Category Archives: legal news

legal news

Clock ticks on Trump

The clock continues to tick on Donald J. Trump, giving me some reason to hope that justice is finally — finally! — going to catch up with this twice-impeached, twice-indicted politician.

Special counsel Jack Smith reportedly has advised Trump’s legal eagles that yet another set of indictments is coming. These will deal with the insurrection that I believe the ex-POTUS incited on 1/6.

Then a trial will commence. My hope is that the D.C. federal judge who will preside over this trial won’t waste time, will set a relatively prompt trial date and that a jury will convict Trump of doing what I believe we all witnessed on that horrible day.

Just as a reminder: The Constitution stipulates in clear and precise language that anyone who commits an insurrection shall not be eligible to seek public office.

My plea, therefore, to the special counsel? Time’s a wastin’, Jack Smith. Let’s get busy.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Judge hits ‘stand-up double’ with trial ruling

OK, it wasn’t a home run or even a triple, but the judge who is presiding over the classified documents pilfering by Donald J. Trump has issued a ruling that is giving me a glimmer of hope that we can get a trial without bias.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, nominated by Donald J. Trump to the federal bench in the final weeks of his term as POTUS, has set a May 20 trial date in Fort Pierce, Fla., on the indictment alleging that Trump broke the law by squirreling away classified documents in his Florida mansion.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team of federal prosecutor’s wanted to stage the trial in December; Trump’s team wanted an indefinite delay. Cannon split the difference — more or less — by setting the May date. Frankly, it appears to favor Smith’s side of the argument.

The New York trial in which Trump was indicted for the hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels will have concluded. Trump might get convicted of violating state law in spending campaign money keep Daniels quiet about a tryst she says occurred, but which Trump denies … go figure on that one!

The Republican Party presidential primary season will be all but over when Cannon commences the documents trial. Trump remains the favorite for the GOP nomination.

If it concludes prior to the start of the GOP convention, and Trump is convicted of federal felonies (which many observers believe is a probability), then delegates get to decide whether they want to nominate a convicted felon for POTUS.

The ex-POTUS’s legal difficulties are mounting seemingly by the hour, which makes me wonder — and I am serious about this — whether he’ll be able to continue to mount a political campaign while seeking to keep his sorry backside out of prison.

I get that Cannon should have recused herself from this trial, given her conflict of interest in being nominated by the criminal defendant in this case. She hasn’t. She likely won’t.

So, we are left then to hope she does right by the judicial system she serves. It looks to me as if setting the trial date is a step toward correctness.

Johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news, local news, State news

Next up: Paxton trial

The Texas Senate has adjourned for the time being, until it convenes in early September to take up another matter that has nothing to do with legislating.

It has everything to do with good government and whether Texas deserves an attorney general who isn’t always under investigation for this or that alleged criminal activity.

The trial of impeached Republican AG Ken Paxton will commence Sept. 5. The House impeached Paxton in a decisive, bipartisan vote. This week, the legal team leading the prosecution gained an important Republican member, former Texas Supreme Court Justice Harriet O’Neill.

O’Neill, who returned to private law practice in 2010, calls the charges against Paxton “clear, compelling and decisive,” and she is looking forward to joining the legal team prosecuting the attorney general.

The multiple articles of impeachment cover a wide range of allegations, including bribery, abuse of office, obstruction of justice. The notion that O’Neill has joined the team isn’t lost on those involved with the impeachment.

According to the Texas Tribune: State Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, who leads the House General Investigating Committee and the Board of Impeachment Managers, called O’Neill a “respected, conservative jurist.”

“As a longtime judge and elected official, she understands the gravity of this matter and its importance to the state of Texas,” Murr said in a statement.

Harriet O’Neill, retired Republican justice, joins team impeaching Paxton | The Texas Tribune

Indeed. She is far from alone in honoring the pending trial’s “importance to the state.” If he’s convicted, Paxton’s disturbing tenure as the state’s chief law enforcer comes to a halt. He’s been under state indictment almost since Day One on a charge of securities fraud. A team of whistleblowers alleged criminal activity.

