Trump Verdict Makes NYC ‘Venezuela on the Hudson’
It’s hard to adequately describe what happened to Donald Trump in Venezuela-on-the-Hudson. Outrageous? A travesty of justice? A devasting blow to the sanctity of our justice system and its reputation for fairness and nonpartisanship? An American repetition of the Soviet show trials of the 1930s?
It’s all of those things. And you don’t have to be a Trump supporter to understand that.
A former president was convicted of 34 misdemeanors for paperwork errors (whose statute of limitations had run out) that were changed to felonies because he had supposedly violated another state law—nowhere mentioned in the indictment—that makes it a crime to use “unlawful” means to promote or oppose the election of a candidate.
And what was that “unlawful” means? Well, the defendant didn’t know because those other “unlawful” means (i.e., other crimes) weren’t mentioned in the indictment, either. The judge told the jurors that they didn’t need to even agree on what other crimes the defendant had committed, seemingly in conflict with hundreds of years of English and American jurisprudence, including the Constitution’s guarantee of due process of law.
No, said the judge, the jury could consider violations of tax law or a violation of federal campaign finance law or of some other unnamed law for listing as a legal expense—instead of as a campaign expense—a settlement payment made to an individual who was represented by counsel in a perfectly legitimate, and perfectly legal, transaction. But no need for a unanimous decision on that issue.
A violation of federal campaign finance law? What were a local prosecutor and a state court judge doing bringing up a violation of federal law over which they have no jurisdiction whatsoever?
And if that was something the members of the jury—who know nothing about federal campaign finance law—could consider, why did the judge tell the defendant he would not allow Brad Smith, a former federal election commissioner and one of the nation’s leading experts on federal campaign finance law, to explain to the jury what is considered—and what is not considered—a campaign-related expense under federal law?
The judge acted like a member of the prosecution team throughout this case, a case so lacking in merit that the prior district attorney—the one who preceded the Soros-supported rogue prosecutor Alvin Bragg—refused to file it.
Judge Juan Merchan consistently ruled against Trump and allowed the prosecution to essentially do whatever it wanted, including admitting evidence and allowing testimony to matters that were completely irrelevant to the actual charges and whose only purpose was to confuse the jury and blacken the character of the defendant.
Merchan committed the same sorts of error that recently prompted the New York Court of Appeals in People vs. Weinstein to throw out Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction. How so? Because the trial judge in that case abused his discretion by admitting irrelevant testimony and evidence that was comprised of, as the appeals court said, “untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.”
Moreover, Merchan should never have presided over this case in the first place, just like this prosecution should never have been brought in the first place. Merchan should have recused himself from handling it from the very beginning. In addition to the fact that he donated money to the Biden campaign as well as to a group called “Stop Republicans,” his daughter is a Democratic political consultant who worked for the Biden-Harris campaign and whose clients have been raising money off of this kangaroo court trial.
After a six-week trial, the jury took less than two days to find Trump guilty of 34 felony charges. This hardly seems like enough time to take a hard, objective look at the lack of evidence produced by the prosecution that an actual crime had been committed. This suggests that political bias and animus toward the defendant for reasons unconnected to the case may have been a decisive—if not the decisive—factor during their hasty deliberations.
This is especially true given the only people who could provide any insight into what Trump did and what he knew with respect to the alleged offenses were Allen Weisselberg—the Trump Organization’s CFO whom the prosecution did not call as a witness—and Michael Cohen—who lied under oath on innumerable prior occasions, admitted that he hates Trump, blames Trump for everything that has gone wrong in his life, stole from Trump, recorded their conversations in violation of the attorney-client privilege, and said he would profit handsomely if Trump is convicted.
When the defense team files its appeals brief, it will probably have to be the size of the novel “War and Peace” to list all of the legal errors and fallacies committed by the judge and the prosecution.
The Appeals Court of New York should follow the example of the U.S. Supreme Court. When Trump’s lawyers filed an appeal with that court over Colorado’s unconstitutional action in disqualifying Trump from the ballot, the court acted with unprecedented speed to put the matter on an expedited schedule in order to get a decision out as soon as possible.
The New York courts have a duty and responsibility to do the same thing. I don’t have a lot of faith in those courts, many of whose judges, as we have seen in this case and the meritless civil case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, seem infected with partisan politics influencing what they do.
