As we stated yesterday, following the Smith request, the Trump attorney response, and the Smith re-response, the transparency of the special counsel motive is obvious. For the Supreme Court to accept the request of Smith, would be for the Supreme Court to pretend the political motive was unknown.
The Supreme Court did not pretend and was curt in their retort: “The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.”
Special Counsel Jack Smith argued in his petition to the court, the speedy resolution of Trump’s claim of presidential immunity is of an urgent national interest. The motive was/is a transparent speedy timeline effort to influence the 2024 GOP presidential primary race. The court, heck, the entire world can see it.
Arguments on the presidential immunity issue, within the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, are set for January 9, 2024. The decision of the 3-judge panel will come thereafter. Depending on the outcome, Donald Trump can then ask for a full panel appellate court review. If the Circuit Court appeal results in a non-favorable outcome, the next step is the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the DC trial of Donald Trump is frozen awaiting a determination on the original issue of presidential immunity.
BO ought to go out on a night on the town with Minnie Mouse.
I think Obummer needs to go paddle boarding off Martha’s Vineyard.
That would mess up Meshelle bid.
Mickey would be more to his taste methinks..
We have a Department of Homeland Security that doesn’t secure the homeland, a Department of Justice that doesn’t do justice, an FBI that’ suppose to fight organized crime but is organized crime and a Department of Defense that doesn’t defend.
Talk about lumps of coal.
Not to worry: I can’t afford to hang a stocking, even if I had a fireplace.
Lumps of dung.
Not a good day for Bathhouse.
He makes my skin crawl. He is one of the ultimate Commies working to “transform America.” (into a 3rd world Banana Republic.) He is a despicable excuse for a human being.
Muslim Brotherhood.
In addition, he is wealthy on your money and mine.
Ugh!
Awwwww, shucks…..
Barry is so skinny these days, I’m convinced he’s doing drugs again.
Maybe dying from AIDS. The drugs only work so long, particularly if you are bareback active.
Jack Smith is such a f-ing animal.
Jack is being paid to be “such a f-ing animal.” However, as we shall see, he has no teeth; he is not even been appropriately named to be Special Counsel against Trump. See Edwin Meese’s post.
I see a trip to Gitmo in Jacks future.
Jack doesn’t care if he wins or loses, it’s all to hurt Trump.
Except he appears to be helping Trump.
He’s failing miserably at his assignment.
I can’t think of any animal that’s as vile and monstrous as Smith and Obama….
Chuckie and the Hag?
And that animal would be a gofer. There’s been one in every shop I’ve ever worked in. Started out as one myself, as they are typically the newest, most inexperienced guy on the payroll. The job of the gofer is to fetch things. They are sent on a journey to “go for” this, and “go for” that.
In Smith’s case he was sent out to find things that do not exist. The purpose of the exercise was not to waste his time, but to intimidate Trump. Exercise failed, miserably.
Well if they turned down Mad-Jack’s petition the SCOTUS should now have some time available to look at the Colorado debacle. (My worry is they will just punt on that issue too. “Maximum accountability avoidance” is the term a very smart person uses)
The Supremes are not going to have a choice. Republicans in Georgia, Arizona & Pennsylvania are looking at taking FJB off the ballot for wide open borders & China corruption. Some Democrats are trying to remove Marrianne Williamson from the primary ballot in 4 states so that FJB’s the only guy on the Democrat primary ticket.
Too bad they didn’t act on the Meese amicus brief.
yet
That Meese brief would destroy the DC lawfare scam entirely. Eunuch Garland has no constitutional authority to appoint anyone “Special Council” for this type of witch hunt. Ruling on that brief would re-establish some credibility to SCOTUS.
They certainly still can . . . “at the proper time.”
The Meese amicus brief is not a call for action. It was submitted for information purposes only, meant to serve as a reminder to the court of applicable law.
I love you president Trump.
Our VSGPDJT….
Seems like a good reason for that lunatic Jack Smith to resign from the Special Counsel role if he wants out, and if he wants to save some face.
I am convinced the deranged lefties are going to kill VSG DJT next year, or at least try.
Better keep him safe at all costs.
I would lay money on the fact that if a MAGA person gets POTUS, Mr Smith’s rear end is grass!
Jack wasn’t legit to begin with.
