JEWISH KING JESUS IS COMING AT THE RAPTURE FOR US IN THE CLOUDS-DON'T MISS IT FOR THE WORLD.THE BIBLE TAKEN LITERALLY- WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE MAKES GOOD SENSE-SEEK NO OTHER SENSE-LEST YOU END UP IN NONSENSE.GET SAVED NOW- CALL ON JESUS TODAY.THE ONLY SAVIOR OF THE WHOLE EARTH - NO OTHER. 1 COR 15:23-JESUS THE FIRST FRUITS-CHRISTIANS RAPTURED TO JESUS-FIRST FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT-23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.ROMANS 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.(THE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE)
THE DEMOCRAP DUMB BELLS ARE RINGING AGAINST TRUMP.DAY 1 OF TRIAL.
WELL
THE DEMOCRAPS AND LIBERALS WILL BE IN RAPTURE THIS MORNING AS THEY
SUCCESSFULLY GOT DONALD JOHN TRUMP IN COURT FOR FAKE TRUMPED UP CHARGES.
SINCE THE DEMOLIBNUTS WILL HAVE THEIR TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME CALMED
DOWN FOR A DAY 1 OF THE FAKE JUDGES, DOING FAKE TRUMPED UP CHARGES
AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP. CRIMINAL COHEN CAN GO ON THE LIBERAL MEDIA
CIRCUS CHANNELS. AND BLAB HIS HEAD OFF AGAINST TRUMP. WHILE THE DONALD
IS TOLD TO SHUT YOUR MOUTH UP ABOUT THIS MADE UP FAKE NEWS PROPAGANDA
TRIAL. OR YOU GET FINED AND GO TO JAIL. THIS REALLY IS FAIR ISN'T IT.
THIS IS A TRUMP DERANGEMENT PLUS DEMON POSSESSED DEMOCRAP SYNDROME PLUS A
PUSS FILLED SCAB OF TRUMP HATERS WHO YOU CAN KNOW FOR SURE THE LAKE OF
FIRE BLACK HOLE IS WAITING FOR , FOR SURE THE SECOND THEY CLOSE THEIR
EYES IN DEATH.
LIKE I SAID BEFORE. TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE DONALD
JOHN IS BEING PROTECTED BY GOD FOR PUTTING THE EMBASSY IN JERUSALEM AND
DECLARING JERUSALEM IS ISRAELS ETERNAL CAPITAL. IF YOU BLESS ISRAEL YOU
WILL BE BLESSED. IF YOU CURSE ISRAEL. YOUR BIRD SEED FOR THE 500 MILLION
MIGRATING BIRDS IN ISRAEL. DONALD JOHN TRUMP IS OVIOUSLY TO ME GONNA BE
THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF AMERICA. SINCE AMERICA UNDER CHINA JOE AND HIS
CATEL OF CRIMINALS AND MISFIT FAR FAR OFF THE LEFT EXTREMIST PIMPLE
PUSHERS LIARS AND SETTER UPPERS OF TRUMP ANY WAY POSSIBLE. I PREDICT IF
GOD DOES NOT PUT TRUMP IN-THIS 3RD WORLD COUNTRY AMERICA WILL BECOME A
4TH AND 5TH WORLD COUNTRY AND SINCE THEIR GODLESS ISRAEL HATERS THEY
WILL BE A JUDGED TERRORIST FILLED QUAKE, TORNADO, STORM DESTROYED
AMERICA. SINCE UNDER BIDENS EXTREMIST BABY MURDERERS, SODOMITE RAINBOW
GROUPERS (ALPHABET STEALING) TRANSEXUALLY OBSESSED ADMINISTRATION. WE
CAN SEE CLEARLY THAT GOD GAVE THESE DEMOLIBNUTS OVER TO A DEPRAVED MIND.