Texans deserve far better than what they are getting from the state’s top legal eagle.

The hurdle for conviction is high. Texas needs two-thirds of senators to vote to convict the AG. I am going to hope we can get past the Paxton Era and move ahead with an attorney general who isn’t stained and sullied by scandal and corruption.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news, legal news

Prosecutor vs. Perpetrator

Watching the drama building as the prosecutor pursues the perpetrator, I cannot help but be struck by the profound differences in  the way these men act in public.

Let’s look first at the prosecutor. His name is Jack Smith, appointed special counsel to investigate alleged crimes committed by the perp.

Smith has been studied, measured, professional, discreet, reticent. He has been faithful to his pledge to grant the perp in this case the presumption of innocence to which he is entitled. Yet he has compiled an astonishing array of evidence that the perpetrator knew he lost an election in 2020 but tried to overturn the results. He also has assembled a mountain of evidence that the perp took highly classified documents to his home in Florida and kept them in highly unsecured locations.

The perpetrator is Donald John Trump, the former president of the United States.

Trump has been, well, shrill, venal, vile, deceitful, defamatory, profane, highly vocal in his objection to the investigation that has taken place. He ignores lawyers’ advice to keep his trap shut. He continues to denigrate the prosecutor’s reputation, asserting that Smith has it in for him. He’s also chosen to hurl epithets at Smith’s wife who, as near as I can tell, has nothing at all to do with the probe underway.

Even if I didn’t already believe that the perpetrator is guilty of the crimes for which he has been indicted, I would be rooting for the prosecutor. Why? Because I believe strongly in the criminal justice system for which the prosecutor is working. I believe in the rule of law.

The prosecutor is facing a form of competition, as has been reported, from local district attorneys who are conducting their own probes into the perp’s post-2020 election behavior. They, too, might file indictments alleging criminal activity involving the search for votes that didn’t exist and for attempts to coerce and bully state election officials to overturn an election.

Do we hear the prosecutor telling the local DA’s to back off? That they should let the feds have first crack? The prosecutor is a seasoned pro with many years of experience under his belt. Granted, the perp in this instance happens to be the first of his kind ever held under investigation … given that he is a former POTUS, for crying out loud!

But my money clearly is on the prosecutor to deliver the goods in due course.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

14th Amendment stands out

It appears that of all the 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment has emerged as the most discussed, most cited, most argued and arguably the most important of them all.

I’ve been following a host of legal and political battles for a long time. Just lately, though, it seems that the 14th Amendment keeps surfacing from the legal mumbo-jumbo that at times accompanies these discussions.

Let’s ponder a few notions, shall we?

Section 1 makes two important distinctions. One is that anyone born in the United States is granted citizenship upon birth. A Republican presidential candidate, Ron DeSantis, wants to remove that stipulation from the law. Section 1 also says all citizens are entitled to “equal protection under the law.” This clause has come into play in decisions — to cite one example — regarding gay marriage.

Section 3 declares that anyone who participates in sedition or an insurrection shall be denied the opportunity to seek public office at any level in this country. Hmm. Does that one sound familiar? It should. If Donald J. Trump is indicted for allegedly fomenting the insurrection of 1/6 and then is convicted in a trial, he cannot serve in any public office … ever!

Section 4 declares that the nation’s good faith and credit shouldn’t be messed with, giving the lie to the notion by the MAGA morons who sought to deny efforts to increase the nation’s debt ceiling. Failure to honor our debts would have plunged us into economic catastrophe.

All of this is my way of wondering: Do the MAGA cultists know a damn thing about the Constitution, the oaths of office they take to honor and protect it or the penalties they face if they fail to honor their oath?

I must remind them that they take that oath while placing their hand on a holy book. Thus, the oath is sacred, given the religious tenets to which the politicians claim to follow.

The framers didn’t craft the perfect government framework. It’s pretty damn inclusive and those wise men managed to cram many key provisions into a single amendment to the Constitution.

