Irregularities in Trump s hush money trial suggest politically motivated corruption
Inbox
Jane Burgermeister <jmburgermeister@gmail.com>
14:25 (0 minutes ago)
to jared.dilley, Kevin.Eichinger, Cameron.Warner, Drew.Griffin, Rachel.Rattore, David.Wirt, Mike.Smullen, Jessica.Weltge, Sarah.Keeler, Hillary.Gross, Alex.Briggs, Tim.Ross, Dallas.Gerber, consumerinterest, consumer.help, Kris, Contact, Doonbeg.Reception, info, michelle.lampkin, dtrump, press, press, Mona_Doyle, hawaiiag, ago.info.help, newcases, sao17, fernando.calderon
Dear Donald Trump,
I am writing to you over my concerns you are the victim of a system of corrupted justice and lawfare which is documented in Greece in official prosecutor probes and their violations to allow the mega donors of the Democrat Party, Alex and George Soros as well as Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett to escape trial for attempted murder against a reporter as discussed here.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xmvdermyzjhnje9z1hbkq/GRKProsecutorProbesConvictSoros-GatesOfMurderAttemptsOnReporter.pdf?rlkey=n4gz1whwa9vj8iktkg7ymxn6v&st=obi9i3b4&dl=0
I will refer to these proceedings in this submission to high parallels.
The crucial parallel is the misuse of the justice system to eliminate, defame and imprison political and media targets of the Billionaires Soros, Gates and Buffett.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL INTEREST OF THE JUDGE MERCHAN S DECISION
The hush money trial decision has already influenced the election and American politics for years to come and should be looked at by the Supreme Court as a vital matter of national interest.
It will determine whether free and fair elections are possible in future of if the party in power uses its influence over the judiciary to frame and imprison political opponents in order to ensure they win the elections.
Democracy itself is at stake.
The continuation of the rule of law and Constitution is at stake as discussed below.
When the public feels on considering the facts that the presidential candidate and main political opposition to the ruling party has been convicted and is to be sentenced to prison just ahead of elections for political motives in a highly irregular trial violating the principles of the rule of law and democracy, by judges and prosecutors allied to that ruling party, then it will have consequences.
It will shake faith in the justice system, in democracy, in fair and free elections.
The Constitution guarantees Americans the right to fair and free elections.
That means the political opposition, which is Donald Trump, cannot be convicted and put in prison by courts allied to the ruling party just weeks before the elections or after the elections and especially not when there is no or not enough robust legal authority as discussed below.
Even former NY Governor Andrew Cuomo has said that if the charges had not involved Trump, the prosecution would have come to nothing.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4734858-andrew-cuomo-donald-trump-alvin-bragg-hush-money-case-new-york/
Cuomo, in an interview Friday on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” argued that the case should have “never” been brought forward.
“If his name was not Donald Trump and if he wasn’t running for president … I’m the former AG of in New York, [and] I’m telling you that case would’ve never been brought.”
“That’s what is offensive to people, and it should be because if there’s anything left, it’s belief in the justice system,” he added.
This is the view of a Democrat and the former Attorney General of New York
If giving 130,000 USD of his own money to a consenting adult porn star using an alternative method of payment with the approval and help and perhaps instigation of his accountant, Michael Cohen, can be a 34 felony count crime, then virtually everything can be a crime that any citizen does as discussed.
NY laws making the falsification of book keeping records a felony are designed to target cases where there is harm done to investors, stake holders etc and not every book keeping entry where there is no harm.
The Constitution protecting citizens from state overreach and arbitrary arrest and imprisonment has been sidelined.
Rand Paul has said the lawfare against Trump threatens the Constitutional rights of all Americans.
https://www.paul.senate.gov/op_eds/newsmax-op-ed-paul-lawfare-eviscerates-american-judicial-process/
The entanglements of Judge Merchan, his wife and daughter with the Democrat Party raise legitimate suspicion Judge Merchan is misusing his office to eliminate a political opponent under the colour of law.
Yet, Merchan has refused to see a problem with these conflicts of interests and step aside.
The facts show he and his family are involved in conflicts of interests. His conduct of the trial shows irregularities and bias. Yet, he persists in accusing Trump of "innuendo" and "mischaracterization" when Trump brings up these facts.
Trump has a right to a fair trial overseen by judges who do not have similar conflicts of interest. It is being denied to him.
What makes the case significant is that Trump is the main political opposition to the Democrat Party whose mega donors include George and Alex Soros.
Judge Merchan and the Democrats have tried to present this extraordinary irregular application fo the law to target Trump as the fair and equitable application of the law. Trump, they claim, has been treated like anyone else.
But Trump is a political opposition to the Democrats and there are vital constitutional and legal issues to be addressed and the Supreme Court is the best place for this.
A FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED HUSH MONEY CONVICTION
THE LOGICAL AND LEGAL FALLACY BEHIND 34 FELONY COUNTS FOR A SINGLE OVERARCHING ALLEGED FELONY
FRST, the alleged offence which onal Trump committed is a single offence which should carry a single felony conviction at most.
The alleged offense is composed of many separate actions, specifically of 34 book keeping.
But the individual book keeping entries that make up the offense are not each and every one a separate felony as they have become.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
The conviction for 34 separate felonies for a single offence shows a systematic flaw and bias in the arguments of the prosecutor and in the Judge overseeing the case.
