Mistrial for Manhattan Trump case??
- Thread starter Michiah-Imla
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
mailmandan
Well-Known Member
Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
@RedFan
I would hope you might have hear Mark Levin last night because he laid it all out.
You can hear it right here
It is the first 16 min 8 sec on the direct appeal to SCOTUS
Everyone should see this... but especially you.
Last edited:
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
I suggest every American Christian share this video on every forum they're a member of.
It's vital that we realize the depths the Demonic Left are plummeting to just to stop this man,this one legally qualified candidate for the presidency, from achieving the office they stole from him in 2020.
The opponents to Trump's presidency in the lay public can't seem to realize,if he was such a bad president the first term of service,why is their favored Satanic party of elected officials and their paid dupes,resorting to blatantly public illegal tactics so to stop Trump from gaining the office again?
There can never be the answer that says,because he was bad for the country in the first place. And they don't want him to make it worse a second time around.
The Demonic Satanic elected Demoncrats have shown time and again,they are the enemies of America.
This Trump public illegal circus in the NY courts isn't a one off. It's a warning for every American.
Lady Liberty in that NY courtroom was hanged from the scales of justice using her own blindfold.
When Liberty through the Law is murdered, we're next.
Donald is my brother in Christ. We should be outraged this system in NY is insuring once again our vote means nothing.
Which is what happens when federal law is violated so to remove a Christian Republican candidate from the ballot in November 2024.
Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
I did and with my email list also.
He has his meeting today or tomorrow with his probation officer who is going to recommend to the judge the sentencing he will get.
I hope and pray he keeps his cool cause if Trump is Trump they could throw the book at him... in the meantime what I think is happening is going first through the NY appeals end and those expletive are not going to do anything to really help. Alina Hava (I know spelled wrong) said that it was being worked on but evidently they seem to be waiting for the actual
sentencing...
I simply don't trust that Todd Blanche. I think he is weak...
And Donald has a terrible habit of picking lousy attorneys. Someone should have told him not all are up to the task.
Cant say I even trust SCOTUS at this point cause they are sitting on that immunity deal.
I heard that they do opinions on Thursdays. And there are not a lot of Thursdays left in June.
(The FL judge will not allow the case to be dismissed but said she is striking one paragraph in the complaint.... We dont know what is in there... yet. That was just on Fox)
SCOTUS' new term will start in the fall... I just saw this
In a list of orders released on Monday morning, the Supreme Court added one new case to its argument docket for the 2024-25 term. With roughly one month remaining before the justices’ summer recess, during which they traditionally do not grant new petitions for review, the justices now have only 10 cases on their schedule for next term, well below their pace in prior terms.
So no way to fast track SCOTUS doing anything even if they would be willing based on ideas from Levins commentary.
So I pray that Trump behaves himself and does not tell the probation person the judge is conflicted... cause it wont go well. It still nay not if the NY probation person is a Dem.
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer but
OK, I have listened to Levin. He is mistaken on many fronts.
Lets start with his spiel on the All Writs Act, which authorizes federal courts to intervene in lower court proceedings when necessary to aid or preserve the writ-issuing court's jurisdiction or effectuate its judgments. It cannot be used to intervene in a state court case except to do this. (An example would be a federal court enjoining a plaintiff from filing a state court lawsuit that seeks to relitigate what a federal court has already decided.) The Anti-Injunction Act provides that federal courts "may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments." 28 U.S.C. § 2283. So it does not apply to Trump's state court conviction, as the state court process does not deprive any federal court of its jurisdiction nor render ineffective any judgment of a federal court.
Next comes his invocation of federal preemption, by which a federal court can declare a state statute preempted by an Act of Congress when either the state statute interferes with the implementation of the federal statute or stands as an obstacle to full achievement of the Congressional purpose expressed in a federal statute. Trump cannot get any New York statute at issue in his case declared preempted by a federal statute because no such state statute does either one.
Then there is his suggestion that the U.S. Supreme Court could, if requested, pull the case out of the New York court system now. Not true. As long as further appellate review is available within the state court system SCOTUS can't take up the case. Only when state appeals are no longer available can SCOTUS do so. An example is “Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 517 (1968), where the Court said "There being no further right to appeal within the Texas judicial system, appellant appealed to this Court; we noted probable jurisdiction.”
This is also where Levin's reference to Bush v. Gore trips up. SCOTUS took up that case after the Florida Supreme Court had already ruled! So there were no state court appellate options left open to the litigants, which would preclude SCOTUS review.
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
Let me give you a bit of free advice before I put you on Ignore.
NEVER lie and claim to be an attorney or lawyer.
It doesn't impress anyone.
It fails even more when said liar,yet another anti-Trump Troll, is foolish enough to use Wikipedia to issue forth their ridiculous argument against an actual Lawyer, Mark Levin.
Your uncredited source: (Real members of the bar don't use Wikipedia. They utilize Westlaw,or other law libraries.)
Anti-Injunction Act - Wikipedia
I only bothered to check one part of your copy and paste that includes some free form thought you imagined would make your post appear as your original intellectual property. Fail! Huge Red Flag,fail!
