Do I have that right?
How could that not stand up to a legal challenge, if I interpret it correctly?????
What would stop any agency from seizing property without a warrant, pawing through it to look for things, then saying "we can't find the warrant" but using what they found in their seizure and search to fill in the blanks for something specific?
This stinks to high heaven, if I interpret that correctly.
we are clearly thru the looking glass now...
Think you got it right.
Apparently since the Constitution doesn’t outright ban Ex Post Facto warrants, they can be used.
IOW, just go ahead and search, then when you find something, go get some toilet paper to cover your ass.
Because now [2022] the standard the Courts use is not the Law but, "Is it right, or does it give me a good feeling, is the defendant of the correct political perusation, the wai I [the judge ]feels, or any other thing one can think of except the Law as written". President Trump will always be wrong. Period. Welcome to the New World Order and the World of Feelings.
Stinks indeed.
A warrant must obtain prior to searching and seizing anything.
Assuming he’s not representing himself (and thus has a fool for a client), Eastman’s lawyer should be able to skin up a demand similar to Habeas Corpus (”you shall have the body”) to force production of the hard-copy warrant (’Habeas Chartam”? “Habeas Documentum”?). Otherwise his case falls apart.
Eastman has corrupt poltroon collaborator for a judge.