Manafort lawyers file motion to dismiss all charges citing lack of authority / jurisdiction

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

www.detroitnews.com...


Civil case thrown out..

Long story short -
The judge told him he cant use his civil case to interfere in the criminal case and he needs to go after the points/motions/issues/etc raised in his civil case to the criminal case.

Criminal motions are still active and pending.

I guess you forgot you argued tooth and nail that wasn't the case.

You should go back and actually read what I said. Everything I brought up deals with the criminal case. Based on your source those motions have not been dismissed yet.

The judge tossed his civil suit for the reason stated. The criminal court has to deal with his motions (administrative).

So nothing has changed, nothing was thrown out (other than the civil motion) and he was told to raise those same issues in the criminal court.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

www.detroitnews.com...


Civil case thrown out..

Long story short -
The judge told him he cant use his civil case to interfere in the criminal case and he needs to go after the points/motions/issues/etc raised in his civil case to the criminal case.

Criminal motions are still active and pending.

I guess you forgot you argued tooth and nail that wasn't the case.

You should go back and actually read what I said. Everything I brought up deals with the criminal case. Based on your source those motions have not been dismissed yet.

The judge tossed his civil suit for the reason stated. The criminal court has to deal with his motions (administrative).

So nothing has changed, nothing was thrown out (other than the civil motion) and he was told to raise those same issues in the criminal court.

So you don't remember arguing about the civil case?

And me saying the proper place is to file a motion (which he did later)?

That's cool...

And no I don't think he has a solid case to throw out all his charges. Especially now the doj revealed they are going to argue he was a back channel.

a reply to: luthier

Good lord. They were 2 motions to dismiss entered. One civil and one criminal. This judge said no to his motion not because he didnt have a valid argument but because it was the wrong venue. Manafort did in fact file a civil lawsuit against the special counsel.


Manafort seeks dismissal of D.C. Mueller indictment By JOSH GERSTEIN 03/14/2018 11:05 PM EDT Updated 03/15/2018 12:12 AM EDT

The claims in the new motion to dismiss echo the arguments in a civil suit Manafort filed in January. That case has been transferred to U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, the same judge handling the criminal case against Manafort in Washington.

Talking to Russians is not illegal, contrary to what the left would like us to believe. As for being solid, it is. Having Rosenstein draft a double secret probation memo and then classifying it and only producing it after the fact is a problem.

Also if you took the time to read the op and its contents you would see that motion to dismiss is for the criminal portion with Judge Ellis.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The civil case was not a motion. Motions are brought up in current suits.

Guess we will see...you were wrong once when I stated he needed to file a motion in the current criminal case. You went on and on about it.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

The civil case was not a motion. Motions are brought up in current suits.

Guess we will see...you were wrong once when I stated he needed to file a motion in the current criminal case. You went on and on about it.

It was in fact a motion to dismiss - in both criminal and civil. As I pointed out in my post above this thread and my links are specific to the criminal motion to dismiss to judge Ellis.

I still maintain when the IG report comes out Muellers SC is done.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It's was actually a civil complaint but it's OK.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's was actually a civil complaint but it's OK.

With the same legal goal in mind.

From your source -

Jackson stressed, though, that her order in the civil case does not address the pending motions in Manafort’s criminal cases and “should not be read as expressing any opinion” about the merits of those arguments. Jackson said she will issue a separate order in the criminal case in which she presides at a later date.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's was actually a civil complaint but it's OK.

With the same legal goal in mind.

From your source -

Jackson stressed, though, that her order in the civil case does not address the pending motions in Manafort’s criminal cases and “should not be read as expressing any opinion” about the merits of those arguments. Jackson said she will issue a separate order in the criminal case in which she presides at a later date.

I never said different.

I did say a motion is filed in a current case however. But you already knew that.

The criminal case could very well see some of the evidence thrown out.

Which can then be picked up by another prosecutor.

originally posted by: luthier
The criminal case could very well see some of the evidence thrown out.