THAT ANY SIN GOES. SO THESE DERPAVED FOOLS WHO THINK THEIR WISE WILL BE
CONDEMNED TO HELL FIRE FOREVER WITH THEIR NEVER DYING BODIES. IN THIS
TRIAL THEY EVEN HAVE A GAG ORDER ON IT.
Judge
Merchan’s Gag Order Against President Trump Is The Textbook Case Of An
Unconstitutional Prior Restraint On His First Amendment Rights: A Legal
Commentary On Why It Must Be Removed-by Paul Ingrassia Apr. 22, 2024
7:30 am
Judge Merchan’s emotionally deranged and irresponsibly
overbroad gag order, issued in two separate installments, the second
building off the first, is both dangerous and unprecedented for its
sweeping scope. It severely infringes on President Trump’s fundamental
rights protected under the First Amendment to speak, and, wherever
appropriate, criticize the trial proceeding as he sees fit. It is
well-settled law that prior restraints on speech, of which gag orders
are the textbook example, are – in the overwhelming majority of cases –
unconstitutional as a form of government censorship.Only in the rarest
of cases has the Supreme Court upheld prior restraints on speech. In
the few cases where the Court has upheld gag orders, a form of prior
restraint, the order was necessary to achieve a compelling state
interest. In other words, the Supreme Court has only permitted gag
orders that satisfied the extremely high burden of strict scrutiny
analysis. Where gag orders are at issue, strict scrutiny compels courts
to limit the scope of the order to an articulable set of facts – the
facts encompassing the order must be extremely particularized and
limited in scope, and only considered as a final option if and when all
other alternatives to help ensure a fair trial have been totally
exhausted.Thus, gag orders are only ever to be used as a last resort
option, and only in the most exceptional cases when the right to a fair
trial would otherwise be severely jeopardized without it. In the rare
cases where a gag order would be appropriate, again the court must take
great pains to ensure that it is structured in such a way as to be
particularized to a highly limited set of facts that have a direct
bearing on the integrity of the proceeding – and go no further. The gag
order should always be temporary, with a definitive start time and
expiration date, terminating whenever the danger that resulted in its
issuance in the first place subsides, or immediately once alternative,
less constraining methods that would ensure a fair proceeding become
available, whichever comes first.Regrettably, Judge Merchan has run
roughshod over those fundamental principles that would otherwise prevent
gag orders from unduly violating the speech rights of the defendant,
Donald Trump. To reiterate, gag orders are the archetypal example of a
prior restraint on speech. The general rule is that prior restraints on
speech are presumptively unconstitutional. Courts only uphold them in
the rarest of cases where all other options are unavailable to ensure a
fair trial, and only after assurances that the order has been narrowly
tailored in its scope — and necessary to achieve — a compelling state
interest – that is to say, an interest of monumental urgency that would
imperil the proceeding without it.Survival Beef Company CEO: “No
Lab-Grown Meat, No mRNA Jabs, and No ‘Beef Crumbles’ Ever”In a criminal
proceeding involving a President of the United States, the normal checks
that create a presumption against issuance of a gag order should
receive heightened scrutiny. Indeed, because of the political notoriety
of the defendant, in addition to the well-established list of factors
that create a reasonable presumption against Judge Merchan’s trial being
anything but fair, the normal strict scrutiny analysis applicable
should be counterbalanced by the overriding public interests at play
here that strongly disfavor any sort of infringement on speech and press
rights whatsoever.These precautions should even be observed if strict
scrutiny analysis would, under normal circumstances, dictate permitting a
limited gag order. This is because the case involves the leading
presidential candidate, just months before what many pundits believe
will be one of the most hotly contested presidential elections in
American history, where the stakes of the election could not possibly be
higher. Moreover, no fair-minded observer would say that Donald Trump
could possibly get a fair trial in lower Manhattan, before a Democratic
judge, wherein a jury pool was drawn from a borough of which nearly 90%
of residents voted for Joe Biden over Donald Trump in 2020.
