Tweet
I just heard an interesting twist on this.
As an old Fed LEO I know that to charge someone a complaint, information or indictment has to allege a crime. For instance if a crime has the word "intent" in it and you don't put the words "with intent to commit X, Y, or Z" you have an insufficient or defective indictment. I haven't read this thing but to boot strap this financial misdemeanor charge into a felony the D.A., apparently, has to show that it was in furtherance of another (felony) crime. The problem is the indictment doesn't say what that crime is. Ordinarily when motions are submitted in Dec. this would be, if the reporting is accurate and it seems to be, grounds to have the indictment dismissed and the case thrown out. I doubt that will happen with this judge and this case but it certainly could and should be down the line. One of the big problems with this immediate case is, obviously, that if you don't know the details of what you're charged with you can't prepare a defense.
Also, the DA apparently, though we don't know because he hasn't stated it, wants to use a Federal statute as the other crime. New York Law on its face requires the felony law used to be a state law. Bragg, it is believed, wants to use a Federal law, an area in which he does not have jurisdiction. Talk about a slippery slope. As one commentator said today, under that theory maybe you could use the law of California, or the law of Germany, heck maybe you could use Sharia law.
Stalin's chief of security was an incredibly nasty man named Lavrentia Beria. Beria once said show me the man and I'll show you the crime. That thinking seems to be very much in play here.
This comes down to a basic principle of US law that started being ignored under the Obama Administration and and has now reached full bloom. In this country you're supposed to investigate crimes, not people.
The Banana Republicinization of this country continues unabated.
As an old Fed LEO I know that to charge someone a complaint, information or indictment has to allege a crime. For instance if a crime has the word "intent" in it and you don't put the words "with intent to commit X, Y, or Z" you have an insufficient or defective indictment. I haven't read this thing but to boot strap this financial misdemeanor charge into a felony the D.A., apparently, has to show that it was in furtherance of another (felony) crime. The problem is the indictment doesn't say what that crime is. Ordinarily when motions are submitted in Dec. this would be, if the reporting is accurate and it seems to be, grounds to have the indictment dismissed and the case thrown out. I doubt that will happen with this judge and this case but it certainly could and should be down the line. One of the big problems with this immediate case is, obviously, that if you don't know the details of what you're charged with you can't prepare a defense.
Also, the DA apparently, though we don't know because he hasn't stated it, wants to use a Federal statute as the other crime. New York Law on its face requires the felony law used to be a state law. Bragg, it is believed, wants to use a Federal law, an area in which he does not have jurisdiction. Talk about a slippery slope. As one commentator said today, under that theory maybe you could use the law of California, or the law of Germany, heck maybe you could use Sharia law.
Stalin's chief of security was an incredibly nasty man named Lavrentia Beria. Beria once said show me the man and I'll show you the crime. That thinking seems to be very much in play here.
This comes down to a basic principle of US law that started being ignored under the Obama Administration and and has now reached full bloom. In this country you're supposed to investigate crimes, not people.
The Banana Republicinization of this country continues unabated.
Comment