One final point about all of this. One of my colleagues just got back from an international conference that had representatives from all over the world, including many Third-World countries. Their reaction to these prosecutions of the former president was that the United States had finally joined the ranks of their home countries where their governments use the judicial system to go after their political opponents.
It is a sad day for America and a justice system that was, until now, much admired and copied around the world.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/06/04/trump-verdict-makes-nyc-venezuela-on-the-hudson/
***********************************************Beyond the Verdict: Bureaucrats Continue to Punish the Innocent
Why do anonymous bureaucrats have the power to ruin the lives of people found not guilty in a criminal court?
“Michael” was a confident, popular Aussie kid who spent his whole childhood in the surf. By 18, he was a qualified beach lifeguard. That’s all he’d ever wanted to be.
But then, in August 2021, came the accusation. Sexual intercourse without consent. She claimed he’d beaten her up and forced her to have sex against her will. He said she’d come on to him at the party and initiated the whole thing.
He was charged, and sent to jail for a couple of nights, before being let out on strict bail conditions. Eighteen months later a 6-week court case resulted in a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
It was revealed in court that his accuser had lied consistently to the court and police.
But it didn’t end there for this family. Despite the not-guilty verdict, Michael discovered there was a whole new phase of punishment about to kick in. Bureaucratic punishment.
Saved By His Father
Even though the lifesaving organisation had kept his position open, Michael needed his “WWCC”—the working with children check cancelled when he was arrested.
The family discovered that the bureaucrats who administer the WWCC—from the Office of Children’s Guardian—set themselves up as another judge and jury. They take it upon themselves to decide if this young man should be kept away from children.
Michael plunged into despair as this mob spent months putting him through a series of phone interviews, whilst the deadline for resuming his job slipped away.
In stepped Michael’s dad, a professional man well versed in bureaucratese, who placated the officer in charge, digging out court transcripts, references, and detailed chronology of events.
Seven months later, the officer rang to announce that Michael would receive the precious certificate. She told him that without his dogged dad, Michael most likely would never have received it.
How sickening is that? It turns out these bureaucrats have power to decide whether a person can resume work—lifeguards, or teachers, paralegals, doctors, you name it.
Endless professions in Australia now require anonymous strangers to determine whether these men are safe around children. And they almost always err on the side of caution.
The Power of Bureaucracy
And it’s happening everywhere.
Ros Burnett is a senior research associate at the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford who has published a series of studies on the impact of false allegations of abuse.
One study, which involved 30 people who were investigated but never charged, or charged but then acquitted, found many who “faced impassable barriers against working with children or vulnerable adults ever again.”
The upshot is “damaged reputations and ruined careers. Innocent men and women are left without a career, while institutions lose skilled and caring employees,” reported Ms. Burnett and her colleagues.
I’ve talked to many families whose sons had their careers destroyed, even after an allegation was found to be false in court.
Well-qualified young men have been forced to shelve life plans to become a pharmacist, or chiropractor, or paramedic, after authorities refused to issue the required certificate.
A Story Of A University Teacher
Five years ago, I tweeted about the “poor, sad face” of a teacher shown in a newspaper story leaving court after being acquitted of all 13 charges of sexually assaulting three schoolgirls. I suggested he would never recover from this ordeal.
That teacher contacted me and now sends occasional updates on the ongoing indignities he has suffered. It’s just unconscionable how bureaucrats have made him jump through hoops.
Like the phone call from a case officer from the Office of Children’s Guardian, which came out of the blue sometime after he’d applied for the WWCC. He received the call whilst sitting on a bus surrounded by people.
The former teacher reports: “She demanded that I explain why I should have the certificate back. Why did the girls make their accusations? What behaviour had I been doing that was wrong? I asked if I could set a time to speak later and in private. The lady said this was my only chance to explain. I received a letter not long after rejecting my application.”
He still can’t get that WWCC, despite using a lawyer for many subsequent applications. The only work he has been able to secure involves menial tasks: working as a store cleaner, stock person and now in retail sales.
I recently heard from a university lecturer who’d been facing sexual assault charges, despite overwhelming evidence that the accusations were false.
A few weeks ago, he learnt the charges were being dropped and costs awarded against the police. But now his WWCC certificate has been suspended “pending further investigation”—just in case there’s a student in his class who happens to be under 18.
We dangle freedom in front of these people only to snatch away any chance of returning to a normal career or life. The presumption of innocence simply doesn’t matter.
