Anonymous wrote:

The point is that there is no such thing as “general equity jurisdiction” in the federal courts. Equitable remedies, including the extraordinary remedy of injunction, aren’t applicable to a warrant/criminal investigatory proceeding. This is consistent with Rule of Crim. Proc. 41(g) which sets forth the procedure for seeking return of siezed materials. Additionally, to the extent the Presidential Recirds Act provides for a civil right of action to resolve disagreements between a sitting and former president, that action has to be brought by the former president in federal court in DC within 30 days after receipt of notice that a claim of executive privilege was being overruled.

There are at least a dozen good reasons Cannon shouldn’t have done what she did. One play at this point would be for her to appoint Judge Reinhart as Special Master. I doubt he would be too keen but issues relating to the search and privilege review originated with him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any reputable attorneys or legal scholars who don’t think was completely wrong?

SCOTUS

SCOTUS hasn’t weighed in yet, dumbass.

But that aside, SCOTUS is barely hanging on to it’s last shreds of legitimacy. Anyone who isn’t a total FedSoc unprincipled hack who thinks this decision isn’t necessarily wrong?

Yes they have dumbass.

When has SCOTUS weighed in on this case?

Two were at trumps rally in Pa. They warmed up the crowd.

Which two? I could find nothing to back up your claim. If true then they should be impeached.

I don't think it's true. However, even if they did, there is no earthly way they would get impeached in this political climate.

If, a big one, the Dems keep the House and win the Senate, it could happen. While they're at it, impeachall the lying Trump appointed!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they’re going to have to appeal.

Well they should take it to the Admiralty courts. Otherwise the DOJ has no authority.

How would admiralty court have jurisdiction over a non-maritime case?

How would a judge in ft pierce have jurisdiction over a west palm beach/dc case? Hmmmm….

Ft. Pierce is in SDFL, which is same judicial district as Mar a Lago. The jurisdiction issues are not really about location.

+1. The district is split into several divisions or branches correlating to jury pools. A judge who normally sits in Fort Pierce could be assigned to a case in Ft. Lauderdale or West Palm Beach depending on caseloads.

Even Bill Barr....

Anonymous wrote:He is the OG “Teflon” Don!

No, the OG Teflon Don died in federal prison.

A good summation: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/judge-cannon-trump-mar-a-lago-special-master/671349/

This ruling is so astoundingly stupid, but that’s what you get with a Trump appointee. This judge should be censured or have her bar license revoked.

He is the OG “Teflon” Don!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the opinion is so bad, it makes you wonder if that’s the point. She just wanted it off her desk.

Delay is the point.

Right and muddying the legal waters like this will gum up the works. She’s basically obstructing.

Interesting point. At what point is a judge's conduct so clearly outside the bounds of law and precedent that it could be considered intentional obstruction? Judges are not above the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they’re going to have to appeal.

Well they should take it to the Admiralty courts. Otherwise the DOJ has no authority.

How would admiralty court have jurisdiction over a non-maritime case?

It’s a Sovereign citizen thing as in

When the government set up by the Founding Fathers under a common law legal system was secretly replaced, "commercial law" substituted for common law. This commercial law is generally understood to be admiralty law, as sovereign citizens consider that the current, illegitimate, law is based on principles of international commerce. This leads sovereign citizens to believe that U.S. judges and lawyers are actually agents of a foreign power. Sovereign citizens also claim that the appearance of gold fringes on American flags that are displayed in courtrooms is evidence of admiralty law being in effect. Sovereign citizens will therefore challenge the validity of the contemporary legal system and claim to answer only to "God's law" or to "common law", meaning by that the system which supposedly existed before the conspiracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

They use this defense when they are caught breaking the law. I bet “judge” cannon is all in on this legal interpretation. She is a Federalist Society member.

If this will work, then do it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they’re going to have to appeal.

Well they should take it to the Admiralty courts. Otherwise the DOJ has no authority.

How would admiralty court have jurisdiction over a non-maritime case?

It’s a Sovereign citizen thing as in

When the government set up by the Founding Fathers under a common law legal system was secretly replaced, "commercial law" substituted for common law. This commercial law is generally understood to be admiralty law, as sovereign citizens consider that the current, illegitimate, law is based on principles of international commerce. This leads sovereign citizens to believe that U.S. judges and lawyers are actually agents of a foreign power. Sovereign citizens also claim that the appearance of gold fringes on American flags that are displayed in courtrooms is evidence of admiralty law being in effect. Sovereign citizens will therefore challenge the validity of the contemporary legal system and claim to answer only to "God's law" or to "common law", meaning by that the system which supposedly existed before the conspiracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

They use this defense when they are caught breaking the law. I bet “judge” cannon is all in on this legal interpretation. She is a Federalist Society member.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they’re going to have to appeal.

Well they should take it to the Admiralty courts. Otherwise the DOJ has no authority.

How would admiralty court have jurisdiction over a non-maritime case?

How would a judge in ft pierce have jurisdiction over a west palm beach/dc case? Hmmmm….

Ft. Pierce is in SDFL, which is same judicial district as Mar a Lago. The jurisdiction issues are not really about location.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they’re going to have to appeal.

Well they should take it to the Admiralty courts. Otherwise the DOJ has no authority.

How would admiralty court have jurisdiction over a non-maritime case?

How would a judge in ft pierce have jurisdiction over a west palm beach/dc case? Hmmmm….

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any reputable attorneys or legal scholars who don’t think was completely wrong?

SCOTUS

SCOTUS hasn’t weighed in yet, dumbass.

But that aside, SCOTUS is barely hanging on to it’s last shreds of legitimacy. Anyone who isn’t a total FedSoc unprincipled hack who thinks this decision isn’t necessarily wrong?

Yes they have dumbass.

When has SCOTUS weighed in on this case?

Two were at trumps rally in Pa. They warmed up the crowd.

Which two? I could find nothing to back up your claim. If true then they should be impeached.

I don't think it's true. However, even if they did, there is no earthly way they would get impeached in this political climate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any reputable attorneys or legal scholars who don’t think was completely wrong?

SCOTUS

SCOTUS hasn’t weighed in yet, dumbass.

But that aside, SCOTUS is barely hanging on to it’s last shreds of legitimacy. Anyone who isn’t a total FedSoc unprincipled hack who thinks this decision isn’t necessarily wrong?

Yes they have dumbass.

When has SCOTUS weighed in on this case?

Two were at trumps rally in Pa. They warmed up the crowd.

Which two? I could find nothing to back up your claim. If true then they should be impeached.