what government is costing and tend to personally resit tax increases at the ballot box. Which is an important check on government.
You can have sales or VAT taxes. In the past these have been the least efficient, and have the most interstate problems,
but computers are making sales taxes easier to deal with. Like income taxes – people see and feel what they are paying.
But the worst economic distortions come from combinations of taxes.
It is economically damaging to have sales, income, and corporate taxes concurrently.
Money gets taxed multiple times and inconsistently and peoples choices are severely distorted by taxes.
You must really have nothing better to do. I’m leaving you for a while to do things that produce income.
Excellent idea – spend a lot more time producing value everyone benefits.
As opposed to your comments which are harmful to those who believe them.
Regardless I would strongly promote your spending as much time as possible in producting acts – creating value so that you could trade value for value.
I would be doing the same – but though YOU might not have noticed – we are in a recession.
I was completing 45 projects a month in July.
I did not have 4 in November.
Inflation, high interest rates, have dried up the commercial real estate market.
I had a staff of 11 in July.
Now it is one person 1 day a week.
My industry is a leading indicator – so expect spring to be really bad.
My bet is this will take 18-24m to get through.
Inflation is not as bad as the early 80’s but this administration is economic morons.
“I’m reading your mind about Walker losing the GA Senate race “
Is deflection all you have, Enigma?
“Trump Organization being found guilty of 17 criminal charges. Stay tuned, , ,”
Take any large corporation and the government can find not just 1.6 million but many multiples of that. Stay tuned, the fines might stay but the jail term might go poof.
Example:
If you search the large companies you will find examples of a multiplicity of fines, Here is an example.
Merck Pleads Guilty and Pays $950 Million for Illegal Promotion of Vioxx
A fine tooth comb search of any large company will reveal fines and potential guilt of their executives.
If you want to know more and deal with knowledge listen to Howard Root’s video on the net, ~50 minutes or read his book. He and his company were charged, but he fought the government and won after spending a fortune, about $25 million. He did nothing wrong. The government did everything wrong.
Here is the blurb from Amazon:
Who polices America’s prosecutors? And when they set their sights on an innocent CEO, can he survive a 5-year, $25 million legal labyrinth to save the company he built, and himself from prison? Howard Root started Vascular Solutions with little more than a dream and an idea for a single medical device. Fifteen years later, his Minnesota company had created over 500 American jobs and developed more than 50 new medical devices that saved and improved lives. But in 2011, the federal government threatened to destroy his company and put Howard behind bars for years. Why? Federal prosecutors had been sold a bill of goods – a tall tale peddled by a money-hungry ex-employee out for revenge. All over one device. A device that never harmed a single patient and made up less than 1% of the company s sales. The investigation revealed the charges to be baseless, but the scalp-hunting prosecutors didn’t back off. Instead they dug in – threatening witnesses, misleading grand juries, and strategically leaking secret documents. Whatever it took to pressure a headline-grabbing settlement. Howard Root stood up to the shakedown. Five years, 121 attorneys and $25 million in legal fees later, his life’s work and freedom rested in the hands of 12 strangers in a San Antonio jury room. Would Howard and his company be vindicated by the verdict, or had he made the biggest mistake of his life by challenging the federal government? Cardiac Arrest is the eye-opening true story of life on the Feds’ hit-list, told from the desk of a CEO who decided to fight back. Follow Howard from the boardroom to the courtroom, as he tells the inside story of the case that sparked outrage in the pages of The Wall Street Journal and triggered a congressional investigation.
Read the book or listen to his video ~50 minutes. You will learn something you need to know. You will become smarter and sound more intelligent.
Your victory over the Trump Organization is a non-victory. $1.6 million (Merck on one of many claims was $950 Million) for a company that run about 500 different businesses is nothing. It is an ignorant poor man’s claim to fame.
I had a 5 year battle with the federal government where the government broke the most fundamental laws. I won and it didn’t cost me that much because I fired my lawyer within the first month. It was a shakedown.
