Right Wingers: Don't Read this Article

@Mott-The-Hoople said
merchan is not the only one this can be appealed to dumbass.

I expect this will go directly to SCOTUS to prevent the election interference aspect.

glad I could bring you up to speed on how our laws work

Your expectations will be dashed AGAIN.

A motion to set aside a verdict made to the presiding judge isn't an "appeal" BTW.

@no1marauder said
Your expectations will be dashed AGAIN.

A motion to set aside a verdict made to the presiding judge isn't an "appeal" BTW.

YOU are the only one talking about a motion…I said appeal straight to scotus

shytweasel

@Mott-The-Hoople said
YOU are the only one talking about a motion…I said appeal straight to scotus

shytweasel

You brought up the motion to set aside the verdict less than a page ago, idiot.

There is no legal mechanism for a "direct appeal" of a criminal conviction in a local court of a State to the SCOTUS.

@no1marauder said
You brought up the motion to set aside the verdict less than a page ago, idiot.

There is no legal mechanism for a "direct appeal" of a criminal conviction in a local court of a State to the SCOTUS.

now you are lying...what is the use arguing with you, you just make things up I have never mentioned a motion.


and you dont know shyt about the laws

https://public.substack.com/p/supreme-court-may-prevent-irreparable

@Mott-The-Hoople said
now you are lying...what is the use arguing with you, you just make things up I have never mentioned a motion.


and you dont know shyt about the laws

https://public.substack.com/p/supreme-court-may-prevent-irreparable

Dimwit, you said this:

"a court of law includes the judge, the process is not complete until the judge signs off on it…end of story."

If you weren't talking about a motion for a judgment of acquittal after the verdict, WTF were you talking about?

Your law professor obviously hasn't read the US Code. It provides:

"§2283. Stay of State court proceedings

"A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments."

His idea that a Federal Court could somehow halt Trump's sentencing is clearly wrong.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
why do I smell rotten fish

Your momma entered the room.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
now you are lying...what is the use arguing with you, you just make things up I have never mentioned a motion.


and you dont know shyt about the laws

https://public.substack.com/p/supreme-court-may-prevent-irreparable

How retarded are you. LOOK UP WHAT THE WORD CONVICTED MEANS.

End of. I am done with you and your ignorance.

@no1marauder said
Dimwit, you said this:

"a court of law includes the judge, the process is not complete until the judge signs off on it…end of story."

If you weren't talking about a motion for a judgment of acquittal after the verdict, WTF were you talking about?

Your law professor obviously hasn't read the US Code. It provides:

"§2283. Stay of State court proceedings

"A c ...[text shortened]... judgments."

His idea that a Federal Court could somehow halt Trump's sentencing is clearly wrong.

dumbass pretend lawyer…

Certiorari before judgment is rarely granted. Supreme Court Rule 11 states that this procedure will be followed "only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court."

@no1marauder said
Who told you that, moron?

Yes, someone convicted after trial of 34 felonies (or even one felony) is a "convicted felon" in New York State.

34 misdemeanors that magically got turned into felonies because of no other reason than the DA said so..

@Mott-The-Hoople said
dumbass pretend lawyer…

Certiorari before judgment is rarely granted. Supreme Court Rule 11 states that this procedure will be followed "only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court."

Read the rule, moron: it applies only to cases pending in a US Court of Appeals.

@Cliff-Mashburn said
34 misdemeanors that magically got turned into felonies because of no other reason than the DA said so..

The magical part is how all the "back the blue" flag waving defenders of law enforcement suddenly became critics of criminal justice systems just because their cult leader committed crimes.

Did you take down your Back the Blue flag in protest?

@no1marauder said
Read the rule, moron: it applies only to cases pending in a US Court of Appeals.

No dumbass, it doesnt




https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2101

@wildgrass said
The magical part is how all the "back the blue" flag waving defenders of law enforcement suddenly became critics of criminal justice systems just because their cult leader committed crimes.

Did you take down your Back the Blue flag in protest?

no one supports these soros owned DAs except you libs

@Mott-The-Hoople said
no one supports these soros owned DAs except you libs

You complain about the cult leaders legal troubles, and only him. No one else on the docket is innocent, just the trump. This is the same guy who once took out a full page ad calling for the death penalty to be used on the central park 5 (who were 100% innocent)

@Mott-The-Hoople said
No dumbass, it doesnt




https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2101

Idiot, you cited Supreme Court Rule 11. Here's what it says:

"Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals before Judgment

A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e)."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_11