Some action against Trump may be justified. A penalty may be justified for using an alternative accounting method but it should be a light one in proportion to a scheme which caused no harm and involved three consenting adults, such as, for example, a civil penalty if any penalty should be imposed.
Moreover, it should be imposed on Michael Cohen as the architect of the scheme.
Unjustified are the creation of 34 felonies out of 34 book keeping records by prosecutors and judges.
The flawed and false reasoning is called "the fallacy of division when one reasons that something is true for a whole whole must also be true of all or some of its parts."
It shows bias for Alvin Bragg and Judge Merchan to have allowed Trump to be convicted for 34 felonies when they knew or should know that he actually committed one alleged felony made up of 34 separate elements. Taken on their own, each one of the 34 book keeping entries do not represent an offense. They are just book keeping entries like any other and only take on the character of an offense if an overarching scheme to hide 130 K in hush money is involved, and the 34 entries are identified as enabling that scheme.
The single alleged offense is composed of many separate actions, specifically of 34 book keeping entries. But these are not 34 separate felony counts.
This failure of basic logic can be seen when we look at the conviction of Bernie Madoff. Madoff was convicted of fraud, money laundering and other related crimes.
He was not convicted for every one of the possibly thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of book keeping entries, which he made to carry out his fraud.
To recap
Bernie Madoff was an American financier who orchestrated the largest Ponzi scheme in history, collecting about $65 billion that he had no intention of investing.
Bernie promised investors high returns in exchange for their investments but their money was not invested. Madoff deposited it into a bank account, which he freely used to fund his lavish lifestyle. Withdrawals were funded out of new deposits, keeping the fraud going for decades.
During the 2008 recession, Madoff could no longer meet the redemption requests. His sons turned him in to the authorities.
Madoff was convicted of fraud, money laundering, and other related crimes, for which he was sentenced to 150 years in federal prison. He died in prison on April 14, 2021, at the age of 82.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bernard-madoff.asp#:~:text=Madoff%20was%20convicted%20of%20fraud,at%20the%20age%20of%2082.
Key takeaway
Trump has committed one alleged felony offence and not 34 offences.
His single alleged offence was composed of multiple book keeping entries similarly to the crimes of Bernie Madoff. He should be convicted for every book keeping entry which form the parts of the single offence.
Another parallel would be if, for example, the offence of burglary. This is broken down into various elements to determine the degree of harm and so the nature of the sentence. But the different elements which belong to burglary like trespass, damaging property by breaking a window, theft etc do not form separate offences. The elements are subsumed under one broad offense called burglary.
Below are the details of those 34 felony counts in Trump’s hush money trial
Trump was charged with falsifying business records in the first degree.
Invoices for legal services
Guilty on 11 of 11 charges
Checks paid for legal services
Guilty on 11 of 11 charges
Ledger entries for legal expenses
Guilty on 12 of 12 charges
COUNT VERDICT BUSINESS RECORD DATE
1 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Feb. 14, 2017
2 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457 Feb. 14, 2017
3 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842460 Feb. 14, 2017
4 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 000138 Feb. 14, 2017
5 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust March 16, 2017
6 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 846907 March 17, 2017
7 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 000147 March 17, 2017
8 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump April 13, 2017
9 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858770 June 19, 2017
10 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002740 June 19, 2017
11 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump May 22, 2017
12 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 855331 May 22, 2017
13 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002700 May 23, 2017
14 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump June 16, 2017
15 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858772 June 19, 2017
16 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002741 June 19, 2017
17 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump July 11, 2017
18 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 861096 July 11, 2017
19 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002781 July 11, 2017
20 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump Aug. 1, 2017
21 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 863641 Aug. 1, 2017
22 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002821 Aug. 1, 2017
23 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump Sept. 11, 2017
24 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 868174 Sept. 11, 2017
25 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002908 Sept. 12, 2017
26 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump Oct. 18, 2017
27 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 872654 Oct. 18, 2017
28 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002944 Oct. 18, 2017
29 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump Nov. 20, 2017
30 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 876511 Nov. 20, 2017
31 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002980 Nov. 21, 2017
32 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump Dec. 1, 2017
33 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 877785 Dec. 1, 2017
34 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 003006 Dec. 5, 2017
Source: New York State Unified Court System
When we compare this list with a list of E class felonies we can see that this list lacks something that other E class felonies have.
Examples of Class E Felonies
Aggravated sexual abuse in the fourth degree (a violent felony)
Criminal mischief in the third degree (painting significant graffiti onto the wall of a building that doesn’t belong to you, for example)
Arson in the fourth degree (recklessly damaging someone else’s car with a fire you set, for instance)
Computer tampering in the third degree
Criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree
Welfare fraud in the fourth degree
Rape in the third degree
Falsifying business records in the fourth degree
Criminal sale of cannabis in the third degree
Criminal sexual act in the third degree
https://rendelmanlaw.com/what-is-a-new-york-class-e-felony/
The common denominator is clear.
It is harm, an action which causes loss and harm, to a person or to property, to the government or to a business.
There is a harm which fits a crime as defined by the criminal code.
The overarching crime is named and not the elements of which it is made.
Excluded from felonies are the vast majority of daily actions which do not cause harm or loss to others even if some part of the criminal code may touch on an aspect of them.
To include actions which do not cause harm or loss to others is to expand the state powers to the extent where a police state is created.
