Bragg Manhattan DA charges tfg? Hush money. tfg “INDICATED!”
Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2024 2:39 pm
You forgot his finger quotes.
Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
https://thefogbow.com/forum/
Except when the doctors let him get some much needed excercise by attending campaign rallies.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 2:47 pm His bone spurs are acting up so he's on bed rest for an indeterminate time.
And waddaya know, there is a statute providing for a stay of a criminal proceeding pending a motion for change of venue. But it has to be a timely motion, and motions are due 45 days before trial. Too late, chum.Frank G. Runyeon
@frankrunyeon
Just in: Trump’s bid for emergency relief to halt trial ~ for change of venue ~ is denied.
Gag order motion comes tomorrow.
chancery wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 5:19 pm https://twitter.com/frankrunyeon/status ... 3789054190
And waddaya know, there is a statute providing for a stay of a criminal proceeding pending a motion for change of venue. But it has to be a timely motion, and motions are due 45 days before trial. Too late, chum.Frank G. Runyeon
@frankrunyeon
Just in: Trump’s bid for emergency relief to halt trial ~ for change of venue ~ is denied.
Gag order motion comes tomorrow.
They can't just stick him out in the dog run?noblepa wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 5:16 pmExcept when the doctors let him get some much needed excercise by attending campaign rallies.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 2:47 pm His bone spurs are acting up so he's on bed rest for an indeterminate time.
Yes, definitely. I know a story about that.New Turtle wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 7:04 pm Is it out of bounds to ask potential jurors who they voted for in the last few presidential elections?
"In a hypothetical matchup between Carl Fredricksen from 'Up' and the Tasmanian Devil, who would get your vote?"much ado wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 7:10 pmYes, definitely. I know a story about that.New Turtle wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 7:04 pm Is it out of bounds to ask potential jurors who they voted for in the last few presidential elections?
"Out of bounds"? No; there's not really any hard limits.New Turtle wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 7:04 pm Is it out of bounds to ask potential jurors who they voted for in the last few presidential elections?
I'll leave that to the IAALs. But I'll add that one of the judges, I think it was Kaplan in the second Carroll case, who asked the jurors if they believed the 2020 election was stolen.New Turtle wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 7:04 pm Is it out of bounds to ask potential jurors who they voted for in the last few presidential elections?
Here's the judge's letter (i.e., ruling) about jury selection. In it, the judge acknowledges the parties submitted proposed questions. The court includes the questions it intends to ask, some of which may be modified versions of the parties' proposed questions.Dave from down under wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 7:47 pm Did Donnie’s lawyers try to get the RNC loyalty test questions into the jury selection?
Not really. Many people will get summarily dismissed for reasons unrelated to this trial, e.g., financial hardship, language difficulties, physical disabilities, etc. Some will get quickly booted for being too obvious publicity hounds or fanatics.
There are in Michigan. (Yes, I know this isn't Michigan.)bob wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 7:19 pm"Out of bounds"? No; there's not really any hard limits.New Turtle wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 7:04 pm Is it out of bounds to ask potential jurors who they voted for in the last few presidential elections?
Al least in the State of Michigan a voter cannot be forced to reveal who they voted for. I think it should this way throughout the U.S.Plaintiff-appellee Belcher began an action for quo warranto based on allegations that 23 illegal votes were cast at the election. Plaintiff claimed that 20 of the voters did not live within the city boundaries and therefore were unqualified voters even though properly registered.
In October 1977 trial commenced and the record discloses that 17 of the 20 voters were mistakenly registered in Ann Arbor and apparently in good faith had voted in the April 4, 1977 city election, although they did not live within the city boundaries. Thereafter plaintiff advised the court that he intended to recall each voter and ask for whom each illegal vote was cast. The trial court ruled that such a procedure was permissible.
*134 When intervening-defendant-appellant Susan Van Hattum was called to the stand she refused to answer, claiming that she had a legal right not to reveal for whom she had voted. She was then held in contempt. Thereafter intervening-defendant-appellant Diane Lazinsky was recalled to the stand and also refused to answer the question on similar grounds.
The trial court then ordered a continuance of the trial so that the matter could be litigated in the Court of Appeals. That Court denied appellants' application for leave to appeal in a per curiam opinion.
We hold that a citizen's right to a secret ballot in all elections as guaranteed by Const 1963, art 2, § 4, cannot be so abrogated in the absence of a showing that the voter acted fraudulently. We express no opinion on the validity of the election.
The motion for immediate consideration is granted. The applications for leave to appeal are considered and pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and this matter is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The motion for stay of proceedings is denied as moot.
Thus, contrary to defense counsel's arguments, the purpose of jury selection is not to determine whether a prospective juror likes or does not like one of the parties. ' Such
questions are irrelevant because they do not go to the issue of the prospective juror's qualifications. The ultimate issue is whether the prospective juror can assure us that they will set aside any personal feelings or biases and render a decision that is based on the evidence and the law.
New York appeals judge rejects Trump's request to delay hush money trial
Trump's lawyers had argued at an emergency hearing that the trial should be postponed while they seek a change of venue to move it out of heavily
Last Updated : Apr 09 2024 | 7:09 AM IST
A New York appeals court judge has rejected former President Donald Trump's request to delay his April 15 hush money criminal trial while he fights to move the case out of Manhattan.
The decision came Monday, a week before jury selection was set to start.
Trump's lawyers had argued at an emergency hearing that the trial should be postponed while they seek a change of venue to move it out of heavily Democratic Manhattan.
Donald Trump had asked a New York appeals court on Monday to move his hush money criminal trial out of Manhattan and reverse his gag order in an eleventh-hour bid for a delay just a week before the scheduled start.
At an emergency hearing, the former president's lawyers asked a judge in the state's mid-level appeals court to postpone the April 15 trial while they fight for a change of venue. The court signaled it would take up the gag order issue separately at a later date.
Trump lawyer Emil Bove argued that the presumptive Republican nominee faces real potential prejudice as a defendant in heavily Democratic Manhattan. Citing defence surveys and a review of media coverage, Bove argued that jury selection, scheduled to start next Monday, cannot proceed in a fair manner.
Trump has suggested on social media that the trial should be moved to Staten Island, the only New York City borough he won in 2016 and 2020.
Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the Manhattan district attorney's office, said trial Judge Juan M Merchan had already rejected Trump's requests to move or delay the trial as untimely.
The question in this case is not whether a random poll of New Yorkers from whatever neighbourhood are able to be impartial, it's about whether a trial court is able to select a jury of 12 impartial jurors, Wu said. He blamed Trump for stoking pretrial publicity with "countless media appearances talking about the facts of this case, the witnesses, and so on.
Justice Lizbeth Gonzlez noted that Monday's hearing didn't involve an appeal, per se, but the defence's desire for an emergency stay a court order that would prevent the trial from starting on time. She said she would review related court filings and issue a decision at some point.
https://www.business-standard.com/world ... 026_1.html
A New York appeals court on Tuesday rejected former President Trump’s last-ditch effort to delay his hush money criminal trial while he argues against a gag order the judge overseeing the case imposed.
Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order precludes Trump from attacking witnesses, prosecutors, court staff and the judge’s family, but doesn’t stop him from hurling insults at Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) or the judge himself.
During an emergency hearing Tuesday before Justice Cynthia Kern, Trump’s lawyers argued that banning public statements about those individuals is an unconstitutional prior restraint on his right to free speech while running for president and mounting his defense.
“The First Amendment harms arising from this gag order right now are irreparable,” said Trump lawyer Emil Bove, according to the Associated Press.
State prosecutors countered that Trump’s remarks threaten the “public interest in protecting the integrity of the trial.”
“This is not political debate. These are insults,” Steven Wu, appellate chief for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, said of Trump’s statements, according to the AP.
Trump’s lawyers had urged the judge to indefinitely pause the former president’s trial, which is scheduled to begin on April 15, via an emergency stay while they appeal the gag order. Kern declined to do so, meaning that barring further action, the trial date is set.
Trump’s lawsuit against Merchan over his gag order, which functions as an appeal, is under seal and not accessible to the public.