Perfect case for the Democracy Docket attorneys, FYI 'DD' is monitoring the Docket on the issue related case of attempted Voter suppression filed by 22 Attorney Generals across the United States now pending in a Massachusetts' Court.
States control national election. Early - Mail-In Voting is state law.
I want to see more suits filed in Ohio - and for the cage match. What happened to Emoluments violations pursuits?? - Tie them up with these the same way they tie the rest of us up with lesser founded court actions!
The problem is that the agency who should be bringing emoluments clauses investigations against the Orange Odium is totally suborned and corrupted by said Odium…
How about a creative class action on behalf of the people who are harmed by this considering the historical protection that is no longer there? Legal scholars??
It would take WAY too long to bring a class action. The "cage match" is this weekend. No way a court could look at a class action case in time to make a valid decision. And again, the harm done here is pretty trivial. People are offended, sure, but so what? Is anyone dead or killed? Is a city destroyed? The cage is already up, it will have to be taken down afterwards (or at least we think so).
And as I have noted before, in the end most Presidents (maybe all) have been permitted to do almost whatever they wanted to do in terms of having events on the White House lawns in the past. This is just another one. It offends me personally, but the President in residence has some choice in the matter. I just don't have to watch (which I certainly won't!)
This decision makes total sense, just as the judge's decision to force removing the Kennedy Center signs Trump put up also makes sense. He should have waited for adjudication BEFORE putting up the signs and now the court is going to say, "hey, you jumped the gun and now you have to pay the penalty by taking them down until a final decision is reached". This could still get reversed but at least for the moment, the decision is made and the "TRUMP CENTER" signs will come down.
I was referring to the Emoluments and doing something about them retroactively. He’s making personal “BANK” on the event. - Either way, any creative actions with enough foundation will get in front of the people’s eyes and ears to further reinforce the DISGUST headed into the midterms…. ‘REGRET IS OK !’
I see a lot about Trump‘s slush fund being challenged, but what about challenges of his taxes not allowed to be audited? Are there any? Thanks, Joyce. You are remarkable.
I can't speak for Joyce (I was never an actual US Attorney!) but I THINK that the audit challenges have to come from the government or Congress. The slush fund is different because it is a fund coming from the government. But his personal taxes are an issue between him and the government, not the public. And of course, he is using his status as President to turn it into a fait accompli. I do think there is a chance that the one best way to beat him on this might prevail, i.e., that he can't be plaintiff and defendant at the same time. A court MIGHT appoint a special counsel to represent the government/IRS here so that there is a dispute, but barring that, the tax case is going nowhere.
The “tax‑audit immunity” addendum can be challenged two different ways at once, because it is (1) potentially illegal on its face*, and (2) potentially void as part of a collusive, non‑case that a federal court never had jurisdiction to approve. Those two theories don’t conflict; they reinforce each other. Even if the underlying lawsuit were perfectly legitimate, the addendum alone would be attackable as an illegal promise the government had no authority to make. Courts routinely strike down settlement terms that exceed statutory authority. If Judge Williams (SDFL) finds evidence of: collusion; lack of adversity; pre‑arranged settlement; DOJ not actually opposing and/or manufactured claims, then the constitutional defect is no Article III "case or controversy" ever existed. A settlement must resolve an actual case or controversy. If the proceeding was determined not to be a real case, and even if the parties filed a dismissal, the settlement is "void ab initio" ("void from the beginning") — treated as if it never existed.
*Appears to violate multiple structural limits:
+ Non‑delegation of core IRS functions — The executive branch cannot contract away statutory duties Congress imposed (e.g., mandatory audits of certain returns).
+ "Ulta vires" ("beyond the powers") settlement authority — DOJ cannot settle a case by promising relief it has no legal power to give.
+ Violation of the Anti‑Injunction Act — Courts cannot approve agreements that restrain tax assessment or collection.
Great description, Dale. And as I mention elsewhere, an immunity grant is a statutory creature and can be challenged later on, even when a new government has taken over. As you note, if the immunity grant turns out to be fraudulent or without basis, it can be vacated.