When the rights of people to freedom and liberty are no longer weighed in the balance with the harms they may cause, and any every day action can be a cause for their being deprived of their rights, we have a police state.
A police state violates constitutional rights.
Characteristically it violates the rights of political opponents and political opposition to the ruling party as we see in the case of Trump.
No harm to anyone has been shown in the Trump business records case.
The falsification of recoRds has not been demonstrated beyond a doubt.
The book keeping entries represent an alternative method of payment.
If falsification were demonstrated, then Trump s accountant, Michael Cohen, who sanctioned, agreed to and carried out the hush money deal should be convicted and in prison, not Trump.
Media report the deal was done with Cohen s knowledge and consent.
The jurors said they unanimously agreed that Trump falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.
The records pertain to a payment of 130,000 USD to a Porn Star made by Trump s accountant Michael Cohen with Cohen s knowledge and consent.
The sum paid to Cohen was recorded under various categories.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-charges-conviction-guilty-verdict/
To recap
Falsifying business records is a class one felony E category in NY because it is falsification is associated with financial harm to investors, banks etc as in the Bernie Madoff case.
In this case, there is no harm done. There is no physical harm, no harm to business partners, no harm to anyone.
Yet harm to others and the severity of harm determines whether something is a crime.
Some penalty for Trump may be justified but not 34 felonies and prison.
Only if harm to others is shown can a government justify infringing on basic rights such as the right to liberty, freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution.
Questions of harm and proportionality distinguish the police state from the rule of law and Constituion.
In a police state someone can be sentenced to 34 felonies for 34 book keeping entries which form a part of a single scheme, and put in prison with no harm shown to anyone.
In a police state someone can be sentenced to prison for their political views or their race as in Nazi Germany without every harming anyone by their views or race.
....
The records were not falsified to obtain a loan or an investment or fool shareholders if they were falsified at all and not just an alternative method of accounting for a relatively small personal and private sum.
We are not talking about falsifying records to hide a gigantic multi million dollar loss to investors to lure more investments or secure a loan like Bernie Madoff.
We are talking about a method of payment which caused no harm or loss to anyone but Trump and involving principally three consenting adults, Trump, his accountant, Michael Cohen, and the Porn Star.
It is not clear if Trump is guilty of falsifying records or organizing an alternative payment method.
If this approach were to be used consistently, possibly every single CEO of every company and business in the USA would be liable for dozens of felony offences. So, would the government because the government budget is one of the least transparent of all.
Trump could also have paid Daniels from his personal bank account without exposing himself to any legal consequences.
He could have gotten his family members to pay Daniels from their bank accounts without any legal consequences.
Instead, Michael Cohen paid from his account to hide the trial to Trump, but only partially as Cohen was, and is, well known as Trump s accountant.
Michael Cohen apparently proposed and certainly agreed to the alternative method of payment.
So, why is Cohen not convicted of 34 felonies instead of Trump for giving Trump the wrong advice if this alternative method of payment is 34 felonies? Cohen was Trump s accountant and so bore especial responsibility for giving Trump sound legal advice. If these 34 records constituted 34 felonies under NY law then Cohen should have stopped them from and told Trump to pay Daniels from his personal account or one of his family s personal bank accounts.
Cohen was paid by Trump to give him vital information concerning accountancy and felonies and warn him he was breaking the law.
How truthful are any of Cohen s claims against Trump when he as an accountant agreed of his free will to the deal in the first place which he now claims is 34 felonies?
SPECULATIONS ABOUT ELECTION INTERFERENCE BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS
The notion this was done to influence the 2016 election is broadly painted, speculative and irrelevant as countless actions were done by Trump and Biden and Obama to influence the outcome of the election. Influencing the public is an inherent part of politics.
Why does the prosecutor Bragg single out this payment as decisive for influencing the 2016 election? What is the basis? Have studies been done on this? Polls taken? Models made?
The agreement was made two weeks before the 2016 election. Would it have influenced the election?
The claims of the Porn star were all over the media so if it was hush money, it did not work.
It is, in fact, far more likely, the method of payment was done to avoid personal and family embarrassment. Trump is married and has a teenage son and young grandchildren. The media at the time of the election would have amplified the story.
The motive may have been personal and not political.
It may be justified to impute to Trump the motive of influencing the 2016 election but it is wrong to give this hypothesis the weight of certainty when it is highly speculative. It i based on the thin and contestable claims and untested assumptions and broadly describes all political campaigning.
Trump s hush money scandal may have had no impact on potential voters choices or even boosted his popularity among a large section.
Other motives of Trump might be avoiding personal and public embarrassment for his wife and children and grandchildren.
Trump may have wanted to conceal his involvement in a hush-money payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, who threatened before the 2016 election to disclose her story of sex with Mr. Trump for personal reasons, knowing the story would be amplified by the media and his wife and family would be constantly exposed to the story and upset.
But even if Trump were motivated in part to avoid a political scandal, that is no different from the Democrats trying to avoid a political scandals by misleading the public. For example, Democrat VP Tim Walz has been accused of lying about his National Guard record to influence the 2024 election.
The Democrats have been accused of hiding the mental decline of Biden to influence the public.
Winning elections involves influencing the public through countless acts.
There is no reason to believe Trump s singled out hiding the hush money as decisive to winning the 2016 election or for supposing it was decisive, or even marginally important with voters.
