A lot of times when I post something, I don't post it for the commentary from the person on x necessarily. But for what the document is.

SwigAg11 said:

---

If I'm reading it right, is that guy Evans suing Bragg and Co. through the 5th circuit?

---

Smells like BS to me. Probably some shyster putting this out there to accompany a crowdfunding site to "raise money to help with the legal costs".

Maybe this? Probably nothing

New York v Donald Trump
May 10 Federal Court
I sued New York, Alvin 2024 sleezy Judge Juan Merchan based on election interference as a disenchanted voter.

I served Alvin Bragg and Judge Merchan May 14th 2024
Leticia James will represent the parties

June 11, 2024, I filed in… pic.twitter.com/SDFtG6v0PL

— Treniss J. Evans III (@CondemnedUSA) July 5, 2024

"Disenchanted voter?" LOL. My prediction that case goes nowhere.

This is the District Court ruling that he appealed:

https://casetext.com/case/evans-v-supreme-court-of-ny

Quote:

---

Before the Court is Plaintiff Treniss Evans's Writ of Prohibition. ECF No. 1. Upon consideration, the Writ of Prohibition is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.

---

No surprise there.

Trennis Evans is the guy who was walking around the Capitol building with the megaphone and drinking out of a handle of Jack Daniels on January 6.

That's an automatically created form by the clerk's office of the 5th Circuit (shouldn't be seen to mean the 5th Circuit is taking this seriously) and the dismissal of the case will be summarily confirmed by the Court pretty quickly once it's sent to the judges.

Since it looks like I posted some BS earlier, I will post this... It may have more merit coming from Ship.

Interesting issue will come into focus shortly with respect to further immunity litigation in all 4 pending cases?

“Immunity” is a defense that results in the avoidance of trial.

It is quite likely the the Trump defense in every case cannot go forward on any issue other than…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) July 6, 2024

Something I've been wondering about: if Merchan rules that all of the testimony with White House staff was admissible, then can Trump immediately appeal that decision (possibly delaying sentencing again)? If so, would he need to appeal in state court or federal court over this matter?

SwigAg11 said:

---

Something I've been wondering about: if Merchan rules that all of the testimony with White House staff was admissible, then can Trump immediately appeal that decision (possibly delaying sentencing again)? If so, would he need to appeal in state court or federal court over this matter?

---

Yes, that is immediately appealable, most likely to the state appellate courts.

Now since the same would be a constitutional ossue, there would be subject matter jurisdiction for federal courts but that require a separate case.

Judge Wilson: “Based on my experience I can tell you, in no uncertain terms, that former President Trump DID NOT receive a fair trial from Judge Juan Merchan.” “If I may be blunt Donald Trump was railroaded and Juan Merchan was the driver of that train.” pic.twitter.com/QAQcGlwcVf

— Sequencer (@RealSeq16) July 9, 2024

BREAKING: House Judiciary Committee calls on appellate courts to "reverse the verdict" in Trump’s New York case, claiming that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan "worked together to deprive" former President Trump of "his constitutional and legal rights.”

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 9, 2024

will25u said:

---

BREAKING: House Judiciary Committee calls on appellate courts to "reverse the verdict" in Trump’s New York case, claiming that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan "worked together to deprive" former President Trump of "his constitutional and legal rights.”

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 9, 2024

---

I'm guessing the appeals court will simply stay silent. Also, can the appeals court even procedurally do anything before actual sentencing?

SwigAg11 said:

---

will25u said:

---

BREAKING: House Judiciary Committee calls on appellate courts to "reverse the verdict" in Trump’s New York case, claiming that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan "worked together to deprive" former President Trump of "his constitutional and legal rights.”

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 9, 2024

---

I'm guessing the appeals court will simply stay silent. Also, can the appeals court even procedurally do anything before actual sentencing?

---

Actually they can step in at any time and there's precedent for doing so

Foreverconservative said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

will25u said:

---

BREAKING: House Judiciary Committee calls on appellate courts to "reverse the verdict" in Trump’s New York case, claiming that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan "worked together to deprive" former President Trump of "his constitutional and legal rights.”

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 9, 2024

---

I'm guessing the appeals court will simply stay silent. Also, can the appeals court even procedurally do anything before actual sentencing?