“There was a related case that Trump lawyers purposefully left out.”
Nope, there has been no lawsuit, no litigation of MAL prior to this.
“The other consideration is was this judge sought out because of legal views, or for other reasons.”
While I have already demonstrated that assignment does not work as you claim.
So what if it did ? Every single party in every single case everywhere all the time strives to get the judge, court, district, venue that
suits their views. There are lots of rules and process within the courts that makes this difficult, and always a gamble,
but sometimes it works out.
Absolutely Trump is entitled to a Judge that will follow the constitution as written.
We all are.
If there are judges in the 11th that would rule differently from Cannon on the issues so far – they should not be on the court.
They have violated their oath to follow the constitution.
The 4th amendment exists – you and I both know that.
It guarantees a right to be secure in your person, papers and property.
All rights are protected from infringement by government by Article III courts, and adversarial process and judicial review.
All rights – 1st, 2nd, ….. ALL RIGHTS.
An exparte rubber stamp process by an article II magistrate is completely absent the constitution and does nto meet the constitutions requirements. While there is nothing inherently wrong with that process – the 4th amendment requires something similar to that to GET a warrant, it is not alone close to sufficient, and falls short of the requirements of the constitution.
Frankly there are reforms to that exparte process that are obviously required and both the left and the right should be able to agree on.
The requirement that affidavits for warrants must be sworn MUST include consequences. We should err on the side of law enforcement where there is doubt. But the Carter PAge FISA Warrants have Zero Doubt. WE KNOW from the Sussman and Danchenko cases that the FBI/DOJ KNEW the Steele Dossier, the Papadoulis encounter, and the Apha Bank coummunications were hoaxes or meaningless.
They knew that when they used them in the affadavits – that is sworn falsification and when done by law enforcement MUST result in jail.
It is common for warrants to be mushy and magistrates should do a far better job of tossing ones that do not reach actual probable cause.
I also think a small but significant percentage of warrants are like the Page warrant fraudulent. But I would still give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt before criminal sanctions. But administrative sanctions – like firing should be used much more frequently. When we KNOW a warrant is fraudulent – those who swore it, should go to jail. When we are pretty sure it is, they should lose their jobs.
Next again something right and left should agree on – Qualified immunity has to go. That is for All government – not just police.
When a person’s rights are violated by those in government there MUST be redress.
Again these should not be controversial – left or right.
In the past it has MOSTLY been the left that has favored these, and the right that has opposed. Though even that is not absolute.
Some of the very best individual rights decisions in recent SCOTUS history have come from the conservative justices. But not all, and conservative justices frequently err on the side of government power over individual rights. In the past the champions of individual rights on the courts have primarily been on the left – though again major decisions included conservative justices.
But today it is the left that is openly hostile to individual rights.
This case is a perfect reflection.
I do not give a schiff whether the plantiff in front of Cannon is Donald Trump or some Coke dealer whose home was raided.
A warrant such as the MAL warrant should not have been allowed. If you allege drug dealing – you search for Drugs.
If you find something in plain sight or where drugs might be that is evidence of another crime – you get it.
But you are NOT allowed to haul of the complete contents of the living room, just because a bottle of xanax was on the coffee table.
The court should specify a reasonable time for the search, and you get what you find responsive to the search and you leave.
If something you found suggests that there may be more – get another warrant. Today you can get to a magistrate in 15min.
You can get an additional warrant While you are conducting the orriginal search if you need.
REGARDLESS, it is Article III courts that have a constitutional duty to protect our constitutional rights.
And we are dealing with a clearly enumerated right in the bill of rights. There is zero ambiguity here.
The oppinion of the 11th appeals court is unconstitutional BS. It is BS whether we are dealing with Trump or your neighborhood drug dealer.
“Trump thinks he owns the judges he appointed”
I do not care what he thinks. Frankly I do not care what you think.