Jack Smith’s appointment is every bit fictious as the connivance of Crossfire Hurricane, the fake Steele Dossier, the Weissmann/Mueller Specious Counsel, the two contrived impeachments, the 2020 selection, and the invention of the J6 Fedsurrection committee.
it is definitely a well coordinated conspiracy. (not theory, but actual criminals who cooperate to a larger strategy to defraud the election. AGAIN!)
And the Rinocrat party is up to their eyes in the treason along with their BFF’s the Demomarxists.
And the inauguration of the current one who thinks he’s president.
Re this amicus brief, I especially liked how brutally frank it was about the total illegality of Robert Mueller’s appointment, duties and powers, in so much as the Left virtually sanctified him while he inflicted his sinister investigation on the entire world.
Seems like he could be charged with Impersonating a Federal Officer.
Not a real one, but he plays one on TV?
No, but he stayed at a Motel 6.
hahaha… “Mr. Smith” lost any credibility he had after the Bob MacDonald “case” in 2016 which the SC overturned 9-0. He’s a political hack assclown and EVERYONE knows it.
former AG Edwin Meese filed a great amicus brief w the court… and I agree, this overzealous creature JS holds no power to have submitted this case in the 1st place. The ongoing defacing of the rule of law is shocking, but the Lawfare devotees worship anarchy
Not only Meese, but two esteemed scholars who have been cited as authorities in previous Supreme Court rulings.
A response to this matter can be issued at the proper time . . . what’s the hurry? Clearly, “Smith is as good as done.”
Hopefully, the Meese brief will be Excalibur.
The brief, in its depiction of the magnitude of the illegality, stated how outrageous it was to allow a private citizen, who was not Senate-confirmed, nor appointed by the President, hold the same awesome powers as the Attorney General himself.
Where was Meese for the Mueller appointment? And the endless parade of “special counsels”
Jack Smith – no one elected him, nor was he legally appointed as “Special Counsel”. He’s nobody.
Trump, oth, was elected by the vast majority of Americans once (vaster the second time).
Trump had Constitutional power – the greatest power that exists on the planet.
Smith – has nothing
This is perfect: a one-sentence initial response to all of the bloviating: “The Answer Is No!”
“Lawfare” and the Appeals Court will also be fully aware that the SCOTUS is now watching very closely. They know that the case will come to them eventually. But a mere prosecutor cannot “appeal to Caesar,” particularly when he is the prosecutor and not a defendant who has lost or is about to lose a case. A multi-layer court system exists for good reason, and Lawfare’s “breathtaking audacity” has been noticed.
agreed, but I fall short of having confidence that the black robes made this curt ruling.
and I am somewhat confused also. I looked up the certiorari denied 23-624 UNITED STATES V. TRUMP, DONALD J.
please correct my mistakes but it appears that scotus has denied the meese/heritage foundation .
23-624 contains ONLY the meese/heritage foundation document.
where is the jack smith document?
look at this:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293865/20231220140543301_23-624%20-%20U.S.%20v.%20Trump%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Petition%20for%20Certiorari%20Before%20Judgment%20-%20Filed.pdf
again, I am NOT an attorney. I know just enough about the law to get in trouble. But usually I have a pretty good nose for things that don’t pass the smell test. I keep looking at 23-624 and I can’t find anything documenting the jack smith filing. Only the meese/heritage foundation submission.
what am I missing here?
God Bless America
This denial doesn’t affect the Meese amicus, which is still there. Two of the co-authors are Constitutional scholars who are so well-respected that their opinions have been cited by the SCOTUS in prior rulings. But the Court didn’t have to say anything further on Friday.
Lawfare has crossed the Rubicon four or five times simultaneously in their zeal to “Get Trump.” It is a fundamentally Constitutional issue of whether a President can be prosecuted by his political enemies for official acts performed while in office. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this matter. But they know that in due time they will have to do so again. And this will be the end of “Lawfare,” who raised the crime of “malicious prosecution” to a whole new level but ultimately picked the wrong target.
TY…it was my confusion. I have to go back and read it and there are 4 other amicus briefs also I needed to read.
In the meantime, the House (if the GOPe has any sense or integrity) can subpoena AG garland to investigate the identification, evaluation, negotiation and other records relating to the selection and “appointment” of smith. Including any contacts outside the DOJ, such as lawfare firms, the White House, DNC, etc., and the GA case.
