The Legal Strategy ...
Clear all

The Legal Strategy That Mr. Trump's Lawyers SHOULD Use NOW

3 Posts
2 Users
1 Reactions
Posts: 2
Topic starter
New Member
Joined: 2 months ago
     Why isn't Trump's legal team doing the legal strategy described in this email, with supporting legal citation?
   Trump’s legal team needs to – immediately – file a civil rights action seeking to enjoin ALL of these state and federal criminal prosecutions and civil actions.  Bad faith prosecution of such actions to chill First Amendment rights of expression, assembly, etc. (by both Trump and voters) is a RECOGNIZED exception to the Younger abstention rule otherwise restraining federal injunctions of pending state and federal proceedings, both criminal and civil.

    See generally – for background – George Sheram King, Comment, Federal Injunctive Relief Against Pending State Civil Proceedings:  Younger Days Are Here Again, 44 La.L.Rev. 967 (1984).

    See, in particular, id., at 968-69 ("The federal plaintiff can demonstrate irreparable injury in the face of impending criminal proceedings only if the threat to his federally protected rights cannot be eliminated by his defense against the single criminal prosecution. Threatened bad faith prosecution that is designed to harass the state defendantinto relinquishing his rightsfurnishes a recognized example of a situation in which the federal plaintiff's state court defense would prove unavailing.”)(footnotes omitted)(emphasis added).

    You can’t tell me that that’s not EXACTLY the situation here.

    It boggles the mind why Trump’s legal team hasn’t – comprehensively – taken the bull by the horns and got to the heart of the matter – bad-faith litigation steered by the White House to tie up, imprison and/or bankrupt a political opponent and deny the opponent and tens of millions of voters their fundamental First Amendment rights.

    There’s – ample – evidence now in the public domain establishing the link between federal authorities under Biden actively seeking to shut down the political opposition – such as, e.g., the former DOJ officer who went to work at a local DA to get Trump.  And all the meetings between federal officials and the state prosecutor teams.  And the prosecutors running for office explicitly to get Trump, which is about as clear an indication of a bad faith political vendetta as there is -- particularly where they brought their lawfare based on alleged events years ago only after he announced he was running again.

    If, ultimately, on appeal, the Supreme Court won’t enforce the laws protecting the Republic from tyranny, then, well, we’re done and the Republic is lost.

    But I’d go down swinging and make the court system address – directly – what’s going on, across the board and not piecemeal.

    And the way to do that is to seek to enjoin all of this bad faith lawfare, via a comprehensive injunction sought in the first instance in a single federal district court.

    They need to take the gloves off.  And go on offense – under ESTABLISHED case law that not just supports -- that's DESIGNED to allow for -- that strategy.
    Why aren't they doing this?  This isn't some layperson's fringe legal theory taking snippets out of Supreme Court cases out of context.  That law review citation above is my comment from while I was on the law review.  This is a viable legal strategy that gets to the HEART of the matter. 
    What do lawyers like Mike Davis or Alan Dershowitz think of this strategy, after reading the pertinent portions of the above law review article and supporting caselaw?
    WHY ISN'T THE TRUMP LEGAL TEAM DOING THIS???  What do they have to lose at this point?
     Such a civil rights claim against the federal lawfare can be brought under the Bivens case.  Section 1983 would apply specifically to the state court proceedings.
     All of that can be brought in a single civil rights action (under Bivens and Section 1983 as applicable) in a single federal district court seeking to enjoin ALL of this federal and state lawfare.

    It gets specifically to what's going on.

     It's the Alexandrian sword that cuts through the Gordian knot of all of this piecemeal lawfare across multiple different courts. 

     It's better to . . . yourself . . . strike strongly and cut directly to the heart of it rather than stand by and die the death of a thousand cuts.

    That's how you win legal battles.  

     You don't just "litigate issues."
     You go for the jugular.
     And what I'm suggesting goes right for the jugular.
2 Replies
Posts: 3
Active Member
Joined: 1 month ago

Great defense case .. have you sent to Trump on TruthSocial or email to Don or Eric or POTUS on on DonaldJTrump ? 

Posts: 2
Topic starter
New Member
Joined: 2 months ago

Hi Katte, sorry for the delay in responding, I had stopped checking after a while as the post moved down with no replies.

I'll take a look again at some of those options -- I was trying a number of things back then trying to get the long draft content from Wordperfect on my laptop out onto sundry platforms.

Without being able to do so directly, as, for example, I can sign on here only on my tablet, as the recapcha won't let me log on via 2 different browsers on the laptop.

Meanwhile, the recent Supreme Court immunity decision may knock a lot of the lawfare out, one way or another.

But I still think that the strategy described in my post would be worthwhile to just shut down all of this BS legal persecution of the incumbent's principal opponent.

The lawfare is such an obvious threat to democracy -- which they wouldn't be getting away with in a functioning democracy with a truly independent press that spoke truth to power.