I care what the constitution says.
The most rights YOU have are the rights you will grant those you hate the most.
Trump is not above the law. But Cannon is RIGHT about the law, and DOJ and the 11th appeals and YOU are wrong.
And the answer is found in the constitution itself.
Government infringement of constitutional rights MUST be protected against, and th constitutions means to do so is by challenge by the individual in a trial in an Article III court.
The 11th Appeals court says NO. They are WRONG. They are WRONG whether the plantiff is Trump or the local drug dealer.
They are wrong whetehr SCOTUS tells them to pound sand or pats them on the back.
And that people Like will be blinded by your political biases is a part of the reason our constitutional rights have been so diluted.
“this is one time he was right.”
Irrelevant. This is not about Trump.
Everytime I am defending Trump or Trump surogates against politicized law enforcement, I am defending EVERYONE’s rights, not Trump’s.
It is self evident from the posts of those of you on the left – that you will warp the law and constitution to “get Trump” and then bend it arround the other way when the target is someone you like
I would have far more respect for you – if you were atleast consistent. Your not.
You are the epitome of the rule of man, not law. In fact you have incorporated that directly into your ideology.
The 11th circuit opinion is only 21 pages long and a straightforward read. Rather than spewing all this nonsense you should take the time to read it and see why she erred in law and shouldn’t have even taken the case in the first place
Why don’t you discuss the specific points you think correct and why? What makes you think John Say didn’t read it?
The core question is trivial and the problem with the opinion is in the first paragraph.
The key question is can a person go to court to challenge an infringement on a constitutional right.
So long as you answer yes, cannon has jurisdiction, and every single other matter before the appellate court is premature and currently outside THEIR jurisdiction. the rules of judicial procedure dictate that with very few exceptions only one court has jurisdiction at a time.
If the trial court does – with rare exceptions the appellate court does not.
The 11th appellate court – had it followed procedure and not botched the constitution would get its chance to weigh in later.
Of course they would be mostly stuck with Cannon’s findings of fact. The domain of appeals courts is the law, not the facts.
i do not know if Trump has appealed, I do not know if he will.
This was an interesting legal gambit on his part. It had some strengths and advantages, but it also had some weaknesses which Dearly was improperly trying to exploit.
The burden of proof in the case was on Trump.
If there ever is a criminal case the burden of proof is on DOJ.
Trump faces the danger of losing an issue in civil court which would be prejudicial to him in a criminal court.
Dearly was trying to get Trump to commit to positions now that would be easier to win later.
But a part of Trump’s goal was for there to be no later.
Another part of it was to gain control of the narrative.
The DOJ/FBI/WH got their photo op and election influencing news story with the raid on MAL.
By contesting the items seized Trump muddied their narrative.
But none of that is legal,
none of it is relevant to Cannon, Dearly, or the appellate court.
The motives of parties in court are not relevant.
The law and the facts are.
I have read much of it, it is typical I forgot the constitution exists garbage.
This was all trivial.
There is an allegation that a constitutional right has been violated.
That is the legitimate domain of a federal trial court.
Appellate courts do not have jurisdiction until the case is final.
Appellate courts are bound by lower court findings of fact.
Appellate courts must interpret all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Every statement above is very basic judicial procedure,
and every one is violated by the 11th appeals.
The rest of their ranting is nonsense.
It is not difficult for someone with decent legal writing and reasoning skills to write a brief or opinion to support any proposition whatsoever.
The validity of a brief is rarely in what is said, but in what is ignored.
Cannon did not err on the law.
The fundamental law in question here is the US constitution, and the key portion in question is the 4th amendment.
The right to be secure in your person papers and property.
Trump alleged that right was violated. That in conjunction with the fact that a search warrant was executed is all that is necescary for a federal trial court to have jurisdiction.
The key holding of the 11th appeal is there was no jurisdiction.
The key holding is in error – OBVIOUSLY.