DOCUMENTED ENTANGLEMENTS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OF JUDGE MERCHAN
All the prosecutors and judges are linked in one way or another to the Democrat Party.
Judge Merchan s wife Lara worked in the office of the NY AG Letitia James for three years.
His daughter works for a company raising money for Democrat election candidates.
He gave a donation to the Democrats albeit small.
Small though the sum may have been, it telegraphed his allegiance.
Yet, to bring up these conflicts of interest is to be a "conspiracy theorist" "argumentative" "troublesome" according to those accused of conflicts of interests.
How objective can those accused of conflicts of interests be expected to be in assessing those conflicts?
They cannot be expected to be objective which is why a fair trial includes a right to a trial before a court and judge without similar conflicts of interests. This has so far been denied to Trump.
The timing of the lawfare is significant because the prosecution, conviction and sentencing have all accelerated when Trump declared he was running for president and as the November elections approach.
The plan to sentence Trump to prison on September 18th 2024 just six weeks before the election represents an attempt to overthrow democracy in the USA by
a) defamation and slander of a candidate (Alex Soros said Democrats should refer to him as a "convicted felon" at every opportunity)
b) physical imprisonment of Trump, meaning that he cannot take part in election activities
Because the facility is controlled by the same network engaged in mendaciously putting him in prison to win the election, his safety cannot be assured. The motive of malice is established. Inside prison, Trump could be killed with his murder reframed as sickness, the random assault of another prisoner etc.
AN UNJUSTIFIED GAG ORDER AND MEDIA BIAS AND A CAMPAIGN OF SLANDER AGAINST TRUMP
Trump is portrayed by the judge and the media funded largely by Soros as "troublesome", "argumentative" when he brings up any of the facts, or valid points suggesting their mendacity or bias as he has a right to do. Trump has a right to a fair trial. He has a right to call out political bias, conflicts of interest and bias of the judge and his family.
This is not a personal attack on the judge and his family. It is a legitimate concern of conflicts of interest which the judge and his family members are involved in and may motivate them to "rig" a trial.
To hear details is of a matter of great public interest. The public has a right to hear Trump s point of view.
There may actually be a kind of campaign of defamation against Trump s character going on and Judge Merchan may be a part of that campaign of slander and defamation as are media outlets funded by Soros, Gates and allied to the Democrats.
The public needs the details to decide.
The gag order is another highly questionable and can be seen as part of the same malicious scheme to misuse the law to imprison a political opponent while deceivng the public. The public should not know about the many irregularities in the trial, which encompass the acts of Trumps lawyer.
While media, often funded by mega Dem donors George and Alex Soros, present Judge Merchan as fair and averse to drama, a very different picture emerges when the details of the case are examined. The public has a right to know if a presidential candidate and the main opposition to the Democat Party is being treated fairly and to hearing Trump s side of the case.
Judge Merchan s motive for gagging Trump is clear. Merchan knew he was misusing his office and wanted to avoid exposure. A judge who is confident they really are administering justice impartially does not fear media scrutiny. An honest judge will let the facts talk for themslves.
But a dishonest judge will gag a defendant.
The parallel with the Greek prosecutor probes is clear when an illegal defamation decision was used by Soros and Gates to hide the proofs of their corruption of due process to escape trial in Greece helped by the lawyers Konstantinos Christopoulos and Simos Samaras.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xmvdermyzjhnje9z1hbkq/GRKProsecutorProbesConvictSoros-GatesOfMurderAttemptsOnReporter.pdf?rlkey=n4gz1whwa9vj8iktkg7ymxn6v&st=obi9i3b4&dl=0
The aim is to mislead the public about the fairness of the proceedings against Trump and to present them as equitable justice when the proceedings, convictions and sentencing are highly irregular and biased by preventing the public from hearing the details also about the Judges conflicts of interests and his families.
MERCHAN S REMOVAL OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY TRUMP FROM THE FILE
Merchan stripped away evidence which Trump presented, according to media.
Merchan himself evaluated the evidence as "tenuous" and irrelevant to justify removing it.
It is not the role of the judge to evalute evidence and remove it before the trial but to present the full evidence for consideration of the jury and legal experts at the trial.
It is not clear what evidence Merchan removed, but the very act of removing evidence is suspicious and a violation of due process.
It may be that vital, key evidence exonerating trump was removed by Merchan.
This can only be done with the complicity of a corrupted lawyer. But that Trump s lawyers may have been corrupted is possible given their many stunning failures including the failure to file an Appeal and file petitions correctly as discussed below.
Trump has the right to present all his evidence fully and completely for consideration.
Again, questions must be asked why his lawyer Blanche allowed the judge to remove evidence/
The parallel with the Greek prosecutor probes is clear where the judges stripped away entire police reports and all the evidence implicating Soros, Gates and Buffett.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xmvdermyzjhnje9z1hbkq/GRKProsecutorProbesConvictSoros-GatesOfMurderAttemptsOnReporter.pdf?rlkey=n4gz1whwa9vj8iktkg7ymxn6v&st=obi9i3b4&dl=0
Judge Merchan is to rule in September on whether to put Trump, who he has allowed to be covicted as a felon in the most irregular way, hehind bars seven weeks before the election. He has seized to himself illegally the power to put the main political opposition in prison just before the election or just after, at whatever time he choses.
Why has Judge Merchan or Alvin Bragg never asked Trump why he has not filed an Appeal to have the conviction overturned?
