Recommendation To Wait For July 11 Sentence To Take Action

[HLS Classmate]

.

Dear Working Group Colleagues,

Like John, I have taught for a top-tier law school (NYU School of Law in John’s case).

Accordingly, I was as appalled as John at the NY v. Trump Jury Instructions which were nothing more than “A ‘How To Guide’ To Sleep At Night” for every juror who –

(1) claimed to believe BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT the “on whom the whole case hinged” multiple-time-convicted liar who was even caught lying on the witness stand on an important point in NY v. Trump itself no less;

(2) which multiple-time-convicted liar admitted to his attorney more than a dozen times on one occasion when facing prosecution (NB: the multiple-time-convicted liar had inexplicably waived attorney-client privilege) that HE HAD NOTHING ON TRUMP with which to bargain for a plea agreement; and

(3) claimed to believe that NO REASONABLE DOUBT was raised by testimony of at least two credible witnesses that Trump submitted to what may well have been lie-based blackmail in order to protect the sensibilities of his wife and family.

[NB: There was beaucoup evidence that prominent people are often the target of blackmail and their paying for a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is not illegal per se.]

***********
Nevertheless, the raison d’être of our working group is to consider what action our parent organization should take to obtain a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court pursuant to U.S. Code Sec. 1651(a) and U.S. Supreme Court Rule 20.

John’s Invitation to each of the 229 members of our parent organization to join our Working Group had IMHO correctly posited that the third and last alternative in Rule 20, a Writ of Habeas Corpus, would be the appropriate avenue.

Several points should be appreciated –

(1) A Writ of Habeas Corpus requires some sort of physical restraint.

(2) For example, Hillary Clinton who actually was guilty of funneling money through a legal firm in order to hire an “opposition research firm” to hire Christopher Steele to fabricate the notorious “Steele Dossier” (aka the Russia-Russia-Russia Anti-Trump Hoax that paralyzed the nation for three years) and claiming it was a “legal expense” was fined $113,000 by the Federal Election Commission.

[NB: In NY v. Trump the payment to the multiple-time-convicted liar was a real “legal expense” paid to him before he was disbarred for negotiating as an attorney the perfectly-legal non-disclosure agreements with would-be black-mailers so, of course, Trump was cleared by the Federal Election Commission which actually has (not state courts) jurisdiction over election-law violations.]

(3) IMHO the conditions for the U.S. Supreme Court issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus in NY v. Trump pursuant to its Rule 20 are the epitome of a circumstance in which such a writ should be issued – IF NOT THIS CASE WHOSE OBVIOUS MOTIVATION IS INTERFERENCE WITH A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, THEN WHEN???

(4) However, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot be expected to issue such a writ before sentencing on July 11 since the physical constraints that still exist prior to sentencing will no longer exist as such after the July 11 sentencing – and a U.S. Supreme Court hearing and decision on the matter could hardly be arranged before then.

(5) If the July 11 sentence provides for nothing more than a fine such as Hillary Clinton paid, then there is no physical constraint.

(6) If the July 11 sentence goes beyond a mere fine, then no matter how slight the physical constraint might be (e.g., a period of parole pursuant to which Trump must meet with his parole officer periodically), a Writ of Habeas Corpus would be appropriate.

**********
Accordingly, even though I have no objection to any colleague doing further research or providing opinions on whatever s/he deems worthy of the group’s attention, I would respectfully suggest that our recommending action to our parent organization await the July 11 sentence to ascertain whether it contains anything more than a mere fine.

Respectfully submitted,

HLS Classmate

[HLS Classmate]

.
Dear Working Group Colleagues,

It has been reported that the Judge in NY v. Trump has just notified the parties of a web posting a day before the verdict by a person claiming to be a cousin of one of the jurors to the effect that the juror had communicated that Trump would be convicted.

Various legal commentators have opined that, if true, the judge would be required to grant a motion for mistrial.

If Trump's attorney's are so stupid as to file a motion for mistrial, they should have their heads examined!!!

A brand new trial???

With Trump effectively locked up for another 5 weeks in a courtroom???

Plus another month's delay in sentencing???

It would be better to add this to the list of reasons for appeal!!!

If Trump's attorneys fall for this, it would appear that our Working Group's raison d'être will have vanished.

Respectfully submitted,

HLS Classmate

PS – Obviously the foregoing opinions are based on recent polling which indicates that Trump’s support has increased since the verdict.

This is in line with what John Karls has been saying on our website many times since 2016 –

1. The “War on American Workers” has conducted 1993-2016 by "The Establishment" (i.e., the billionaires who own both political parties, most of the media, and much of academia) in the form of exporting American jobs to low-wage countries such as China and in the form of importing illegal aliens to compete for what jobs cannot be exported.

2. Donald Trump has acquired MESSIAH STATUS by refusing to bow to The Estabishment but, instead, fighting for the American workers on both fronts.

3. What The Establishment overlooks is that America is still predominantly Christian and well-aware of how Christ was persecuted and prosecuted because of his love for the common people.