On the other hand, I do not think such a challenge can be made against a pardon, which is a constitutional creature and under the current wording about pardons in Article 1, is immediate and non-reviewable in almost all cases. I would expect you would concur with that assessment.
so....this freedom from audit wasn't really a part of this case? Don't see how Congress can NOT stop this (and businesses affiliates and family etc.). Trump/ family/businesses bleeding the US dry. Don't want to hear anything about small time fraud (NOT that I'm for fraud of any sort) out of any of their grifting mouths. Think of what this money could do for communities. Yuck.
I understand it's not freedom from audits in the future (about future year's income) though???- hoping it's not a get out of jail free forever card.
In answer to your question, the audit provision in the "settlement" applies only to claims that could have been brought as of the date of the settlement agreement. This means that while it bars new audits of tax returns that were filed prior to the settlement, and bars civil suits attempting to collect taxes that should have been paid by the Trumps or their businesses prior to the settlement, it does not preclude audits of tax returns filed subsequent to the settlement, nor does it preclude attempts to collect unpaid taxes that did not become due until after the settlement. So regardless of whether the audit provision is enforceable (it may not be, for the reasons given by Dale of Green Gables), it is not a get-out-of-jail-free-forever card.
I can't believe registering people to vote could be held against a group. OHIO has done much to slaughter voting from gerrymandering, to ignoring state Supreme Court orders to provide fairer maps, or by playing with number of voting machines (very few) in very blue college towns or cities making wait times intolerable (thank John Husted for that).
Now just making a push to register voters is suspect. Why not be suspicious of a swing state turned deep red in less than a generation?
Is Trump scared of Sherrod Brown or is it Amy Akton?
Joyce, I am upset after listening to Eli who said because of "standing" the Trumps may win on getting absolved from IRS audits. Is that your opinion, also? What a travesty!
I do not have the legal standing that Joyce has, but I do have some understanding of this and I think it is likely that Trump will prevail on the audits issue. Your taxes are between you and the government, not outside parties in most cases. I am sure you would want that to be the case if you were ever accused of cheating the government, and so Trump will probably prevail.
But total immunity? And for his kids? Can a President order "his" IRS to give him special treatment? Can it get overturned with a Democratic leadership?
I am so sick of all this grifting. And now Ivanka wanting to take over Albania's (only) island to build a luxury resort? Makes one wish that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was true.
I think the issue of immunity will turn out to be interesting. Immunity is typically given to people who are going to HELP law enforcement (i.e. the DoJ) with some ongoing case, in exchange for information or testimony that typically leads to the arrest and/or conviction of some other criminals. It is not something typically just "granted" to someone you like.
However, a pardon is completely different. It can be granted for any number of reasons or, in the case of Presidential pardons, virtually no reason at all. And there have been many historical cases of Presidential pardons granted solely due to friendship. The big difference is that immunity is NOT something provided for in the Constitution, and thus for an immunity grant to be effective it would need to meet whatever standards are required by laws regarding immunity and at the least could be subject to judicial review and possibly revocation.
Not at all so for pardons, which are based IN the Constitution and contain virtually no limitations or guidelines. The only limits that have been instituted by the courts are (a) no pardons for future crimes, only for things that have already been done, (b) no pardons for civil liability to another, only for criminal allegations or convictions by the government, (c) no pardons for state crimes, only federal ones (states have their own pardon procedures which are quite varied from state to state), and (d) no pardons for impeachment (which is a legislative adjudication, not a judicial one). The issue of a self-pardon by the President for themselves has never been considered by the courts as one has never been issued, but by the letter of the Constitution, there is nothing that appears to preclude it.
So where a pardon is pretty concrete and broad-ranging, immunity grants could be subject to review by the courts and even be overturned.
As you know from my reply to your previous similar comment, the issue entirely revolves around the structural impediments to the tax-audit immunity addendum and its inclusion in a questionable settlement. Has nothing to do with Trump as a tax payer per se.
The slush fund was linked to the audit issue, because that was the "settlement" money Trump got and then agreed to give to the slush fund. I think we should watch how the Florida case plays out.
The obvious solution to the credibility gap between courts and law licensees is to disbar the offenders.