A non-Constitutional ‘appointment’ to prosecute a President, to bypass Congressional scrutiny, is surely a matter for full access to these records, together with congressional testimony under oath from AG garland and smith.
This is arguably an attainder by democrats, improperly financed with public funds, against a political opponent as an individual, to deny Citizens the right to vote for their chosen candidate.
Very well stated🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
They don’t have the BALLS to do that
Compromised
I’ve lost faith in any investigations by Congress. Trying to remember when anything of positive consequence for our side resulted.
Hopefully the US Constitutional Laws will prevail; that the USSCJ will apply the rules of the US Constitution.
It took the Sons of Liberty (SOL) over a decade to defeat the British Crown. The SOL began in 1765, headed by Sam Adams, Paul Revere, and others. Their first Act was to VETO the Stamp Act. Over the following decade, they amassed more Patriots. And thank God these Patriots fought for Liberty and Independence. Their battles were horrendous, yet they kept it up. They kept it up and eventually won Independence from the British throne.
WE cannot let the Commies, Globalists nullify all the initial Patriots did to make the USA a Constitutional Republic.
Hopefully the US Constitutional Laws will prevail; that the USSCJ will apply the rules of the US Constitution.
It took the Sons of Liberty (SOL) over a decade to defeat the British Crown. The SOL began in 1765, headed by Sam Adams, Paul Revere, and others. Their first Act was to VETO the Stamp Act. Over the following decade, they amassed more Patriots. And thank God these Patriots fought for Liberty and Independence. There battles were horrendous, yet they kept it up. They kept it up and eventually won Independence from the British throne.
WE cannot let the Commies, Globalists nullify all the initial Patriots did to make the USA a Constitutional Republic.
“Their distance from Great Britain naturally created a sense of independence that was hard to overcome. Those willing to colonize the new world generally had a strong independent streak with a profound desire for new opportunities and more freedom.
The Proclamation of 1763 played its own role. After the French and Indian War, King George III issued the royal decree that prevented further colonization west of the Appalachian Mountains. The intent was to normalize relations with the Indigenous peoples, many of whom fought with the French. …
Even though the British believed in mercantilism, Prime Minister Robert Walpole espoused a view of “salutary neglect.” This system was in place from 1607 through 1763, during which the British were lax on enforcement of external trade relations. Walpole believed this enhanced freedom would stimulate commerce.
The French and Indian War led to considerable economic trouble for the British government. Its cost was significant, and the British were determined to make up for the lack of funds. They levied new taxes on the colonists and increased trade regulations. These actions were not well received by the colonists.
New taxes were enforced, including the Sugar Act and the Currency Act, both in 1764. The Sugar Act increased already considerable taxes on molasses and restricted certain export goods to Britain alone. The Currency Act prohibited the printing of money in the colonies, making businesses rely more on the crippled British economy.
Feeling underrepresented, overtaxed, and unable to engage in free trade, the colonists rallied to the slogan, “No Taxation Without Representation.” This discontent became very apparent in 1773 with the events that later became known as the Boston Tea Party.
A number of settlers had purchased land in the now forbidden area or had received land grants. The crown’s proclamation was largely ignored as settlers moved anyway and the “Proclamation Line” eventually moved after much lobbying. Despite this concession, the affair left another stain on the relationship between the colonies and Britain.” …….
It took 12 years from the Proclamation of 1763, ending Walpole’s “Salutary Neglect” of the Colonies, to open hostilities with the Royal Occupation Government in 1775 at Lexington & Concord and Bunker Hill.
Things move a lot quicker these days.
“That, I can tell you.”
Rest in the Vine: “The Root Causes of the American Revolution” by Martin Kelly
Lay down a base of fire and move forward!
The Currency Act was crucial, as it caused a massive depression in the Colonies, but it was the Bank of England (their Fed Res Brd) that forced the Act though. Those “bankers” ran England then, and run England now. And the world. Including us.
The Proc of 1763 was 2nd in importance. Those Indians were going to be dispossed regardless of morality, regardless of treaties. Nothing was going to stop that. Nothing. And it is one of the reasons we have no official state-church combo. The Founders wanted no moralizing about the Indians, or the Blacks, either (i.e. the other reason we have no state religion; in Catholic countries, slaves had certain rights, & Jefferson cancelled those in Louisiana when he bought it: 1st thing he did).
