District Court Judge Aileen Cannon has done it again. In a triple back-flip attempt to dismiss the Mar a Lago documents charges against Trump without actually issuing an ruling doing so, Cannon has ordered both sides in the case to come up with a set of jury instructions based on the same kind of insane misreading of the law that got her overturned twice by the 11
Her order is beyond insane. Jack Smith has to move as soon as possible to get Cannon booted off this case. Her bias is now so blatant that it can't be ignored or wished away.
Commenter Shadowcloud already pointed out the casket's route to the burial site only indicated slick surfaces which the pall bearers had to do their utmost to cope with, so
my theory there was Nazi gold bars and stolen diamonds to bribe possible co-conspirators in an escape to Putin's Russia is out.
Unless they dug her up and put that in later, who knows?
When I read about this last night I almost had a laughing fit and fell off my chair.
Even, I, a law layperson, could not understand "WTF are you doing, you incompetent, groveling batshit crazy judge?"
Because unless things have changed a whole hell of a lot since I last read, 'Top Secret" documents cannot be read by anyone but the person permitted to do so, in a secure area, and when they're done, the documents go back to their respective agency for safekeeping.
The entire case is built around the absolute fact that Trump stole these documents and that if head cheerleader dimwit thinks that she's going to win Trump's heart she has another think coming because I would bet that Jack Smith hit the ceiling last night and is contemplating what precise arguments he can use to get her thrown off the case because this is the step too far for him.
She is rigging the trial for Trump and if I had a nickel for how often Smith has probably pounded his head into the wall because of this biatch, I'd probably be rich.
I think he now HAS to go before the 11th circuit and tell them, no, BEG them to relieve her of her onerous and far too demanding duties so he can conduct a proper trial with a real judge.
I certainly would. This is not only insane it's fascist to boot, and she's certainly a boot-licker.
For a consolation prize, Cannon can deliver the rebuttal to the next State of the Union address. No, wait -- that won't be till 2026. (In 2025 we'll have President Biden's second inaugural address instead of a SOTU.) I'll have to think of something else.
Cannon is an embarrassment to the entire judiciary, and obviously should never have been given lifetime Senate approval. Thank you Moscow Mitch. I can’t imagine Smith going along with her request, and not walking into the 11th Circuit asking for a writ of mandamus to have her removed. Instructions to a jury are based on what happened at trial, and certainly requires an existing jury, and a trial. How could the 11th Circuit allow such incompetence on such an important case? Perhaps she doesn’t care how ridiculous she looks if she’s behaving this way to delay, or worse, to remove all doubt that she’s in the tank for *Rump as an audition for the SC. Delay will be achieved is she’s removed since getting a different judge, and getting him/her up to speed will take time. This trial also will not take place before the election, I fear.
I dunno--I think Cannon is taking a very big risk...i.e. betting the farm that Trump will make it to the finish line and get re-elected. I think that is a very foolish bet.
How can there be instructions for the jury before there is a trial? Doesn't the judge instruct the jury before they are sequestered? This is one judge that has to get off the bench due to incompetence.
I've gotten to the point where I do not understand our legal system at all. I do not understand Garland's continual lack of action at the Justice Department and I certainly do not understand Cannon's dictates. By this time, we'd all be in jail for life if we had kept one of these highly classified documents.
Garland's lack of action is due to him being completely out of the loop in the special counsel process. He is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing.
Sorry to disagree. He let two years go by before turning his attention to January 6. He let Hur’s remarks stand on Biden’s mental faculties when they were totally irrelevant. The Southern District of NY — part of the justice department — took one year to give the NYC DA the materials he requested, thereby delaying the start of the trial. He selected Hur who was a Trumpite as a special counsel. He’s been a disaster.
"He let 2 years go by before turning his attention to January 6."
Wrong. The investigation into January 6 was ongoing the entire time. Federal investigations which are much less complex than this generally take 6 years. I know. Are you aware that Joe Biden expressed his concerns about Trump prosecutions interfering with his agenda around the time he was inaugurated? That is most likely the reason Garland waited until 10 days after the GOP took back the House to appoint Smith. Garland has handled January 6 perfectly and he helped Biden accomplish his incredible legislative agenda in the process.
"He let Hur's remarks stand......whatever."
That was exactly the right thing to do. If he hadn't Hur would have leaked them and the fringe jobs would be crying cover up.
What the SDNY did in the Stormy Daniels trial they did on their own. They consider themselves to be totally autonomous. They did when I testified for their cases in the 90s, they always have and they probably always will. Every
AG I have worked under has tried to control them and none has been successful.
