Trump was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury late last week, which is playing out in the attempt by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to revive the 2016 incident involving a porn star who said she had an affair with the then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2006. Some observers believe that all 34 of the charges in the indictment are the same, and the legal foundation is rather murky because some of the actual laws that are allegedly being broken are not named.
Republicans in the U.S. are rallying behind Trump as the world watches. Last week after the indictment was announced Conservative Brief reported that Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said the state of Florida would not cooperate with any request to extradite Trump.
“The weaponization of the legal system to advance a political agenda turns the rule of law on its head. It is un-American. The Manhattan District Attorney has consistently bent the law to downgrade felonies and to excuse criminal misconduct. Yet, now he is stretching the law to target a political opponent. Florida will not assist in an extradition request given the questionable circumstances at issue with this Soros-backed Manhattan prosecutor and his political agenda,” DeSantis said.
As Republic Brief previously reported, Judge Juan Merchan ruled late on Monday night that he will allow five pool photographers to snap for several minutes before the arraignment but declared that no cameras will be allowed in the courtroom once the hearing begins. “That this indictment involves a matter of monumental significance cannot possibly be disputed. Never in the history of the United States has a sitting or past President been indicted on criminal charges,” Merchan said.
The judge said he “needed to balance other interests” in this unprecedented legal and political situation, and that no electronic devices will be allowed in either the main or overflow courtrooms.
Now the first photo of former President Donald Trump at the defendant’s table in court has been released. The former president entered the courtroom after 2:30 PM in New York on Tuesday and minutes later the photo was sent to the press by photographers on hand.
CHECK IT OUT:
Republicans have come out in support of Trump. House Judiciary GOP posted, “Alvin Bragg admitted to using YOUR federal dollars to indict President Trump.”
Conservative Brief reports statements by leading Republicans on the matter:
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz responded: “The Democrat Party’s hatred for Donald Trump knows no bounds. The ‘substance’ of this political persecution is utter garbage. This is completely unprecedented and is a catastrophic escalation in the weaponization of the justice system.”
Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley said: “Tonight’s indictment of Donald Trump isn’t about the law. It’s about power. Raw power. It’s the Democrat Party telling the nation they will stop at nothing to control the outcome of the next presidential election. It is an assault on our democracy, pure and simple.”
Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, and 2024 GOP presidential candidate tweeted: “From everything I have seen from this New York district attorney is that this would be something he’d be doing for political points. I think what we know is, when you get into political prosecutions like this, it’s more about revenge than it is about justice.”
And, Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz delivered a big update last week after he had a phone call with Trump.
“We will wake up in a very different America because we can no longer have moral authority against the dictators who would always find it easier to jail their political rivals than to compete against them in free and fair elections. I remember my Democrat colleagues about Comey making derogatory comments about Clinton before the election. This must ring a thousand times louder to them. I believe there are federal equities at play that the United States Congress is about to evaluate,” Gaetz added.
“We don’t want to resolve differences through violence but the Chinese Communist party can pay every grifter but Donald Trump can’t pay Stormy Daniels without a legal dispute. There’s a legal element that’s not met by any evidence. They would have to prove that Donald Trump would have no reason other than the election to try to resolve this issue with Stormy Daniels privately and outside of the public sphere. I think a motion to dismiss will happen next. If this were ever to be tried, you could not do it in Manhattan. You would see a change of venue in upstate New York. Maybe it’s the only place Donald Trump could get a fair trial. I expect this will be resolved well before that by any court that looks at the way that the law is being tortured in the absence of any charge that would be maintainable against any human being on the Planet Earth other than Donald Trump and against Trump it’s clearly political,” he concluded.
AS AN OLD TIMER …..WATCHING THIS SCUM ADMINISTRATION KILL THE COUNTRY THAT I LOVE AND GETTING PAID TO DO IT IS ABSOLUTE H..LL!!!!
Subject:Gerrit to Leslie Dubeck DA
From
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
To
dubeckl@dany.nyc.gov
Cc
Gerrit Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
Reply-To
admin@inspector-rikati.com
Date
Today 17:29
Message Body
Madam,
I am an Australian and confounded that Bragg DA somehow appears to have pursued charges in relation to taxation claims which were business matters to which the then President Donald J Trump, at least as I understand it, had no dealing with, this because I read a document that then President Donald J Trump had placed matters in trust and would stay clear from any Trump corporate dealings.