The primary legal guidelines governing this issue are outlined in the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal): This is the core rule governing fraud on the court. It strictly prohibits lawyers from knowingly making false statements of fact or law to a judge, failing to disclose material facts when legally required, or offering evidence the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer discovers a client has committed fraud, they must take remedial measures, which may include disclosing the fraud to the judge.
Rule 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority): This rule expressly forbids attorneys from counseling or assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent.
Rule 8.4 (Misconduct): This rule dictates that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
With regard to the cage fights, I thought it was unconstitutional to hold commercial, for profit events on national park land, and the white house land is considered a national park. I get that the plaintiffs didn't have standing, but I think it's wrong to let the fights happen.
JV: "This is a deeply disturbing development. Ohio may be the first place the administration tries out this tactic against groups that help Americans vote, but it’s unlikely to be the last. "
Vance, Jordan, DeWine. All GOP. All Ohio. All in favor of performative cruelty. The lesson: California and New York will be next.
Everything in Trump's sociopathic & narcissitic world has to be about his lionization, his glorious greatness. Trump says: I won the war in the 1st hour; I don’t care about inflation & affordability’s a hoax.
MSM normalizes Trump admin baseless prosecutions & other violations of the constitution, law & regs.
You wrote: "A wise man once told me that DOJ’s integrity is more important than winning any one case and that the public’s confidence in us was like a balloon you filled up with water slowly. One tiny prick and all that water would run out." I'm assuming that you meant Trump was the one tiny prick, but you're too professional, and polite, to write that. I've got a tab on my laptop for the MSNow livestream of the Kennedy Center. Thanks for the link.
Hoping for a big thunderstorm for the cage fight! Maybe a bolt from the heavens, too???? One can only hope!
He(47) is all wet in any case. Let the games begin and the torrential rains fall!
Is there a fund for legal representation for the Ohio organization targeted?
Perfect case for the Democracy Docket attorneys, FYI 'DD' is monitoring the Docket on the issue related case of attempted Voter suppression filed by 22 Attorney Generals across the United States now pending in a Massachusetts' Court.
States control national election. Early - Mail-In Voting is state law.
I want to see more suits filed in Ohio - and for the cage match. What happened to Emoluments violations pursuits?? - Tie them up with these the same way they tie the rest of us up with lesser founded court actions!
The problem is that the agency who should be bringing emoluments clauses investigations against the Orange Odium is totally suborned and corrupted by said Odium…
How about a creative class action on behalf of the people who are harmed by this considering the historical protection that is no longer there? Legal scholars??
It would take WAY too long to bring a class action. The "cage match" is this weekend. No way a court could look at a class action case in time to make a valid decision. And again, the harm done here is pretty trivial. People are offended, sure, but so what? Is anyone dead or killed? Is a city destroyed? The cage is already up, it will have to be taken down afterwards (or at least we think so).
And as I have noted before, in the end most Presidents (maybe all) have been permitted to do almost whatever they wanted to do in terms of having events on the White House lawns in the past. This is just another one. It offends me personally, but the President in residence has some choice in the matter. I just don't have to watch (which I certainly won't!)
This decision makes total sense, just as the judge's decision to force removing the Kennedy Center signs Trump put up also makes sense. He should have waited for adjudication BEFORE putting up the signs and now the court is going to say, "hey, you jumped the gun and now you have to pay the penalty by taking them down until a final decision is reached". This could still get reversed but at least for the moment, the decision is made and the "TRUMP CENTER" signs will come down.
I was referring to the Emoluments and doing something about them retroactively. He’s making personal “BANK” on the event. - Either way, any creative actions with enough foundation will get in front of the people’s eyes and ears to further reinforce the DISGUST headed into the midterms…. ‘REGRET IS OK !’
I see a lot about Trump‘s slush fund being challenged, but what about challenges of his taxes not allowed to be audited? Are there any? Thanks, Joyce. You are remarkable.
I can't speak for Joyce (I was never an actual US Attorney!) but I THINK that the audit challenges have to come from the government or Congress. The slush fund is different because it is a fund coming from the government. But his personal taxes are an issue between him and the government, not the public. And of course, he is using his status as President to turn it into a fait accompli. I do think there is a chance that the one best way to beat him on this might prevail, i.e., that he can't be plaintiff and defendant at the same time. A court MIGHT appoint a special counsel to represent the government/IRS here so that there is a dispute, but barring that, the tax case is going nowhere.