How come the judge and Manhattan prosecutor accept it is normal for Trump not to file an Appeal to the conviction?
Is the judge not supposed to be neutral? If he is neutral, why does not ask Trump about his intention to file an Appeal or inform of his right to appeal and the deadlines?
Is it because Mercan and Bragg are conspiring with the corrupted lawyerBlanche to side line any appeal and keep Trump in the dark about his rights by silence and omission?
THE POTENTIAL BRIBERY OF OF TRUMP S LEGAL TEAM?
A FAILURE TO FILE AN APPEAL?
More than three months have passed since a jury convicted trump of 34 felony couns of falsifying records to cover up the transfer of his own money to a Porn star and yet no appeal appears to have been filed by his lawyer, Todd Blanche or his team.
At least, I could find no evidence that an appeal to the ruling had been filed when searching the internet from Greece.
Moreover, there is plainly no regular Appeals trial scheduled. This would suggest that there was, indeed, no regular Appeal filed to contest the decsion.
The proceedins have moved from the decision, from the conviction in the court of Judge Merchan in May to the sentencing by Judge Merchan scheduled for the 18th September 2024.
Filing an appeal to a ruling and appealing a ruling is a standard practise when there are significant gaps in the evidence and arguments.
It was and is especially important to file an appeal in such a landmark case with so many irregularities with such huge political implications.
Yet, it appears, as far I can see, that no Appeal was filed and there is no Appeals trial.
The original conviction has to be overturned. This can be done in an Appeal.
Trump s record as a felon has to be expunged.
The focus should have been from the very beginning on filing an Appeal.
Instead the focus has been on delaying the sentencing.
This is perplexing when it was within the power of Trump to file an appeal and overturn the conviction and so avert sentencing altogether.
Blanche as a lawyer must know that he following a path which harms Trump. Has he informed Trump of his options? Has he advised Trump to file an Appeal and did Trump reject it? It is not clear why Trump would have a motive to reject filing an Appeal as it is the obvious way to overturn the conviction and delay the sentencing if not stop it altogether.
It is more likely that Trump was not given proper legal advice by his team led by Blanche. It is more likely they deliberately hid from him the obvious legal path of filing an Appeal and, if necessary, going to the Supreme Court in the final intance.
If the Appeal had been filed and had been rejected, Trump could have gone to the Supreme Court for a final decision.
The focus on delaying the setencing flowing from the decision of the first instance court is the worst option for Trump and may end up in disaster, in his imprisonment.
Yet, it turns out to be the one chosen by his legal team.
Todd Blanche may have falsely implied or suggested to Trump the decision of the first court was the final decision and Trump had to accept the convtion and sentencing.
What about Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, a lawyer from Louisiana, who, in many ways, is on the opposite political spectrum of Trump, and who attended many of the court sesssions. Why did he not advise Trump about the need for an Appeal? Or warn him of the weakness of the presentation of his team?
Stopping an appeal from being filed and corrupting lawyers is a part of a system of corruption run by Alex and George Soros and their associates Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett.
B FAILURE TO FILE A KEY PETITION TO MOVE THE CASE TO A FEDERAL COURT CORRECTLY
In addition to failing to file a regular Appeal to overturn the conviction, the lawyer Todd Blanche did not file a petition to move the case to a federal court as he was tasked with doing.
Media state that the judge rejected the request to change the courts on the grounds hat no request had been filed. How is this possible? Hw can a lawyer prepare a request, go to a court and still fail to file the request properly using the right forms?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/prosecutors-balk-trumps-bid-delay-post-conviction-hush-113354102
Has Todd Blanche told Trump he has the right to appeal the sentencing? What the best strategy is? And will he file the appeal to the sentence using the right forms or fail to do so meaning that Trump s appeal of his sentence is de facto annulled, cancelled by Blanche s incompetence and or corruption and the sentencing stands?
There is no explanation for why Todd Blanche and his team of lawyers failed to file a request correctly with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at the end of August. Trump to move the case to a federal courtourt other than that they have been bribed to throw the case.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4856639-donald-trump-new-york-hush-money-federal-court-request-rejected/
Filing requests correctly, classifying the type of legal action correctly,F presenting the right evidence, the right legal strategy, making appeals should be the bread and butter of a lawyer s work.
C. FAILURE TO USE THE RIGHT ARGUMENTS TO MOVE THE CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT
In a four-page ruling, Judge Alvin Hellerstein rightly wrote that nothing about the high court's July 1 ruling affected his previous conclusion that hush money payments at issue in Trump’s case “were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.”
When the Supreme Court clarified the conditions for immunity clear in a ruling on July 1st 2024
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4730279-supreme-court-immunity-trump-case/
and when it is plain that Trump s hush money case did not meet those conditions, that it does involve personal and unofficial acts not given immunity, then why did Blanche use that argument of personal anf unofficial acts to ask for immunity, and not the far stronger arguments of massive Constitutional interest, specifically of the corruption and political motivation of the trials?
If Judge Hellerstein refuses to consider evidence of massive corruption, he exposes himself to criminal charges. Why does Blanche not make that clear to Hellerstein? Failures of the judges to uphold the law must have consequences.
If a lawyer cannot do these basic things, then they should never have been admitted to the bar and they should be barred from practising if they have been.
It takes a positive decision for a lawyer not to do the things that belong to his or her standard practise.