Selecting Hur as special counsel was a brilliant move because Garland knew there was nothing to find. If he had selected a Democrat the GOP would cry cover up. So he got the best of
both worlds and I think Biden came out of it looking pretty good. Not for nothing but this is the exact same reason Joe Biden only left one USA in place from the Trump administration, the one who had jurisdiction over the Hunter Biden case.
It's designed to be scrupulously fair to defendants, in criminal cases especially - including wealthy clients able to access feckless, reckless attorneys who will push every last delaying tactic to the limit, as well as sane and reasonable citizens!
You want a source replete with many instructive examples? Sure, but first read my comment again, realize that's exactly the main point of the comment!
First, ancillary reading from my History of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties classes - a two-parter offered through the U. of Minnesota-Twin Cities history department, and taught by the late renowned scholar of civil liberties, Paul Murphy* -
A History of American Law - Lawrence M. Friedman
In this brilliant and immensely readable book, Lawrence M. Friedman tells the whole fascinating story of American law from its beginnings in the colonies to the present day. By showing how close the life of the law is to the economic and political life of the country, he makes a complex subject understandable and engrossing. A History of American Law presents the achievements and failures of the American legal system in the context of America's commercial and working world, family practices, and attitudes toward property, government, crime, and justice.
Now completely revised and updated, this groundbreaking work incorporates new material regarding slavery, criminal justice, and twentieth-century law. For laymen and students alike, this remains the only comprehensive authoritative history of American law. ******
Criminal Procedure and the Constitution, Leading Supreme Court Cases and Introductory Text, 2023 Jerold H. Israel | Yale Kamisar | Wayne R. LaFave | Nancy J. King | Eve Brensike Primus | Orin S. Kerr
"Two events shaped Paul's beliefs and his scholarly pursuits. The first was his disgust at the internment of Japanese-Americans, which he witnessed firsthand, and the other, while a student at Berkeley, was the demand that he sign a loyalty oath that he was not a member of the Communist Party.
One of the reasons that he remained in Minnesota, even though he had count-
less opportunities to go elsewhere, was the state's (and university's) long-term
identification with progressivism and liberalism. Few academics have so ful-
ly embodied the best elements of the American liberal tradition. He was a seek-
er after justice as well as freedom and equality, a student and custodian of the
First Amendment (a sacred article in his personal constitution), and a cham-
pion of emancipatory uses of the modern nation-state.
In the classroom, Paul did not dispense truth, he facilitated learning. On the
occasion of his induction in 1995 into the University of Minnesota's Teachers
Hall of Fame, one of his students summed matters up nicely: "He really in-
spired us to think deeply about the subjects he taught and he brought those
subjects alive and engaged us in the intellectual process." Because he feared
tyrannical overreach of all kinds, he worked the lecture hall and the seminar
room quietly, with seeming reticence and abundant modesty, often sketching
the outlines of a field or problem and leaving it to the students to discover what
might reside at the center. He insisted that they find the way themselves; Paul's
job was to provide resources and new angles of vision. He refused to micro-
manage Ph.D. dissertations: students ran with their own ideas, often in very
different directions from that of their mentor. As Paul once noted: "I've never
wanted to have disciples; I wanted students to develop their own minds." He
followed each student's career carefully, opening doors and keeping them open,
writing long letters of recommendation, and making time for coffee and con-
versations. Paul was legendary as a teacher.
Not surprisingly, he had little time for laziness or lassitude. In an archive,
he rivaled Sherlock Holmes, and, with undergraduates and advanced students
alike, hammered home the importance of hard, patient spadework. He entered
his library carrel before 8 A.M., buried himself in a new pile of books, and left
only for classes, lunch, and office hours. It was an awe-inspiring example; it
also expressed Paul's boundless faith in the future of scholarship and the hu-
man mind.
Paul L. Murphy was an unfailingly good and generous man, a maker of sly
jokes, a superb jazz piano player, an utterly trustworthy mentor and colleague,
a model of scholarly integrity, and the embodiment in life—and now in death—
of the values of the humanistic spirit and the life of the mind.
Forgot to explain the influence of my favorite professor in law school at William Mitchell, now Mitchell- Hamline College of Law, he taught my criminal procedure and criminal law courses,
was also a blues fan as I am, we had some good conversations outside of class, including at the Blues Saloon - maybe not one's stereotypical law professor, ay?
And you can also see why from his Wiki bio:
Peter Erlinder
C. Peter Erlinder (born 1948) is an American lawyer, originally from Chicago,[1] who lives in St. Paul, Minnesota. He was Lead Defence Counsel for the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and has represented several clients internationally, most notably several Rwandan opposition leaders, including Rwandan presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire.