Moreover, if the MAGA nitwits had half a brain, they would understand that “constitutional absolutism” means they follow the document to the letter … or else.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

SCOTUS is ‘legislating’

My fellow Americans, I believe we are witnessing in real time the systematic dismantling of a long-standing conservative doctrine that says, in effect, that judges never should “legislate from the bench.”

Because, folks, the U.S. Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative supermajority, is doing precisely what conservatives used to accuse liberal judges of doing. It has turned the judiciary into a legislative vehicle.

I am going to offer a grudging acknowledgment of a pledge that Donald Trump made when he was elected president in 2016. He said he would appoint justices who would change Americans’ lives. He delivered in spades by nominating, in order, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to the nation’s highest court.

What have they done? They have tossed legalized abortion aside; they have eliminated affirmative action entrance requirements for colleges and universities; they have allowed a wedding designer to discriminate against a gay couple.

You want judicial activism? There it is in plain view!

Chief Justice John Roberts once said while he was being considered for the chief’s job that he only would “call balls strikes” from the bench. Well, he’s changed the strike zone to allow fellow conservatives to toss aside settled law and to re-define “equal protection under the law” to suit conservatives’ view of college admission standards.

The three SCOTUS newbies have been joined by conservative stalwarts Roberts, along with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas in turning the court into an activist panel intent on changing the course of history.

The nation’s highest court, moreover, has become far more political than the founders — I am quite certain — ever imagined it would become. They crafted a government system designed to remove the federal judiciary from the political battles being fought between the legislative and executive branches of government.

I have stated before on this blog that our politics has been turned on its head. Small-government conservatives now favor government intrusion into Americans’ most intimate issues. Those same conservatives now believe it’s OK for the federal judiciary to toss standing law aside while writing news from the bench.

What is happening to my country?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

GOP not more corrupt than Dems, however …

There is not a chance in hell I am going to declare that Republicans as a human subspecies are inherently more corrupt than Democrats.

However … we are seeing a disturbing trend that seems to give substance to that assertion. I refer to the incidents involving GOP-appointed justices who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Rather than recuse themselves from cases involving wealthy benefactors, three justices seem to go on as if, well, there’s not a damn thing wrong with accepting lavish gifts from individuals who have business before the court.

This is a matter of perception. If the public believes a justice is influenced by those gifts, there remains little room for the justice to set the record straight.

Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted lavish vacations from Texas billionaire Harland Crow. He hasn’t recused himself from any decisions involving his big-time pal. Thomas was nominated for the court in 1991 by GOP President George HW Bush.

Justice Samuel Alito has been accepting lavish gifts from an uber-rich Republican activist. No recusal from Alito, either. President George W. Bush nominated Alito in 2005 to the highest court in the land.

Chief Justice John Roberts’s wife has been working as a head-hunter for big-time law firms that have cases before the high court. Oh, Roberts is another G.W. Bush appointee.

OK, enough about the high court. I have witnessed judicial misbehavior in Texas at lower courts. For instance, I offered criticism of a Democratic district judge in Jefferson County who used facsimile letterhead stationery to help him acquire a private business license to operate a restaurant in the county courthouse.

These recent examples of lax ethics standards on the Supreme Court, though, does involve Republican-appointed justices. It is troubling in the extreme to see the court’s public opinion standing plummet in real time.

Americans have every right to demand and expect their justices to adhere to high ethical standards. We aren’t getting it at this time from some members of the high court’s conservative super-majority.

I am, therefore, demanding it from the U.S. Supreme Court.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

What don’t these justices get?

What part of the term “conflict of interest” don’t members of the U.S. Supreme Court understand?

Now it’s Justice Samuel Alito who’s under the lights over his involvement with a wealthy Republican campaign donor.

Good grief, man.

ProPublica is reporting that Alito took a pricey vacation thanks to the generosity of a man whose company had business before the nation’s highest court.