---

Actually they can step in at any time and there's precedent for doing so

---

For some reason I had assumed that would require a motion from Trump's lawyers. However, I'll say that I would be shocked if the appeals court stepped in.

Edit: do you have some examples of appeals courts interceding of their own volition?

Quote:

---

Actually they can step in at any time and there's precedent for doing so

---

What is the precedent?

Quote:

---

For some reason I had assumed that would require a motion from Trump's lawyers.

---

You assume correctly.

Seems pretty important over here. Doubt this will pass, but...

Irish 2.0 said:

---

Schumer plans to strip Trump of immunity following SCOTUS ruling

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schumer-plans-strip-trump-immunity-following-scotus-ruling

Quote:

---

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced plans to draft legislation allowing former President Trump to be held accountable for behavior following the 2020 election.

Schumer said his proposed bill will classify Trump's actions related to challenging the results of the 2020 election "unofficial," thereby removing the immunity protections granted under a recent Supreme Court ruling.

---

Quote:

---

"[The Supreme Court] incorrectly declared that former President Donald Trump enjoys broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions he took while in office."

---

---

Quote:

---

A bill of attainder is a piece of legislation that declares a party is guilty of a crime. Bills of attainder allow the government to punish a party for a perceived crime without first going through the trial process.

In the United States, bills of attainder are unconstitutional as stated in Article 1 Section 9 and Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Article 9 prohibits federal bills of attainder and Article 10 prohibits bills of attainder by the states. The constitutional ban on bills of attainder works to uphold separation of powers principles by preventing Congress from assuming the functions of the judicial branch.

---

Quote:

---

retroactive

A law, administrative agency rule, or court decision that imposes liability on individuals for prior actions. Adjudications are by their nature retroactive applications of the law. That is, a judicial body necessarily determines whether a litigant's past events violated a law. However, retroactive application of statutes or rules are generally disfavored. That is, an individual will likely not be found liable for violating a statute if that statute was not in effect at the time of the individual's conduct predicating the alleged violation. For example, in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, the U.S. Supreme Court denied application of a federal statute which directly addressed the issues being litigated because it was passed during the litigation, emphasizing the presumption against retroactive application of statutes. The principle of disfavoring retroactive application of the law is rooted in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, i.e. the due process clause. Put another way, it is not considered fair for an individual to be liable for violating a law that did not exist at the time of the alleged violation. .

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Quote:

---

A bill of attainder is a piece of legislation that declares a party is guilty of a crime. Bills of attainder allow the government to punish a party for a perceived crime without first going through the trial process.

In the United States, bills of attainder are unconstitutional as stated in Article 1 Section 9 and Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Article 9 prohibits federal bills of attainder and Article 10 prohibits bills of attainder by the states. The constitutional ban on bills of attainder works to uphold separation of powers principles by preventing Congress from assuming the functions of the judicial branch.

---

---

Schumer is either completely non compos mentis or gaslighting.

aggiehawg said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Quote:

---

A bill of attainder is a piece of legislation that declares a party is guilty of a crime. Bills of attainder allow the government to punish a party for a perceived crime without first going through the trial process.

In the United States, bills of attainder are unconstitutional as stated in Article 1 Section 9 and Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Article 9 prohibits federal bills of attainder and Article 10 prohibits bills of attainder by the states. The constitutional ban on bills of attainder works to uphold separation of powers principles by preventing Congress from assuming the functions of the judicial branch.

---

---

Schumer is either completely non compos mentis or gaslighting.

---

This and all the anti-SCOTUS grandstanding are just for publicity to drive turnout in November. Nothing the Senate tries to do about this would be constitutional or have any hope of going anywhere in the House. The last thing the dems want is for anything like this to pass, allowing Biden to be charged for all the corrupt crap he and his family are into.

aggiehawg said:

---

Schumer is either completely non compos mentis or gaslighting.

---

Yes.

Trump defense counsel files notice and motion to dismiss based upon recent SCOTUS immunity decision.

Gouveia breaks it down here on rumble

aggiehawg said:

---

Trump defense counsel files notice and motion to dismiss based upon recent SCOTUS immunity decision.

Gouveia breaks it down here on rumble

---

What a listen! They won't dismiss because they're narcissists bit damn that was good. Trumps defense team has done an amazing job.

GenericAggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Trump defense counsel files notice and motion to dismiss based upon recent SCOTUS immunity decision.