Biography
Erlinder was born in Chicago. He received his bachelor's degree from Bradley University, then spent two years at Georgetown Law School. He graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law, and was a lecturer at the University of Chicago, before becoming a professor at William Mitchell College of Law. He retired in 2012.
Defendants
Erlinder specializes in high-profile crimes involving terrorism, the death penalty, civil rights, claims of government and police misconduct, and criminal defense of political activists. Some of the clients he has defended include:
Mohammed Abdullah Warsame[2]
Sami al-Arian[2]
Victoire Ingabire[3]
****** [[ A LONG account of his role in the international investigations of genocide in Rwanda follows]]
National president, National Lawyers Guild, 1993–97.
Current member, National Lawyers Guild Steering Committee.
Member, National Lawyers Guild Foundation Board.
Founding board member, National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom, Washington, DC.
Member, National Conference of Bill of Rights Defense Committees Steering Committee, Washington, DC.
Founding member, Minnesota Bill of Rights Defense Coalition.
Member, Minnesota Alliance for Progressive Action Board.
Defense Attorney at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, 2003–April 2011(Dismissed by ICTR)
***** The National Lawyers Guild was founded as a kind of alternative to the ACLU, the former representing attorneys who thought the ACLU was not really staunch enough during the McCarthy Witch Hunts, and because their politics tended to be noticeably more to the Left.
Since posting that question, I've been reading the comments of several lawyers and legal scholars on the subject. Opinions range from "The 11th Circuit should step in" to "She should be taken off the case" to "She should be disbarred." My conclusion is that Cannon probably made it up, and it's not going over well.
The thing I keep hearing in my head is Chris Christie's comment on taking down Trump: go for the head shot. So with Cannon maybe Smith is making sure he has 6 or 7 rounds of deer slug loaded before he takes aim. He's only going to get one shot.
I knew that Trump’s campaign was going to be a doozy but I am now reminded of the late journalist Hunter S. Thompson who once commented “There is no such thing as paranoia. Your worst fears can come true at any moment”.
I don't think that even the vivid imagination of Hunter S could have made sense of this campaign or of Herr Drumpf. I would have like to see him live to try though.
I am comforted by the fact that Jack Smith is a *lot* smarter than Aileen Cannon. She doesn't stand a chance of prevailing with this crazy strategy. Maybe she already knows at least that much, and is just taking this wacko stance as an act of sycophantic political theatre whose intended audience is some ranting old guy who wears orange face paint and yells at the TV a lot. You know, Florida Man.
Apparently Judge Cannon has never even watched a trial. The court can't instruct the jury until the evidence has been submitted and everyone knows what the issues are. Smith might as well move for mandamus now as her rulings are unlikely to get any better. Just another case that is going to drag on until Drumpf dies or is declared incompetent.
She's not instructing the jury, that's her dodge: she's mooting provisional jury instructions and asking the prosecutors to weigh in. But it amounts to an abuse of her judicial discretion either way, and the Special Counsel and staff are undoubtedly weighing the options as to how best to get her tossed off the case.
I have no understanding of Florida laws of procedure, but is this some sort of an issues instruction? In my experience judges typically give provisional instructions at the beginning of the case, which are supposed to agreed upon by the attorneys and tell the jury the issues that they will be asked to decide. No idea though how you could do instructions based on alternative facts conjured up by the judge. I agree they need to get her kicked to the curb.
You're right, that's what I mean by "dodge," i.e., an ostensibly just barely, superficially fair request that's in fact, a subterfuge - she's just trying to see if she can get away with this .
Like Trump in that respect, having already gotten away with so much already, but it is a SEVERE abuse of discretion, even if this "inviting the prosecutors to comment on provisional jury instructions" isn't explicitly ruled out by the Florida rules of procedure.
She’s gambling. Perhaps she’s doing this to draw out the case, knowing she’ll be kicked off by the 11th circuit. Then a new judge will have to have time to get up to speed, which will postpone the case until after the election. If Trump is re-elected, she’ll expect him to return the favor.
That's probably partially part of the scam she's running - "I am innocent and guileless, just trying to be fair, not a conniving schemer in the mold of Lucrezia de Borgia, not me!"
That's what we have to find out by the Jack Smith Special Counsel staff litigating it, taking it back to the Eleventh Circuit - which has been slapping Cannon's ploys down already - they must be considering the timing and exactly how to argue the case.
"The federal appellate opinion ending the special master review of records seized from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home wasn’t just a defeat for the former president—it reads as a rebuke of the federal trial judge who issued the initial order.