D FAILURE TO CHALLENGE THE GAG ORDER OR MAKE EMERGENCY, EXPEDITED REQUESTS
There are options to make emergency requests which have not been fully exploited.
Failing to file requests, appeals, submit evidence, present the right legal strategy, are all ways for corrupted lawyers to secretly ensure their clients are convicted while appearing to be doing things that help them to retain their trust.
Precisely failure and omission is how to charatize Todd Blanche acts. It is not one isolated failure or random mistake. It is a pattern of failures and omissions which all serve to put Trump in jeopardy.
The Constitutional case turns on whether the official political opposition can be put in prison before an election using such a biased, partisaned and irregular approach. It does not turn on whether Trump had immunity under office especially as the acts concern personal and unofficial acts which do not enjoy immunity according to a recent Supreme Court ruling.
Todd Blance is, incidentally, also a former prosecutor who worked in the same NY AG s office and was a life long Democrat until he took up the case of Trump.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL INTEREST
IS AMERICA A POLICE STATE OR GOVERNMENT BY THE RULE OF LAW AND CONSTITUTION?
Human rights are protected by the Constitution. For the government to infringe on them, it must have demonstrable legal authority.
The legal authority to infringe on the rights of a person to liberty, freedom, freedom of speech must be shown to be clearly present for judges and prosecutors to sentence someone to felonies and prison.
Specifically, a person must be shown to have harmed someone or some business substantially to justify depriving them of their basic liberty. Criminal offences are about social harms.
Where no harm has been shown, there is no crime. There is at most an administrative offence.
An alleged offences against book keeping rules, an administrative issue, where no harm to any one is shown, and also not to the Trump s own business or stake holders, and where no falsification is shown either distinct from an alternative method of payment, does not consitute the legal authority to convict someone of one single criminal felony and sentence them to prison, let alone 34 felony counts.
The attempt to turn administrative, bureaucratic or minor issues, with no socially damaging consequences but with political repercussions into major criminal offences, characterises the police state.
State overreach and rules criminalizing ordinary, everyday behaviour such as a political views or belonging to a certain race or walking in a certain place or playing a certain sport override Constitution, Congress and human rights.
The infringement of arbitrary rules is used to justify depriving people of their guaranteed rights in a police state.
True, NY has a felony for book keeping falsification but it is designed for cases like Berne Madoff.
To expand it to an alternative method of accounting to records where there is no harm to anyone is state overreach. To create 34 felonies out of 34 entries is mendacious.
In a country under the rule of law and the Constitution, the rights of a defendant to liberty and freedom from arbitrary and arrest are guaranteeed.
A very high bar is needed to deprive someone of their liberty and put them in prison.
It must be shown that they are causing harm to others or to businesses or to the rights of others for someone to be deprived of their rights by the states and incarcerated etc.
The harms a person causes to others and the infringement a person causes to others rights, including the right to life, property, bodily integrity, are the justification for infringing on the rights of the accused.
There must be a fair trial which includes the right to a lawyer who is not bribed and the right to a judge and prosecutors who do not have conflicts of interest.
Trump has been denied these rights.
He has not even made use of his right to appeal and there are many other failures in his defence which strongly suggest his lawyer s team has been bribed or is incompetent to the point where their license to practise law should be revoked.
There is a precedent in Greece where the mega donors of the Dems are proven to have bribed lawyers.
THE POLICE STATE
Expansion of laws to include everyday or non criminal activity
No or not enough legal authority
Regulations passed by ministerial decree do not have the force of the law.
The principle that there can be no punishment without a law is fundamental to the rule of law.
It is called Nulla Poena sine lege.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulla_poena_sine_lege#:~:text=Nulla%20poena%20sine%20lege%20(Latin,is%20fixed%20in%20criminal%20law.
Laws determning what is an offence, when it is an offence, regulate a ranking among offences, and penalties, on the basis of principles of proportionality.
Laws regulate what conditions must be met for a trial to meet fairness under due process proceedings.
he covid regulations restricting the free movement of the UK and US population were passed by ministerial decrees and not by laws.
For example, for epidemic laws to be passed, MPs must debate issues of porportionality, appropriateness and science. This, to protect basic freedoms and rights protected by the Constitution.
By using ministerial decrees the UK and US became a de facto police state, disregarding the Constitution, parliament, the law and the fundamental rights of citizens.
Rights were restricted arbitrarily and without justification and legal authority.
In Germany, Wolfgang Schuable said the parliament must convene to provide a sufficient basis for the covid rules, and the government had to obtain parliamentary consent to new legislation to obtain the relevant powers. This, because lawyers advised Schauble and MPs the government powers to had been expanded beyond reasonable limits.
https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2020/kw43-parlamentsbeteiligung-corona-800010
Key paragraphs below in German emphasizing the need for proportionality, approrpirateness and targetted measures to avoid infringing on the public s fundamental rights and warning the government has no legal authority to blanket restrict rights on the basis of a single paragraph in the epidemic disease laws, namely, § 28.