********************************************
San Francisco's business hub is deserted with eerie footage showing boarded up shops, for lease signs and empty sidewalks after spiraling crime and homelessness drove businesses out
Being soft on crime at both the State and local level bears fruit
The desolate reality of San Francisco's hollowed out city center has been laid bare by footage showing every store in an entire retail block shuttered and empty.
Lloyd Chapman of the American Small Business League visited the city's once-thriving Union Square area at the heart of its retail district.
The prime real estate was once home to outlets including Uniqlo, H&M, Rasputin Records, and Lush, but all have disappeared in a city center plagued by crime, drugs and homelessness.
'Unbelievable!' he exclaims as his camera pans round the ghostly remains of former stores now defaced by graffiti.
'This whole street is vacant, every store is empty.'
The retail exodus is mirrored in nearby streets with 22 out of 33 stores now vacant in a three-block section of Powell Street from Market Street to Union Square, according to a survey by the SF Chronical.
And the entire Union Square district now has a record vacancy rate of 20.6 per cent, helping drive the city's overall retail vacancy rate to a new high of 7.9 percent according to a survey last month by Cushman and Wakefield.
'The decline in retail performance was primarily due to the worsening conditions in Union Square and the surrounding downtown areas,' analyst Soany Gunawan wrote in the report.
Assaults are up by 10 percent in Union Square's police district so far this year and vehicle thefts are up by a third despite police setting up a new command center in the area.
Figures for most crimes have fallen across the city this year but Chapman claimed the damage has already been done after years of increases, pointing the finger of blame at California governor Gavin Newsom.
'He has devastated California with his failed policies,' the business leader tweeted.
'San Francisco is a ghost town. Oakland looks like a refugee camp.'
California spent $24 billion tackling homelessness in the five years to 2023 but did not track if the money was helping the state's growing number of unhoused people, a damning report revealed last month.
Homelessness jumped 6 percent to more than 180,000 people in California last year, federal data show. And since 2013, the numbers have exploded by 53 percent with the state accounting for a third of America's entire homeless population.
It has contributed to California's budget deficit of at least $45 billion, a shortfall so large it prompted Newsom to propose painful spending cuts impacting immigrants, kindergarteners and low-income parents seeking child care in a state often lauded for having the world's fifth-largest economy.
Retail stalwarts Old Navy, Nordstrom, Whole Foods, Anthropologie and Office Depot were among those announcing their exodus last year.
They were followed by North Face, Jeffrey's Toys, Lacoste with Macy's expected to close its flagship store next year.
'As someone who grew up in San Francisco, Macy's has always meant a lot to the people of this city. It's where families came to shop for the holidays,' San Francisco Mayor London Breed said when the news was announced in February.
'It's where many people from my community got their first jobs, or even held jobs for decades. It's hard to think of Macy's not being part of our city anymore.'
Workers at the store told The San Francisco Standard they believe the decision was made because of daily rampant shoplifting, with thieves taking at least four blazers, 10 wallets and 20 packs of underwear a day on a regular basis.
American Eagle announced last month that it will leave the former Westfield San Francisco Centre over the summer, citing more 100 significant security incidents that allegedly occurred between May 2020 and May 2023.
Breed hailed new figures last month suggesting that trough sleeping in the city has hit a five-year low with 360 tents and structures counted on the streets in April, a 41 percent reduction on last summer.
At one point a man with a hoodie seemingly burnt off his
Visitor numbers to Union Square are down nine percent so far this year according to Cushman & Wakefield, and the crisis is not confined to retailers with office vacancies now at a record level as businesses of all types desert the city center.
Scenes of homeless drug addicts stumbling on sidewalks and fears of violence and petty crime have become a national political issue, with Donald Trump making it part of his campaign platform.
In a video on homelessness released by his campaign, Trump said that 'hardworking, law-abiding citizens' were being sidelines and made to 'suffer for the whims of a deeply unwell few.'
He vowed to 'ban urban camping' and create 'tent cities' on 'inexpensive land' for homeless people that will be staffed with doctors and social workers to help people address systemic problems.
A recent DailyMail.com/TIPP Poll showed that more than two thirds of US adults said homelessness was out of control and that officials needed to move those sleeping rough into tented encampments outside towns and cities.
The survey revealed that 67 percent of Americans are fed up with the country's fast-rising number of homeless people and want mayors to take drastic steps to tackle the scourge.