“It’s like a civil procedure professor giving a student a failing grade,” Peter M. Shane, a law professor at New York University, said of the opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. “If an appellate court tells a lower court that we can only accept your judgment by betraying one of the nation’s founding principles, that’s a pretty strong rebuke.”
The challenge of kicking Aileen Cannon off the Trump case
Jack Smith could seek new judge in Trump’s classified documents case says legal experts
The challenge of kicking Aileen Cannon off the Trump case
It’s a high bar to reassign a judge. We may learn in the days and weeks ahead if Cannon intends to clear it.
Feb. 22, 2024, 4:04 PM CST
By Jordan Rubin
Donald Trump’s classified documents case is entering a crucial juncture, with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon set to make important decisions on issues like access to classified material and protecting witness information. Given her behavior prior to and during the criminal case, the question arises whether she’ll be kicked off of it. At this point, it will be an uphill battle for special counsel Jack Smith if he tries to remove Cannon, but exactly how she handles upcoming rulings and how she comports herself generally matter.
It’s an uphill battle because the law on reassigning judges is tough. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Florida) has deemed reassignment appropriate “where the trial judge has engaged in conduct that gives rise to the appearance of impropriety or a lack of impartiality in the mind of a reasonable member of the public.” On its face, one might think from that language that Cannon shouldn’t be on the case. But she is on it — and might stay on it — because it’s not that simple.
To understand why, let's consider the following passage from an 11th Circuit case over trafficking counterfeit Rolexes, United States v. Torkington, in which the appeals court ordered reassignment:
Part of Cannon’s problem is that she’s so new and inexperienced she has not yet learned how to conceal her biases and prejudices. So she issues these totally ridiculous and inappropriate orders, making herself the laughingstock of the federal bench. Putting aside the errors of law in her “instructions,” they are not even grammatically correct. A more sophisticated, more experienced judge who wanted Trump to win would do a lot better covering his/her tracks.
At this point, I doubt any of her fellow Federal Judges are much amused. Personally I hope they are so pissed that they reccommend her for immediate removal from the bench and possibly disbarment.
Next up on Pay Per View--Cannon and Habba in a cage fight to see who is the next Mrs. Donald Trump (ugh, I got nauseous just writing that name!) Melania and the pool boy laughing their asses off on a beach somewhere......
That sounds like something porn merchants would pay for, don't let those two know they could make $$$ Mega-bucks if they're willing to go x-rated, I seriously wonder if they would balk at anything that paid tons and tons of money!
In a weird way she might be right in saying "Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision" She's kind of forgotten that the National Archives has that authority and decidedly does not think trump can designate national security documents as "personal." There's this thing in the Presidential Records act called "Definitions" and the documents in this case certainly do not fit the definition of personal records. Not close. The National Archives has by law to look at the definitions in making its decisions. Which it did in demanding the documents back.
In any event, doesn't this statement directly contradict her other suggested jury instruction that the jury be allowed to read the documents and decide?
Her order is beyond insane. Jack Smith has to move as soon as possible to get Cannon booted off this case. Her bias is now so blatant that it can't be ignored or wished away.
Agree. He needs to move now and avoid a circus of media that only gins up more Trump support and mania. Get rid of her!
Time to search Bedford GC and open the case in NJ.
I agree. I have been wondering what has been buried there besides Ivana.
Commenter Shadowcloud already pointed out the casket's route to the burial site only indicated slick surfaces which the pall bearers had to do their utmost to cope with, so
my theory there was Nazi gold bars and stolen diamonds to bribe possible co-conspirators in an escape to Putin's Russia is out.
Unless they dug her up and put that in later, who knows?
Did you mean case... or casket?
I have wondered about what that wasn't pursued since the first videos came out.
When I read about this last night I almost had a laughing fit and fell off my chair.
Even, I, a law layperson, could not understand "WTF are you doing, you incompetent, groveling batshit crazy judge?"
Because unless things have changed a whole hell of a lot since I last read, 'Top Secret" documents cannot be read by anyone but the person permitted to do so, in a secure area, and when they're done, the documents go back to their respective agency for safekeeping.
The entire case is built around the absolute fact that Trump stole these documents and that if head cheerleader dimwit thinks that she's going to win Trump's heart she has another think coming because I would bet that Jack Smith hit the ceiling last night and is contemplating what precise arguments he can use to get her thrown off the case because this is the step too far for him.
She is rigging the trial for Trump and if I had a nickel for how often Smith has probably pounded his head into the wall because of this biatch, I'd probably be rich.
I think he now HAS to go before the 11th circuit and tell them, no, BEG them to relieve her of her onerous and far too demanding duties so he can conduct a proper trial with a real judge.
I certainly would. This is not only insane it's fascist to boot, and she's certainly a boot-licker.
I'm sure she would gladly accept diaper changer to the 'chief".
Sorry to be graphic, but hasn't this Trumpette gone beyond booklicking to sucking?
That is assumed. We're being polite here...
Insert smiling emoji here. In Trumplandia, insert...
Not me
For a consolation prize, Cannon can deliver the rebuttal to the next State of the Union address. No, wait -- that won't be till 2026. (In 2025 we'll have President Biden's second inaugural address instead of a SOTU.) I'll have to think of something else.
This will now be on my 'fondest dreams' list!
Cannon is an embarrassment to the entire judiciary, and obviously should never have been given lifetime Senate approval. Thank you Moscow Mitch. I can’t imagine Smith going along with her request, and not walking into the 11th Circuit asking for a writ of mandamus to have her removed. Instructions to a jury are based on what happened at trial, and certainly requires an existing jury, and a trial. How could the 11th Circuit allow such incompetence on such an important case? Perhaps she doesn’t care how ridiculous she looks if she’s behaving this way to delay, or worse, to remove all doubt that she’s in the tank for *Rump as an audition for the SC. Delay will be achieved is she’s removed since getting a different judge, and getting him/her up to speed will take time. This trial also will not take place before the election, I fear.
I dunno--I think Cannon is taking a very big risk...i.e. betting the farm that Trump will make it to the finish line and get re-elected. I think that is a very foolish bet.
Agree!
Thanks for the reality check. I was thinking "Jury instructions before there's even a jury? WTF?"
How can there be instructions for the jury before there is a trial? Doesn't the judge instruct the jury before they are sequestered? This is one judge that has to get off the bench due to incompetence.
What is it about our legal system that makes it possible for her to get away with this?
I've gotten to the point where I do not understand our legal system at all. I do not understand Garland's continual lack of action at the Justice Department and I certainly do not understand Cannon's dictates. By this time, we'd all be in jail for life if we had kept one of these highly classified documents.
Garland's lack of action is due to him being completely out of the loop in the special counsel process. He is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing.
Sorry to disagree. He let two years go by before turning his attention to January 6. He let Hur’s remarks stand on Biden’s mental faculties when they were totally irrelevant. The Southern District of NY — part of the justice department — took one year to give the NYC DA the materials he requested, thereby delaying the start of the trial. He selected Hur who was a Trumpite as a special counsel. He’s been a disaster.
"He let 2 years go by before turning his attention to January 6."
Wrong. The investigation into January 6 was ongoing the entire time. Federal investigations which are much less complex than this generally take 6 years. I know. Are you aware that Joe Biden expressed his concerns about Trump prosecutions interfering with his agenda around the time he was inaugurated? That is most likely the reason Garland waited until 10 days after the GOP took back the House to appoint Smith. Garland has handled January 6 perfectly and he helped Biden accomplish his incredible legislative agenda in the process.
"He let Hur's remarks stand......whatever."
That was exactly the right thing to do. If he hadn't Hur would have leaked them and the fringe jobs would be crying cover up.
What the SDNY did in the Stormy Daniels trial they did on their own. They consider themselves to be totally autonomous. They did when I testified for their cases in the 90s, they always have and they probably always will. Every
AG I have worked under has tried to control them and none has been successful.
Selecting Hur as special counsel was a brilliant move because Garland knew there was nothing to find. If he had selected a Democrat the GOP would cry cover up. So he got the best of
both worlds and I think Biden came out of it looking pretty good. Not for nothing but this is the exact same reason Joe Biden only left one USA in place from the Trump administration, the one who had jurisdiction over the Hunter Biden case.
Garland has been the best AG in US history.
We have to agree to disagree.
I'll give that some consideration !
It's designed to be scrupulously fair to defendants, in criminal cases especially - including wealthy clients able to access feckless, reckless attorneys who will push every last delaying tactic to the limit, as well as sane and reasonable citizens!
Many examples of the system not being 'fair' for defendants without money and the right lawyers.
You want a source replete with many instructive examples? Sure, but first read my comment again, realize that's exactly the main point of the comment!