If you can not go to court when a constitutional right – an ENUMERATED constitutional right is infringed on,
Then that right does not exist.
Defense lawyers across the country joke – with a bit of truth that the 4th amendment is gone.
But the courts still pay minimal lip service to it.
Trump or anyone else is entitled to challenge a violation of their 4th amendment rights in court.
The very existence of Special Masters in other cases is proof of that.
The fact that the appeals court got its most fundamental holding wrong should entirely end the debate.
I do not doubt that the opinion is well written and sliver tongued. My wife clerked for a federal judge years ago.
If the judges and clerks in a federal appellate court can not write opinions that are not compelling in a vacuum,
they should retire.
Frankly every court clerk and judge at this level should be able to write an opinion with any conclusion that had better be both well written and hold together well – in a vacuum.
My wife won the moot court competition at UofP arguing a position that she did not believe in and was completely wrong.
That is what a good lawyer is supposed to be able to do.
And that is precisely why the constitution is so important. Why it is the anchor of the rule of law.
No,
Please familiarize yourself with the facts.
Getting the facts straight is very difficult for Enigma.
This is the jurisdiction of the corrupt, globalist, communist Deep Deep State.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is a subsidiary of the Deep Deep State and the personification of corruption.
President Trump has been prosecuted more actively and maliciously than any mobster, mobster-in-politician’s-clothing, or otherwise innocuous “white collar” criminal.
The American Founders are rolling over in their graves at the corruption that oozes up from the depths of the Deep Deep State sewer and the destruction of their creation.
Contemporary America is more corrupt than the brutal British Empire in 1776, or the wholly unconstitutional “Reign of Terror” of the egregious high criminal, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, who tyrannically nullified the Constitution in one, disgusting, antithetical, unconstitutional, savage and barbarian fell swoop.
Ben Franklin admonished that you couldn’t keep it.
You couldn’t.
You didn’t.
________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
If the court would have allowed a Special Master in this case they would have had to allow a Special Master for Biden when a review of his association with the Chinese giving money to Hunter to payJoe’s bills is investigated. A Special Master could also be requested by Hillary Clinton when the contents of her secret unsecured server is investigated. I say equal investigations for all.
That’s why you’re so tone deaf and defocused on every topic.
Solid and righteous slap down of a frivolous attempt to judge shop and delay by fat Nixon.
Why does this chud spend half the article defending Cannon’s ridiculous decision that has now been rejected by 4 Federal Court judges (this panel and the SCOTUS judge who denied the Trump appeal). Turley’s fascination with defending Trump and Cannon is just demented. HE STOLE OUR DOCUMENTS, Jon. They were in his house. He lied to the DOJ about what he had, when he knew he STOLE them and they’re ours.
I’d love Jon to write such sympathetic coverage about what happened to Reality Winner
Musk has suspended Kanye West’s Twitter account for his antisemitism. Will Turley condemn this, given his argument that free speech be protected on Twitter?
Oops, so much for free speech absolutism.
You hold the Swastika on your chest as a badge of honor. You act like a Nazi, sound like a Nazi and now you emulate a Nazi with their logo.
Your boy Trump is the one who invited Hitler-afficionado Kanye West to dinner.
People that are worldly and deal with important things sometimes have to meet with insufferable people. As a worthless individual you don’t have to meet with anyone, but you show your Swastikas and Hammer & Sickle all the time.
You show your true colors by pretending that Trump “had to” meet with Kanye West.
Trump invited the Hitler afficianado to dinner, and no one forced him to do it. Make all the excuses you want, but you cannot change that fact.
You continue to look in the mirror as you write.
You are a little squirt who doesn’t get his hands dirty while he makes a mess of things that other people have to clean up. Sometimes they are faced with dirty hands, but the real producer of hate and lies. is the one who wears gloves concealing his hands.. Calling ATS one of those who wears gloves would give him too much credit. ATS is nothing more than a common liar who keeps himself clean by using an anonymous name and icon..