. Generalklausel gem. § 28 Abs. 1 S. 1 Infektionsschutzgesetz (IfSG)
Es bestehen Bedenken, ob die äußerst intensiven und breit wirkenden Grundrechtseingriffe im Rahmen der Corona-Pandemie auf eine bloße Generalklausel wie § 28 Abs. 1 S. 1 IfSG gestützt werden können. Das Rechtsstaatsprinzip und das Demokratieprinzip verpflichten den parlamentarischen Gesetzgeber, wesentliche Entscheidungen selbst zu treffen und nicht der Verwaltung zu überlassen. Je intensiver und breiter wirkend der Grundrechtseingriff ist, desto höher muss die parlamentsgesetzliche Regelungsdichte sein.
a) Konkretisierung
Diesen Bedenken sollte durch die Schaffung von konkreten Ermächtigungsgrundlagen für besonders eingriffsintensive und streuweite Maßnahmen begegnet werden, welche qualifizierte Tatbestandsvoraussetzungen und differenzierte Rechtsfolgen vorsehen. Die Regelungsdichte dieser Ermächtigung zu Standardmaßnahmen ginge über die bloße Klarstellung der unter der Generalklausel zulässigen Maßnahmen in § 28 Abs. 1 S. 1, 2. Hs. IfSG hinaus. Es würde eine echte Beschränkung der Eingriffsbefugnisse erfolgen. Der Ausnahmecharakter der Maßnahmen würde gesetzlich festgeschrieben.
Besonders Maßnahmen, die gegenüber der Allgemeinheit und damit auch gegenüber sog. Nichtstörern ergehen und in besonders sensible Grundrechte intensiv eingreifen, sollten eine Standardisierung erfahren. Dies würde beispielsweise die Ausgangssperre und das allgemeine Kontaktverbot beinhalten.
Zugleich wird durch die Konkretisierung der Eingriffsvoraussetzungen in den §§ 28 ff. IfSG die Verordnungsermächtigung an die Landesregierungen nach § 32 Abs. 1 S. 1 IfSG inhaltlich beschränkt. Denn durch Rechtsverordnung nach § 32 Abs. 1 S. 1 IfSG können nur unter den Voraussetzungen, die für Maßnahmen nach den §§ 28 bis 31 maßgebend sind, entsprechende Ge- und Verbote zur Bekämpfung übertragbarer Krankheiten erlassen werden. Die Standardmaßnahmen würden den Ländern einen engeren Rahmen für den Verordnungserlass vorgeben.
b) Befristung der Maßnahmen
Zur Wahrung der Verhältnismäßigkeit der Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung der Corona-Pandemie erscheint es sinnvoll, Befristungen einzuführen. Dies betrifft zum einen die in § 28 IfSG aufgeführten Einzelmaßnahmen: Hier könnte gesetzlich festgelegt werden, dass die Maßnahmen nur für einen bestimmten Zeitraum (etwa für die Dauer von zwei Wochen) angeordnet werden. Danach müsste eine Überprüfung der Sachlage und gegebenenfalls eine neue Anordnung erfolgen.
Des Weiteren erscheint es auch bedenkenswert, die an die Landesregierungen gerichtete Verordnungsermächtigung in § 32 Abs. 1 S. 1 IfSG zu befristen, soweit sie Verordnungen zur Bekämpfung der Corona-Pandemie betrifft. Es könnte etwa festgelegt werden, dass die Landesregierungen Verordnungen, die aufgrund des Bestehens der epidemischen Notlage nach § 5 Abs. 1 IfSG ergehen, nur bis zum Ende des Jahres 2020 erlassen dürfen. Auf diese Weise hätte der Bundestag die weitere Entscheidung in der Hand, ob Verordnungen der Landesregierungen über den Zeitraum der Befristung hinaus zur Eindämmung der Pandemie weiterhin notwendig sind.
2. Beteiligung des Bundestages beim Erlass von Rechtsverordnungen
In § 5 Abs. 2 IfSG hat der Bundestag den Verordnungsgeber (BMG) in weitem Umfang ermächtigt, durch Rechtsverordnungen Ausnahmen von Gesetzesvorschriften zuzulassen. Dies ist sehr problematisch: Es dürfte wohl nicht mit den Vorgaben des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zur Zulässigkeit von Rechtsverordnungen vereinbar sein. Das Demokratie- und das Rechtsstaatsprinzip sind berührt. Das demokratische Legitimationsniveau solcher Verordnungen könnte und sollte dadurch erhöht werden, dass die Verordnungen unter einen Zustimmungsvorbehalt des Bundestages gestellt werden. Als Alternative kommt in Betracht, die Rechtsverordnungen (wie im Außenwirtschaftsrecht üblich) als durch den Bundestag aufhebbar zu gestalten.
Key takeaway
A single paragraph in the epidemic law meant for a few cases could not be expanded to cover entire populations, German lawyers advised the government.
Legal advisors told the German government that its covid regulations did not have a proper legal basis.
There were no existing statutory powers to justify the covid lockdowns etc. They would have to obtain a new act of parliament to authorize lockdowns, restrictions. But the government would not have met the requirements for the act of parliament, which are very specific
To avoid parliament scrutiny, the covid regulations were passed as ministerial decress.
Governments did not ask parliament for consent because it feared that it would not obtain it. MPs would have had to look at the epidemic laws and acknowledge that they require proportionality, appropriateness, targetted measures and sound science. Safe and proven cures must not be available for experimental vaccines to be given.
The point is this.
It is not up to the government, judges and prosecutors to invent, elaborate, expand administration rules and determine when violations are crimes at their whim.
The Constitution, laws and parliament limit state overreach.
Likewise a single paragraph in NY law about falsifying records cannot be expanded to generate 34 felony counts for book keeping records which caused no harm in a highly irregular trial.
Regulations with no force of law behind them, and no authority behind them were used to de facto imprison the UK and US population during covid.
