Page 106 of 106 FirstFirst ... 65696102103104105106
Results 2,626 to 2,635 of 2635
  1. #2626
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    82,492
    now they're just playing with house money...

    The appeals court already stated the district court erred and had no jurisdiction. That would basically means getting rid of Cannon and the special master.

    Feds seek to fast-track appeal in Trump Mar-a-Lago do ents fight

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...fight-00059879

    Filing here:
    https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...7-b7be49d40000
    seems there can be occasional drawbacks to appointing inexperienced simps as judges.

  2. #2627
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    82,492
    Trump reportedly asked his lawyer to lie to NARA. Hope he has good bodyguards.


  3. #2628
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    82,492
    thumb on the scales

    On September 5, Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that depriving Donald Trump of personal items cons uted “real harm.”
    being deprived of potentially significant personal do ents [] creates a real harm

    Yesterday, the newly unsealed filter team status report revealed that, for two weeks, Judge Cannon deliberately inflicted that harm on Trump.

    That’s because on August 30, DOJ’s filter team told her that they wanted to return the original copies of do ents designated as Category B — 43 sets of do ents amounting to 382 pages of do ents — to Trump.

    [T]he PrivilegeReview Team proposes to return the originals and provide a Bates-stamped control copy to the Plaintiff. Many of these materials do not appear to be privileged (although one appears to be.11), but they are all either legal in nature (e.g.,settlement, non-disclosure, and retainer agreements) or otherwise potentially sensitive, and they do not appear to be themselves government or Presidential Records or classified do ents.

    These do ents were lawfully seized: many were likely in the desk drawer in which Trump also had a do ent marked Confidential and another do ent marked Secret. The others would have been seized from the storage closet where Trump was hiding 79 do ents with classification markings. But on August 30, DOJ proposed to Aileen Cannon that they give them back.

    Then, the next day, on September 1, filter attorney Benjamin Hawk asked for permission to pursue “the proposal that we offered,” which, in addition to providing Trump with Bates-stamped copies of all the do ents treated as potentially privileged, would also include (per the status report that had been discussed at length in the hearing) giving him the originals back.

    MR. HAWK: Your Honor, if I may.
    THE COURT: Yes.
    MR. HAWK: We would like to seek permission to provide copies — the proposal that we offered, Your Honor, provide copies to counsel of the 64 sets of the materials that are Bates stamped so they have the opportunity to start reviewing. THE COURT: I’m sorry, say that again, please.
    MR. HAWK: The privilege review team would have provided Bates stamped copies of the 64 sets of do ents to Plaintiff’s counsel. We would like to seek permission from Your Honor to be able to provide those now, not at this exact moment but to move forward to providing those so counsel has the opportunity to review them and understand and have the time to review and do their own analysis of those do ents to come to their own conclusions. And if the filter process without a special master were allowed to proceed, we would engage with counsel and have conversations, determine if we can reach agreements; to the extent we couldn’t reach agreements, we would bring those before the Court, whether Your Honor or Judge Reinhart. But simply now, I’m seeking permission just to provide those do ents to Plaintiff’s counsel.
    THE COURT: All right. I’m going to reserve ruling on that request. I prefer to consider it holistically in the assessment of whether a special master is indeed appropriate for those privileged reviews. I think Mr. Bratt is hoping to get a few more minutes in.

    In response to a request to (among other things) give the originals of Trump’s personal do ents back, Cannon declined to approve the request. Had she approved it, 382 pages of personal do ents would have been back in Trump’s custody right away. He would no longer have been deprived of those potentially significant personal do ents. The harm that Cannon said was caused by his deprivation of those do ents would be ended.

    And that is precisely the harm she cited when she first ruled that a Special Master had to review the do ents that she had prevented DOJ from returning to Trump. Indeed, she claimed there was a dispute about the very personal property that DOJ had tried to give back five days earlier.