3rd was the Quebec Act of 1774, which gave special status to the R. Catholic Church in Canada. The Americans HATED Catholics & went nuts, calling Geo III a “crypto catholic”. War was inevitble then. FWIW.
while I am pleased with this PROPER outcome, I am not pleased with the ruling that did not discuss the inferior/superior aspect of the special prosecutor, jack smith.
Perhaps I am impatient. The legal argument that jack smith has neither authority, jurisdiction AND standing is non-trivial. Perhaps TEAM TRUMP will file a motion with the appeals court post haste and extinguish this Jack ASS.
God Bless America
They could rule on that issue at any time they please. If they please. But so could the lower courts.
The rapacious bottom-court has been stymied, and the audacious attempt to bypass the second layer of the court system has been stopped cold – as it should be. It is also now certain that a “Super Tuesday eve” target will not be achieved.
please explain “super tuesday eve” target. I think I understand but other might not understand this.
The Biden regime wanted the trial to start at/before Super Tuesday voting in March. Trying to get voters to reject Trump…
It would have backfired anyway. A Trump trial will improve his standing.
thank you Hokkoda
My guess is that, since no one had ever challenged-on constitutional grounds-the regulations created by AG Janet Reno after the Special Counsel law lapsed in 1999, SCOTUS may require Trump to first file suit against Smith and DOJ AFTER he gains standing to do so as a result of an unfavorable outcome in his case.
But who knows? I’ve learned that there is no travesty of justice that cannot be dressed up to sound entirely legal. Roberts is particularly adept at this; Chutkan is not. Her judicial errors are accompanied by the most amateurish circumlocutions.
a friend of the court could file a case with the appeals court and not have to wait for a verdict. It would simply be established based on a fundamental “error” that the appeals court could rule on based on authority, jurisdiction, and/or standing. Similar to the centiarori that was submitted by meese/heritage foundation to scotus. what do you think?
second question: lets assume that jack smith is sent packing from a ruling, then what? is it possible that DOJ AG Garland simply authorize a SUPERIOR US ATTORNEY (CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE) TO PICK UP THE PIECES AND CONTINUE ON? Or is there a legal rubicon that they endanger the case by attempting it?
God Bless America
Eric Bowling at Newsmax just declared that the j-6 trial will be delayed beyond the election.
This has been my prediction for a long time.
Still a lot of work to do.
The Court clearly was in no mood to facilitate Smith’s Super Tuesday needs.
I believe we’re going to see the Court finally live up to its calling, because the True Judge is now judging judges, praise God!
Maybe SCOTUS is tired of the mockery being made of the judicial system
and all the nonsense and shenanigans we have seen with the NY Civil
case and that judge, and Jack smith trying to side step protocol which
would set a bad precedent if they allowed it cuz then others would try
the same..so they are saying follow the rules…
How do I get a password to see the protected article?
Email us…
[email protected]
Supreme Court doesn’t want to be complicit when all this comes out after the election and depts and people, who are clearly being set up, get thrown under the bus one way or another
Donald Trump is Batman, Superman, William Wallace, George Washington….all rolled into one. He’s an actual profile in courage! What a time to be alive!
Correct. And David
And prophet Elijah. And Jehu.
The really brave thing for the court to have done would have been to ask for a brief from Jack Smith as to why he thinks he has authority to investigate and prosecute Trump–the Ed Meese issue–then solicit a brief from Trump and additional amicus curiae on that issue.
The independent counsel statute was part of the “Ethics in Government” Act that was passed in 1978, but allowed to expire in 1999, because by then everyone was sick of it, and the political games both parties were playing with it.
And yet attorneys general have continued to appoint “independent” counsels. Just four years later, in 2003, one of the most abusive independent counsels, Patrick Fitzgerald, was appointed to look into the supposed “outing” of CIA bureaucrat Valerie Plame. Fitzgerald persecuted Scooter Libby, even though he knew throughout the entire investigation and prosecution of Libby that Libby did not “out” Plame; that was done by longtime Washington reporter, Robert Novak, who was given Plame’s name by his CIA source on background, who asked him not to use her name. Novak stated, “Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. There is no great crime here.”
