According to law professor Harvey Silverglate, as he wrote in his book Three Felonies a Day, had Milken not been famous and wealthy, critics might have taken a closer and more dispassionate look at the fabricated case against him. It now seems irrefutable that both Michael Milken’s financial success and Trump’s political success made them the targets of our weaponized system of justice. Milken was an easy scapegoat to satiate a growing public resentment over the so-called excesses of the 1980s.

In Trump’s case, an inability to effectively navigate the “political swamp” in Washington D.C. made him an easy target for ruthless Democrats eager to destroy him for having the audacity to win the White House in 2016 against the swamp’s anointed candidate, Hillary Clinton. Milken showed how you can raise capital outside of the large established New York investment banks, Trump proved how to win an election without the large establishment political donors.

The charges against Milken were more about taking down a high-profile figure than achieving true justice, according to numerous experts in business ethics, such as Professor Norman Barry, author of the book Business Ethics. //

By examining the cases against Donald Trump and Michael Milken, it becomes evident that targeting successful and or controversial individuals without solid evidence of criminal behavior does not advance the cause of justice; it undermines it. However, what is even more disturbing is how our justice system is used against people without any financial means whatsoever.

Under New York law, Trump cannot appeal this ruling without depositing the full amount, including interest, in a court account. Even for Trump, $455 million is hard to come by. Likewise, a bond would require a company to guarantee payment for a defendant who has been barred from doing business in New York and is facing the need to liquidate much of his portfolio. //

The judge's order also forbids Trump from borrowing from any financial institution chartered or registered in New York for three years, so he can't even borrow to pay any of it from any bank in New York, an additional unfair aspect.

So, who is going to issue a bond under such risky conditions? //

If the only protection in New York is the discretion of figures like James, few businesses would relish the future. The message is that you can expect blind and equal justice so long as you don’t run afoul of the Democrats in power.

The jury in Superior Court of the District of Columbia found that [think tank fellow Rand] Simberg and Steyn made false statements, awarding Mann $1 in compensatory damages from each writer. It awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn, after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.”[...] //

Steyn, who the Associated Press reported represented himself, released a statement via Melissa Howes, his manager, "that he would be appealing the $1 million award in punitive damages, saying it would have to face 'due process scrutiny.'”

His statement continued:

We always said that Mann never suffered any actual injury from the statement at issue,.And today, after twelve years, the jury awarded him one dollar in compensatory damages. //

LaserTSV
4 hours ago edited
Why was the case filed in DC and not Pennsylvania? I am totally confused by all of this. Isn't $1M a small amount of money for court cases? I am thinking the legal bills for both parties was larger than $1M??? Will Steyn end up paying more than $1M to appeal this? //

Keith
21 minutes ago
What a complete travesty of justice, Mann couldn't even get another "climate scientist" to testify on his behalf.

they were released on their own recognizance, which means police have nothing to arrest them on, on the assumption – which they have to operate on – that they’ll be back for their [March 4] court date.”

“The chances of that happening when four people get on a bus with false names and head for the city that literally you can cross the street into the Mexican border is probably unlikely,” he added. //

This is what "criminal justice reform" and defund the police have brought us – get-out-of-jail-free cards for criminals in cities like the Big Apple, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The phrase, “do the crime, serve the time” seems like a distant memory. Now it’s more like, “do the deed, get quickly freed.” //

Weminuche45
21 minutes ago
anarcho-tyranny:
The law is powerless to help you, but it can still harm you.

In simple terms, anarcho-tyranny is when the state stops upholding its end of the social contract and uses its monopoly on violence for its own ends.

GregInFla
2 hours ago
The law used by Carroll to sue Trump (which was limited to one year life) was passed for the sole purpose of suing Trump for the supposed rape, a rape that occurred so long ago that the victim cannot even say what year it occurred in. Carroll's lawyer was one who pushed the law in Albany. I think this travesty is a worse travesty for law than the King fraud case. Corrupt persecution at its finest.

anon-kje4 -> GregInFla
20 minutes ago
The New York law changing the statute of limitations for one year to get Trump is essentially a bill of attainder: "A bill of attainder is legislation that imposes punishment on a specific person or group of people without a judicial trial." Such bills, or laws, are unconstitutional and the Supreme Court needs to swiftly knock it down in the interest of due process. How can anyone expect to gather evidence and witnesses 30 years after the fact, especially where, in this case, the charge was never brought to the defendants attention for years and years after the alleged incident.

World Economic Forum Poohbah Klaus Schwab is fond of paraphrasing the Joseph Goebbels quote, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear," as "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be afraid." Fortunately, that dark day in America has been kicked down the road by no less a body than a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Tuesday, the court struck down the FBI and Department of Justice in what looks to be a precedent-setting case called Snitko v. United States, dealing a significant blow to the government's expansive search and seizure practices known as "inventory searches." 

The case started out with a 2021 raid on a company called US Private Vaults, a California company offering secure safe deposit boxes with minimal personal identification requirements. Though apparently some specific boxes were targeted, the FBI elected to break open some 700 boxes and rummaged through their contents to the extent of bringing drug dogs in to sniff for traces of drugs as an excuse for invoking civil asset forfeiture. //

The central problem was that the FBI's warrant did not authorize "criminal search or seizure" of the safety deposit boxes. The FBI claimed it was just an "inventory search" that would allow box contents to be inventoried and returned to their owners. This requires following a specific set of rules that the FBI didn't bother to use.

If there remained any doubt regarding whether the government conducted a ‘criminal search or seizure, that doubt is put to rest by the fact the government has already used some of the information from inside the boxes to obtain additional warrants to further its investigation and begin new ones.”

The judges grilled the FBI and Department of Justice on how their actions didn't violate the very purpose of the Fourth Amendment.

This raid, targeting hundreds of boxes, opened a Pandora's box of legal and ethical questions regarding privacy rights and the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches; "It was those very abuses of power, after all, that led to adoption of the Fourth Amendment in the first place." //

Many moons ago, when I was an IG investigator for the Army's Recruiting Command, my boss gave me this sage advice on how to read a crowd if you were giving a training session: " If all the recruiters suddenly start writing," he said, "you've just closed a door they've been using or opened a door they didn't know existed."

The government's correct answer at the original trial was, "My bad, we did something wrong, and we'll do the right thing." The fact that they fought this tooth and nail and then tried to get out from under the ruling shows that they routinely use the "inventory search" masquerade to develop evidence in criminal cases and raise cash at your expense.

Though this was a victory, it was also a tragedy. No one was prosecuted. No one was fired. No one cared. "Deprivation of Right Under Color of Law" is a felony. There is a division of the Justice Department that prosecutes these cases. The DOJ IG didn't open a case to see how widespread this problem is, probably because they already know. What about other people who didn't have a high-profile case to attract free legal care? How do they get their property back? And what about the criminal cases launched, cases that helped move someone's career forward, based on patently unconstitutional searches?

Sooner or later, we have to arrive at a point where we admit that the FBI and most of the Department of Justice are much more of a danger to civil liberties than traditional Catholics, pro-life demonstrators, J6 defendants, Donald Trump, and even China. //

anon-goox
2 hours ago
The fact that Klaus is quoting Josef Goebbels as an authority SHOULD tell everyone---including Klaus himself---that he is on the wrong track.

A 61-year-old grandfather is suing Sunglass Hut's parent company after the store's facial recognition technology mistakenly identified him as a robber. Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr. was subsequently held in jail, where he says he was sexually assaulted, according to the lawsuit.

The January 2022 robbery took place at a Sunglass Hut store in Houston, Texas, when two gun-wielding robbers stole thousands of dollars in cash and merchandise.

Houston police identified Murphy as a suspect – even though he was living in California at the time.

When Murphy returned to Texas to renew his driver's license, he was arrested. He was held in jail, where he says he was sexually assaulted by three men in a bathroom. He says he suffered lifelong injuries.

Fujitsu software bugs that helped send innocent postal employees to prison in the UK were known "right from the very start of deployment," a Fujitsu executive told a public inquiry today.

"All the bugs and errors have been known at one level or not, for many, many years. Right from the very start of deployment of the system, there were bugs and errors and defects, which were well-known to all parties," said Paul Patterson, co-CEO of Fujitsu's European division.

That goes back to 1999, when the Horizon software system was installed in post offices by Fujitsu subsidiary International Computers Limited. From 1999 to 2015, Fujitsu's faulty accounting software aided in the prosecution and conviction of more than 900 sub-postmasters and postmistresses who were accused of theft or fraud when the software wrongly made it appear that money was missing from their branches.

Some innocent people went to prison, while others were forced to make payments to the UK Post Office to cover the supposed shortfalls. So far, "only 93 convictions have been overturned and thousands of people are still waiting for compensation settlements," a BBC report said. //

A Financial Times article said that the public inquiry "heard in December last year that the Post Office's lawyers had rewritten Fujitsu witness statements."

The FT article also said the Post Office, which used prosecution powers available to private corporations in the UK, obtained 700 of the 900 convictions. The other convictions came in cases brought by Scottish prosecutors. The scandal may lead to reforms of the private prosecution system that lets organizations take people to court.

They allege Capitol CCTV footage blows up the story told by a member of Nancy Pelosi's security detail -- Special Agent David Lazarus. Lazarus gave testimony corroborating another Capitol police officer's account, claiming that he had an antagonistic encounter with the Oath Keepers. But The Blaze report says what Lazarus claimed couldn't possibly be true.

Steve Baker, the investigative reporter on the story, walks through the timeline of events and alleges that Lazarus was elsewhere at the time of the purported incident, not at the site of the incident when it purportedly happened. They point out other conflicts in the testimony as well as to who saw what when.

This is truly wild and very disturbing. //

If you can't get equal justice under the law, where does that leave our Constitutional Republic? And as Baker also notes, if this is true, then what else are they not telling the truth about? //

Largo Patriot
an hour ago edited
Who made the decision to withhold exculpatory videos from J6 defendants and their attorneys knowing this decision violated their right to a fair trial? Jacob Chansley (the Shaman) was immediately released from prison after Tucker Carlson aired the video of him peacefully walking into the Capitol and being escorted around the building by police officers. The video, which was not made available to Mr. Chansley and his attorneys, contradicted the government's allegations that he encouraged violent protesters to force their way into the Capitol and assault police officers in the process. In fact, Mr. Chansley entered the building alone and interacted only with police officers while inside. There is nothing in the video, which government prosecutors saw prior to filing the indictment against him, that supports the allegations in the indictment other than the allegations that he attended the January 6th protest and entered the building. Based on video evidence now available to the public, prosecutors made allegations against members of the Oath Keepers knowing that their witness lied about the interaction between them and Officer Harry Dunn.

Ronnie Long’s story is a tragic tale of injustice and prosecutorial misconduct. In 1976, he was convicted of a crime he did not commit in Concord, North Carolina, and spent 44 years in prison.

Fortunately, Long was recently released after a review of his case. While the city will be paying a hefty settlement, it will not bring back the years in which he was wrongfully deprived of his freedom. This story is a frightening example of prosecutorial misconduct that often goes unnoticed.

Curmudgeon
10 hours ago
The bank in question testified at the trial for the defence. They stated they did their own assessment and agreed terms with Trump. The loan was paid back in full in accordance with the agreement. //

Blue State Deplorable
9 hours ago edited
This prosecution is patently ridiculous. First, there are no damages - the bank was made whole with interest. Second, the bank is not some unequal partner that was taken advantage of. This is their business and they have professionals that advise them accordingly. Third, and as Kevin O’Leary points out, this is a negotiation that happens every day in every city in America. It’s how commercial real estate development is often financed. Anyone who thinks Trump is guilty of something here is galactically stupid. //

Ready2Squeeze Romeg
9 hours ago
At least here in NY, valuations for purposes of taxes are always much lower than what the property is worth on the market. That is done intentionally as it fools a lot of people into thinking that they are getting a 'deal' on their tax assessment - when in fact everyone else's property is similarly 'under valued'.

But don't worry - the government just makes it up on the tax rate ...

In a victory for the Justice Department and against commonsense, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday that merely being in the Capitol was enough to merit conviction for “disorderly” or “disruptive” conduct.

A three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that they were participants if people were aware of what was happening around them. //

“Even passive, quiet and nonviolent conduct can be disorderly,” Henderson added, citing Supreme Court precedent that held sit-ins or protests that block traffic can be disorderly.

Compare and contrast this novel concept of "disorderly conduct" with the free pass given to all George Floyd Memorial Riot and Looting Festival participants. //

The Court [SCOTUS] has consistently over that time rejected the expansive application of statutory language by DOJ in the area of “obstruction of justice.” It has narrowly construed language such that an “ordinary person” would realize when his or her conduct crossed the line into criminal “obstructive” behavior. If Congress wants broader application, Congress needs to speak clearly by using expressly broader language.

What the DC Circuit has done is nothing other than legitimize a political vendetta. If we are ever fortunate enough to get another workable GOP majority in the House and Senate, the judges who validated this abuse must be held to account. Impeachment, even if failing to remove them from office, would at least deter other judges from acting like sock puppets to the Department of Justice. //

Cy
6 hours ago
Pro-Hamas can storm the capitol. Pro-Americans cannot set foot in it.

Liberals can shout down conservatives on campus, conservatives on campus aren't even allowed to breathe.

Leftist can burn down buildings and cities, conservatives can't pray outside an abortion clinic.

Someday the pendulum will swing the other way and I intend to take full advantage of it. //

emptypockets
4 hours ago edited
So accepting an invitation from a uniformed police officer to enter "the people's house" still makes one guilty of disorderly conduct if one's politics is of the wrong persuasion.

Yet some of the officers wearing the same uniform admitted they caused the riot by firing rubber bullets and pepper spray into a peaceful crowd.

One presumes [yes, wrongly but bear with me] that police officers KNOW and understand the laws they are sworn to enforce. so...wouldn't them inviting people in --against the law---be entrapment?

On anything related to "justice" in the District of Corruption, there is no perversion of law which would really surprise me. Disgust is a whole other critter, though.

We have become a nation of Madame Defarges — eagerly knitting names of those to be subject to arbitrary justice. //

The whole idea was already ridiculous when Democrats started trying to use the 14th Amendment to target Trump. Now, this issue has descended further into the realm of the absurd as they seek to disqualify as many Republicans from the ballot as possible.

The AG claims Team Trump exaggerated the value of real estate to secure favorable loans and insurance rates. That’s it. Lenders rely upon their own appraisals. Sophisticated businesses decided to loan him money, all of which he repaid. And the banks are not complaining. This is the Trump defense. Yet, so far, James is winning. //

The AG disregards that there is no victim such as a wronged investor or lender who wound up holding the bag on an undervalued piece of real estate. The state contends that none of this matters; that exaggerating, fibbing, or lying is wrong, and that the Trumps must be destroyed. Apparently, no expenditure of tax dollars is too much for the state to invest to punish these wrongs. The relief sought is the revocation of business licenses throughout the state of New York and fines as high as $250 million. Because it is unusual for a prosecutor to bring a civil case without a victim or cognizable harm, the AG’s motivations have been questioned, especially during her unprecedented daily press conferences. //

Each of these Trump cases brings an odd claim, one that has never been brought against others in the past, or a charge that is not being pursued today against others who have mishandled documents or challenged elections, for instance. //

If the court of appeals reverses Judge Engoron’s decisions, the irreparable harm to the Trump family will have already been done, though. And, for many, that is the goal. //

Much of the damage will have already occurred regardless of future vindication. These are the hallmarks of lawfare. If your goal is to harm your opposition or enemy, a trial win is welcome, but a trial loss also inflicts noticeable pain and offers plenty of consolation.

As a lawfare plaintiff, you win some and lose some — but you can make all of them hurt.