Gouveia breaks it down here on rumble

---

What a listen! They won't dismiss because they're narcissists bit damn that was good. Trumps defense team has done an amazing job.

---

I could see Merchan weighting his ruling on how he thinks the appeals process might play out since the question on immunity is immediately appealable. If sentencing gets puts on hold immediately, then that just plays into Trump's hands for the election.

Or he's just an extreme narcissist and doesn't care about any of that.

SwigAg11 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Trump defense counsel files notice and motion to dismiss based upon recent SCOTUS immunity decision.

Gouveia breaks it down here on rumble

---

What a listen! They won't dismiss because they're narcissists bit damn that was good. Trumps defense team has done an amazing job.

---

I could see Merchan weighting his ruling on how he thinks the appeals process might play out since the question on immunity is immediately appealable. If sentencing gets puts on hold immediately, then that just plays into Trump's hands for the election.

Or he's just an extreme narcissist and doesn't care about any of that.

---

Merchan cares about his reputation. He just thought he was bulletproof as state judge in Manhattan. Never thought SCOTUS would repudiate him, albeit indirectly (unanimous verdict decision) so directly to knee cap him. Pile the immunity decision on top of that?

Merchan may try to soldier on but he knows his career is gone. And good riddance. He should not be on any bench, outside of the holding tank in a county jail.

Which case was it that SCOTUS unanimously ruled on that you're mentioning?

SwigAg11 said:

---

Which case was it that SCOTUS unanimously ruled on that you're mentioning?

---

Smith went after VA Gov McDonnell. 8-0 throwing it out by SCOTUS.

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Which case was it that SCOTUS unanimously ruled on that you're mentioning?

---

Smith went after VA Gov McDonnell. 8-0 throwing it out by SCOTUS.

---

I apologize for not knowing the background behind that case. How does it apply to Merchan and the Manhattan case?

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Which case was it that SCOTUS unanimously ruled on that you're mentioning?

---

Smith went after VA Gov McDonnell. 8-0 throwing it out by SCOTUS.

---

I apologize for not knowing the background behind that case. How does it apply to Merchan and the Manhattan case?

---

My apologies because I misunerstood your question.

Mercahn's trial was off of the charts. The decision this term about verdicts being required to have unanimous jury verdicts, first. Merchan provided a buffet menu from which to choose as the predicate crime with which to suppport an enhance the charges as a felony enhancement. Not allowed. SCOTUS swapped him down on that one.

The immunity decision swatted Merchan down on other issues pertaining to improper admission of evidence in which Trump had absolute immunity. And if he didn't have absolute immunity, he had a presumption of immunity that Bragg had to rebut.

Look, everyone knows that Merchan is a POS as a judge, especially his rulings in this case are indefensible for any judge He's been swapped down. Like a fly in June when my grandma carried her fly swatter with ther. The old black metal netting and paper throats on black metal kind.

He's old and his career was at its twilight. I really do t think he cares about his career. He did what was asked of him. He probably has a book deal waiting for him.

After listening to the video describing the motion for dismissal from Trump's team, I am now very curious how the DA will try to rebut and refute the immunity claims. At first, I was only focusing on the witness testimony from his oval office staff. However, after watching the video and thinking on it some more, I think there is an even stronger argument for dismissal based on all discussions pertaining to his pardon power. The Supreme Court said that he had absolute immunity over his core constitutional powers, and the pardon power is one of them.

It was also incredibly amusing to read the restraint that trump's counsel Had when effectively chastising the court; however, they let loose in their disdain of the DA's actions over the lack of dealing with presidential immunity. I believe more than once they described Bragg's "arrogance" in the matter.

BREAKING NEWS!! Trump New York Case DOOMED!

5TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS takes up the case against JUDGE MERCHAN & ALVIN BRAGG.
Read the full case below.

LETITIA JAMES, EXPLAIN the unconstitutional actions in New York to me and this nation in 21 days in front of the… pic.twitter.com/EgAmdTb6DM

— Treniss J. Evans III (@CondemnedUSA) July 15, 2024

Didn't we already discuss this guy's motions to the NY courts? Should be tossed immediately I would think.

He keeps trying to say the case has been "taken up" by the court, but there is no evidence that has happened. He has filed it with the court and it will almost certainly be tossed for lack of standing as soon as it is considered.