4. Accordingly, it is no mystery why Donald Trump’s poll numbers increase every time he is persecuted or prosecuted.

In line with this thinking, it would not only be foolish for Donald Trump’s attorneys to permit the NY v. Trump judge to declare a mistrial and lock Trump up in his courtroom for another 5-week trial – if necessary waiving the trivial juror misconduct in order to prevent the judge from doing so – but it might behoove the Trump attorneys to confine the appeal within the NYS legal system to CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES which would require a dismissal rather than a mistrial (and a new 5-week trial).

It would appear that only dismissal which would invoke the U.S. Constitution’s Bar Against Double Jeopardy would “drive a stake through the heart” of NY v. Trump.

In the meantime, we should stand ready to recommend how to achieve a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if a sentence should comprise anything more than a monetary fine.

[HLS Classmate]

.
Dear Working Group Colleagues,

As I’m sure you are all aware, Trial Judge Merchan granted the requests of both parties to delay sentencing in order to ascertain the impact, if any, of Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding Presidential Immunity for Official Acts.

Trump attorneys have until July 10 to file their written arguments and the prosecution has two weeks thereafter to respond, with Trial Judge Merchan ruling on September 6 regarding whether the U.S. Supreme Court decision has an impact on NY v. Trump.

If Trial Judge Merchan rules negatively, sentencing is now scheduled for September 18.

Our Working Group was established pursuant to the 6/2/2024 e-mail to the 229 members of our parent organization to consider what action would be appropriate on our part if the sentence provides for any physical restraint (rather than a mere fine) pursuant to 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1651(a) with a Writ of Habeas Corpus in accordance with the third and final provision of U.S. Supreme Court Rule 20,

Accordingly, it would appear that there is nothing further for us to do before September 18.

Respectfully submitted,

HLS Classmate

[HLS Classmate]

.
Dear Working Group Colleagues,

Thank you all for your reactions to Judge Merchan’s order yesterday granting defendant Donald Trump’s motion to postpone sentencing, if any, until after the election. Please see the 4-page decision --

RL-m906 - NY vs. Trump - 4-page decision to delay sentencing to 11-26-2024.pdf

(1.68 MiB) Downloaded 18069 times

Its most important disclosures are –

(1) Defendant Donald Trump filed a motion to remove NY vs. Trump to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and it was denied by Judge Hellerstein;

(2) Defendant Donald Trump has appealed the U.S. District Court’s decision to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals where it is now pending;

(3) The State of NY is essentially neutral vis-à-vis postponement of sentencing;

(4) Judge Merchan has now ordered a postponement of his decision from 9/6/2024 to 11/12/2024 vis-à-vis Defendant Trump’s CPL Sec. 330.30 Motion to dismiss the case in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 7/1/2024 decision regarding Presidential Immunity for Official Acts; and

(5) Judge Merchan has now ordered that if he denies the CPL Sec. 330.30 Motion, sentencing will occur on 11/24/2024.

Accordingly, it would appear that there is nothing further for us to do before November 24.

HOWEVER, everyone agreed that we should remain vigilant in the meantime since nobody had the time since yesterday to research whether Judge Merchan has the power to, at any time, revoke his ruling of yesterday, immediately deny the Motion to Dismiss and immediately proceed to sentencing -- however unlikely such actions might be.

Respectfully submitted,

HLS Classmate

[HLS Classmate]

.
Dear Working Group Colleagues,

Just a quick Heads Up for anyone who didn’t notice a relatively-small hiccup in the schedule Judge Merchan announced 9/6/2024 to make his decision today re the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 7/1/2024 decision regarding Presidential Immunity for Official Acts followed, if necessary, by sentencing on 11/24/2024.

The relatively-small hiccup???

Instead of announcing his decision today re Presidential Immunity for Official Acts, Judge Merchan granted the prosecution’s motion to delay his decision until the prosecution can assess the impact of the Presidential Election.

Judge Merchan has now set a 11/19/2024 deadline for the prosecution to submit its views on the impact of the Presidential Election.

HOWEVER, we should remain vigilant since Judge Merchan presumably has the power to, at any time, revoke his ruling of yesterday, immediately deny the Motion to Dismiss and immediately proceed to sentencing -- however unlikely such actions might be.

IN ANY EVENT, this imbroglio will presumably reach its denouement by the scheduled 11/24/2024 sentencing date which, if necessary, appears not to have been delayed.

Respectfully submitted,

HLS Classmate

[HLS Classmate]

.

Dear Colleagues,

Just a quick Heads Up for anyone who didn’t notice the latest hiccup in the sentencing schedule –

RL-mb19-Distract Attorney Bragg letter to Judge Merchan.pdf

(329.9 KiB) Downloaded 15417 times

If Judge Merchan accepts D.A. Bragg’s recommendation, sentencing will be postponed to an as-yet unspecified date after D.A. Bragg’s suggested 12/9/2024 response to President-Elect Trump’s anticipated Motion to Dismiss.

HOWEVER, as usual we should remain vigilant because Judge Merchan is not obligated to follow D.A. Bragg’s recommendation but can proceed immediately to sentencing at any time.

Respectfully submitted,

HLS Classmate

[HLS Classmate]

.

Dear Colleagues,

Yes, Judge Merchan announced today yet another change in the sentencing schedule.