You’re ATS. Still talking about yourself, I see.
What a wimp you are ATS. One has to take a shower after dealing with you.
You show your true colors by pretending that Trump “had to” meet with Kanye West.
Because your the kind of friend that abondons those in time of need. Because “it looks bad”
Why are you friends with a Hilter lover?
If you’re friends with a Hitler lover and you don’t confront them about it to try to get them to abandon it, then you’re doing friendship wrong.
This comes from a person who probably assumes vandalism and placing swastikas on the walls of synagogues is something to cheer about.
Had you lived in Nazi Germany, you’d have been in the Jews for Hitler.
You can say what you wish, but you talk like a Nazi and act like one. If it served your ends, you would be the first to place Nazi graffiti on the walls of Jewish houses of worship.
You stare in the mirror as you talk.
I see you Turley, always misleading by portraying criticism of Cannon as attacks on all Trump appointees. Your implied defense of Judge Cannon is what leads your followers to believe some injustice was done here. Any other person besides Trump would have had other properties searched as well once the Justice Dept. realized they didn’t have all the stolen documents. Jonathan Turley is becoming America’s Neville Chamberlain.
I believe America is now in final throes as described by Alexis de Tocqueville. Selah
Key Takeaways:
– Jim Jordan accused the FBI of purging conservatives from the agency.
– The FBI scrambled to respond, claiming only a “small number” of employees were accused.
– The agency has been in the dog house for years, over public politically-motivated scandals.
https://thepatriotjournal.com/jim-jordan-fbi-political-bias-washington/
Jim Jordan likes to make clams to rile up his base just as Turley does. He wants to make the FBI and the DOJ look as bad as they can so that it’s credibility and their work is diminished. That’s what people who have something to hide do.. Attack the credibility of those who can put them in jail or prosecute them because they have the law on their side.
😂 I knew you couldn’t resist stepping on that rake. Jordan is speaking to a base that is already riled because the FBI/DOJ have been working overtime to destroy their own credibility. Time will tell what the House investigations will factually reveal, but I have no doubt that Jim Jordan won’t need to do a Schiff-esque parody on the House floor.
ROFL. Anything Jordan asks should be met with a reminder that he did *nothing* in the face of systemic sexual abuse.
All Jim Jordan will do is put on another Benghazi sideshow for his most gullible fans.
Did not the FBI lie on the FISA requests and in other areas as well?
We all know they did. Why are you in the dark?
It doesn’t require much effort to make the FBI and the DOJ look bad.
Jim Jordan knew that athletes were being sexually abused and did nothing. He’s a pig.
Crooked operations and bribery are linked to Biden, are illegal operations and bribery, but the FBI has been slow to investigate. Yet this twit has fought to prevent anyone from knowing the truth. The lies never stop when he is around.
Talk to Tara Read. You know. Real actual rape. Shes asking Congress to investigate, because the Democrat party Stasi/FBI refuses.
Fine by me. No doubt you also want them to investigate the alleged rapes by Trump, right?
The investigation of Trump rapes are done and nothing was found. They have yet investigated you for rape. Why is that?
Congress did not investigate Trump for rape.
Trump is currently being sued in a civil rape suit in NY. Should prove interesting.
Your sick imagined accusation about me only underscores what a vile person you are.
No, what I said underscores how sick you and the people you associate with are. You create bogus claims about your opposition. You are proven wrong and wrong again, but do not stop and produce more bogus claims.
Now you accuse him of rape again, despite the number of years and the claims that didn’t hold water. Considering your way of sliming others, your proclivity of using bogus claims, your prurient interests, and your repetitive accusations against others, one has the right to assume those things you accuse others of are done by yourself. Are you a rapist, or is it a necessary desire of yours to blame innocent people for things that occupy your mind? This question is legitimate because few people act in the fashion you do.
The Trial – Kafka
Josef K. = Donald T.
-Bullseye-