I actually did an extensive post on that a week or 2 ago. I am not sure I am buying it. But I went thru the exercise trying to figure out if that could work. Might be worth a read. Been waiting for someone to decisively tear it apart, but hasn't happened. I wrote it, but I am not totally buying it.
After posting, I found some minor holes in this, but nothing I couldn’t patch up. I still don’t think I sold myself on the theory though. Would be quite interested in your response. Feel free to rip it to shreds.
Very intelligent and cogent analysis. You go a little sideways at the end - you also need to start with understanding of the FRE and evidence in general. The whole idea is to decide what evidence a particular jury would be allowed to consider in a particular case. DJT could use the same documents in a civil RICO matter if he wanted to - there is not a special status bestowed on them just because they were ruled admissible in a separate case. Will write more when I have a chance.
Also, I doubt he would have any issues getting classified documents authenticated to support his separate RICO case, issues of national security aside. If that’s the issue, he’s better of subpoenaing the correct witnesses authenticate them, rather than an incredibly complex, Rube-Goldbergesque machination of putting himself in jeopardy in a separate case which may not even help admissibility for the purpose he wants.
You should consider law school if you aren’t already a law student or attorney.
After I wrote this, I found a few holes in this framework. But I am pretty sure I could fill them in and it still works. I didn't do the greatest job of articulating the end. The entire basis was to show that these aren't for criminal prosecutions; these are specifically for the civil RICO case.
All evidence in a case must satisfy the FRE. Regardless of if they did in a prior case. My presumption in this framework is that the main difficulty in introducing these docs are the authentication factor. Because they wouldn't be originals. And because the spooks in government aren't going to authenticate them for him. Although I did not base this theory on using them from some other criminal case, - but rather his own search and seizure case - you prompted an interesting thought. Evidence introduced in prior cases would not lack the authentication problem. It doesn't overcome FRE 403 "substantially _______" nor does it overcome FRE 1003 "unfair" determination either. But that is likely only a problem with a corrupt judge. Although I find it unlikely that they would get far enough with a corrupt judge to get an evidentiary ruling...they'd boot it under 12(b)(6).
I still don't buy this. But this is the best framework I could come up with to demonstrate the theory is viable. Not sure what other means it could work; hence, I think people are misreading the meaning of what was said.
I actually did an extensive post on that a week or 2 ago. I am not sure I am buying it. But I went thru the exercise trying to figure out if that could work. Might be worth a read. Been waiting for someone to decisively tear it apart, but hasn't happened. I wrote it, but I am not totally buying it.
Send it to me (lawfag here). I must have missed it.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15JAcM1B1o/i-am-admitted-skeptic-on-this-bu/
After posting, I found some minor holes in this, but nothing I couldn’t patch up. I still don’t think I sold myself on the theory though. Would be quite interested in your response. Feel free to rip it to shreds.
Very intelligent and cogent analysis. You go a little sideways at the end - you also need to start with understanding of the FRE and evidence in general. The whole idea is to decide what evidence a particular jury would be allowed to consider in a particular case. DJT could use the same documents in a civil RICO matter if he wanted to - there is not a special status bestowed on them just because they were ruled admissible in a separate case. Will write more when I have a chance.
Also, I doubt he would have any issues getting classified documents authenticated to support his separate RICO case, issues of national security aside. If that’s the issue, he’s better of subpoenaing the correct witnesses authenticate them, rather than an incredibly complex, Rube-Goldbergesque machination of putting himself in jeopardy in a separate case which may not even help admissibility for the purpose he wants.
You should consider law school if you aren’t already a law student or attorney.
After I wrote this, I found a few holes in this framework. But I am pretty sure I could fill them in and it still works. I didn't do the greatest job of articulating the end. The entire basis was to show that these aren't for criminal prosecutions; these are specifically for the civil RICO case.
All evidence in a case must satisfy the FRE. Regardless of if they did in a prior case. My presumption in this framework is that the main difficulty in introducing these docs are the authentication factor. Because they wouldn't be originals. And because the spooks in government aren't going to authenticate them for him. Although I did not base this theory on using them from some other criminal case, - but rather his own search and seizure case - you prompted an interesting thought. Evidence introduced in prior cases would not lack the authentication problem. It doesn't overcome FRE 403 "substantially _______" nor does it overcome FRE 1003 "unfair" determination either. But that is likely only a problem with a corrupt judge. Although I find it unlikely that they would get far enough with a corrupt judge to get an evidentiary ruling...they'd boot it under 12(b)(6).
I still don't buy this. But this is the best framework I could come up with to demonstrate the theory is viable. Not sure what other means it could work; hence, I think people are misreading the meaning of what was said.