First, ancillary reading from my History of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties classes - a two-parter offered through the U. of Minnesota-Twin Cities history department, and taught by the late renowned scholar of civil liberties, Paul Murphy* -
A History of American Law - Lawrence M. Friedman
In this brilliant and immensely readable book, Lawrence M. Friedman tells the whole fascinating story of American law from its beginnings in the colonies to the present day. By showing how close the life of the law is to the economic and political life of the country, he makes a complex subject understandable and engrossing. A History of American Law presents the achievements and failures of the American legal system in the context of America's commercial and working world, family practices, and attitudes toward property, government, crime, and justice.
Now completely revised and updated, this groundbreaking work incorporates new material regarding slavery, criminal justice, and twentieth-century law. For laymen and students alike, this remains the only comprehensive authoritative history of American law. ******
Criminal Procedure and the Constitution, Leading Supreme Court Cases and Introductory Text, 2023 Jerold H. Israel | Yale Kamisar | Wayne R. LaFave | Nancy J. King | Eve Brensike Primus | Orin S. Kerr
* https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0738248000005940
"Two events shaped Paul's beliefs and his scholarly pursuits. The first was his disgust at the internment of Japanese-Americans, which he witnessed firsthand, and the other, while a student at Berkeley, was the demand that he sign a loyalty oath that he was not a member of the Communist Party.
One of the reasons that he remained in Minnesota, even though he had count-
less opportunities to go elsewhere, was the state's (and university's) long-term
identification with progressivism and liberalism. Few academics have so ful-
ly embodied the best elements of the American liberal tradition. He was a seek-
er after justice as well as freedom and equality, a student and custodian of the
First Amendment (a sacred article in his personal constitution), and a cham-
pion of emancipatory uses of the modern nation-state.
In the classroom, Paul did not dispense truth, he facilitated learning. On the
occasion of his induction in 1995 into the University of Minnesota's Teachers
Hall of Fame, one of his students summed matters up nicely: "He really in-
spired us to think deeply about the subjects he taught and he brought those
subjects alive and engaged us in the intellectual process." Because he feared
tyrannical overreach of all kinds, he worked the lecture hall and the seminar
room quietly, with seeming reticence and abundant modesty, often sketching
the outlines of a field or problem and leaving it to the students to discover what
might reside at the center. He insisted that they find the way themselves; Paul's
job was to provide resources and new angles of vision. He refused to micro-
manage Ph.D. dissertations: students ran with their own ideas, often in very
different directions from that of their mentor. As Paul once noted: "I've never
wanted to have disciples; I wanted students to develop their own minds." He
followed each student's career carefully, opening doors and keeping them open,
writing long letters of recommendation, and making time for coffee and con-
versations. Paul was legendary as a teacher.
Not surprisingly, he had little time for laziness or lassitude. In an archive,
he rivaled Sherlock Holmes, and, with undergraduates and advanced students
alike, hammered home the importance of hard, patient spadework. He entered
his library carrel before 8 A.M., buried himself in a new pile of books, and left
only for classes, lunch, and office hours. It was an awe-inspiring example; it
also expressed Paul's boundless faith in the future of scholarship and the hu-
man mind.
Paul L. Murphy was an unfailingly good and generous man, a maker of sly
jokes, a superb jazz piano player, an utterly trustworthy mentor and colleague,
a model of scholarly integrity, and the embodiment in life—and now in death—
of the values of the humanistic spirit and the life of the mind.
Kermit L. Hall
The Ohio State University
Robert Kaczorowski
Fordham University School of Law
John Johnson
University of Northern Iowa
Sandra VanBurkleo
Wayne State University
"In the classroom, Paul did not dispense truth, he facilitated learning."
Forgot to explain the influence of my favorite professor in law school at William Mitchell, now Mitchell- Hamline College of Law, he taught my criminal procedure and criminal law courses,
was also a blues fan as I am, we had some good conversations outside of class, including at the Blues Saloon - maybe not one's stereotypical law professor, ay?
And you can also see why from his Wiki bio:
Peter Erlinder
C. Peter Erlinder (born 1948) is an American lawyer, originally from Chicago,[1] who lives in St. Paul, Minnesota. He was Lead Defence Counsel for the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and has represented several clients internationally, most notably several Rwandan opposition leaders, including Rwandan presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire.
Biography
Erlinder was born in Chicago. He received his bachelor's degree from Bradley University, then spent two years at Georgetown Law School. He graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law, and was a lecturer at the University of Chicago, before becoming a professor at William Mitchell College of Law. He retired in 2012.
Defendants
Erlinder specializes in high-profile crimes involving terrorism, the death penalty, civil rights, claims of government and police misconduct, and criminal defense of political activists. Some of the clients he has defended include:
Mohammed Abdullah Warsame[2]
Sami al-Arian[2]
Victoire Ingabire[3]
****** [[ A LONG account of his role in the international investigations of genocide in Rwanda follows]]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Erlinder
National president, National Lawyers Guild, 1993–97.
