Please be respectful of others' privacy, and avoid sharing personal information or sensitive content without their permission. If you are unsure if something is appropriate to share, ask for permission (use the 'Privately email' option when replying to their post) or avoid sharing it altogether.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 4
this is a legal question...
is there any level where repeated, rejected, and trivial requests for delays can be completely ignored?
i realize there may not be consideration of such behavior no matter how many times used in a lifetime of other cases, but trump has wasted many man-centuries of taxpayer funded leeway.
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2024/08/14/r...
No. of Recommendations: 2
There's some info on that topic in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjRXSEmkSMwI'll defer to lawyers, but my understanding is that yes, there is a point where repeated requests can be ignored or summarily denied. However, it's rarely used. (My guess is that is because it is rarely pushed that far in the first place.)
In this particular case, the repetitive motion was also filed after the deadline for such motions. The judge could have dismissed it on procedural grounds, but chose to address the substance of the motion instead. My guess is that puts it on stronger footing in an appeal. Had he dismissed on procedural grounds, that decision could have been appealed. If upheld, it would be sent back for adjudication on its merits, where it would be denied and appealed again. By making a decision on the merits, there is only one possible appeal instead of two.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 4
this is a legal question...
is there any level where repeated, rejected, and trivial requests for delays can be completely ignored?
I am not a litigator, but here's my Civil Procedure law school (faded memory version) answer. A judge almost certainly won't completely ignore a filed motion, but they can always just summarily deny it. Absent some specific local rule of procedure, they don't have to provide a detailed explanation.
If the lawyer isn't taking the hint, the judge can impose sanctions for repeatedly engaging in duplicative, untimely, or obstructive motion practice.
No. of Recommendations: 17
Is there any level where repeated, rejected, and trivial requests for delays can be completely ignored?
---------------------------
A judge almost certainly won't completely ignore a filed motion, but they can always just summarily deny it. Absent some specific local rule of procedure, they don't have to provide a detailed explanation.
===========================
It's very clear from the past three years of history that there are additional dynamics at work when
a) the defendant is an ex-President and current Presidential candidate
b) the defendant has perfected a financial grift that supports virtually unlimited legal expenses using OPM (Other People's Money)
c) judges recognize they are working amid a legal landscape whose underpinnings are being actively sabotaged by a Supreme Court with zero qualms about ignoring decades of precedent and inventing new Constitutional principles out of thin air with ZERO relationship to established law or hundreds of years of western legal precedent
Because of all of these additional factors, the judges and prosecutors handling these cases cannot simply act on the case and facts put before them -- as they should. Instead, they have to contrast the delay of "considering" a bogus motion from the defendent and THAT impact on the trial versus the possible delay resulting from a summary dismissal of that motion in a way that triggers appeals to the USSC that at a minimum delay justice even further or, far worse, give the USSC an excuse to put their thumb on the scale in the case or establish new interpretations that completely DESTROY the case.
It seems absolutely clear every prosecutor and every judge at the state or federal level involved with these cases is having to think through those three levels of calculus and differentiation to "solve" the equation of what to do with the case before them. And that is most assuredly NOT equal protection under the law. No normal human citizen would be capable of obtaining this level of delay to what should be open and shut cases.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 3
No normal human citizen would be capable of obtaining this level of delay to what should be open and shut cases.
I think this explains why some folks are so frustrated about this. Because it's completely wrong.
It's easy to delay judicial proceedings if you are willing to pay money to lawyers to do it. There's so many opportunities to raise points of procedure, try to depose more witnesses, etc. I'm not personally a litigator, but I'm frequently in meetings with my clients and our litigation team when they're trying to discuss options. It's almost trivial to drag out cases for years and years. Even in criminal cases, if you want to slow down the case and are willing to pay for the legal services that will do it, anyone can stretch things out.
It's barely been a year since the indictment was filed. It's not all that surprising that the case hasn't gone to trial yet. To give a few examples from famous cases, Elizabeth Holmes was indicted in June 2018, and didn't go to trial until July 2020. Kenneth Lay (of Enron fame) was indicted in July 2004; his trial didn't start until January 2006. Harvey Weinstein was indicted in May of 2018, and didn't go to trial until February 2020. And none of those cases presented any especially novel types of legal issues, the way that prosecuting a former President inevitably does.
It's not wrong to be frustrated that Trump won't be tried before the election, but honestly that was kind of baked in once Jack Smith and Fani Willis waited until August 2023 to obtain their indictments. There was always a good chance that the prosecutors wouldn't be able to get into court before the election. Even if the defendant isn't especially trying to delay for delay's sake, it's not all that unusual for a complicated case against a well-lawyered defendant to take more than a year to get to trial.
No. of Recommendations: 2
thx for the many well-considered replies, and interpreting my 'request for delays' correctly as 'procedures to invoke delays'.
so 3 items lead to a depressing conclusion :
- trump could have easily? been universally labeled a 'vexatious litigant' before 2016, given his history of using court as a playground. but now as a former POTUS, judiciaries are afraid to label him thus, and will reply in complete consideration of downstream SCOTUS backing, effectively getting him some or all the delay he was after.
- even without his own funding, trump has benefactors that can buy him the modest, even sub-par level of legal talent needed to draw things out.
- prepping for 4 years to pull greater illegal shenanigans in 2024, the GOP has plenty of MAGA willing to risk prison themselves and offer trump plausible deniability. a landslide loss could blunt this.
conclusion : trump's lifelong court strategy ensures no serious accountability for future crimes in any timeframe before he expires. if there is a 2024 election loss, current pending cases are the only longshots.
No. of Recommendations: 1
