Fogbow

I think we've got some older men who need to retire…or whatever….first.

There's a hearing today concerning setting a trial date, and Judge Cannon is apparently being her usual self.

Meanwhile:

https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/ ... 5149627632

Bradley P. Moss
@BradMossEsq
Stephen Miller out here trying to intervene in the MAL docs case with his “expert” insight.

Big Cases Bot
@big_cases
Automated
New filing: "U.S. v. Trump (mar-a-lago docs)"
Doc #360: File Amicus Brief

PDF: https://courtlistener.com/docket/674900 ... s-v-trump/?

I haven't seen anything about this yet (I knew it was happening but that's about all; till I get on X). Trump had planned to show up today for the hearing; I guess he wants Cannon to remember who put her there. Ugh.

https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status ... 2617988347

Mark S. Zaid
@MarkSZaidEsq
“The problem with actually trying to address the substantive theory such as offered by AFL is akin to arguing with someone in 2024 that the world is not flat or engage in debate over whether the moon is made of cheese”

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/st ... -archives/

They sound desperate in their arguments

Joyce White Vance's recent article speaks to the "60 day" "rule" about judicial interference with a campaign. It really explains how it's not applicable here.

Rolodex wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 3:10 pm Joyce White Vance's recent article speaks to the "60 day" "rule" about judicial interference with a campaign. It really explains how it's not applicable here.

https://joycevance.substack.com/p/were- ... ore-coffee

Just a sentence from this Politico article - Judge Cannon signals doubts about Jack Smith’s timeline for Trump trial in Florida

As the hearing broke for lunch, Trump briefly appeared miffed when security escorted Smith out of the courtroom before him, forcing him to wait for their exit.

Good.

This is my fear of court before election day. What if he is acquitted? If he’s acquitted, he gets reelected. With court still hanging over his head, I would hope (enough) people would be hesitant to vote for him.

Just throwing that out there.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 8:54 pm This is my fear of court before election day. What if he is acquitted? If he’s acquitted, he gets reelected. With court still hanging over his head, I would hope (enough) people would be hesitant to vote for him.

Just throwing that out there.

Getting acquitted could also increase turnout against him, if enough people realize the courts aren't gonna stop him.

chancery wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 12:44 pm There's a hearing today concerning setting a trial date, and Judge Cannon is apparently being her usual self.

Meanwhile:

https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/ ... 5149627632

Bradley P. Moss
@BradMossEsq
Stephen Miller out here trying to intervene in the MAL docs case with his “expert” insight.

Big Cases Bot
@big_cases
Automated
New filing: "U.S. v. Trump (mar-a-lago docs)"
Doc #360: File Amicus Brief

PDF: https://courtlistener.com/docket/674900 ... s-v-trump/?

The link in my post is to the motion for leave to file. The Courtlistener site times out when I try to load the amicus brief itself, so here is a link from the <barf> "America First Legal Foundation." I haven't read it.

https://media.aflegal.org/wp-content/up ... 1709356216

In the AFL's brief:

Moreover, AFL has published a white paper
detailing why—as a matter of constitutional law, the PRA, and historical practice—
the President has absolute authority over presidential papers.

I am entirely confident that were this is a case about a hypothetical left-of-fascist former president retaining secret papers the AFL scumbags, sorry, legal authorities, would have produced a brief explaining that the court should not only seize the secret papers but also about other private material (probably on the pretext that anything of a former president becomes formerly presidential), and, for good measure, the hypothetical left-of-fascist former president should be imprisoned to prevent him tampering with the evidence.

But it's their former guy, so let's all scream traitorous nonsense!

Michael Popok argues that Judge Cannon's rulings will finaly get the 11th Circuit to remove Cannon from the case. Title is overstated, as is typical for MTN, but analysis is good, I think.

Judge Cannon Makes FATAL ERROR that Could Cause her REMOVAL

"You screwed yourself" ----->> You walked into a minefield

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 5:38 pm "You screwed yourself" ----->> You walked into a minefield

It's not a minefield!