    Although some of the seized items (e.g., articles of clothing) appear to be readily identifiable as personal property, the parties’ submissions suggest the existence of genuine disputes as to (1) whether certain seized do ents cons ute personal or presidential records, and (2) whether certain seized personal effects have evidentiary value. Because those disputes are bound up with Plaintiff’s Rule 41(g) request and involve issues of fact, the Court “must receive evidence” from the parties thereon. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) (“The court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion.”). That step calls for comprehensive review of the seized property.

    Review is further warranted, as previewed, for determinations of privilege. The Government forcefully objects, even with respect to attorney-client privilege, pointing out that the Privilege Review Team already has screened the seized property and is prepared to turn over approximately 520 pages of potentially privileged material for court review pursuant to the previously approved ex parte filter protocol [ECF No. 48 p. 14]. In plain terms, the Government’s position is that another round of screening would be “unnecessary” [ECF No. 48 p. 22]. The Court takes a different view on this record.

    By that point, she had personally been responsible for depriving Trump of 382 pages of do ents for five days.
    She would cite back to this passage, claiming a dispute including over do ents DOJ had tried to give back, when she refused to stay her injunction on investigating the classified do ents.

    To further expand the point, and as more fully explained in the September 5 Order, the Government seized a high volume of materials from Plaintiff’s residence on August 8, 2022 [ECF No. 64 p. 4]; some of those materials undisputedly cons ute personal property and/or privileged materials [ECF No. 64 p. 13]; the record suggests ongoing factual and legal disputes as to precisely which materials cons ute personal property and/or privileged materials [ECF No. 64 p. 14]; and there are do ented instances giving rise to concerns about the Government’s ability to properly categorize and screen materials [ECF No. 64 p. 15]. Furthermore, although the Government emphasizes what it perceives to be Plaintiff’s insufficiently particularized showing on various do ent-specific assertions [ECF No. 69 p. 11; ECF No. 88 pp. 3–7], it remains the case that Plaintiff has not had a meaningful ability to concretize his position with respect to the seized materials given (1) the ex parte nature of the approved filter protocol, (2) the relatively generalized nature of the Government’s “Detailed Property Inventory” [ECF No. 39-1], and (3) Plaintiff’s unsuccessful efforts, pre-suit, to gather more information from the Government about the content of the seized materials [ECF No. 1 pp. 3, 8–9 (describing Plaintiff’s rejected requests to obtain a list of exactly what was taken and from where, to inspect the seized property, and to obtain information regarding potentially privileged do ents)].

    The only dispute here was between Cannon and the government! They had already asked to give Trump’s personal do ents back, and she refused to grant permission to do that.

    And Cannon pointed to those personal items — items the government had already tried to give back — when she refused to lift her injunction on investigating classified do ents.
    https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/10/0...e-to-help-him/

  4. #2629
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    82,492
    Thief demands that stuff he stole not be given back to its rightful owner.


  5. #2630
    what uganda do about it? Joseph Kony's Avatar
    My Team
    Seattle Supersonics
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    6,154
    Best part of all of this is you just know Trump is definitely wetting himself behind closed doors Melania gonna need to get a few extra packs of diapers

  6. #2631
    Believe. daboom1's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Post Count
    5,281
    Best part of all of this is you just know Trump is definitely wetting himself behind closed doors Melania gonna need to get a few extra packs of diapers
    Walls are closing in for sure.

  7. #2632
    IPA's All Day benefactor's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Post Count
    39,454
    Walls are closing in for sure.
    How did his election fraud cases go with the Supreme Court?

  8. #2633
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    73,053
    Walls are closing in for sure.
    He looks happy

  9. #2634
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    149,850
    Thief demands that stuff he stole not be given back to its rightful owner.

    That was quick. This is probably why his lawyer asked to be paid $3 million upfront.

  10. #2635
    what uganda do about it? Joseph Kony's Avatar
    My Team
    Seattle Supersonics
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    6,154
    sorry this is happening to you

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •