Is the Document case reaching a critical juncture?

[Marvin the Martian]

I stopped reading at “bizarre orders”.

So that is your version of the "ignore button"?

 

[mcmurtry66]

I don't know. You guys have developed this whole wrap everything up in magic thing so only other lawyers understand what's going on. If the sort of rulings of "this will be decided in trial" is normal, then it is normal. I don't have any idea ( I know, words never spoken on a message board).

when you hear national media articles etc it's just hard to apply generalizations to districts and courts that have their own rules and way of doing things. that's why you always want to hire someone who practices in that courthouse where possible

 

[mcmurtry66]

I don't know. You guys have developed this whole wrap everything up in magic thing so only other lawyers understand what's going on. If the sort of rulings of "this will be decided in trial" is normal, then it is normal. I don't have any idea ( I know, words never spoken on a message board).

my company is negotiating a deal as we speak that involves IP, a university, and two other companies. we met with lawyers yesterday to discuss whether we should do a new llc, a joint venture, etc. the outfit we are doing a deal with is massive. we are nobody. we have zero power but magic beans that they want but can certainly live with out. we were there for 3 hours as the corp lawyers hypo'd to death every nonsensical thing that could play out but will never happen yet would create hundreds of pages of documents that if we used and/or submitted to the other side they would look at and say GET THE F OUT OF HERE. each field of law has its own magic thing and too many no longer have the ability to relate to normal people. Keep it simple stupid is long gone and htat's all we wanted despite stroking a five figure retainer i balked over.

lawyers suck

 

[BradStevens]

I don't know. You guys have developed this whole wrap everything up in magic thing so only other lawyers understand what's going on. If the sort of rulings of "this will be decided in trial" is normal, then it is normal. I don't have any idea ( I know, words never spoken on a message board).

Marv, judges aren't so much different than most of us. Many judges delay big decisions in cases, in a hope that the parties might work things out or other things might happen that will obviate the need for a ruling. They might want to keep all options open, especially when they are being scrutinized so closely by the world in this case. All these people saying they are experts in cases like this are full of it--Trump is the first former President and current nominee to be tried in court on criminal charges during his election campaign. Its new territory for everyone.

Do all judges delay things this much? No. Do many? Yes. I just got a decision in a motion to dismiss from a NY fed judge that he had been sitting on for a year-- and he had to decide that. I have another with a judge in Chicago (also fed ct) that is also nearly a year old. And he is precisely the kind of judge that would not rule on things going into a trial, too.

Also remember, this isn't Cannon's only case. She has hundreds of others, also with tough decisions to make. She's not going to get every ruling 100% correct, but she's going to do her best and I have yet to see any evidence that she is some kind of Trump lackey.

 

[BradStevens]

my company is negotiating a deal as we speak that involves IP, a university, and two other companies. we met with lawyers yesterday to discuss whether we should do a new llc, a joint venture, etc. the outfit we are doing a deal with is massive. we are nobody. we have zero power but magic beans that they want but can certainly live with out. we were there for 3 hours as the corp lawyers hypo'd to death every nonsensical thing that could play out but will never happen yet would create hundreds of pages of documents that if we used and/or submitted to the other side they would look at and say GET THE F OUT OF HERE. each field of law has its own magic thing and too many no longer have the ability to relate to normal people. Keep it simple stupid is long gone and htat's all we wanted despite stroking a five figure retainer i balked over.

lawyers suck

Call me. I'll paper your deal for you for the small price of a lifetime supply of gummies.

 

[BradStevens]

Call me. I'll paper your deal for you for the small price of a lifetime supply of gummies.

Of course, I'll be writing up those docs on said gummies and you get what you pay for, but damn it would make for great WC content.

I mean, if you're going to take financial advice from @Baller23Boogie . . .

 

[mcmurtry66]

Of course, I'll be writing up those docs on said gummies and you get what you pay for, but damn it would make for great WC content.

I mean, if you're going to take financial advice from @Baller23Boogie . . .

All in creative fonts

 

[Baller23Boogie]

Of course, I'll be writing up those docs on said gummies and you get what you pay for, but damn it would make for great WC content.

I mean, if you're going to take financial advice from @Baller23Boogie . . .

Brad, I'm not to busy now to take you on as a client.

I'm confident I can grow your portfolio by 10s of dollars.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Marv, judges aren't so much different than most of us. Many judges delay big decisions in cases, in a hope that the parties might work things out or other things might happen that will obviate the need for a ruling. They might want to keep all options open, especially when they are being scrutinized so closely by the world in this case. All these people saying they are experts in cases like this are full of it--Trump is the first former President and current nominee to be tried in court on criminal charges during his election campaign. Its new territory for everyone.

Do all judges delay things this much? No. Do many? Yes. I just got a decision in a motion to dismiss from a NY fed judge that he had been sitting on for a year-- and he had to decide that. I have another with a judge in Chicago (also fed ct) that is also nearly a year old. And he is precisely the kind of judge that would not rule on things going into a trial, too.

Also remember, this isn't Cannon's only case. She has hundreds of others, also with tough decisions to make. She's not going to get every ruling 100% correct, but she's going to do her best and I have yet to see any evidence that she is some kind of Trump lackey.

Thanks for the reply, I was curious if this was so out of the ordinary. Appears it isn't usual, but isn't rare.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So that is your version of the "ignore button"?

Yes. I don’t need a button.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Yes. I don’t need a button.

Didn't you say recently that shallow minds don't read what they disagree with? What difference does it make if there is a button, or just not doing it?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

. we were there for 3 hours as the corp lawyers hypo'd to death every nonsensical thing that could play out but will never happen yet would create hundreds of pages of documents that if we used and/or submitted to the other side they would look at and say GET THE F OUT OF HERE.