Current member, National Lawyers Guild Steering Committee.
Member, National Lawyers Guild Foundation Board.
Founding board member, National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom, Washington, DC.
Member, National Conference of Bill of Rights Defense Committees Steering Committee, Washington, DC.
Founding member, Minnesota Bill of Rights Defense Coalition.
Member, Minnesota Alliance for Progressive Action Board.
Defense Attorney at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, 2003–April 2011(Dismissed by ICTR)
***** The National Lawyers Guild was founded as a kind of alternative to the ACLU, the former representing attorneys who thought the ACLU was not really staunch enough during the McCarthy Witch Hunts, and because their politics tended to be noticeably more to the Left.
Before there's even a jury, right? I don't get this at all. Did Cannon make up this ploy, or does it actually have precedent somewhere?
I have never heard of it before.
Since posting that question, I've been reading the comments of several lawyers and legal scholars on the subject. Opinions range from "The 11th Circuit should step in" to "She should be taken off the case" to "She should be disbarred." My conclusion is that Cannon probably made it up, and it's not going over well.
The thing I keep hearing in my head is Chris Christie's comment on taking down Trump: go for the head shot. So with Cannon maybe Smith is making sure he has 6 or 7 rounds of deer slug loaded before he takes aim. He's only going to get one shot.
Oh jeez, I probably shouldn't love the imagery here, but I do!
This is an odd process, unfamiliar to me, of letting both the defense and prosecution make arguments on her 2 choices of jury instruction.
I knew that Trump’s campaign was going to be a doozy but I am now reminded of the late journalist Hunter S. Thompson who once commented “There is no such thing as paranoia. Your worst fears can come true at any moment”.
I don't think that even the vivid imagination of Hunter S could have made sense of this campaign or of Herr Drumpf. I would have like to see him live to try though.
Yes, seeing his take on all this would have been awesome.
Thompson would have made far more sense than the Trumplethinskins do.
Un-f-ing believable. She should not only yanked from the case, she should be disbarred . Did she actually go to law school?
University of Michigan.
Now I'm wondering about her class rank -- and whether she had a body double take the bar exam.
eggfrickinzactly
😆
We apologize.
I loved “the earth is flat” vs. “the earth is square.” The Presidential Records Act is clear. So is Cannon’s attempt to ignore it.
As Andrew Weissman pointed out yesterday Two words: meshugga and mandamus
Thank God for Andrew Weissman!
I am comforted by the fact that Jack Smith is a *lot* smarter than Aileen Cannon. She doesn't stand a chance of prevailing with this crazy strategy. Maybe she already knows at least that much, and is just taking this wacko stance as an act of sycophantic political theatre whose intended audience is some ranting old guy who wears orange face paint and yells at the TV a lot. You know, Florida Man.
I am comforted by this, Elizabeth. I just need to write it on the bathroom mirror so that i am reminded of it daily.
Apparently Judge Cannon has never even watched a trial. The court can't instruct the jury until the evidence has been submitted and everyone knows what the issues are. Smith might as well move for mandamus now as her rulings are unlikely to get any better. Just another case that is going to drag on until Drumpf dies or is declared incompetent.
She's not instructing the jury, that's her dodge: she's mooting provisional jury instructions and asking the prosecutors to weigh in. But it amounts to an abuse of her judicial discretion either way, and the Special Counsel and staff are undoubtedly weighing the options as to how best to get her tossed off the case.
I have no understanding of Florida laws of procedure, but is this some sort of an issues instruction? In my experience judges typically give provisional instructions at the beginning of the case, which are supposed to agreed upon by the attorneys and tell the jury the issues that they will be asked to decide. No idea though how you could do instructions based on alternative facts conjured up by the judge. I agree they need to get her kicked to the curb.
You're right, that's what I mean by "dodge," i.e., an ostensibly just barely, superficially fair request that's in fact, a subterfuge - she's just trying to see if she can get away with this .
Like Trump in that respect, having already gotten away with so much already, but it is a SEVERE abuse of discretion, even if this "inviting the prosecutors to comment on provisional jury instructions" isn't explicitly ruled out by the Florida rules of procedure.
Who is the addled brain behind her schemes? She seems much too stupid to come up with bad, much less illegal, ones.
She’s gambling. Perhaps she’s doing this to draw out the case, knowing she’ll be kicked off by the 11th circuit. Then a new judge will have to have time to get up to speed, which will postpone the case until after the election. If Trump is re-elected, she’ll expect him to return the favor.