One source was enough. Because ,like court proceedings and false testimony,when someone will lie after being entrusted under oath to speak the truth,nothing else they say is to be deemed credible.
Pose on.
You've been busted.
Last edited:
Thanks for the advice, but I AM a lawyer. A 1979 graduate of Cornell Law School. Message me if you want proof.
Nothing I said was lifted from Wikipedia. Compare both, and you'll see that.
Yes everyone should see that from Mark Levin and all, they are spot on correct.
Because whomever they want to target is next!
President Trump was 100% on the money when he said it's not him they are after, it's the rest of us, only, he's standing in the way.
Much love!
As long as further appellate review is available within the state court system SCOTUS can't take up the case. Only when state appeals are no longer available can SCOTUS do so. An example is “Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 517 (1968), where the Court said "There being no further right to appeal within the Texas judicial system, appellant appealed to this Court; we noted probable jurisdiction.”
Try this: Supreme Court Review of State Court Decisions
Last edited:
You stopped reading too soon. 1970, Two Lawyers hiked for miles in the woods to meet with a Supreme Justice about Police Actions against protesters in Portland. The debate took hours. No ruling by the State Appeals Court. The answer was nailed to a stump at the foot of the mountain. “Bring it to the court.”
You have to study.to look at the record, instead of stopping where thought you had the answer.
Your example doesn’t say anything about exceptions. Your example stated what you thought proved your position.
Go further. Everyone of these lawyers and Judges have a problem. They operated outside “The color of the law.” They can be disbarred and removed from courts and benches.
I got a ridiculous traffic ticket overturned because I risked going to see a judge. My attorney and DA came to an agreement. I would plead guilty to littering and improper passing or speeding whatever was least. Had no Idea the Judge I saw would my Judge. We spent two hours looking at statutes and laws. I didn’t throw the cup out the window. Cop took my Driver’s License and me follow him and wait til he finished traffic accident. My violation jumped to reckless driving when the cop was almost hit during the stop.
Imagine a courtroom when name is called, I walked down and the Judge shouts out “Ray! How are you doing!?” “Fine judge!” DA starts to talk…Judge interrupts “I’ve already decided. Ray is not guilty of littering. Is he Sam? That cup came the passenger side of car. Someone else over 18, committed that crime. The reckless driving charge is because you hate Auburn kids and he is the Grandson of one of Shugs best recruiters. You almost got killed by someone else. Not Ray’s fault.” “ Clerk, what is least amount of points and dollars for the charge?” “Improper Passing, $35 dollars, 2 points.” I’ve got a Deputy and DA going out of their minds. Judge is now yelling at Barney Fife…Sam, I’ve told you time and again. Stop messing with these Auburn kids.”
“Ray, get out of here”
I called him days later and took him fishing. I learned a lot from that old Judge.
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
I don't have a clue what you are trying to establish with this "in the woods" encounter. U.S. Supreme Court CANNOT REVIEW a state court conviction while there are still appeals available within the state court system. Period. Do you need to hear it from Fox News in order to believe it? Fine.
Judge Jeanine: We have gone over a cliff | Fox News Video
(Note her statement "No, it can’t go to the Supreme Court unless they exhaust all of the state court appeals.")
Last edited:
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
- ArtIII.S1.6.1 Overview of Relationship Between Federal and State Courts
The bigger picture:
ArtIII.S2.C2.5 Supreme Court Review of State Court Decisions
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Editing to add:
So true! All we can rely on is God of the Bible!
Good article! I particularly like this part of it:
"The current statute authorizing Supreme Court review of state court decisions allows the Court to review the judgments of “the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had.” This is often the state’s court of last resort, but it may be an intermediate appellate court or a trial court, if its judgment is final under state law and cannot be reviewed by any state appellate court."
Well, @bluedragon, both I and @BlessedPeace have steered you toward this article. Have you come around yet?
The Supreme Court has made decisions jumping ver the state court ......Try Gore vs. Bush in Florida /////
Supreme Court finally jumped in and said "No more"
Only to taken behind the woodshed and sent back to school.
You are too easy at this. Definitely not near the researcher you "Think" you are.
While the Constitution did not directly address state sovereign immunity, it certainly was discussed at Constitution ratification debates and, by many accounts, garnered the strong support of prominent Framers,11 though not all.12 Nevertheless, its textual absence posed a problem that the Supreme Court confronted shortly after ratification in Chisholm v. Georgia.13 In a suit brought by a South Carolina citizen against the state of Georgia to recover a Revolutionary War debt, the Court held that sovereign immunity did not protect the state of Georgia when sued by a citizen of another state in federal court.14 The Court adopted a literal reading of the text of Article III, which extends federal judicial power to “all Cases” involving federal law “in which a State shall be a party” and to “Controversies . . . between a State and Citizens of another State[,]”15 in finding that the federal courts had jurisdiction to hear the suit.
The decision surprised all and infuriated most,16 and, within two years, Congress had passed, and the states ratified, the Eleventh Amendment with near unanimity:17
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.18
Similar threads