This happens in transactions, litigation, and everything a lawyer does. All that crap is a sure sign of lack of confidence and insecurity. I was so exasperated one time I said that to opposing counsel and she went berserk.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Didn't you say recently that shallow minds don't read what they disagree with? What difference does it make if there is a button, or just not doing it?

I read everything I want to. All decisions are case by case and in real time. That not the same as an ignore button.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Call me. I'll paper your deal for you for the small price of a lifetime supply of gummies.

Gummies? Is that the next thing? Should I be buying gummy futures?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Gummies? Is that the next thing? Should I be buying gummy futures?

No. It’s not. Which figures

 

[DANC]

I am not disagreeing, I like to think the best of people. But a blog I occasionally read had below sent to them from a lawyer. Do you think there is something to her not actually ruling against Trump, just saying she isn't going to rule on it until the trial? That if she rules the PRA protects Trump and gives a directed verdict, there is no recourse for the prosecution even if the Supremes and Appeals court would disagree. Were her rulings that these things have to be decided in the trial and not before consistent with most other cases?

I've dug into the Cannon's recent "rulings," which aren't really rulings at all, and the consequences are more severe than is being reported.​

​

First, let's orient everyone as to where we are. What prompted these bizarre orders are several motions to dismiss that Donald Trump's counsel has filed. So far, Cannon has not ruled on most of these. One of those motions to dismiss claims that Trump cannot be prosecuted under the Espionage Act because the Presidential Records Act is a complete defense to that charge as it allows presidents to determine for themselves what records are personal and what are not. The highly classified documents that Trump took and refused to return are, therefore, "personal" records because he wants them for himself. An element of the crime of "willful retention" under the Espionage Act is "unauthorized possession" and Trump claims the PRA nullifies this element of the charge.​

​

As readers may recall, Cannon expressed some skepticism about one motion to dismiss based on claims that the Espionage Act is unconstitutionally "vague" and ultimately denied this motion. But she denied it without prejudice, which means she is explicitly allowing Trump to revisit this claim later. And in that context, she also issued this bizarre order for each side to submit proposed jury instructions by April 2 based on the two scenarios that (V) laid out on Thursday: (1) whether the PRA allows the president to decide what's personal and what's not,or (2) whether the jury should review the records and determine what's personal.​

​

Everyone agrees that either of these scenarios is in direct conflict with the law. But what has not been reported on much are the potential procedural problems with that order, which Special Counsel Jack Smith's team is teeing up in their filing in response to the order. First, jury instructions are typically not decided on by the judge until after the jury has been empaneled and sworn. Once the jury is sworn, jeopardy attaches. You see where I'm going with this. If the judge issues these erroneous instructions to the jury and Trump is acquitted as a result, there's nothing the federal prosecutors can do. He skates. Not only that, but Cannon can issue a directed verdict before the case even goes to the jury acquitting Trump based on those same instructions. Again, there's no appeal from an acquittal and double jeopardy prevents Trump from being tried again on those charges. (Contrast that with a directed verdict after a jury conviction, which CAN be appealed.)​

​

So, here's what Smith and his team are setting up. They are telling Cannon that she must decide these issues now, or they will petition the Eleventh Circuit for a writ of mandamus. Normally, only final rulings are appealable, and this is not one, but a prosecutor can request appellate review using a writ for "extraordinary" relief. And the situation here certainly seems to meet that criteria. The showing required is: (1) clear error; (2) lack of adequate, alternate remedy and (3) irreparable injury. As Roger Parloff points out in this piece written for Lawfare, there are very few examples of this being tried, but most prosecutors who DID try were successful.​

​

There are parallels to the situation Smith is facing—the Third Circuit case Parloff cites is an example where the Court found that "if jury deliberations guided by the erroneous instruction end in an acquittal, the injury to the government will be irremediable." Also: "We find that the adoption of a clearly erroneous jury instruction that entails a high probability of failure of a prosecution—a failure the government could not then seek to remedy by appeal or otherwise—constitutes the kind of extraordinary situation in which we are empowered to issue the writ of mandamus." While those cases aren't from the Eleventh Circuit, the standard is the same. And the Eleventh Circuit has some experience with having to "correct" Cannon for getting the law completely wrong and issuing crazy orders as a result—having done so twice—so they could already be primed to issue this type of extraordinary relief.​

​

It has been clear for a while that not only is Cannon slow-walking this case and indulging every delay tactic that Trump's team brings, but she is also deliberately avoiding making any rulings that Smith can appeal. And now it seems that she is setting up a Trump acquittal through the use of erroneous jury instructions. So, at this point, Smith has no choice but to get the Eleventh Circuit involved and at the same time, to try to get her removed from the case. If Smith is forced to take a writ and the Eleventh Circuit accepts it, I don't see how they leave her on the case. And if they act with some alacrity, I wouldn't be surprised if the new judge appointed to the case fast-tracked this thing since there are really no facts in dispute and the law is very clear and not at all complicated. That could add an entirely new dimension to the upcoming election if this case goes to trial, say, this summer and the Jan. 6 criminal trial begins in the Fall.​

Wow, that's Cosmix-esque!

 

[mcmurtry66]

I think Cannon is doing what she can to help Trump while trying not to get her decisions reversed or removed from the case

Oh you do Hick? Have a lot of experience in this area do ya? Dockets and scheduling and motion practice. Areas you are pretty familiar with Hick? How fed court operates? Local rules and what not? Fing Grover