When people are imprisoned without eough robust legal authority, it is an offence called false imprisonment.
If Trump is imprisoned without legal authority, it is offence of false imprisonment.
The rule of law means that justice officials, for example Judge Juan Merchan, Alvin Bragg and Letitia James, can be held liable for misuse of office.
The hush money trial itself was irregular and full of failures and omissions and conflicts of interest as discussed.
There is a suspicion that the massive failures of his lawyers may be linked to bribery and corruption.
For Bragg and Merchan to have entered into some kind of conspiracy with Trump s justice to thwart justice would be a crime. The starting point for an investigation is there. The failure to file an appeal to the conviction alone raises concerns of corruption or incompetence on the part of Trump s lawyers. But this falure could have been corrected by Merchan and Bragg s intervention. They could have brought up the matter of an appeal. They do not seem to have.
Trump is campaigning as the only opposition candidate to the Biden, Harris, Democrat ticket.
Here is the motive for a wide ranging conspiracy between Democrat leaning judges, prosecutors and lawyers who may have been offered favours in return for corruption.
TRUMP S RIGHT TO DAMAGES
Just the threat of being imprisoned causes stress to a person.
Actual imprisonment, being forced to stay in a prison using compulsion, physical coercion from guards, bars, is a deprivation of liberty so severe it must have legal authority behind it.
This is a real risk and not a notional risk
This is to be enforced by the very same county and AG which has organized the false imprisonment.
Trmp now has a criminal record.
The entire proceedings may amounts to defamation.
There was no allegation of physical harm or of harm to investors.
The judge does not have the power to do impose such a harsh penalty under the Constitution and rule of law. Some penalty may be justified but the Constitution and laws and human rights must be considered.
The ability of judges and prosecutors to create criminal offences and punish them is not unlimited.
The entire point of the law and the Constitution is to limit what judges and prosecutors can prosecute to actions which are, broadly speaking, cause harm to others. The harms are classified as criminal or civil harms. But some social or personal harm has to be proven, some infringement of others people basic rights protected by the Constitution, such as the right to life, health, liberty, property.
This basic condition for a crime is missing, namely harm to others, as mentioned.
Harm to others distinguishes a criminal offence from an administrative offence.
A person can be charged with a crime for assaulting their neighbour but not for parking their car beside their house because in this case, the neighbour suffers no harm. If there is a government rule that a person cannot park their car beside certain houses or in certain streets at certain times, then the person who has done so has broken a mere civil rule and pays a mere civil fine in proportion to the civil offence which is slight and mere.
The distinction turns on the harms, the social harms of the offence.
This exaggeration of a slight or no offence by Trump to justify 34 felonies and imprisonment is being done mendaciously and maliciously.
Alvin Bragg,Merchan and James know the difference between offences which are serious harm to the public and which they have the robust legal authority and legal obligation to prosecute and administrative rules which they do not have the legal authority to prosecute.
A priority for them should have been prosecuting Soros, Gates and Buffett using the Greek prosecutor probes of massive crimes and corruption against a reporter to undermine informed consent to the covid jabs.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xmvdermyzjhnje9z1hbkq/GRKProsecutorProbesConvictSoros-GatesOfMurderAttemptsOnReporter.pdf?rlkey=n4gz1whwa9vj8iktkg7ymxn6v&st=obi9i3b4&dl=0
They are acting mendacously
They know they do not have the robust legal authority for their actions in prosecuting Trump and putting him in prison. They know that the public will understand that if they see the details. That is the reason for the gag order on Trump.
They are liable for the crime of misusing their office for false imprisonment.
Trump has a right to damages.
The plan to imprison him is ipse facto unlawful when the 34 felony offences are unlawful.
The losses to him, the loss of liberty are significant.
But Trump is more than a private individual.
He is campaigning as the only opposition candidate to the Biden, Harris, Democrat ticket.
The judges and prosecutors belong to the Democrat party. Alex and George Soros, the main donor, hav shown how they corrupt justice in Greece to eliminate a reporter.
Trump is the victim of a system.
His unlawful detention will mean that the overriding Constitutional right to fair and free elections is overthrow. It is clear that Americans cannot exercise their right to vote if the main candidate is in prison, defamed.
This could even result in an uprising, even in civil war.
People will fear similar restrictions imposed on them for minor or no offences.
The Constitution sets limits on the powers of government and of judges and prosecutors.
There is a distinction made between a lawful violation of rights and imprisonment and unlawful.
The arrest is unlawful, the imprisonment is unlawful.
The problem is the judges and prosecutors do not intend to comply with the law.
It is a system of corruption. It depends on political power.
The decision to convict Trump of 34 felonies is beyond the proper limits of the penalties for book keeping entries of this nature, which are related to personal transactions of a small sum and did not harm the business
It did not defraud shareholders or represent
There is no Constitutional and legal basis for depriving Trump of his rights, right to life
Trump should apply for substantial damages for false accusation, false imprisonment and defamation. The loss to the American elections and democracy cannot be quanitified in money. When the official opposition candidate is sentenced and put in prison by justice officials aligned with the ruling party for a police state offence, then the loss is incalculable.
I hope this helps you in your fight for justice.
Democracy and the rule of law in the USA is at stake. All Americans will benefit if you get justice.
Thank you for your attention.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Jane Burgermeister
Larisa, Greece
No comments:
Post a Comment