'San Francisco was like Disneyland for adults,' Chapman wrote.
'Tons of cool stores and fabulous restaurants and night clubs. They're all gone now. Maybe someday it will all come back.'
**************************************************
Is the chief justice of the Australian Capital Territory a crusading reformer or a judge? Time to pick one, Lucy McCallum
This is all about rape victims. Rape is a heavily penalized crime so false rape allegations have to be rigorously tested for. But testing that can be hard on real victims.
Feminists want a way around that but there is none. Telling Leftists that some problem cannot be solved is however alien to thems so they keep trying to solve it, usually by creating more and often bigger problems
It’s one thing to try to reduce delays for sexual assault trials. But when a Chief Justice says ‘there’s an intractable problem in that our overriding task and function is to ensure an accused person has a fair trial’, you had better believe it.
The intractable problem is that the ACT’s most senior judge Lucy McCallum may well have put herself on a collision course, not just with senior barristers, but potentially with the separation of powers.
Our liberal democracy is built around the clear separation of powers. The government and the legislature make the laws. Judges apply the law. Judges do not make the law and should not interpret or administer it in a way that in substance changes the law.
No wonder lawyers in the ACT are in revolt. McCallum, they say, has given the impression to many people, especially lawyers, that she can hold down two roles: that of a chief justice of the Supreme Court, and that of a law reformer.
When a judge signals that she wants changes to how sexual assault cases are conducted in such a way as to correct some “imbalance”, some lawyers in the ACT believe there is a significant risk she’s entering the political realm.
If law reform is where her passion lies, it would be far better for the criminal justice system if she joined an advocacy group, or put herself forward to parliament.
This collision course between the Chief Justice and lawyers could have profound consequences one way or the other, not just for people accused of sexual assault, and their defence lawyers. If judges, of all people, appear to step into the political arena by suggesting that a fair trial is an intractable problem, then we could all be in trouble.
A fair trial is not a problem, let alone an intractable one. A fair trial is the principle that underpins our justice system. Without it, we may as well get rid of courts – and judges – and pack an accused directly off to jail on the basis of an untested allegation.
McCallum’s other comments are equally troubling. She said that the unfortunate message for sexual assault complainant – given the presumption of innocence afforded to an accused person – is that “We are entitled to think you might be lying until you prove that you’re not.
“That’s not quite how the system works but that’s the messaging,” she said.
What garbled nonsense from the territory’s most senior judge.
Of course, a complainant does not have to prove they are telling the truth. They are not a party to a criminal action. They are a witness giving evidence, as in any other trial. It is up to a prosecution to prove that a witness claiming they were raped is telling the truth.
If McCallum is suggesting that a jury is not entitled to think that a complainant might be lying, she is on a collision course with the presumption of innocence. This fundamental principle means that the prosecution bears the burden of proof, meaning that they must prove that a complainant who alleges rape is not lying. In other words, a jury may well find that a complainant is lying.
McCallum has put lawyers, and people accused of sexual assault, in a dreadful position. When they appear in court in front of McCallum, what are they to think after her public comments? Are they to wonder whether the Chief Justice is favour of a fair trial or not? She said a fair trial was “immutable” but she also described a fair trial afforded to an accused as an intractable problem.
Does McCallum believe in the presumption of innocence? Does she understand how these fundamental principles work?
Lawyers are also troubled by the way McCallum described a judge’s duty to disallow “annoying, harassing, humiliating or repetitive” questions, without including the critical qualifier of “unduly” found in the Evidence Act. Does McCallum intend to run cross examinations in her courtroom in accordance with the Evidence Act, or rather as if subject to her own personal amendment to the Act?
Lawyers who express concerns about McCallum’s public foray face another problem. She will know they disagree with her. How will that play out in court? It may have no impact at all, but the fact that senior lawyers are asking these questions shows how inappropriate it is for McCallum to make these comments at all.
Leave it to others to explore law reform. They don’t hold a position of power over an accused, and their lawyers, in a courtroom. That’s why we have the separation of powers, to stop the abuse of power, and the perception of powers being abused.
Given her troubling and muddled comments to a local newspaper, if McCallum was misquoted, she needs to tell us. If she didn’t explain herself as best as she might have, she had better do that.
This debacle shows why judges should stick to their day job, behind the bench, overseeing trials rather than giving the impression that they would rather be law reformers.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment