https://static.politico.com/8b/9e/8663b7e849cf87d9220333fb3a36/2025-00648-people-of-the-state-of-v-people-of-the-state-of-appellant-s-brief-66.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49382732)

prediction: you guys are gonna be disappointed with the outcome

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49382896)

i'm assuming that the appellate court will pick one deadly flaw in the prosecution and leave it at that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49382761)

prediction: you guys are gonna be disappointed with the outcome

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49382897)

various orphaned lines of paragraphs

unitalicized v. in many case cites. wtf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49382776)

Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,

justified text. wtf

various orphaned lines of paragraphs

unitalicized v. in many case cites. wtf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2#49382776)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49382788)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49382804)

prepared on a computer using Microsoft Word. A proportionally spaced

typeface was used as follows:

Name of Typeface: CenturyExpd BT

Point Size: 14

Line Spacing: Double

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49382807)

prediction: you guys are gonna be disappointed with the outcome

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49382898)

the Committee made two points. It first stated that “none” of the

contributions at issue “was made to the defendant or the prosecutor or anyone

else involved in the case.” A405. That logic is hard to understand. If

contributions to President Trump’s 2020 campaign would have been

disqualifying, as the Committee seemed to imply, then surely a contribution

directly against him—to his opponent in both the 2020 and 2024 Presidential

94

campaigns—should have been disqualifying as well. There is little doubt that

DANY would have cried foul if Justice Merchan had donated $35 to President

Trump’s 2020 campaign, and rightly so.

The Committee also reasoned that Justice Merchan’s contributions were

made “more than two years” before the indictment, and that the Committee

“seldom require[s] disqualification . . . for more than two years.” A405. But

the Committee’s two citations for this supposed two-year statute of limitations

were not remotely on-point. The first was an ethics opinion requiring judges

to disclose (for two years) the fact of their having attended an attorney’s

wedding as a guest. See Opinion 22-138. The second was an opinion requiring

judges to recuse from any case involving an attorney who personally

represented the judge (in the preceding two years). See Opinion 22-183. The

Committee did not explain how either situation is analogous. More

importantly, the judicial code’s written provision forbidding political

contributions—a provision the Committee did not cite—contains no time limit,

let alone a time limit of only two years for Presidential campaigns, which of

course take place every four years.

Second, the Committee was not apprised of all of the troubling additional

facts bearing on Justice Merchan’s neutrality. The Committee’s opinion

95

merely referred to Ms. Merchan as a “high-ranking officer” and employee of

Authentic Campaigns, rather than part-owner with a direct financial interest

in the company. A405. At the time of the opinion, President Trump had not

yet uncovered Authentic’s advertisements specifically discussing DANY’s

prosecution. Thus, the Committee was under the misimpression that

Authentic would not do “any work referencing or affected by the criminal

charges at issue here.” A306. As explained at pp. 90-91, supra, that was not

accurate. Nor did the Committee address or analyze Justice Merchan’s

improper conduct with Weisselberg in the separate case against the Trump

Organization.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49382842)

prediction: you guys are gonna be disappointed with the outcome

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49382899)

I haven't read the argument yet but if you remember, this was a case even the NYT said was based on dubious legal arguements - before it actually went forward and all libs fell in line.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49382852)

prediction: you guys are gonna be disappointed with the outcome

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49382901)

To get it to a felony, you had to say it was done in furtherance of a crime. This is where the court dubiously allowed each juror to choose their own legal theory (even if their legal theory didn't make sense).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49382977)

prediction: you guys are gonna be disappointed with the outcome

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49382894)

(i) it's totally legal for Trump to make these payments

(ii) Trump, as the candidate, was able to donate an infinite amount of money to his own campaign

(iii) Trump gave this task to his lawyer and marked it as legal expenses

So this whole thing relies on the dubious theory that Trump is responsible for Cohen, a barred attorney, fucking up and taking perfectly legal transactions and making them illegal.

Not to mention that you also would've had to prove that these were campaign expenses in the first place (which they weren't).

But again, the court wildly decided that you didn't have to prove that the second crime was a crime - just that the jury thought it was for a crime in their opinion...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49383359)

https://www.sullcrom.com/Lawyers/Morgan-L-Ratner

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49383392)

Jfc this was fraud upon fraud on the court.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49383408)

trump twice tried to remove his NY criminal matter to federal court. the first time got shot down. the second one was after the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity and it got shot down too. but the 2nd Circuit kinda just shat the USDC judge who denied the removal and they ordered him to reconsider in light of governing law.

so what the fuck happens at this point if the USDC grants the removal or if he denies at and the 2nd Circuit reverses him?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.c95c060a-7c1c-465e-ad55-c66a4c162941/gov.uscourts.ca2.c95c060a-7c1c-465e-ad55-c66a4c162941.104.1.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49408556)

In March 2023, a New York State grand jury indicted then-former

President Donald J. Trump on thirty-four counts of falsifying business records in

the first degree. The indictment alleged that Trump orchestrated an illegal

scheme to influence the 2016 presidential election by directing his personal

lawyer to pay $130,000 to an adult film star to prevent her from publicly

revealing a sexual encounter with Trump. Trump sought to remove the criminal

case against him to federal court, relying on the federal officer removal statute,

28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The District Court remanded the case after determining

that it did not fall within the scope of § 1442(a)(1). Following a state court jury

trial, Trump was convicted on all counts. After Trump’s conviction but prior to

sentencing, the United States Supreme Court issued its presidential immunity

decision in Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024). Trump thereafter sought

leave to file a second, untimely notice of removal pursuant to § 1442(a)(1) and 28

U.S.C. § 1455(b), which establishes the procedure for removal of criminal

prosecutions and requires that the defendant show “good cause” for an order

granting leave to file a late notice of removal. Trump argued principally that the

Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Trump v. United States rendered the

State’s prosecution one “relating to” his official acts as President such that the

case was now removable and established good cause for his untimely filing. The

District Court denied leave, concluding, among other things, that “good cause”

had not been shown for the delay in seeking removal a second time. We cannot

be confident that in doing so, the District Court adequately considered issues

relevant to the good cause inquiry so as to enable meaningful appellate review.

Those issues include but are not limited to the impact of Trump v. United States on

the removability of the underlying state prosecution. For example, the District

Court did not consider whether certain evidence admitted during the state court

trial relates to immunized official acts or, if so, whether evidentiary immunity

transformed the State’s case into one that relates to acts under color of the

Presidency. Nor did the District Court consider whether any notice of removal

of a criminal prosecution under § 1455(b)(1) must be filed before trial even if new

grounds for removal arise during or after trial. We therefore VACATE the

District Court’s order denying Trump’s motion for leave to file a second notice of

removal and REMAND for reconsideration of the motion consistent with this

opinion.

STEVEN C. WU (John T. Hughes, on the brief), for Alvin L.

Bragg, Jr., District Attorney for New York County, New

York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

JEFFREY B. WALL, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,

Washington, DC (Morgan L. Ratner, Sullivan &

Cromwell LLP, Washington, DC, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr.,

Matthew A. Schwartz, James M. McDonald, Sullivan &

Cromwell LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for

Defendant-Appellant.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5790942&forum_id=2E#49408561)