Supposedly, the continued appointment of special counsels, even after the death of the special counsel statute, is being done under 28 USC 510, which states:
“The Attorney General may from time to time make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the Attorney General.”
In light of the fact that congress, with the full support of both parties, allowed the independent counsel statute to lapse, I don’t think this can be read as authorizing the AG to name “independent” counsels. But assuming it does, it is very clear that the person to be “authorized to perform” must be an officer of the government, e.g., an already sitting U.S. Attorney like John Durham. Jack Smith was not that. He was a private citizen living la vida loca in Brussels, extorting various international figures, when the Marxists running the “Biden Administration” plucked him up and sic’d him on President Trump.
Maybe after the DC Circuit finishes its work, the SCOTUS will ask for full briefing on this issue (but it won’t happen unless John Roberts grows a pair, which would take a Christmas miracle).
Thank you for the excellent write up.
Would a USC 510 appointment not require a Senate confirmed appointee, either by current position, or by submission for confirmation, to satisfy the situation as laid out by Ed Meese?
It seems a court of appeals decision on the Meese concerns is in order.
Yes, that is the argument in the Meese Brief. But it is obvious from the plain English of the statute that it cannot be a private citizen.
And after looking briefly at the history of this issue, I don’t think it’s legitimate at all to use section 510 to appoint independent special counsels. Everyone from Fitzgerald to Mueller to Smith has lacked authority. Special counsels exist so that Democrat administrations and the deep state can engage in lawfare and pretend it’s not really them that is harassing their political opponents.
Jack Smith has the sads.
A perfect Christmas gift for Jack
“Deranged Jack Smith” is a negative and scurrilous character in history.
Daily Skeptic–”Jung Predicted How the West Would Destroy Itself”
(Note-Jung never knew a Donald Trump would appear in the madness and create a movement to begin saving it. The outcome is not yet determined but P Trump is doing his best to save Western civilization from its own self destruction)
“2023 has seen the culmination of a worldwide process which Carl Jung called enantiodromia, a notion he took from Heraclitus. Truly there is nothing new under the Sun.”
Jung defined enantiodromia as: “The transformation of the hitherto valued into the worthless, and of the formerly good into the bad” and “the emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time”. (Willbourn)
We can all cite numerous examples. Steyn noted:
-“Celebrating diversity” means enforcing an ever more ruthless conformity;
*Western nations are sewers of hateful racist prejudice and white supremacy, yet they’re the only countries black and brown people want to move to;
*An increasing number of girls are boys, and the statement that “men are not women” will get your social-media account closed down;
*The state flag of Minnesota has to be vaporized because it’s insufficiently “inclusive” and, if you object to the national anthem of Canada being sung in Punjabi, you’re “divisive”;
*In the interests of “saving democracy”, the leading political candidate cannot be allowed on the ballot;
*In order to save the environment, we have to destroy rural life, close down all the farms, slaughter every cow and put wind turbines in the path of every incoming bird and so on.
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/12/21/jung-predicted-how-the-west-would-destroy-itself/
https://www.steynonline.com/13988/you-make-me-feel-so-jung
When this is all over, PT needs to recoup lawyer fees from the Federal Government.
I would prefer he recoup his expenses directly from the purses of those who wished to prosecute him, and not from my taxpayer supplied account. Those who wish to harm the republic at my expense should pay for their crimes at their expense.
Jack smith is so corrupt, that it is highly doubtful that he’s ever done anything honest in his life. He’s the ultra corrupt lawfare’s go to make believe attorney. Everything he does is criminal in nature, never
legal and usually unconstitutional. That’s what makes him such a valuable asset, to the deep state, globalists and the corrupt democrats.
Trump vs LAWFAFE:
“For those with ears to hear.”
Trump is Walking the Dog!
Larry Schweikart
@LarrySchweikart
1) More from Zen Master re the DC case timetable (this is worse than I thought for Count Dooku, Jack Smith):
Cont reading…
I have a liberal friend in DC who claims to be Independent. He asserts a short note by the court is standard.
Is that true? Counter examples?
Thx.
Yes. A denial of cert is usually a one-sentence order. They give no reasons. They don’t have to.
Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
@julie_kelly2
Jack Smith’s DC case against Trump is imploding–and with it, so too is the classified documents case.