If indeed the Trump Corporation was placed in trust governed by his sons Donald Jr and Erik then I view this may have been a serious issue if this were not disclosed to the grand jury. After all if indeed the charges are relating to the Trump Organisation during the time Donald Jr and Erick were in fact dealing with matters then I view this also ought to have been disclosed to New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan and failing to do so may not just constitute OBSTRUCTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE but also part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and the administration of justice.
If you were/are aware of these details about the trust and remain silence then I view you also could be held legally accountable.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Conspiracy
Conspiracy
CONSPIRACY, noun [Latin See Conspire.]
A combination of men for an evil purpose; an agreement between two or more persons, to commit some crime in concert; particularly, a combination to commit treason, or excite sedition or insurrection against the government of a state; a plot; as a conspiracy against the life of a king; a conspiracy against the government.
More than forty had made this conspiracy Acts 23:13.
In law, an agreement between two or more persons, falsely and maliciously to indict, or procure to be indicted, an innocent person of felony.
A concurrence; a general tendency of two or more causes to one event.
Commonwealth v. Hunt
QUOTE
(1842), American legal case in which the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the common-law doctrine of criminal conspiracy did not apply to labour unions. Until then, workers’ attempts to establish closed shops had been subject to prosecution. Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw asserted, however, that trade unions were legal and that they had the right to strike or take other steps of peaceful coercion to raise wages and ban nonunion workers.
The case stemmed from a demand by the Boston Journeymen Bootmakers’ Society that an employer fire one of its members who had disobeyed the society’s rules. The employer, fearing a strike, complied, but the dismissed employee complained to the district attorney, who then drew an indictment charging the society with conspiracy. The Boston Municipal Court found the union guilty.
Justice Shaw, hearing the case on appeal, altered the traditional criteria for conspiracy by holding that the mere act of combining for some purpose was not illegal. Only those combinations intended “to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means” could be prosecuted. Shaw, in effect, legalized the American labour union movement by this decision.
END QUOTE
QUOTE Sorell v Smith (1925) Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords
In an action against a set person in combination, a conspiracy to injure, followed by actual injury, will give good cause for action, and motive or instant where the act itself is not illegal is of the essence of the conspiracy.
END QUOTE
I urge you to ensure that whatever is pursued it at least is according to the rule of law and if as appears to be by the Trust document former President Donald J Trump had no involvement in Trump Organisation while president and any taxation claims were made by the business then in my view so to say the charges themselves wouldn’t have a leg to stand upon. This may mean that the eagerness to pursue former President Donald J Trump may have resulted in a derelict of duty by the DA to ensure to have all FACTS correct and may be considered a CONTEMPT OF COURT as well as a CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT, where a DA reasonably is expected to check the FACTS and not needlessly wast the courts precious time as well as causes possible slander and other harm to occur against an innocent person.
IUf this, as it appears to me, is no more but a political harassment, then I view you do better to clarify matters as to avoid being dragged into an utter mesh.
In my view if indeed there was a Trust and the taxation claims were made at the time Donald Jr and Erik were in charge then I view you are obligated to notify New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan without delay and leave it up to His Honour to make the appropriate decision.
Also, I view that you ought to notify His Honour of allegations that a court officer denied the accused former President Donald J Trump the sanctity of the Court when letting the door go that could have caused injury to the accused.
Regardless what bias any court officer may have against the accused (any accused) it never should be permitted for a court officer to take the law into his own hands and violate the sanctity an accused is entitled upon when in a court building.
https://www.westernjournal.com/court-officer-makes-sick-move-trump-enters-courtroom-arraigned/
Court Officer Makes Sick Move Against Trump as He Enters Courtroom to Be Arraigned
I trust you will immediately ensure all issues are appropriately attended to.
Gerrit
—
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
107 Graham Road
Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia
Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on certain constitutional and other legal issues.
THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE DISABLED
Re:
https://www.westernjournal.com/court-officer-makes-sick-move-trump-enters-courtroom-arraigned/
Court Officer Makes Sick Move Against Trump as He Enters Courtroom to Be Arraigned
I stated:
How on earth can a person be held legally accountable for something that was performed without him being legally accountable? In my view DA Bragg should be held legally accountable for abusing the administration of justice with frivolous/vexatious charges. And another matter I view that New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan had/has a legal obligation to ensure that any Defendant has the sanctity of the Court when attending to the Court. https://www.westernjournal.com/court-officer-makes-sick-move-trump-enters-courtroom-arraigned/ Court Officer Makes Sick Move Against Trump as He Enters Courtroom to Be Arraigned QUOTE One of two court officers who had opened the doors in front of Trump let one close on him, as seen in a video shared on social media. END QUOTE
Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 II,L.C. 759
QUOTE
The fundamental rule of English (Australian) law is that “No man can be a judge in his own case“. It has long been held that if there is bias or the appearance of bias such as to deny justice or create the impression that justice has not been done, then that bias, or apparent bias, is sufficient to invalidate the decision of those who made the decision.
END QUOTE
QUOTE R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236
However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be such as to lead the parties reasonably to think that the judge has prejudged an important question in the case, and then prohibition may issue. Of course, the court which is asked to grant prohibition will not lightly conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspected of bias in this sense; it must be “firmly established” that such a suspicion may reasonably be engendered in the minds of the parties or the public, as was made clear by the court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553-4, in the passage cited in R v Watson; Ex Parte Armstrong (132 CLR at 262).”
“The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has prejudged a question, but whether that is what a party or the public might reasonably suspect has occurred (see per Lord Denning MR in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC Ltd v Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577 at 599, a judgement cited with approval by this court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553; In some circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might well convey the impression of “protesting to much…
END QUOTE
In my view a judge is an OFFICER OF THE COURT and must be held accountable for any incident untowards a Defendant, in this case where a officer for whatever reason displays a conduct such as reported by an officer not to hold the door open for a Defendant (regardless if this is former President Donald J Trump and/or any other Defendant) than this violates the right of the Defendant. Such an incident could in fact cause injury to an unsuspected Defendant but also violate the sanctity of the Court any Defendant is entitled upon. Even if the trail judge was unaware of this incident himself other Officers of the Court had a duty to alert the trial judge of this having eventuated. It is not a mere discourtesy as the Officer concerned is there to ensure that there is no bias shown towards any Defendant, regardless of his personal views towards the Defendant. Any judge who allows bias conduct to be permitted by this from onset intimidates the Defendant that he will not deal with matters without bias. As this was a matter that was reported by the media and I in Australia even became aware of it then I view New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan should being it by his own reading articles and/or watching video(s) and/or being informed by his court staff have immediately held the officer concerned accountable as it may constitute a CONTEMPT OF COURT and a CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE COURT and for this likewise with any other Officer who failed to report the matter to him. Where New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan failed to do so and failed to make it publicly known that he deplored those involved in the unacceptable conduct of this officer and others failing to notify him about it then I view New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has no alternative but to disqualify himself from the case and any other proceedings involving the same Defendant for being perceived to be bias by failing to uphold the right of a Defendant to have the sanctity of the Court.
In 1986 I submitted to a trial judge that he should disqualify himself for bias. His Honour then read out numerous Authorities and then concluded that His Honour did not consider he was bias and dismissed my submission. I then submitted to His Honour that he should disqualify himself for being bias and having failed to disqualify himself. His Honour again cited numerous Authorities and then concluded that he did not view he was bias but that to a FAIR MINDED PERSON it may have appeared that His Honour was bias and therefore he disqualified himself from the case, and did so.
I view that I am a FAIR MINDED PERSON and view that New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan should disqualify himself of all and any proceedings involving the same Defendant due to his failure to provide the Defendant with the sanctity of the Court. Clearly some of the media reported the matter and as such it was a “public interest” issue and hence I view that New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan failed to uphold the right of any Defendant subjected to the ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE to be provided with safe passage, etc, while attending court facilities. The Officer concerned (and others failing to report matters immediately to His Honour) may be seen as to undermine the Authority of the Court and so New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan and one then may ask what might eventuate in any further hearing (to which already the media speculated of dangers) where a judge fails to provide the accused with the sanctity of the Court the person is entitled upon. Ultimately the judge is supposed to be in charge and should have issued strict orders that any court staff as well as any other person assisting the court must not display any conduct of bias towards an accused. This appears to me not to have been provided for or the Officer concern (and others failing to report it) clearly themselves violated the Courts requirement to provide any accused of a conduct free from any form of bias, harassment, etc.
Below I provide some Australian Authorities but beyond doubt USA Authorities likely will be likewise.
R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 236
QUOTE
However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be suck as to lead the parties reasonably to think that the judge has prejudged an important question in the case, and then prohibition may issue. Of course, the court which is asked to grant prohibition will not lightly conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspected of bias in this sense; it must be “firmly established” that such a suspicion may reasonably be engendered in the minds of the parties or the public, as was made clear by the court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553-4, in the passage cited in R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (132 CLR at 262).
The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has prejudged a question, but whether that is what a party or the public might reasonably suspect has occurred (see per Lord Denning MR in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC Ltd v Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577 at 599, a judgment cited with approval by this court in R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at 553; In some circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might well convey the impression of “protesting to much”…
END QUOTE
.
The book “Law Made Simple” by Colin F. Padfield, LL.B.,D.P.A.(Lond.) on page 55:
QUOTE
“The Rule against Bias. A true judicial decision can be reached only if the judge himself is impartial. This is an obvious requirement in a court of law or a tribunal. In R. v Rand (1866) it was held that a judge is disqualified where (i) he has a direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject-matter in dispute; or (ii) there is real likelihood that the judge would have a bias in favour of one of the parties.
For example, if a judge is related to, or is a friend of, one of the parties to a dispute there would be real likelihood of bias. It is immaterial whether a judicial decision was in fact biased, for as was said by Lord Chief Justice Heward in R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924): ‘Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.’
As an example of pecuniary bias we may quote:
Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852). Lord Chancellor Cottenham made decrees in a Chancery suit in favour of a canal company. Lord Cottenham held several shares in the company. Held: (by the House of Lords): that the decrees be set aside on the ground of pecurniary interest. No bias was proved in fact, nor could it be shown that Lord Cottenham was in any way influenced by his shareholding.
As an example of likelihood of bias we may quote:
R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924). A was summoned before magistrates for a motoring offence. The acting clerk to the justices was a member of a firm of solicitors representing A in civil proceedings arising out of the same accident. The acting clerk did not advise the magistrates, but he retired with them to consider their decision. Held: that as the acting clerk was connected with the case in the civil action he ought not to advise the magistrates in the criminal prosecution. Conviction accordingly quashed, despite the fact that the acting clerk took no part in the decision to convict and had not been asked by the justices to give his opinion or advice. ”
END QUOTE
END QUOTE. R v Rugari [2001] NSWCCA 64; (2001) 122 A Crim R 1 at [57]. QUOTE “Prosecutor’s Duties
62. A prosecutor must fairly assist the court to arrive at the truth, must seek impartially to have the whole of the relevant evidence placed intelligibly before the court, and must seek to assist the court with adequate submissions of law to enable the law properly to be applied to the facts.
63. A prosecutor must not press the prosecution’s case for a conviction beyond a full and firm presentation of that case.
64. A prosecutor must not, by language or other conduct, seek to inflame or bias the court against the accused.
65. A prosecutor must not argue any proposition of fact or law which the prosecutor does not believe on reasonable grounds to be capable of contributing to a finding of guilt and also to carry weight.”
END QUOTE
http://www.nswbar.asn.au/docs/professional/prof_dev/BPC/course_files/Dealing%20with%20unrepresented%20litigants%20-%20Pulsford.pdf
QUOTE
Duty of the court — The court has a duty to give persons who represent themselves a fair hearing, and it may be appropriate for the court to give some assistance to such persons in order to fulfill that duty.
The exacting nature of the task imposed upon the judge in civil and criminal trials has been well summed up by Bell J of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Tomasevic v Travaglini & Anor [2007] VSC 337 (13.9.07) [139]-[141] where his Honour said:
―Every judge in every trial, be it criminal or civil, has an overriding duty to ensure the trial is fair. A fair trial is the only trial a judge can judicially conduct. The duty is inherent in the rule of law and the judicial process. Equality before the law and equal access to justice are fundamental human rights specified in the ICCPR. The proper performance of the duty to ensure a fair trial would also ensure those rights are promoted and respected.