Accordingly,
based on an objective assessment of all the facts here, if the court is
to consider issuing any encroachments on anybody’s First Amendment
rights, the operative principle must be that such limitations be subject
to the highest possible scrutiny. Normal strict scrutiny analysis
should set the floor, and really, the court should be held to a
theoretically higher level of scrutiny for imposing any limitations in
light of additional factors at play here that make this proceeding
extraordinary: 1) the defendant is the frontrunner to be the next
president; 2) the public has a strong political interest in the outcome
of the case because a criminal conviction would deny tens, if not
hundreds, of millions of Americans their voting rights; and 3) the trial
itself is already compromised by the myriad conflicts of interest,
detailed throughout this article, and the lack of transparency in the
process – both of which facially pose serious due process problems.In a
normal criminal trial, typically the defendant receives certain
constitutional protections, including an implicit right to anonymity,
that mitigate against creating unfair prejudices in the minds of
jurors. These guardrails, which are patently missing in President
Trump’s case, are of critical importance to preserving the integrity and
fairness of a proper criminal proceeding overall.In a criminal trial
especially, courts have traditionally taken great pains to ensure the
jury pool does not bring their preconceived biases about the defendant
that could prejudicially color the ultimate verdict. Usually if a juror
even knows anything about a criminal defendant – good, bad, or
indifferent – before the trial, that juror is struck. This is especially
true for a highly publicized trial because those preconceived biases
are rightly seen as compromising to the defendant’s presumption of
innocence. No matter how impartial a juror might insist he or she is,
as a practical matter it is virtually impossible to set aside the
impressions one might already have about the defendant from one’s
judgment about the defendant’s guilt or innocence.In a case involving
Donald Trump, arguably the most famous individual in the world, of which
nearly all Americans have an opinion, the baked-in protections that
generally help foster a presumption of innocence for ordinary criminal
defendants are entirely absent here. The court, in short, cannot
pretend to be agnostic to the stark political realities of this case,
which necessarily redound to – and are inextricably linked with – the
defendant’s identity. There is no possible way to divorce the defendant
from the political passions of the jury pool – to pretend otherwise, as
Alvin Bragg and Judge Merchan do, poses a grave injustice to both
Donald Trump’s rights and to the public interest.This injustice
encompasses President Trump’s tens (if not hundreds) of millions of
would-be voters, who are also deeply affected – both politically and
emotionally – by this criminal proceeding and have an indispensable
interest in its outcome. The public has an overriding interest in this
case – and the public interest necessarily entails maximum transparency
on part of the court. Furthermore, because cameras are not permitted in
Judge Merchan’s courtroom, the judge has an additional responsibility
to ensure that both the defendant and the public’s constitutional rights
and interests are not anymore unduly limited via issuance of
unconstitutional prior constraints like gag orders, or anything of that
sort, over the course of the proceeding.Alas, the public has great cause
for concern to believe that Judge Merchan has so far ignored their
interest (to say nothing of brazenly ignoring President Trump’s
constitutional rights), completely disregarding constitutional
considerations of the highest importance in the process. For one, the
fact that Merchan issued a first gag order on March 26th, with no stated
end date, and with only sporadic citations to law, was bad enough.