Cont reading…
😁😁😁😁😁
I was reminded of this video on Jan 6th.
President Trump has been kept from his day in court and been able to make his case for true justice.
Its always been just the opppsite.
Maybe in the appeals court process he will be able to tell the truth and the rats in DC will jump the ship.
🙏🏻
And drown, hopefully!
HOW ABOUT GOVERNMENT ORGANIZED CRIME? FOR EXAMPLE SMITH.
—————————————-
The Pentagon fails its fifth audit in a row
If the Defense Department can’t get its books straight, how can it be trusted with a budget of more than $800 billion per year?
Military Industrial Complex
military industrial complex qiosk
Connor Echols
Nov 22, 2022
Last week, the Department of Defense revealed that it had failed its fifth consecutive audit.
“I would not say that we flunked,” said DoD Comptroller Mike McCord, although his office did note that the Pentagon only managed to account for 39 percent of its $3.5 trillion in assets. “The process is important for us to do, and it is making us get better. It is not making us get better as fast as we want.”
Shutterstock_1794320848-scaled
The Pentagon fails its fifth audit in a row
If the Defense Department can’t get its books straight, how can it be trusted with a budget of more than $800 billion per year?
Military Industrial Complex
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/22/why-cant-the-dod-get-its-financial-house-in-order/
—————————————-
RICO: A LAW DESIGNED TO ATTACK ORGANIZED CRIME, IS ALSO A GREAT BUSINESS LITIGATION TOOL
Jeffrey Ochrach
Attorney at Ochrach Law Group
Published Sep 19, 2016
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was enacted in 1970. This statute, part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, is designed to prevent and punish “racketeering activity.” RICO was aimed at mobsters and organized criminals.
However, I’ve used the RICO statutes very effectively in lawsuits involving fraud by business people. RICO is a potent litigation weapon.
The statute authorizes any person injured by a violation of the section describing unlawful activity (18 USC § 1962) to sue and recover treble damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. For those of you who have litigated to a victory only to find out that the American Rule precludes you from recovering the attorneys’ fees you spent to win your case, adding a RICO claim can add tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to your award. On top of that, treble damages is a form of punitive damages. As a result, if your damages are, for example, $300,000, under RICO you could win $900,000. Indeed, RICO is a powerful tool.
Yet, you’d be surprised to know that very few business litigators have a working knowledge of RICO and, as a consequence, they almost never add a RICO claim to their lawsuit.
Here are a couple real life examples. In one case, my client was a minority shareholder in a small corporation. The defendant (who was the majority shareholder) owned several other corporations, and he paid the expenses of his other corporations using my client’s corporation’s checks. In other words, he stole from my client’s company, and he was able to easily conceal his activities because, on the surface, when my client looked at the corporation’s accounting records, he saw that the money was used for “expenses.” My client did not know the “expenses” were lining his partner’s pockets with what should have been my client’s share of profits.
Normally, my client would have no right to recover his attorneys’ fees in this case because he had no contract that provided for recovery of fees, and no attorneys’ fees statute applied. Without a chance to recoup his litigation expenses, this case would have been a tough one to prosecute because the damages were only around $100-200K, and attorneys’ fees could easily – and actually did – surpass the damages, making any victory a net loss.
Not here. I added a RICO claim to our lawsuit. We won. The court trebled (tripled) my client’s damages and added all of his attorneys’ fees (over $200,000). It was a great victory.
Even the smallest cases can be satisfying victories because of RICO. Another client invested $200,000 in gold coins. After wiring the money to the gold coin vendor in Southern California, the vendor refused to deliver the gold or return my client’s money. We were forced to sue. After I obtained an immediate pre-judgment injunction freezing the vendor’s assets, the vendor sent a check for the $200,000 to settle the case. However, it cost my client $25,000 to get to that stage, and I insisted on reimbursement of all attorneys’ fees based solely on our RICO claim. After some lawyerly arguing, and with the threat that we would not accept the $200,000 because RICO gave us the opportunity to win $600,000, the defendant paid every penny in attorneys’ fees. This result never would have happened without a RICO claim.
