Posted on 12/20/2021 7:01:02 AM PST by janetjanet998
Donald J. Trump filed a lawsuit on Monday against the New York State attorney general, Letitia James, seeking to halt her long-running civil investigation into his business practices. The suit, filed in federal court in upstate New York by Mr. Trump and his family real estate business, argues that Ms. James’s inquiry, which has lasted more than two years, has violated Mr. Trump’s constitutional rights. Mr. Trump and his lawyers have long argued that the investigation was politically motivated; the lawsuit asks a judge to agree, and to stop the investigation. “Her mission is guided solely by political animus and a desire to harass, intimidate, and retaliate against a private citizen who she views as a political opponent,” the suit reads.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
FACTCHECK TRUE
Its hard to not agree with that. Unfortunately the judge may feel exactly the same way.
She’s just another Soros Stooge
Sue her for malicious prosecution.
Too bad the GOP did not have the balls to do a Congressional “legislative investigation” into obozo’s passport applications, federal student loan / grants, registration for selective service ... kind of like the demonkkkraps are doing on Trump’s taxes. Time to stop pretending we are all Americans.
Malicious prosecution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting and pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term “malicious prosecution” denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term “malicious use of process” denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.
Criminal prosecuting attorneys and judges are protected from tort liability for malicious prosecution by doctrines of prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity. Moreover, the mere filing of a complaint cannot constitute an abuse of process. The parties who have abused or misused the process have gone beyond merely filing a lawsuit. The taking of an appeal, even a frivolous one, is not enough to constitute an abuse of process. The mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit, even for an improper purpose, is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action.
Declining to expand the tort of malicious prosecution, a unanimous California Supreme Court in the case of Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal. 3d 863, 873 (1989) observed: “While the filing of frivolous lawsuits is certainly improper and cannot in any way be condoned, in our view the better means of addressing the problem of unjustified litigation is through the adoption of measures facilitating the speedy resolution of the initial lawsuit and authorizing the imposition of sanctions for frivolous or delaying conduct within that first action itself, rather than through an expansion of the opportunities for initiating one or more additional rounds of malicious prosecution litigation after the first action has been concluded.”[1]
Yep, using the unlimited resources at hand she should be held legally responsible as well as stopping the harassment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Judge says, “Yeah, but that’s just the Constitution, a quaint antiquated old document written by white men. So it’s not like it has any relevance in my courtroom.”
“Judge says, “Yeah, but that’s just the Constitution, a quaint antiquated old document written by white men. So it’s not like it has any relevance in my courtroom.”
Yes, even though that same judge swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. This is the oath:
“I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
In the aggregate the Constitution requires that all criminal investigations spring from a crime and not from some law enforcement officer’s perception of what a criminal looks or acts like. Period. Cops can’t pull you over because you look or act like what they think a criminal looks or acts like. It’s unconstitutional. Any evidence which they might gather from such an investigation becomes “fruit of the forbidden tree”, and is inadmissible in court. When a court encounters this activity mid-investigation then the court is obligated to stop it.
Well, there you did it. You had to throw actual law into the mix: “doctrines of prosecutorial immunity.”
LoL......sorry ‘bout that.
She and Mueller are looking in places people 10000 times smarter than they are have already looked.....and found nothing.
Trump was rigorously vetted and recd multiple AC casino licences.
BARRON HILTON, HUGH HEFNER AND BOB GUCCIONE WERE DENIED AC CASINO LICENSES.
Donald ran four AC casinos.
That’s nice. The problem with the GOP is that they “play by the rules” and/or lack creative legal thinking. In the meantime the demonkkkraps keep destroying the rule of law right before everyone and now are using the law to prosecute their political enemies - even with made up evidence (hello General Flynn, or Ted Stevens or...) We are turning into Venezuela. If the demonkkkraps had to live by the new rules their judges are creating and establishing new precedence, we might just have a chance to turn some things back on them.
For example, recall when demonkkkraps successfully argued for new legal precedence that Trump’s campaign speech about Muslim countries / terrorism were racist and his presidential order restricting immigration from certain Muslim countries was unconstitutional because of his alleged racial animus? The “follow the rules” party argued that not only was he was not racist, his decision not racist, but that it was in this matter of immigration he was legally and constitutionally entitled to exercise the power to make such a decision. Oh yeh, judges issued injunctions all the way up against Trump and now you have this precedence on campaign speeches undermining official acts (for republicans of course). This state attorney can use the color of law to have an open ended prosecution of who is now a private citizen and wink wink, everyone knows it is entirely politically motivated in a state where there is no political opposition because they have been wiped out. I’ll bet there is a good chance one can find the public speeches / statements that would show personal animus and political motivation, etc.......which illegally allows for malicious prosecution. But okay, if the legal wing of Wikipedia says GOP needs to stay in our box because we are the GOP, we just have to keep following (never challenging) the rules that the domonkkkraps keep breaking and complain about the big bad unfair demonkkkraps. /s
At least once in a while light shines through, like when Mitch McConnell woke up and used the demonkkkrap’s statements against them - burying Merrick the Snake Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court during an election year ... then getting ACB’s nomination through. Wish the GOP did stuff like that all the time.
It might be close to 20 years ago but in Prince George’s County Maryland there was a big hullabaloo about race-based arrests and it went National.
Problem was Prince George’s County is about 80% black maybe more, their police force was 80% black maybe more , and the Prince George’s County Police were very effective because they knew who all the Bad actors were.
The real problem was the Bad actors were getting pissed off because the Police were too effective.
Less black percentage now, Hispanic/Latino has moved in quite a bit, like a lot of places in the ‘hood.
(hello General Flynn, or Ted Stevens or...)
or Scooter Libby
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.