The “tax‑audit immunity” addendum can be challenged two different ways at once, because it is (1) potentially illegal on its face*, and (2) potentially void as part of a collusive, non‑case that a federal court never had jurisdiction to approve. Those two theories don’t conflict; they reinforce each other. Even if the underlying lawsuit were perfectly legitimate, the addendum alone would be attackable as an illegal promise the government had no authority to make. Courts routinely strike down settlement terms that exceed statutory authority. If Judge Williams (SDFL) finds evidence of: collusion; lack of adversity; pre‑arranged settlement; DOJ not actually opposing and/or manufactured claims, then the constitutional defect is no Article III "case or controversy" ever existed. A settlement must resolve an actual case or controversy. If the proceeding was determined not to be a real case, and even if the parties filed a dismissal, the settlement is "void ab initio" ("void from the beginning") — treated as if it never existed.
*Appears to violate multiple structural limits:
+ Non‑delegation of core IRS functions — The executive branch cannot contract away statutory duties Congress imposed (e.g., mandatory audits of certain returns).
+ "Ulta vires" ("beyond the powers") settlement authority — DOJ cannot settle a case by promising relief it has no legal power to give.
+ Violation of the Anti‑Injunction Act — Courts cannot approve agreements that restrain tax assessment or collection.
thank you...should have read on BEFORE my Donald Duck fit.
Great description, Dale. And as I mention elsewhere, an immunity grant is a statutory creature and can be challenged later on, even when a new government has taken over. As you note, if the immunity grant turns out to be fraudulent or without basis, it can be vacated.
On the other hand, I do not think such a challenge can be made against a pardon, which is a constitutional creature and under the current wording about pardons in Article 1, is immediate and non-reviewable in almost all cases. I would expect you would concur with that assessment.
so....this freedom from audit wasn't really a part of this case? Don't see how Congress can NOT stop this (and businesses affiliates and family etc.). Trump/ family/businesses bleeding the US dry. Don't want to hear anything about small time fraud (NOT that I'm for fraud of any sort) out of any of their grifting mouths. Think of what this money could do for communities. Yuck.
I understand it's not freedom from audits in the future (about future year's income) though???- hoping it's not a get out of jail free forever card.
Norms need to be spelled out it seems.
In answer to your question, the audit provision in the "settlement" applies only to claims that could have been brought as of the date of the settlement agreement. This means that while it bars new audits of tax returns that were filed prior to the settlement, and bars civil suits attempting to collect taxes that should have been paid by the Trumps or their businesses prior to the settlement, it does not preclude audits of tax returns filed subsequent to the settlement, nor does it preclude attempts to collect unpaid taxes that did not become due until after the settlement. So regardless of whether the audit provision is enforceable (it may not be, for the reasons given by Dale of Green Gables), it is not a get-out-of-jail-free-forever card.
Thanks
Thanks so much, Jon. That makes sense.
I can't believe registering people to vote could be held against a group. OHIO has done much to slaughter voting from gerrymandering, to ignoring state Supreme Court orders to provide fairer maps, or by playing with number of voting machines (very few) in very blue college towns or cities making wait times intolerable (thank John Husted for that).
Now just making a push to register voters is suspect. Why not be suspicious of a swing state turned deep red in less than a generation?
Is Trump scared of Sherrod Brown or is it Amy Akton?
He is scared of BOTH.
I hope that they take down the letter "T" first.
Joyce, I am upset after listening to Eli who said because of "standing" the Trumps may win on getting absolved from IRS audits. Is that your opinion, also? What a travesty!
😱
I do not have the legal standing that Joyce has, but I do have some understanding of this and I think it is likely that Trump will prevail on the audits issue. Your taxes are between you and the government, not outside parties in most cases. I am sure you would want that to be the case if you were ever accused of cheating the government, and so Trump will probably prevail.
But total immunity? And for his kids? Can a President order "his" IRS to give him special treatment? Can it get overturned with a Democratic leadership?
