FL - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 40 counts, classified documents and obstruction of justice, June 2023, Trial May 2024 #2

New Posts

Some more docket updates.

Document Updates:
# Date Description
- 05/24/2024 SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 578 restricted/sealed until further notice. (filed: 05/24/2024)

- 05/24/2024 SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 579 restricted/sealed until further notice. (filed: 05/24/2024)

581 05/24/2024 Motion to Modify conditions o release by USA as to Donald J. Trump. Responses due by 6/7/2024.

link: https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/USA-v-Sealed/flsd-9:2023-cr-80101-648652re
 
sds71 said:
@AnnaBower

NEW: Special counsel Jack Smith asks Judge Cannon to modify Trump’s conditions of release to bar him from making statements that pose a significant danger to law enforcement agents in the classified docs case.

Prosecutors say the modification is necessary because of “intentionally false and inflammatory” statements made by Trump that “distort the circumstances” of the FBI’s search at Mar-a-Lago and created a “misleading” impression of the conduct of law enforcement officers

https://twitter.com/x/status/1794175744463233253
Click to expand...

"Merrick Garland, who oversees the FBI as attorney general, said such policies are routine and were also in effect during consensual searches of Biden’s homes conducted by the FBI in a separate classified documents investigation."

But let's not let the truth get in the way. imo

www.usatoday.com

Prosecutors ask federal judge to limit Trump's 'false and inflammatory' claims against FBI

Special Counsel Jack Smith said the request was necessary because of 'several intentionally false and inflammatory statements' made by Trump.
www.usatoday.com
 
It occurred to me that Trump saying “I nearly escaped death” means that he didn’t escape death. But I wondered if my understanding of English is fading with age? Apparently not…

www.mediaite.com

‘I Nearly Escaped Death!’ Trump Says He’s Dead In Latest Assassination-Themed Campaign Plea

Trump's fantasy that Biden tried to assassinate him took a turn when Trump reported his own death by telling supporters he "nearly escaped death" in the raid.
www.mediaite.com www.mediaite.com

Ex-President Donald Trump’s fantasy that President Joe Biden tried to assassinate him with the FBI took another bizarre turn when Trump apparently reported his own death by telling supporters “I nearly escaped death” in the Biden-led attack that did not happen.
 
Last edited:
Lilibet said:
It occurred to me that Trump saying “I nearly escaped death” means that he didn’t escape death. But I wondered if my understanding of English is fading with age? Apparently not…

www.mediaite.com

‘I Nearly Escaped Death!’ Trump Says He’s Dead In Latest Assassination-Themed Campaign Plea

Trump's fantasy that Biden tried to assassinate him took a turn when Trump reported his own death by telling supporters he "nearly escaped death" in the raid.
www.mediaite.com www.mediaite.com

Ex-President Donald Trump’s fantasy that President Joe Biden tried to assassinate him with the FBI took another bizarre turn when Trump apparently reported his own death by telling supporters “I nearly escaped death” in the Biden-led attack that did not happen.
Click to expand...
So we don’t have to worry about him being president again?? RIP, I guess.
 
And here is that order from above post

Document Updates:
# Date Description
584 05/28/2024 PAPERLESS ORDER denying without prejudice for lack of meaningful conferral [581] the Special Counsel's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release. Upon review of the Motion [581] [581-1], Defendant Trump's procedural opposition [583], and the attached email correspondence between counsel [583-1], the Court finds the Special Counsel's pro forma "conferral" to be wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy. It should go without saying that meaningful conferral is not a perfunctory exercise. Sufficient time needs to be afforded to permit reasonable evaluation of the requested relief by opposing counsel and to allow for adequate follow-up discussion as necessary about the specific factual and legal basis underlying the motion. This is so even when a party "assume" the opposing party will oppose the proposed motion [583-1], and it applies with additional force when the relief sought -- at issue for the first time in this proceeding and raised in a procedurally distinct manner than in cited cases -- implicates substantive and/or Constitutional questions. Because the filing of the Special Counsel's Motion did not adhere to these basic requirements, it is due to be denied without prejudice. Any future, non-emergency motion brought in this case -- whether on the topic of release conditions or anything else -- shall not be filed absent meaningful, timely, and professional conferral. S.D. Fla. L.R. 88.9, 7.1(a)(3); see ECF No. 28 p. 2; ECF No. 82. Moreover, all certificates of conference going forward shall (1) appear in a separate section at the end of the motion, not embedded in editorialized footnotes; (2) specify, in objective terms, the exact timing, method, and substance of the conferral conducted; and (3) include, if requested by opposing counsel, no more than 200 words verbatim from the opposing side on the subject of conferral, again in objective terms. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in sanctions. In light of this Order, the Court determines to deny without prejudice Defendant Trump's Motion to Strike and for Sanctions [583]. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 5/28/2024. (jf01) (filed: 05/28/2024)