Which can then be picked up by another prosecutor.

If evidence is tossed then no, another prosecutor cant just pick the evidence up and try again. If the evidence was tainted by illegal actions no judge will admit it (fruit of the poisonous tree unless they can argue a legal loophole like inevitable discovery, which i doubt).

If the evidence is tossed then expect a motion to dismiss with prejudice shorty, if not immediately, after that ruling.

Not to mention if the motion to dismiss is granted the Muelers SC is done.

It is now a race between Mueller and the judge in Flynn's case, the motion in Manaforts case and the IG report.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yet the judiciary is trying to save the case.....

Now a new prosecutor can't use the same evidence but he will know where to look. It happens all the time.

Of coarse then there is parallel construction.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yet the judiciary is trying to save the case.....

Now a new prosecutor can't use the same evidence but he will know where to look. It happens all the time.

Of coarse then there is parallel construction.

It is not up to a judge to save a case. A judge attempting to do that could be removed for showing bias in one direction or another.

Sure it gives them an idea of where to look however given the "latitude" of Muellers investigation I would not hold my breath of another prosecutor finding that info.

Besides if the case is dismissed with prejudice another prosecutor cant file the same charges against him. The left grasping at straws by saying he can be prosecuted in New York state court (like they have with Cohen) needs to read the law. New York state law prohibits a state prosecutor from bringing charges against a person if they were prosecuted at the federal level. It also prevents state prosecutors from filing criminal charges against a person if that person was pardoned by the President.

NY is trying to change that law to allow it however it wil be unconstitutional under no ex post facto laws.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The Senate judiciary committee.

And it's not the left. It's also the right. Unless you consider napalitano a leftie.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

The Senate judiciary committee.

And it's not the left. It's also the right. Unless you consider napalitano a leftie.

It is not up to any congressional committees to save a case unless your pushing for a separation of powers violation.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It's not up to the president to have military campaigns either but it happens without a vote from congress these days.

The fact the Senate judiciary is signaling the president to stand down tells me Grassley saw something that makes him nervous.

Personally I think the voters are the ones to remove trump if need be.

I just find it amusing the left and right are speculating so strongly on a case they have no information on.

The prosecution hasn't revealed their case. Now there may be parts of the case that are thrown out but no where near your prediction Imo. You have given the most extreme example and ignored all the most probable.

originally posted by: luthier
It's not up to the president to have military campaigns either but it happens without a vote from congress these days.

Congress has the responsibility of declaring war and paying the bill. The Constitution, the war powers act of 1973, the AUMF on terrorism and the Humanitarian intervention provisions in the NU charter allows the President to take actions. If Congress doesnt like that then the can revoked the AUMF, revoke the war powers act that they drafted and they can refuse to pay our troops.

originally posted by: luthier
The fact the Senate judiciary is signaling the president to stand down tells me Grassley saw something that makes him nervous.

The Senate judiciary, nor any other member or committee in Congress, can direct the President to the bathroom let alone to stand down on something he is involved in.

originally posted by: luthier
Personally I think the voters are the ones to remove trump if need be.

I agree and I love living in a country where we get to freely over throw our government every 2 years.

originally posted by: luthier
I just find it amusing the left and right are speculating so strongly on a case they have no information on.

I dont think it is speculating as much as it is politics. At least for the Democrats who cant accept they lost an election, their candidate is not liked nor trustworthy compounded by who they lost to - Trump. In the minds of Democrats the voters got it wrong and are desperately trying to invalidate the election by hiding a coup in plain sight.

originally posted by: luthier
The prosecution hasn't revealed their case.

Actually they have and you can read about it in their indictment.

originally posted by: luthier
Now there may be parts of the case that are thrown out but no where near your prediction Imo. You have given the most extreme example and ignored all the most probable.

That is because the issue is the most extreme you can get - A prosecutor using illegal and unethical tactics, lying under oath / in affidavits to get search warrants, abusing the FISA court system.

Everything thus far revolves around Muellers and Rosensteins legal authority and the legality of evidence and how it was collected.

If evidence is thrown out then every other aspect of the prosecution is thrown out since the main argument is legality. If it was not lawful to obtain the evidence and bring charges then the prosecution is not lawful - ending the SC.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It's lawful to gather you own evidence the judge does not have to rule that mana fort can't be prosecuted. They are separate issues.

Fisa is a rubber stamp abuse program and has been since 911. The people who misused it 75 times the first year after 911 had no ramifications. Which means again you are being extreme here.

The Senate is saying you are running a real chance of impeachment if you fore Mueller. Guess you couldn't understand that.

You have an awful lot of confirmation bias in your posts. The conservatives are no better than the Republicans. Just ask Ashcroft. He was probably as bad if not worse than lynch. Which is saying something.

originally posted by: luthier
It's lawful to gather you own evidence the judge does not have to rule that mana fort can't be prosecuted. They are separate issues.

Your not following / understanding what I am saying. If the evidence, the items they used to indict, is thrown out then there is nothing to support the charges IE the case gets tossed.

originally posted by: luthier
Fisa is a rubber stamp abuse program and has been since 911. The people who misused it 75 times the first year after 911 had no ramifications. Which means again you are being extreme here.

No the people who misused it did face ramifications. Several received reprimands / bar complaints. The cases they were involved in were and all convictions were vacated. A result of that is the woods protocol which established a strict procedure for FISA and US citizens. That protocol was violated in these cases. They also walked themselves into potential giglio violations.

originally posted by: luthier
The Senate is saying you are running a real chance of impeachment if you fore Mueller. Guess you couldn't understand that.

Not in the convoluted and back peddling manner you presented and then changed it. You started out with prosecutor the moved on when you were wrong. You then moved to congressional hearings which have no authority to conduct criminal investigations, let alone act on behalf of the executive branch.

Impeachment is a political question and not a criminal one. High crimes and misdemeanors are defined by Congress and not the judicial system. They can try to impeach anytime they wish. I would imagine anyone involved in that process would lose their jobs next election cycle.

originally posted by: luthier
You have an awful lot of confirmation bias in your posts. The conservatives are no better than the Republicans. Just ask Ashcroft. He was probably as bad if not worse than lynch. Which is saying something.

Not bias.. Just tired of people not understanding the basics of our legal system or how government work. I get tired of the double standards by the left and their holier than thou attitude where they think laws only apply to everyone else but them.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Lol. When I think of people not understanding the legal system you come to mind.

You were wrong about the civil case being valid.

Wrong about Colorado Marijuana laws.

You totally misrepresent and misunderstand arguements. You don't get the implication of people like Grassley trying to protect mueller.

You think a prosecutor can't pick up the case. Yeah not with a literal hand off of evidence. That isn't what I said.

I have grown up with high profile cases. I have seen how state prosecutors work.

You seem to think laws have no wiggle room. Which tells me you have never seen a case prosecuted.


But sure. Make your bets again. So far I won the civil case bet.

a reply to: luthier

So you cant refute the facts so you go for the personal attack.

Typical but not surprising coming from you. It seems to be your MO.

Do you have anything to refute the facts you are ignoring or are you just going to stick with the name calling temper tantrum?

You are the one who kept changing your argument with regards to judges and then congress when it was pointed out you were wrong. You are the one who doesnt understand how rules of evidence work. Wiggle room in the law? What a joke. If you spent time in court you would know if it is solid investigation wiggle room is not needed. Wiggle room comes into play when a prosecution or defense make a massive mistake that can sink their case and then do everything they can to try and save it.

Actions several lawyers on Muellers team, including Mueller himself, have been found guilty of in the past.

When you get caught op on the pertinent information that you are ignorant about come on back and join the conversation.