I’m not surprised at all, but I would like to know when and if will apply the Code of Professional Conduct upon this case and the DA, prosecutors, and Judge who brought it to trial with skimpy jurisprudence, and evidence.
(Pomerantz declared Trump guilty publicly without the defendant’s evidence presented later in the AG civil trial.)
A great question, Michelle Dostie. There was extremely skimpy grounds for the legal case,
but at least it was legal. On the other hand, the legal end is really moot when everyone involved in this professional misconduct scandal should have and still should be removed from the practice of law along with the state bar association who colluded in it.
Yes, the ABA is a big part of it. But we will see justice if people like you and me get the word out about how deep this corruption is. They depend upon the public not knowing. Once they know, this corruption will fall like a house of cards.
Were the Trump lawyers aware of Pomerantz’s NYT publication and book? They were FL attorneys. If not that would be a Brady vio. The voir dire could have limited the jury to 6 who hadn’t known a Prosecutor “thought he was guilty from the first time he ever saw him. “
Secondly, the alleged overvaluation of property in order to continue doing business with Deutsche was brought by the AG as a civil suit. There was no plaintiff but the State. The bank was not injured but espressed its interest in continuing to lend to Mr. Trump because he had so much property, and value property on their own. Half billion dollar fine, which the State is now collecting 1M/mo. Double jeopardy? If he was found guilty in the business records case, but we actually don’t know what he is accused of since it was not unanimous. It also was not beyond a reasonable doubt.
The characterization of this case as a hush money/Storm Daniels case has always bothered me. The case is about money, and any guilt from him paying any attorney he owed derives from the amount being false, i.e., receivables not equaling payables are one time of false entry. This I obtained from Black’s Law Dictionary. The case was turned into a circus when the porn star who was paid for extortion by his contracted attorney on his own via an NDA (legal document) was brought into the courtroom to testify about a sexual encounter that may/may not have occurred. A category was created for the structured payment Cohen wanted. So a man has an NDA written by his attorney to protect his reputation, and pays his attorney back on schedule, labels the payments and invoices in his records legal services, which they were, because these records are not payroll, or plywood, or bricks. Where is the crime? The records are accurate and don’t change the value of the business. The crime is created by calling it hush money and having a porn star testify to assasinate the defendant’s character. I look at this, along with the terms in the law and definitions, and I can’t twist it into a crime. Especially because any intent to commit another crime while committing the original noncrime ( while he was in the WH and the bookkeeper in NYC). It’s an impossible scenario. Plus the misdemeanors were tolled and needed to be revived by an actual felony, not a thought crime.
I’m not surprised at all, but I would like to know when and if will apply the Code of Professional Conduct upon this case and the DA, prosecutors, and Judge who brought it to trial with skimpy jurisprudence, and evidence.
(Pomerantz declared Trump guilty publicly without the defendant’s evidence presented later in the AG civil trial.)
A great question, Michelle Dostie. There was extremely skimpy grounds for the legal case,
but at least it was legal. On the other hand, the legal end is really moot when everyone involved in this professional misconduct scandal should have and still should be removed from the practice of law along with the state bar association who colluded in it.
The ABA colluded? We’ll never see justice.
Yes, the ABA is a big part of it. But we will see justice if people like you and me get the word out about how deep this corruption is. They depend upon the public not knowing. Once they know, this corruption will fall like a house of cards.
Were the Trump lawyers aware of Pomerantz’s NYT publication and book? They were FL attorneys. If not that would be a Brady vio. The voir dire could have limited the jury to 6 who hadn’t known a Prosecutor “thought he was guilty from the first time he ever saw him. “
Secondly, the alleged overvaluation of property in order to continue doing business with Deutsche was brought by the AG as a civil suit. There was no plaintiff but the State. The bank was not injured but espressed its interest in continuing to lend to Mr. Trump because he had so much property, and value property on their own. Half billion dollar fine, which the State is now collecting 1M/mo. Double jeopardy? If he was found guilty in the business records case, but we actually don’t know what he is accused of since it was not unanimous. It also was not beyond a reasonable doubt.
* one kind of false entry
The characterization of this case as a hush money/Storm Daniels case has always bothered me. The case is about money, and any guilt from him paying any attorney he owed derives from the amount being false, i.e., receivables not equaling payables are one time of false entry. This I obtained from Black’s Law Dictionary. The case was turned into a circus when the porn star who was paid for extortion by his contracted attorney on his own via an NDA (legal document) was brought into the courtroom to testify about a sexual encounter that may/may not have occurred. A category was created for the structured payment Cohen wanted. So a man has an NDA written by his attorney to protect his reputation, and pays his attorney back on schedule, labels the payments and invoices in his records legal services, which they were, because these records are not payroll, or plywood, or bricks. Where is the crime? The records are accurate and don’t change the value of the business. The crime is created by calling it hush money and having a porn star testify to assasinate the defendant’s character. I look at this, along with the terms in the law and definitions, and I can’t twist it into a crime. Especially because any intent to commit another crime while committing the original noncrime ( while he was in the WH and the bookkeeper in NYC). It’s an impossible scenario. Plus the misdemeanors were tolled and needed to be revived by an actual felony, not a thought crime.