The New York's "Hush-Money" Case Against Trump UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ULTRA VIRES

 

The New York "hush-money" case against Trump should be thrown out based on constitutionality: The practice of using state business laws to enhance state laws using a federal law without prior conviction for state or federal laws is constitutionally illegal. Further far too many questions about the case and about Bragg’s path to convicting Trump — particularly of felonies — remain unanswered and most likely as per the following UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ULTRA VIRES ("beyond the powers of Bragg and New York Law.")

1. States cannot directly attach federal election laws or FEC regulations to their own state business practices laws. As outlined in the U.S. Constitution, the division of powers between the federal government and the states establishes that federal laws govern federal matters, while state laws govern state matters.

2. Federal election laws, including regulations enforced by the FEC, are established by Congress and fall under the authority of the federal government. These laws specifically pertain to federal elections, such as those for the President, Vice President, and members of Congress.

3. State business practice laws, on the other hand, regulate commercial activities, business operations, and other matters related to commerce within the state's borders. These laws are within the authority of the state government and are separate from federal election laws.

4. States cannot directly incorporate federal election laws or FEC regulations into their own state business practice laws. As outlined in the U.S. Constitution, the division of powers between the federal government and the states establishes that federal laws govern federal matters, while state laws govern state matters.

5. Under the U.S. Constitution, states do not have the authority to directly regulate federal elections or create laws that conflict with federal election laws administered by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Federal election laws are established by Congress and fall under the purview of the federal government.

6. Federal election laws, including regulations enforced by the FEC, are established by Congress and fall under the authority of the federal government. These laws specifically pertain to federal elections, such as those for President, Vice President, and members of Congress.

7. State business practice laws, on the other hand, regulate commercial activities, business operations, and other matters related to commerce within the state's borders. These laws are within the authority of the state government and are separate from federal election laws.

As outlined in the U.S. Constitution, the division of powers between the federal government and the states establishes that federal laws govern federal matters, while state laws govern state matters.

Constitutionality: Any practice that violates constitutional rights, such as a defendant's constitutional rights are violated by the application of state laws enhanced by federal law without prior convictions, a court could find such practices unconstitutional.

Legal Precedent: Courts often rely on legal precedent established by prior cases to determine the constitutionality of certain practices. If there is a relevant precedent that addresses similar issues, it could guide the court's decision in the current case.

State and Federal Jurisdiction: States and the federal government have distinct jurisdictions and authority, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. While states generally have authority over their own criminal laws and procedures, they cannot violate federal constitutional rights in the process. Likewise, federal law cannot infringe upon state sovereignty or violate state constitutional rights.

Judicial Review: Ultimately, the constitutionality of a practice would be determined by the judiciary. If a defendant challenges the legality of using federal law to enhance state charges without prior convictions, a court would review the arguments and evidence presented by both parties before issuing a ruling.

 NOTE: 

An illegal proceeding and non-impartial trial resulting in an imbalance occurs when only one party is subject to a gag order while the other is free to speak. In legal proceedings, fairness and due process require that both the prosecution (or the accusers) and the defence have equal opportunities to present their case and access relevant information. Thus this New York democratic party judge was wrong when he gaged Trump and not all his accusers including the persecution and himself.

When only the defendant (Trump) is subject to a gag order, it indeed creates an unfair advantage for the prosecution. The defendant then is unable to defend themselves effectively or counter any prejudicial statements made by the prosecution or accusers outside of the courtroom. This compromises the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial.

In practice, when gag orders are imposed, they typically apply to all parties involved in the litigation to ensure that neither side gains an unfair advantage. This helps maintain the balance of power and ensures that the trial proceeds in a manner consistent with the principles of fairness and due process.

If there were concerns about prejudicial publicity or potential interference with the trial, the court must issue gag orders that apply to both the prosecution and the defence, as well as any other relevant parties. This helps safeguard the rights of all involved and promotes a fair and impartial trial. This is NOT the case in New York against the former President Trump.

Facts:

The "LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES" doctrine serves several purposes:

Fairness: It ensures that defendants aren't unfairly punished for a greater offence when the evidence only supports a lesser one.

Judicial Efficiency: It streamlines legal proceedings by allowing prosecutors to focus on proving the main charge rather than charging every possible offence.

Protection Against Double Jeopardy: It prevents defendants from being tried twice for the same offence. If a defendant is acquitted or in this case NEVER CHARGED of the greater offense, they can't be retried for the lesser offense because it's already considered included in the original charge.

The legal doctrine of lesser included offences is a fundamental aspect of criminal law. It ensures that defendants are not unfairly convicted or punished for a more serious offence when the evidence presented during trial only supports a lesser offence. This doctrine is rooted in the principle of fairness and the protection of defendants' rights.

In the United States, the doctrine of lesser included offences is based on the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy and the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a fair trial. The Supreme Court has affirmed the importance of this doctrine in several landmark cases, including Beck v. Alabama (1980) and Schmuck v. United States (1989).

In Beck v. Alabama, the Supreme Court held that when the evidence presented at trial could support a conviction on a lesser included offence, the jury must be instructed on that lesser offence. Failure to do so would violate the defendant's right to a fair trial by limiting the jury's options and potentially leading to an unjust conviction.

Similarly, in Schmuck v. United States, the Court reaffirmed the requirement for jury instructions on lesser included offences when supported by the evidence. The Court emphasized that defendants are entitled to have the jury consider all reasonable doubt in their favour, including the possibility of a lesser offence.

New York Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) governs procedural aspects of criminal cases, including jury instructions and trial procedures. CPL Article 300 outlines the general principles for jury trials, including instructions on lesser included offences. Specifically, CPL § 300.50 addresses jury instructions on lesser included offences, requiring judges to instruct juries on lesser offences supported by the evidence presented at trial.

New York case law further clarifies the application of the doctrine of lesser included offences in practice. Appellate court decisions often provide guidance on issues such as when jury instructions on lesser offences are warranted and what constitutes sufficient evidence to support a lesser included offence.

Overall, in New York State, the doctrine of lesser included offences operates within the framework of statutory law, court rules, and judicial precedent to ensure that defendants receive fair trials and are not convicted of more serious offences than supported by the evidence. Prosecutors, defence attorneys, and judges all play essential roles in applying this doctrine appropriately during criminal proceedings.

 

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-04-SOF.pdf