1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. MISC.LEGAL.MODERATED

  • Judge Cannon: Special counsel(s) are .... illegal ?

    From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jul 21 17:34:19 2024
    As a non lawyer (and Brit to boot, so the worst kind :)) my TL;DR is that
    Judge Cannon has thrown out the documents case because of a rather idiosyncratic reading of something somewhere that says "special counsel
    is baaaaddd". And because of her position as a federal judge this is now
    the default law on the matter unless and until it is appealed to SCOTUS ?

    How many cases where a special counsel was appointed and the defendant
    found guilty can now be quashed ?

    Most critically, how much popcorn will I need ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jul 21 23:02:20 2024
    "Jethro_uk" wrote in message news:v7jeno$4teu$[email protected]...

    As a non lawyer (and Brit to boot, so the worst kind :)) my TL;DR is that >Judge Cannon has thrown out the documents case because of a rather >idiosyncratic reading of something somewhere that says "special counsel
    is baaaaddd". And because of her position as a federal judge this is now
    the default law on the matter unless and until it is appealed to SCOTUS ?

    How many cases where a special counsel was appointed and the defendant
    found guilty can now be quashed ?

    Most critically, how much popcorn will I need ?

    Cannon's ruling only applies to the documents case, though it's obvious
    Smith will appeal the ruling and also, perhaps, try to get Cannon removed
    from the case. The ruling does not apply to other special counsel cases,
    and it does not even apply to Smith's election interference case against
    Trump, though it is likely Trump will now appeal that case. Clearly both
    cases will head to appeals courts and are unlikely to be settled before the election. If Trump wins the election, it is assumed he will direct his attorney general to dismiss both cases.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sun Jul 21 23:03:20 2024
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 17:34:19 -0700 (PDT),
    Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:

    As a non lawyer (and Brit to boot, so the worst kind :)) my TL;DR is that >Judge Cannon has thrown out the documents case because of a rather >idiosyncratic reading of something somewhere that says "special counsel
    is baaaaddd". And because of her position as a federal judge this is now
    the default law on the matter unless and until it is appealed to SCOTUS ?

    How many cases where a special counsel was appointed and the defendant
    found guilty can now be quashed ?

    None, iiuc.

    AIUI (see sig.) trial court judges do not make precedent, they are
    obliged to follow it. But if she really had a good argument, when her
    deicsion is appealed, as it will be, if the circuit** court affirmed her position, that would be a precedent, at least in that circuit.

    In this case, she probably doesnt' have a good argument, but it's
    another way for her to waste more time. She has surely succeeded in
    keeping trump from being tried for the crimes he committed in Florda
    before the election, so Repubicans can vote while fantasizing that he
    isn't guilty. I wonder when her chilren will figure out what she's
    done and how they will react.

    ** Ah, this comes from England so you probably already know this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_court

    Most critically, how much popcorn will I need ?

    It depends on whether you use butter or golden flavoring.

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sun Jul 21 23:03:58 2024
    Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:

    As a non lawyer (and Brit to boot, so the worst kind :)) my TL;DR is
    that Judge Cannon has thrown out the documents case because of a
    rather idiosyncratic reading of something somewhere that says "special counsel is baaaaddd". And because of her position as a federal judge
    this is now the default law on the matter unless and until it is
    appealed to SCOTUS ?

    No, it's only the rule in her court in this one case. No other court is required to go along with it. If it gets appealed, the ruling of the
    Court of Appeals will be binding on the entire 11th Circuit, where
    Florida is located. There are 13 appellate circuits. When there are disagreements between the circuits, the Supreme Court may (but is not
    required to) step in.

    How many cases where a special counsel was appointed and the defendant
    found guilty can now be quashed ?

    At the moment, none.

    Most critically, how much popcorn will I need ?

    My guess is, not very much. But one never knows what this particular
    Supreme Court will do. They seem to have no respect for precedent, or
    even the words of statutes. So you could need a lot.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to micky on Mon Jul 22 08:53:05 2024
    micky <[email protected]> wrote:

    AIUI (see sig.) trial court judges do not make precedent, they are
    obliged to follow it.

    Actually in the federal court system, many trial court opinions are
    publishes. If they deal with a unique situation, they may be cited by
    other courts as precedent. They are not binding, of course, but they can
    be influential.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)