Since he obviously can change his mind whenever he wants, it is respectfully suggested that we maintain our vigilance for the imposition of a sentence involving physical restraint, however slight, so that we can immediately swing into action asking each of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices to accept an immediate direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court pursuant to a Writ of Habeas Corpus which is specifically provided under U.S. Supreme Court Rule 20.

Accordingly, please expect no further communication from me until a sentence is imposed.

Respectfully submitted,

HLS Classmate

[HLS Classmate]

.

Dear Colleagues,

Each of you has undoubtedly seen the news reports about how Judge Merchan earlier today brushed aside all of the serious and fatal objections to the conviction of President-Elect Trump and has scheduled sentencing for January 10.

As you may recall, we have agreed to remain vigilant and promote an appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court pursuant to U.S. Code Sec. 1651(a) and the third and final provision of U.S. Supreme Court Rule 20 dealing with Writs of Habeas Corpus if the sentence should include any physical restraint, no matter how slight -- such as rare Zoom meetings with a probation officer.

The Washington Post reports at https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... tion=alert --

“New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan wrote in his ruling that he does not intend to sentence Trump to jail. He said he plans to order an ‘unconditional discharge,’ a designation in New York criminal courts for a non-jail and non-probation sentence that carries no other obligations.”

Cynics among us might think that Judge Merchan has been reading our materials and is carefully tailoring his rulings in order to prevent an immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, we must remain vigilant through the sentencing because Judge Merchan can change his mind at any time.

**********
President-Elect Trump’s Virtual Attendance at the Sentencing

The Washington Post’s above-cited article also says --

“The sentencing hearing is scheduled a day after Trump is set to attend memorial services in Washington for former president Jimmy Carter, who died Dec. 29 at age 100. Merchan said Trump has the option of attending the hearing at the courthouse in downtown Manhattan or participating via an online video link.”

President-Elect Trump’s attendance, whether physical or virtual, is not part of the sentence and, as such, does not activate U.S. Code Sec. 1651(a) or U.S. Supreme Court Rule 20.

**********
Washington Post Propaganda -- Part Of Which Is Defamatory

The Washington Post’s above-cited article also says --

“The decision to uphold Trump’s conviction and schedule the sentencing for Jan. 10 almost certainly means Trump will be the first felon to serve as a U.S. president.”

Subtle propaganda comprises the mention in the WaPo paragraph quoted in the immediately-preceding section, of former-President Jimmy Carter who passed away Dec. 29 and was, inter alia, a Sunday School teacher.

Defamatory propaganda???

The blatant lie that President-Elect Trump “almost certainly…..will be the first felon to serve as a U.S. president”!!!

Probably EVERY U.S. President – including Jimmy Carter – has been a felon!!!

Indeed, current-President Biden’s own Department of Justice declined to prosecute Pres. Biden for felonies NOT BECAUSE he wasn’t guilty of mishandling classified documents, BUT BECAUSE Department of Justice Special Counsel Robert K. Hur thought a jury would view Pres. Biden as a sympathetic and forgetful old man – please see Special Counsel Hur’s 388-page Report to Attorney General Garland at https://www.justice.gov/storage/report- ... y-2024.pdf.

Presumably even the WaPo thought Pres. Nixon was a felon for the Watergate break-in.

And how could the WaPo have forgotten about that since they have so voluminously reported on the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion on Presidential Immunity for Official Acts which was the centerpiece of the objection on which Judge Merchan ruled today???

**********
The Scope of Our Responsibility If Judge Merchan orders on Jan 10 an “Unconditional Discharge”

The 2/2/2024 e-mail to all of our then-229 members establishing our Working Group had said (please see viewtopic.php?f=806&t=2517&sid=e6916fc8 ... af260585bb) --

“NB: we have always prided ourselves in being a non-partisan public-policy study/action organization.

“And yes, taking action (such as requesting each of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices to join in accepting an immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1651(a) with a Writ of Habeas Corpus -- a writ of inquiry, issued to test the reasons or grounds for restraint or detention) would appear to be political and we are non-political.

“However, each of the thousands of counties in the country has a District Attorney, and America may never again have a Presidential Election if even a handful of them (on both sides of the political aisle) decide to try to eliminate Presidential Candidates with unconstitutional trials that would be reversed after the election.”

**************************End of Quotation from E-mail Establishing Our Working Group**************************

Accordingly, any defamation by the media is beyond the scope of our authority and, if Judge Merchan confines the sentence to “Unconditional Discharge,” it is submitted that our Working Group has fulfilled its mission and will go out of existence.

BTW, imposition of the sentence should permit its appeal to proceed, albeit probably not a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When a final decision is reached on appeal driving a stake through the heart of this travesty, then-President Trump will re-join the ranks of Presidents who are not CONVICTED felons.

And current-President Biden will have to worry whether the pardon of his son and the prospective pardons of his brother, et al., will have been sufficiently extensive to insulate himself from becoming the only U.S. President to be a CONVICTED felon.

And whether their pardons have removed their right to plead the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination so that they can be forced to testify against Biden.


Respectfully submitted,

HLS Classmate