THE SUPREME COURT BURIES PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT PART TWO
The Review
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected even considering the bid by the Missouri Attorney General to delay the sentencing of Donald Trump in the hush money case brought by DA Bragg, in which Trump was convicted on 34 Felony counts as decided by a New York jury of 12. This was detailed in the newsletter entitled: “The Supreme Court Buries Professional Misconduct.” (Part One)
Discretionary versus Mandatory Functions
The U.S. Supreme Court, like all inferior courts, decide “cases or controversies.” This is their discretionary function. It can invite love or hatred depending upon who the audience is. Regardless, it is a discretionary function that is totally authorized by the U.S. Constitution. (See Art. III Section 1 as referenced in “The Supreme Court Buries Professional Misconduct.”) (Part One)
However, the judicial policing of the legal profession is a mandatory function. One of the greatest deceptions going is the hiding behind the discretionary function so that the American people will not see the mandatory function.
It is from this mandatory perspective that the Supreme Court must be adjudged when it comes to their burying of professional misconduct that is brought to their attention.
What the U.S. Supreme Court Knew and When it Knew it
The U.S. Supreme Court is composed of nine members. The wrongful extrajudicial publicity that was perpetrated against Trump was broadcast to all the world in ten successive events. Members of the world included all 9 members of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Illicit Publicity in the Hush Money Case
As noted in the last newsletter, the DA was expressly prohibited from the publishing of extrajudicial comments that could materially prejudice the defendant’s legal right to be presumed innocent and would heighten the public condemnation against him in doing so. (See Rule 3.6(a), 3.8(f) and 8.4(d) of the rules of professional conduct. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/
Moreover, the DA was also expressly prohibited from allowing any of his assistants from doing it under 3.8(f) and 3.6(a). Furthermore, all law officials, including justice officials all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, are expressly required to report all professional misconduct that comes to their attention. If they don’t, they themselves, are guilty of professional misconduct under Rule 8.3(a) of those rules. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/
(It is noteworthy that to this day there has been no known public condemnation of any of Bragg’s or Pomerantz’s professional misconduct from the state bar association, or any of the justice officials all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Such misconduct of both will be set forth in the timeline below)
With this as backdrop, the timeline will be presented that shows what DA Bragg knew, what he allowed, what he did and what the Supreme Court knew and allowed.
The Timeline of the Illicit Publicity Events
1 2/23/22-Assistant DA Mark Pomerantz resigns from the DA Office
2 3/23/22-Pomerantz publishes in the New York Times that Trump is Guilty of hush money crimes from what the DA’s Office investigated
3 3/23/22
-3/30/23-DA Bragg is silent and remains silent for over a year about Assistant DA Pomerantz’s damaging prejudicial comments against Trump
4 3/30/23- DA Bragg indicts Trump on 34 Felony Counts, based on the same nucleus of alleged facts that were the basis of Pomeranz’s allegations
5 4/04/23- Trump is arraigned on the 34 Felony Counts that merged with Pomerantz’s damaging extrajudicial comments
6 3/26/24- Judge enters Gag Order against Trump effectively precluding Trump from charging professional misconduct against the illicit publicity
7 4/08/24- Voir Dire conducted from a jury pool contaminated by Pomerantz’s illicit publicity that was allowed by DA Bragg
8 4/15/24- Jury Selection from jury pool that was contaminated by that publicity
9 5/30/24- Jury renders guilty verdict on all 34 counts derived from that same publicity contamination
10 8/5/24- The U.S. Supreme Court buries the professional misconduct of DA Bragg and Mark Pomerantz in ruling to not even consider any delay of the sentencing against Trump in which such sentencing came from and was derived from the above professional misconduct
11 8/5/24- All ten events were broadcasted to the nation and the world through the mainstream media. Members of the nation and the world included the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court
An upcoming newsletter will specifically assess how DA Bragg did what he did and how his entire office provided cover for him and Mark Pomerantz under the watchful eye of the U.S. Supreme Court.
I see that this professional misconduct is a crime in itself if it is never considered to review. However, a person judged guilty under law with exculpatory evidence untried does not care how he is found innocent. (Especially in a case where his due process rights were trampled on, and no crime was found unanimously, or beyond a reasonable doubt.) The word “entry” was used incorrectly to mean categorizing instead of calculating amounts. (This is from Black’s Law Dictionary.) My point is there are so many judicial mistakes in this trial which ruined a man’s reputation, and perhaps will rob him of his freedom, that the most likely argument to be heard should be heard first. I think SCOTUS has no inclination to add work to their schedules and admit they didn’t do a complete review of the case and the RPC’s application to it.
Disgusting. However, I think this was before the ruling on Presidential Immunity. The business was private acts, however the dates of bookkeeping were 2017, which places his bookeeper in the Oval Office several times per month for the President to sign checks. She testified at the trial, as did his adviser Hope Hicks. The staff of the President are off limits as witnesses in a case considered personal. The Oval Office is where the President conducts official duties, sometimes with other officials. The testimony of witnesses who served there or who were in the Office despite having employment in the business, would need to be struck from the record. SCOTUS may need to review the new evidence, jury instructions, witnesses and Decision to know if it conforms to the new standard providing if presumptive immunity applies.