My bookkeeper called a “Legal Expense,” on the “tiny” description line of the Ledger, a “Legal Expense,” openly paid to my lawyer, at that time a fully accredited one. I was not involved in that designation, but what else would you have called it? It was, in fact, a LEGAL EXPENSE. That is the so-called “CRIME.” On top of that, I wasn’t allowed by the judge to use, in any form, the standard RELIANCE ON COUNSEL DEFENSE (ADVICE OF COUNSEL!). My lawyer, at the time, did virtually everything on the NDA (NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT), and I assumed that what he did was correct. I did nothing wrong, and frankly, there was nothing done wrong - NDA’s are standard, commonly used, and LEGAL. MAGA2024! WITCH HUNT! IF THIS CAN HAPPEN TO ME, IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE!
Search Posts
6 results for "tag:legal_rationalization"
Gregg Jarrett: “The Sixth Amendment requires prosecutors to inform every defendant ‘of the nature and cause of the accusations’ against them. The deliberate refusal by the prosecution to do so in this case is an egregious violation of a hallowed constitutional right. Only in closing arguments —after the trial testimony concluded and all of the evidence was presented— did the prosecutor finally reveal the enigma: it was a federal election crime. But wait. He then contradicted himself by claiming that it was a state crime. Which is it? As a matter of law, neither. It can not be the former because a local prosecutor has no authority to enforce a federal law. And it can not be the latter, because it was a federal election, not a state contest. State law has no application.”
Hans von Spakovsky, The Daily Signal: “First, Section 3 of the 14 Amendment applies only to individuals who were previously a ‘member of Congress,’ an ‘officer of the United States,’ or a state official. Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3. Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in ‘insurrection or rebellion.’ In fact, the Senate acquitted Trump of that charge in his second impeachment. Third, some scholars assert Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter after the Amnesty Acts of 1872 and 1898—a matter completely ignored by the court today. Fourth, prior court rulings have held that Section 3 is not self-executing and Congress has never passed any federal law providing for enforcement, meaning that courts such as the Colorado Supreme Court have no legal authority to enforce Section 3.” https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/12/19/election-interference-colorado-supreme-court-removes-trump-from-ballot/
This is the Paper that I wanted to submit that the Judge refused to take, because he doesn’t want anybody to know about the Disclaimer Clause at the beginning of each Financial Statement. This is just part of it! That case is a disgrace to the Legal and Judicial System of New York. Hopefully the Appellate Courts will stop this travesty of Justice that everybody is watching and fully understanding!
The Swing States did not even come close to following the dictates of their State Legislatures. These States “election laws” were made up by local judges & politicians, not by their Legislatures, & are therefore, before even getting to irregularities & fraud, UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
When there is not an underlying crime with regard to Collusion (in fact, the whole thing was a made up fraud), it is difficult to say that someone is obstructing something. There was no underlying crime.” @marthamaccallum @FoxNews