Even worse, however, was that Merchan went so far as to issue a second
order, fewer than one week later, on April 1st, expanding the already
overbroad March 26th gag order to also capture any speech by the
defendant directed at the family of Judge Merchan or Alvin Bragg, is
multiple bridges too far.Judge Merchan’s second gag order reads like a
child throwing a temper tantrum, an emotionally charged rant that
somehow manages to insult President Trump, his supporters, and the
entire public, in the process. At its most histrionic point, Judge
Merchan’s emotively rages “It is no longer just a mere possibility or a
reasonable likelihood that there exists a threat to the integrity of the
judicial proceedings. The threat is very real. Admonitions are not
enough, nor is reliance on self-restraint. The average observer, must
now, after hearing Defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that
if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they
should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as
well.” [Emphasis in the original.]-Judge Merchan’s theatrical diatribe –
notably heavy on emotion, light on substance – was so clearly issued as
a desperate, last-ditch act to prevent President Trump from exposing
the very grave conflicts of interest implicating the judge and his
immediate family members, including Merchan’s own daughter and wife,
that make virtually impossible a fair trial from the start.Judge Merchan
is a known Democratic donor. For years, he has been a serial
contributor to Democratic politicians, including, as recently as 2020, a
direct contributor to Joe Biden, Donald Trump’s likely opponent in the
2020 general election. He has also made contributions through various
political action committees that support Democratic politicians in
general. Maybe even more damning, Judge Merchan’s daughter, Loren,
serves as President of a political advocacy group, Authentic, whose
clients include none other than the Biden-Harris campaign, Adam Schiff,
Kathy Hochul, Gavin Newsom, Ilhan Omar, and many other high-profile, far
left progressive Democratic politicians. Finally, Judge Merchan’s own
wife reportedly works directly for New York State Attorney General
Letitia James, who made the central point of her campaign for AG to
“get” Donald Trump. Of course, when she was on the campaign trail James
could not cite any legitimate legal rationale to “get” her biggest
political adversary in Trump, other than being obviously driven by envy
and spite, the ugly sentiments that seem to animate her entire career in
public office.Judge Merchan’s claim that issuance of the gag order was
necessary to prevent “attacks” on his family are utterly groundless.
President Trump never “attacked” Judge Merchan or any of his relatives.
The definition of attack is to take “an aggressive and violent action
against a person or place.” Under the law, attacks are equivalent to
threats. In First Amendment jurisprudence, under the well-settled
precedent from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), speech may be prohibited only
if it is (1) “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless
action,” and (2) such speech is “likely to incite or produce such
action.” The classic example: a party that raises his fist and says,
“I’m going to punch you in the nose” will likely have engaged in
punishable speech under Brandenburg; a party that says, “I am going to
punch you in the nose the next time I see you,” has not.A party that
says, “You should be recused because your daughter has, as a client to
her firm, the man I am going to likely face in the upcoming presidential
election,” is neither inciting nor threatening nor imminent nor
lawless. That is constitutionally protected speech under the First
Amendment; not an “attack,” as Judge Merchan complains, and surely, not
grounds for a gag order – which, here, applying this analysis, renders
it as an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.Even if President
Trump had called upon his supporters – which, let me be emphatically
clear, he never did nor would do – to verbally harass Loren Merchan,
Judge Merchan’s daughter, via a phone call or letter or email-writing
campaign, that speech would still pass muster as constitutionally
protected under a faithful application of the Brandenburg precedent,
which establishes the rule for lawfully prohibiting speech. What
President Trump did, via his Truth Social platform, comes nowhere close
to even the latter hypothetical. Thus, the Judge’s knee jerk reaction
to impede the President’s First Amendment right to criticize the
unfairness of his trial, and point out what many legal commentators,
experienced political experts, and observers have called a judicially
disqualifying conflict of interest – under both New York’s Rules
Governing Judicial Conflict as well as the ABA’s Model Rules of
Professional Conduct – flagrantly violates the Constitution, makes a
mockery of the rule of law, and should not stand.Under no circumstances
should this trial be allowed to carry on without, at the bare, bare
minimum, Judge Merchan’s recusal. President Trump’s lawyers have every
right in the world to call for a mistrial. Any court worth its salt –
and committed to the Constitution – would grant a mistrial without
second thought because there is no possible way President Trump’s
fundamental rights can be preserved, as a criminal defendant, in Judge
Merchan’s proceeding, where conflicts, venue, and grievous First
Amendment rights violations, in addition to a litany of other factors,
have already prejudiced this trial beyond repair.
No comments:
Post a Comment