Politico.com reports: According to ProPublica’s investigation, Alito in 2008 flew on billionaire Paul Singer’s private jet on a trip that included room and board at Alaska’s pricey King Salmon Lodge. That was paid for by then-owner Robin Arkley II, who is a prolific donor to conservative legal causes, like Singer, according to the report. Singer had connections with corporate entities who later made cases in front of the Supreme Court and won with Alito’s support.

Holy conflict of interest, Batman!

Justice Clarence Thomas has been pilloried over his relationship with Harlan Crow, the wealthy Texan who bankrolled glitzy vacations for the justice and his wife. That’s bad enough.

Now we hear about Justice Alito doing essentially the same thing.

You know, when I first started covering the justice system as an opinion writer in Oregon, then in Beaumont and Amarillo in Texas, one of the first commandments of judges was that they must steer far away from anyone who is litigating legal matters before the courts on which the judge sits. Any appearance of conflict of interest taints any decision the judge makes and opens him or her up to questions about their fairness, let alone their legal scholarship.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/21/alito-singer-propublica-oped-00102874

What is it going to take for the U.S. Supreme Court to enact some sort ethical rule that prohibits justices from engaging in this kind of cozy cuddling with big donors and/or with those who are trying cases before the judicial panel?

Chief Justice John Roberts refuses to act. So does Congress. Meanwhile, we keep getting reports from legitimate news sources of these kinds of relationships that — at minimum — cast doubt on the fairness of decisions being handed down by the nation’s top judicial court.

Shameful.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Keep your distance, Mr. POTUS

Joe Biden has issued a directive ordering White House staffers to maintain a vow of silence regarding the indictments surrounding his immediate predecessor as president of the United States.

The president did so as a show of respect for the isolation he honors between political matters and those involved with administering the rule of law.

Many Democrats want President Biden to speak out, to take the fight to the Republicans, to — in effect — ignore the isolation.

Wrong! That is a fool’s option.

It is clear that Biden’s predecessor never would honor such a principle. Indeed, he says if he’s elected (God forbid!) in 2024 that he’s going to appoint a special counsel to go after Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and possibly any other Democrat he considers a worthy target.

I will interject that the current special counsel, Jack Smith, was selected by Attorney General Merrick Garland, that the White House had no role in finding this individual. AG Garland felt the need to separate himself from the twin probes into the 1/6 assault on our government and the classified documents caper that has produced a 37-count indictment against the former POTUS.

I believe President Biden’s fealty to the rule of law must stand. He won’t offer personal comment on his predecessor’s plight. Nor should he.

Nor should the White House staff weigh in with cheap shots and innuendo. Let’s just allow the process to do its work … according to the United States Constitution, which all elected public officials take an oath to “defend and protect.”

As for the leading 2024 GOP pretender for the White House, let him yammer on. The more he says the deeper he seems to sink into an abyss from which he might not escape.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

This isn’t a ‘Law and Order’ world

If only we lived in the world portrayed by “Law and Order,” the TV drama that features police work and high-powered lawyering.

We don’t.

Unlike the characters on the TV drama, we’re in for a long and arduous slog awaiting a trial to determine whether the 45th president of the United States is guilty of the multiple crimes for which he has been indicted.

On “Law and Order,” the cops discover that a capital crime has occurred; they arrest a suspect; the district attorney’s office takes over and in a matter of days (or so it seems) the case goes to trial and a jury delivers a verdict.

Donald J. Trump, I am sad to report, is going to be given ample time to disparage the prosecutors, the grand jury, the Justice Department and anyone else who in any form or fashion criticizes him for the hideous conduct for which the grand jury indicted him.

The evidence appears to be overwhelming. A conviction to my eyes seems damn near inevitable. But when does a trial even occur?

Special counsel Jack Smith, who headed the probe into Trump’s squirreling away of classified documents in his posh Florida estate, has promised a “speedy trial.” I am reminded, though, to pull back on the definition of “speedy.” I am inclined to equate the term with the biblical description of Earth’s creation. The Bible tells us God took six “days” to finish the task, but I believe that the biblical definition of “day” doesn’t involve a 24-hour clock.

This case is going to try our patience. I am preparing my own emotional reservoir for a long haul.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com