That's probably partially part of the scam she's running - "I am innocent and guileless, just trying to be fair, not a conniving schemer in the mold of Lucrezia de Borgia, not me!"
OH! You may be right!!
That is what I was wondering also. Someone is whispering in her ear. She's not smart enough to come up with these complicated dodges!
Richard, at what frickin point does this become obstruction by the judge? Not a lawyer.
That's what we have to find out by the Jack Smith Special Counsel staff litigating it, taking it back to the Eleventh Circuit - which has been slapping Cannon's ploys down already - they must be considering the timing and exactly how to argue the case.
"The federal appellate opinion ending the special master review of records seized from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home wasn’t just a defeat for the former president—it reads as a rebuke of the federal trial judge who issued the initial order.
“It’s like a civil procedure professor giving a student a failing grade,” Peter M. Shane, a law professor at New York University, said of the opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. “If an appellate court tells a lower court that we can only accept your judgment by betraying one of the nation’s founding principles, that’s a pretty strong rebuke.”
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2022/12/02/was-aileen-cannon-the-biggest-loser-in-the-11th-circuits-special-master-ruling/?slreturn=20240219163455
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/judge-aileen-cannon-trump-classified-documents-case-rcna140020
The challenge of kicking Aileen Cannon off the Trump case
Jack Smith could seek new judge in Trump’s classified documents case says legal experts
The challenge of kicking Aileen Cannon off the Trump case
It’s a high bar to reassign a judge. We may learn in the days and weeks ahead if Cannon intends to clear it.
Feb. 22, 2024, 4:04 PM CST
By Jordan Rubin
Donald Trump’s classified documents case is entering a crucial juncture, with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon set to make important decisions on issues like access to classified material and protecting witness information. Given her behavior prior to and during the criminal case, the question arises whether she’ll be kicked off of it. At this point, it will be an uphill battle for special counsel Jack Smith if he tries to remove Cannon, but exactly how she handles upcoming rulings and how she comports herself generally matter.
It’s an uphill battle because the law on reassigning judges is tough. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Florida) has deemed reassignment appropriate “where the trial judge has engaged in conduct that gives rise to the appearance of impropriety or a lack of impartiality in the mind of a reasonable member of the public.” On its face, one might think from that language that Cannon shouldn’t be on the case. But she is on it — and might stay on it — because it’s not that simple.
To understand why, let's consider the following passage from an 11th Circuit case over trafficking counterfeit Rolexes, United States v. Torkington, in which the appeals court ordered reassignment:
****** This continues to the legal issues....
Drumpf dying? Can you promise? Soon?
I was thinking of him having a stroke or the like and being on a respirator, unable to talk and being kept alive by a machine.
Bring on the Big Macs!!
YEAH!!!
Part of Cannon’s problem is that she’s so new and inexperienced she has not yet learned how to conceal her biases and prejudices. So she issues these totally ridiculous and inappropriate orders, making herself the laughingstock of the federal bench. Putting aside the errors of law in her “instructions,” they are not even grammatically correct. A more sophisticated, more experienced judge who wanted Trump to win would do a lot better covering his/her tracks.
At this point, I doubt any of her fellow Federal Judges are much amused. Personally I hope they are so pissed that they reccommend her for immediate removal from the bench and possibly disbarment.
Oh PLEASE may the blinding light of reason strike the other judges and let them just get rid of her, for exactly the reasons you summed up!
Next up on Pay Per View--Cannon and Habba in a cage fight to see who is the next Mrs. Donald Trump (ugh, I got nauseous just writing that name!) Melania and the pool boy laughing their asses off on a beach somewhere......
That sounds like something porn merchants would pay for, don't let those two know they could make $$$ Mega-bucks if they're willing to go x-rated, I seriously wonder if they would balk at anything that paid tons and tons of money!
LOL! Oy!! What an image!
2fer
<dead> <dead>
This seems like average MAGgAt subtlety - screw what the law actually says, I want it to *mean* this ...!
Cracker, PLEASE!
This is no longer a story of simple corruption and in your face madness, it’s a farce Molière couldn’t even imagine.
In a weird way she might be right in saying "Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision" She's kind of forgotten that the National Archives has that authority and decidedly does not think trump can designate national security documents as "personal." There's this thing in the Presidential Records act called "Definitions" and the documents in this case certainly do not fit the definition of personal records. Not close. The National Archives has by law to look at the definitions in making its decisions. Which it did in demanding the documents back.
In any event, doesn't this statement directly contradict her other suggested jury instruction that the jury be allowed to read the documents and decide?