With the exception of one lawyer, I never see lawyers include a RICO claim – even when I believe it could apply. Because RICO was designed to get real criminals and not business people who commit fraud, many courts are reluctant to allow a RICO claim to proceed. But, I’ve been able to convince courts that RICO is appropriate in business fraud cases, and I have used it as a great tool in obtaining justice for my clients.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rico-law-designed-attack-organized-crime-also-great-business-ochrach
A good day for America!
Biden weaponized the swamp creatures at the DOJ and FBI
to go after Trump and associates. This is very dangerous.
This will turn the Republic into a lawless Banana Republic.
January 6th, 2021 is our Bunker Hill.
“@KarlRove just went on
@FoxNew & misled the audience, misquoting Trump”…
Why does anyone believe anything that comes out of Rove’s mouth since 2012, especially when he’s trashing Trump? He & Jeb Bush are like FJB–always on the wrong side of everything.
WHY CAN’T THE STATES NOT FILE A RICO CASE FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR THE 2020 ELECTION? MORE THAN ENOUGH PROOF SEEMS TO EXIST.
That’s what I want to know!! THX!
In a way this is consistent with the manner the Members of the Supreme Court and Federal District Judges rules on petitions presented PRIOR to the 2020 elections asking for rulings regarding the Authority of State Executive Officers and Judges to usurp the Powers of State Legislatures.
Those federal Judges refused to hear those cases because … the elections had not yet started, therefore there were NO violations … there for there are NO issues to consider.
This falls into that category of ruling … there was NO judgement made … therefore the ISSUE does not exist (YET).
The good news is the court refused to hear case … the bad news is that the Chief Justice Roberts ALLOWED the request to actually be made and be considered, implying the Supreme Court will hear the case after the DC Circuit agrees with Jack Smith.
It is interesting to note that all indications across the web are that the decision was UNANIMOUS.
This may even be a sign to Jack Smith and even to President Trump that Jack Smith has to Prove his case before the question of immunity will be considered, which would not be good for President Trump. If the court punts on the issue …. that means any rulings by the DC Circuit would stand.
Robert’s didn’t allow the request for an expedited consideration. The procedural rules permitted it.
Wrong … Roberts is the Justice who supervises the DC Circuit he allowed it to move on to the court.
DeSantis PAC door knockers…
“The Kasichification of Ron DeSantis is complete”…
What in hell is that knot on his forehead?
Ashley St. Clair
@stclairashley
BREAKING: Congressman
@mattgaet has called for Delta CEO Ed Bastion to answer to Congress on the transportation of non-resident migrants
Cont reading…
Sundance, thanks for all you do with your great research, analysis, and assimilation followed by dissemination.
One slight favor, please. Could you get rid of the twitter bird (always hated it and “tweets”), and replace it with Musk’s “X”?
Thanks.
Kirt Poovey
Deleted …wrong thread.
I’ve been seeing reports in the socialist media that SCOTUS “dodged” or “sidestepped” the issue, when all they did was adhere to the process.
Their order is just “not at this time.”
https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-court-jack-smith-79700/
oops sorry, same info as SD posting here. Delete
https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-court-jack-smith-79700/Joebama Clan Urges Supreme Court To Overturn Injunction on Federal Agencies Influencing Tech Censorship
https://reclaimthenet.org/biden-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-overturn-injunction-on-federal-agencies-influencing-tech-censorship
Tar and feathers for Jackie Boy
A man did innocent until proven guilty. This ruling turns the law on it head. They did the same thing drying Covid do you think this is a setup to get it to SCOTUS? We were accused of spreading Covid Like spreading it was a crime. With zero proof. I don’t like the way this is going..
Is —typo.
President Trump is on track to delay trial (after the election) without SCOTUS rejection to rule on immunity question NOW (CA # 23-257) !
To sum up: AFTER Court of Appeal will decide, President Trump will involve SCOTUS (if necessary). At that time we could know if they grant to expedite case. Informal 60 days rule starts in 8/24.
[1] judge-chutkans-memorandum-opinion-denying-trumps-motion-to-dismiss-based-on-presidential-immunity-and-motion-to-dismiss-based-on-constitutional-grounds.pdf (documentcloud.org)
[2] order-scheduling-oral-arguments-dec-18-2023.pdf (documentcloud.org)
[3] gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.186.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
Trump vs the deep state is like watching the road runner in real life BEEP! BebeeeP BEEP!!
😉
Those two pictures: Evil and GOOD.