I am so sick of all this grifting. And now Ivanka wanting to take over Albania's (only) island to build a luxury resort? Makes one wish that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was true.
I think the issue of immunity will turn out to be interesting. Immunity is typically given to people who are going to HELP law enforcement (i.e. the DoJ) with some ongoing case, in exchange for information or testimony that typically leads to the arrest and/or conviction of some other criminals. It is not something typically just "granted" to someone you like.
However, a pardon is completely different. It can be granted for any number of reasons or, in the case of Presidential pardons, virtually no reason at all. And there have been many historical cases of Presidential pardons granted solely due to friendship. The big difference is that immunity is NOT something provided for in the Constitution, and thus for an immunity grant to be effective it would need to meet whatever standards are required by laws regarding immunity and at the least could be subject to judicial review and possibly revocation.
Not at all so for pardons, which are based IN the Constitution and contain virtually no limitations or guidelines. The only limits that have been instituted by the courts are (a) no pardons for future crimes, only for things that have already been done, (b) no pardons for civil liability to another, only for criminal allegations or convictions by the government, (c) no pardons for state crimes, only federal ones (states have their own pardon procedures which are quite varied from state to state), and (d) no pardons for impeachment (which is a legislative adjudication, not a judicial one). The issue of a self-pardon by the President for themselves has never been considered by the courts as one has never been issued, but by the letter of the Constitution, there is nothing that appears to preclude it.
So where a pardon is pretty concrete and broad-ranging, immunity grants could be subject to review by the courts and even be overturned.
As you know from my reply to your previous similar comment, the issue entirely revolves around the structural impediments to the tax-audit immunity addendum and its inclusion in a questionable settlement. Has nothing to do with Trump as a tax payer per se.
The slush fund was linked to the audit issue, because that was the "settlement" money Trump got and then agreed to give to the slush fund. I think we should watch how the Florida case plays out.
Hoping for a huge rain storm along with a lot of lightning and thunder all weekend long!
The obvious solution to the credibility gap between courts and law licensees is to disbar the offenders.
The primary legal guidelines governing this issue are outlined in the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal): This is the core rule governing fraud on the court. It strictly prohibits lawyers from knowingly making false statements of fact or law to a judge, failing to disclose material facts when legally required, or offering evidence the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer discovers a client has committed fraud, they must take remedial measures, which may include disclosing the fraud to the judge.
Rule 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority): This rule expressly forbids attorneys from counseling or assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent.
Rule 8.4 (Misconduct): This rule dictates that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
With regard to the cage fights, I thought it was unconstitutional to hold commercial, for profit events on national park land, and the white house land is considered a national park. I get that the plaintiffs didn't have standing, but I think it's wrong to let the fights happen.
JV: "This is a deeply disturbing development. Ohio may be the first place the administration tries out this tactic against groups that help Americans vote, but it’s unlikely to be the last. "
Vance, Jordan, DeWine. All GOP. All Ohio. All in favor of performative cruelty. The lesson: California and New York will be next.
People must VOTE. 💔🩸🩸📎
Is trump's tax immunity barred along with the slush fund?
Thanks for sharing your expertise 🌺
Thank you, Joyce!! Have a good weekend!
Everything in Trump's sociopathic & narcissitic world has to be about his lionization, his glorious greatness. Trump says: I won the war in the 1st hour; I don’t care about inflation & affordability’s a hoax.
MSM normalizes Trump admin baseless prosecutions & other violations of the constitution, law & regs.
Trump’s fraudulent voter fraud claims: just more untethered projection & baseless propaganda from a convicted fraudster & friends. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Or2A-lxT9khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duC6uWCqVbg.
Resist the corrupt authoritarians. Please 86 47 & his capos with a Blue Tsunami.
You wrote: "A wise man once told me that DOJ’s integrity is more important than winning any one case and that the public’s confidence in us was like a balloon you filled up with water slowly. One tiny prick and all that water would run out." I'm assuming that you meant Trump was the one tiny prick, but you're too professional, and polite, to write that. I've got a tab on my laptop for the MSNow livestream of the Kennedy Center. Thanks for the link.
I commented above - same tiny prick!!! Couldnt resist it.
🤣 I figured the same thing. Then I started counting.