link: https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/USA-v-Sealed/flsd-9:2023-cr-80101-648652re
 
Niner said:
And here is that order from above post

Document Updates:
# Date Description
584 05/28/2024 PAPERLESS ORDER denying without prejudice for lack of meaningful conferral [581] the Special Counsel's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release. Upon review of the Motion [581] [581-1], Defendant Trump's procedural opposition [583], and the attached email correspondence between counsel [583-1], the Court finds the Special Counsel's pro forma "conferral" to be wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy. It should go without saying that meaningful conferral is not a perfunctory exercise. Sufficient time needs to be afforded to permit reasonable evaluation of the requested relief by opposing counsel and to allow for adequate follow-up discussion as necessary about the specific factual and legal basis underlying the motion. This is so even when a party "assume" the opposing party will oppose the proposed motion [583-1], and it applies with additional force when the relief sought -- at issue for the first time in this proceeding and raised in a procedurally distinct manner than in cited cases -- implicates substantive and/or Constitutional questions. Because the filing of the Special Counsel's Motion did not adhere to these basic requirements, it is due to be denied without prejudice. Any future, non-emergency motion brought in this case -- whether on the topic of release conditions or anything else -- shall not be filed absent meaningful, timely, and professional conferral. S.D. Fla. L.R. 88.9, 7.1(a)(3); see ECF No. 28 p. 2; ECF No. 82. Moreover, all certificates of conference going forward shall (1) appear in a separate section at the end of the motion, not embedded in editorialized footnotes; (2) specify, in objective terms, the exact timing, method, and substance of the conferral conducted; and (3) include, if requested by opposing counsel, no more than 200 words verbatim from the opposing side on the subject of conferral, again in objective terms. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in sanctions. In light of this Order, the Court determines to deny without prejudice Defendant Trump's Motion to Strike and for Sanctions [583]. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 5/28/2024. (jf01) (filed: 05/28/2024)

link: https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/USA-v-Sealed/flsd-9:2023-cr-80101-648652re
Click to expand...
This judge who is obviously very partisan is obviously doing everything possible to derail the government's case. The DOJ has handled this case wrong from the beginning. They could have filed the case in Washington DC-- they chose Florida (they were trying to placate the ex president)-- they knew or should have known they could have gotten Judge Cannon- which is death for this case, and lastly Jack Smith has failed to appeal to the 11th circuit on several issues that would be appealable (I think?).
 
Document Updates:
# Date Description
585 05/28/2024 Government's Response to Defendant Nauta's Motion to Reference Discovery -- ECF No. 142 Defendant Nauta's by USA as to Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, Carlos De Oliveira (filed: 05/28/2024)

586 05/28/2024 Unopposed MOTION to Adopt/Join [364] Unopposed MOTION to File Amicus Brief by Edward H. Trent. by Former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey by Citizens United Foundation, Citizens United, Gary Lawson, Steven Calabresi, Edwin Meese, III as to Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, Carlos De Oliveira. Responses due by 6/11/2024. (filed: 05/28/2024)
1. Text of Proposed Order

link: https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/USA-v-Sealed/flsd-9:2023-cr-80101-648652re
 