Most self-represented persons lack two qualities that competent lawyers possess – legal skill and ability, and objectivity. Self-represented litigants therefore usually stand in a position of great disadvantage in legal proceedings of all kinds. Consequently, a judge has a duty to ensure a fair trial by giving self represented litigants due assistance. Doing so helps to ensure the litigant is treated equally before the law and has equal access to Justice.
The matters regarding which the judge must assist a self-represented litigants are not limited. The judge must give such assistance as is necessary to ensure a fair trial. The proper scope of the assistance depends on the particular litigant and the nature of the case. The touchstone is fairness and balance. The assistance may extend to issues concerning substantive legal rights as well as to issues concerning the procedure that will be followed.‖
Where the interests of justice and the circumstances of the case require it, a judge may:
• Draw attention to the law applied by the court in determining issues before it;
• Question witnesses;
• Identify applications or submissions which ought to be put to the court;
• Suggest procedural steps that may be taken by a party;
• Clarify the particulars of the orders sought be a litigant in person or the bases
for such orders.‖
(The above list was not regarded as exhaustive and there may well be other interventions that a judge may properly make without giving rise to an apprehension of bias.)
The LexisNexis commentary14 provides:
―A breach of these guidelines may result in procedural unfairness, which may in turn require a re-trial: See S v R and the Children‘s Representative (1999) 24 Fam LR 213; FLC 92-834. See also In the Marriage of Sadjak (1992) 16 Fam LR 280; (1993) FLC 92-348 per Nicholson CJ, Nygh and Purdy JJ where the particular needs of litigants whose first language is not English are discussed. See also In the Marriage of Su and Chang (1999) 25 Fam LR 558; FLC 92-859 (FC).‖
END QUOTE
In my view the failure of the officer to hold the door open which may have caused physical harm to the accused is not a minor issue;
Chu v Henham [1999] VSC 139 (4 May 1999)
QUOTE
1. In the course of his judgment Hedigan, J stated –
“The right of citizens to resist unlawful search and arrest is as old as their inclination to do so. The role of the courts in balancing the exercise of police powers conferred by the State and the rights of citizens to be free from unlawful search and seizure may be traced through centuries of cases.”
1. His Honour referred to previous decisions of this court including to McLinley v. Minster [1911] VLR 347, in which case Madden, CJ at p.350-351 said –
“The whole question was – did Minster assault McLinley … if the question of the assault on McLinley had been deliberately and properly investigated it would have become important to ascertain whether or not the assault was justified and that would depend on whether the constable had lawfully arrested and was lawfully holding Minster because it is an important principle of law that no man has the right to deprive another of his liberty except according to law, and if he does so the person so unlawfully deprived has a perfect right to use reasonable efforts to beat him off and to get out of his custody.”
ENDQUOTE
As to the rights to criticize a court, etc.
Ambard v Att Gen for Trinidad and Tabaco (1939) AC 322 at 335
QUOTE
The basic of the right to fair comment is the Right of Freedom of speech and the inalienable right of everyone to comment fairly upon matters of public importance.
END QUOTE
No wrong committed in criticism of administration of justice:
LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335
QUOTE
But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary man
END QUOTE
.
The right for the public to be informed about the judicial process being properly applied or acts:
THE COMMENTS OF SIR JAMES MARTIN C.J., IN THE MATTER “THE EVENING NEWS” (1880) N.S.W. LR 211 AT 239.:
QUOTE
The right of the public to canvass fairly and honestly what takes place here cannot be disputed. Our practice of sitting here with open doors and transacting our judicial functions as we do, always in the broad light of day, would be shown of some of its value if the public opinion respecting our proceedings were at all times to be rigidly suppressed. We claim no immunity from fair, even though it be mistaken criticism.
END QUOTE
.
As to value of criticism, keeping judge subject to rules and principles of honour and justice;
(a) R v FOSTER (1937) St. E Qd 368
(b) Re WASEMAN (1969) N.Z.L.R. 55, 58-59
(c) Re BOROVSKI (1971) 19 D.L.R. (34) 537
(d) SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RADIO AVON LTD (1978) 1 N.Z.L.R. 225, at 230-31