Well, maybe it is, but she's planting all the mines herself!

Any idea how long the delay will be to get a new judge appointed and up to speed if they replace Cannon?

Alas, Cannon might get reversed by the 11th Circuit on some issue, but I don't think we're close to seeing her removed.

And back to reality.

chancery wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:16 pm Alas, Cannon might get reversed by the 11th Circuit on some issue, but I don't think we're close to seeing her removed.

Concur.

This is a blow by blow account of the hearing in Florida (and Georgia- they were on the same day). Reporter in the courtroom. Very easy to understand.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/do ... ton-county

DOJ clarifies that the 60day embargo for prosecution prior to elections does not hold for criminals already indicted.

Jack Smith STRIKES BACK at Supreme Court with BIG Announcement

MeidasTouch
5 Mar 2024

In a recent hearing the Department of Justice argued that the "60 Day Rule" does not apply to Trump's upcoming trials. Palm Beach State Attorney Dave Aronberg reports.

PAPERLESS ORDER granting Unopposed Motions for Leave to File Amicus Briefs 360 364 . The Court has reviewed the motions and finds that the proposed amici bring to the Court's attention relevant matter that may be of considerable help to the Court in resolving the cited pretrial motions. See Sup. Ct. R. 37; Fed. R. App. P. 29; Resort Timeshare Resales, Inc. v. Stuart, 764 F. Supp. 1495, 1500 (S.D. Fla. 1991). The amicus briefs [360-1] [364-1] are accepted for Court consideration. Should the Special Counsel or Defendants wish to file a separate response to either amicus brief, they may do so on or before March 15, 2024, in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 3/6/2024. (jf01) (Entered: 03/06/2024)

Oh, fuck a duck. Again, creepy off-putting comments from Judge Cannon, but this time really bad.

First, amicus briefs aren't usually a thing in trial courts. While no rule forbids them, no general rule authorizes them, and many district courts flatly refuse to accept them, either as a rule or as a consistent practice. The rare exceptions typically come in actions that will potentially affect large numbers of the people and and counsel is not competent to address the wider issues. Or, very rarely, a proposed amicus has unique information and prospective.

Members of a political advocacy organizations engaged in rat-fucking don't qualify for unique information and prospective. It's routine for a judge rejecting an amicus brief to mention that it would not be helpful or necessary. The tongue bath contained in this order strikes me as unprofessional, and self-consciously apologetic. Also, while I haven't looked at these briefs for more than five seconds, they are pretty clearly bullshit on stilts. The are certainly not "relevant matter that may be of considerable help to the Court in resolving the cited pretrial motions."

Eleventh Circuit here we come.

"Does this move the needle on the chances of her removal?" I hear you cry.

Maybe just a little, but not really.

https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status ... 435898584

Eric Columbus
@EricColumbus
All Judge Cannon is saying is that these briefs may be filed. The "may be of considerable help" language comes from the relevant Supreme Court rule regarding amicus briefs (there's no corresponding rule in district courts) and these are the only two amicus briefs filed so far.

Yeah, maybe. But:


https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/ ... 220732076

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
JUST IN: Judge Cannon says two amicus briefs filed by Trump-aligned lawyers "may be of considerable help" to her on Trump's motions to dismiss.

1 says NARA referral to DOJ was deficient: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .360.1.pdf

1 says Jack Smith appointment was invalid: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .364.1.pdf

https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/sta ... 8485146757

Joyce Alene
@JoyceWhiteVance
Fabulous.

Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
·
54m
JUST IN: Judge Cannon says two amicus briefs filed by Trump-aligned lawyers "may be of considerable help" to her on Trump's motions to dismiss.

https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/sta ... 6247530522

Joyce Alene
@JoyceWhiteVance
I'm pleased that people can now read the sarcasm in my tweets even without a dedicated font.