Document Updates:
# Date Description
588 05/29/2024 PAPERLESS ORDER: In anticipation of the June 21, 2024, hearing on Defendant Trump's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on the Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith [326], the Special Counsel and Defendant Trump are directed as follows. On or before June 11, 2024, the parties shall separately file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 15 double-spaced pages (exclusive of title/certificates, etc.), on what impact, if any, the Supreme Court's decision in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., 601 U.S. 416 (2024), has on Defendant Trump's Appropriations Clause challenge as raised in the Motion [326]. The parties' supplemental briefs also should clarify, in a separate section, what appears to be the position set forth in the parties' submissions--i.e., that no factual development is warranted or necessary to resolve either of the two challenges raised in the Motion, because the extent of the Special Counsel's authority and status is delimited and evaluated by the statutory and regulatory authorities cited in Appointment Order No. 5559-2022 (for purposes of the Appointments Clause challenge), and by that same Appointment Order and the cited Department of Justice Appropriations Act (for purposes of the Appropriations Clause challenge). The Court also authorizes (but does not require) the three already-approved amici [364] [410] [429] on the Motion--and only those amici--to file, by the June 11, 2024, deadline, supplemental briefs limited reasonably to the factual-development question raised above, not to exceed 10 double-spaced pages (exclusive of title/certificates, etc.). Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 5/29/2024. (jf01) (filed: 05/29/2024)

link: https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/USA-v-Sealed/flsd-9:2023-cr-80101-648652re
 
Stunned said:
Hope this is the right thread, why on earth is it taking the the Supreme Court sooo long to decide the immunity question? Besides the obvious? IMO
Click to expand...
The 6 conservatives aren't going to act until Trump needs them to. If he's acquitted and/or gets elected president where he can pardon himself, he doesn't need them. If he's convicted and loses the election, they'll step in and rule he has absolute immunity.

Supreme court justices are politicians more than they are judges.
 
Bodine said:
The 6 conservatives aren't going to act until Trump needs them to. If he's acquitted and/or gets elected president where he can pardon himself, he doesn't need them. If he's convicted and loses the election, they'll step in and rule he has absolute immunity.

Supreme court justices are politicians more than they are judges.
Click to expand...
I don't believe all supreme court justices act on political motives, but I believe there may be some judges on this particular supreme court that may act with political motives.
 
Document Updates:
# Date Description
589 05/30/2024 PAPERLESS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to Defendant Nauta: By order dated May 21, 2024, Defendant Nauta was required, on or before May 28, 2024, to publicly file Docket Entry 138 with specified redactions [558]. Defendant Nauta has not complied with that Order, and the deadline to do so has passed. Accordingly, on or before June 3, 2024, Defendant Nauta shall (1) publicly file Docket Entry 138 in compliance with the Court's prior Order [558]; and (2) show cause, in writing, why he failed to comply with the Court's instructions by the original deadline of May 28, 2024. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 5/30/2024. (jf01) (filed: 05/30/2024)

590 05/31/2024 MOTION for Leave of Professor Seth Barrett Tillman and Landmark Legal Foundation to Participate in Oral Argument as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant Trump's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, [ECF No. [326]] by Michael A. Sasso. Responses due by 6/14/2024. (filed: 05/31/2024)

591 05/31/2024 STATUS REPORT Government's Discovery Status Report by USA as to Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, Carlos De Oliveira (filed: 05/31/2024)

592 05/31/2024 MOTION to Modify Conditions of Release by USA as to Donald J. Trump. Responses due by 6/14/2024. (filed: 05/31/2024)
1. Exhibit Exhibit 1
2. Exhibit Exhibit 2
3. Exhibit Exhibit 3
4. Exhibit Exhibit 4
5. Exhibit Exhibit 5

593 05/31/24 NOTICE of Defendants' Discovery Status Report by Waltine Nauta re [530] Order, Set Hearings, Set/Reset Motion/R&R Deadlines and Hearings, Set Deadlines (filed: 05/31/2024)

link: https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/USA-v-Sealed/flsd-9:2023-cr-80101-648652re
 
Document Updates:
# Date Description
594 06/02/2024 PAPERLESS ORDER: On or before June 14, 2024, Defendant Trump shall respond to [592] the Special Counsel's Motion for Modification of Conditions of Release. Any reply in support of the Motion shall be due on or before June 21, 2024. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 6/2/2024. (jf01) (filed: 06/02/2024)

link: https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/USA-v-Sealed/flsd-9:2023-cr-80101-648652re
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 87 more.
Total: 1,367 (members: 88, guests: 1,279)

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
1,279
Total visitors
1,367
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
596,561
Messages
18,049,620
Members
230,029
Latest member
myauris11
Back
Top