11th Circuit Vacates Cannon’s Order to Appoint a Special Master

[Gondwanaland]

Update:
FjyiMvjVsAA4hiF.jpg

[Juvenal]

SCOTUS kicked it back to the lower court to resolve, yes or no?

No.

As you would know if you'd gone to the minor trouble of following the case in the news, or reading the decision on the partial stay or the response to the appeal of that decision instead of studiously avoiding the need to know something about what you were talking about before speaking.

And now it's time for another round of "I told you so."

Special Master’s Review in Trump Case Ends as Appeal Court’s Ruling Takes Effect
A federal judge in Florida had shocked experts by intervening after the F.B.I. seized sensitive files from the former president’s residence and club.
.

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Thursday brought to an end a special master’s review of sensitive documents the F.B.I. had seized from former President Donald J. Trump’s private club and residence in Florida, concluding a court fight that had delayed the Justice Department’s investigation for nearly three months.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta acted after Mr. Trump’s lawyers chose not to contest its decision last week shutting down a lawsuit by Mr. Trump that had imposed a special master. The court had given him a week to challenge the decision before it took effect.

The move ended the special master’s review and lifted an injunction that had blocked prosecutors from using the seized materials as evidence. The step formally removed a significant obstacle to the inquiry into whether Mr. Trump illegally retained national security secrets at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., and obstructed government efforts to recover them.

The ruling last week by the appeals court panel, which included two Trump appointees, vacated an order issued in September by a fellow Trump appointee, Judge Aileen M. Cannon of the Southern District of Florida. It also ordered her to dismiss the lawsuit.

On the bright side, Cannon's public humiliation is over. She's now free to lick her wounds out of the public spotlight.

And just by the way, in case you missed it.

I told you so.

[Stoic]

SCOTUS kicked it back to the lower court to resolve, yes or no?

Not really. SCOTUS refused the Trump team request to consider a previous appeals court ruling (that the classified documents didn't need to be reviewed by the special master).

So that issue has been resolved.

If yes, then there was still something unresolved.

If there is something unresolved, that requires court action.

If that action wouldn't change anything the courts would not waste their time resolving them.

You could say that the question of whether the other documents seized need to be reviewed by the special master isn't resolved, since SCOTUS hasn't yet been asked to consider the new appeals court ruling.

But I don't think anyone expects SCOTUS to issue a stay of that ruling, so it appears that the criminal investigation can proceed without further delay.

[rogue06]

It's amazing to me that you could be that ignorant of everything involving this case, and still think your prattling serves some purpose. All of the documents you need to read are posted in this thread. Maybe do that before you post here again.

SCOTUS kicked it back to the lower court to resolve, yes or no?

If yes, then there was still something unresolved.

If there is something unresolved, that requires court action.

If that action wouldn't change anything the courts would not waste their time resolving them.

[Juvenal]

Kicking it back to the lower court means there was some issue that needed resolving and it was thought it best to resolve there. Otherwise, they would have refused to get involved at all and let it stand - but that wasn't what they did. If the lower court does not resolve it then the SCOTUS will typically step back in.

It's amazing to me that you could be that ignorant of everything involving this case, and still think your prattling serves some purpose. All of the documents you need to read are posted in this thread. Maybe do that before you post here again.

[rogue06]

But this isn't really a different case. It's the same case that SCOTUS kicked back down to lower courts already. They already showed they weren't interested in helping him get a special master in place.

I could see maybe Clarence Thomas humoring Trump, but then likely only because his wife is one of the Trump Cultist Faithful.

Kicking it back to the lower court means there was some issue that needed resolving and it was thought it best to resolve there. Otherwise, they would have refused to get involved at all and let it stand - but that wasn't what they did. If the lower court does not resolve it then the SCOTUS will typically step back in.

[Machinist]

This case is incredibly complicated.

[Mountain Man]

Still waiting for something other than 'Waaaah the judge made a decision that didn't agree with my cult leader', because that's all you've supplied at the moment.

(not to mention giving Trump an unredacted version is extremely questionable given how he leaked his unredacted copy of the search warrant and exposed agents names)

No, it is not "extremely questionable" to give a victim of a search and seizure the opportunity to defend himself, it's the law, and once again, we have you defending the actions of the FBI and DOJ in refusing to give full, unredacted documents to the defendant which suggests you believe they are literally above the law.

It's ironic that you are ordinarily hypercritical of law enforcement in every other case, but you have been quick lick their boots in this one.

[Gondwanaland]

The evidence is that Trump's attorneys have not been given access to unredacted copies of the search warrant, the underlying affidavit, and a full copy of everything that was taken with the DOJ arguing that they shouldn't have to provide this information (in a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment) with the courts apparently agreeing.

So basically, a judge says, "If the affidavit and search warrant are legally sound, then everything collected during the raid is fair game." Trump's legal team says, "We would like full copies of all the relevant documents so that we can test if they are legally sound." And they have so far been repeatedly denied.

Still waiting for something other than 'Waaaah the judge made a decision that didn't agree with my cult leader', because that's all you've supplied at the moment.

(not to mention giving Trump an unredacted version is extremely questionable given how he leaked his unredacted copy of the search warrant and exposed agents names)

[Mountain Man]

Everything the DoJ has done is by the book. It is because they have acted correctly at every step that the conservative panel of 11th circuit judges had no difficulty in giving them the decision they asked for.

OA655 covers the latest developments at 31 and 45mins.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...=1000588446040


Trump’s lawyers and Aileen Cannon have never known what they were doing. Sources on that side of the fence will only give you garbage explanations of what has happened.

By the "book", perhaps, but certainly not by the United States Constitution.

[Mountain Man]

From your response, I take it as a given that you are utterly incapable of providing the evidence you were requested to provide because you have none.

The evidence is that Trump's attorneys have not been given access to unredacted copies of the search warrant, the underlying affidavit, and a full copy of everything that was taken with the DOJ arguing that they shouldn't have to provide this information (in a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment) with the courts apparently agreeing.

So basically, a judge says, "If the affidavit and search warrant are legally sound, then everything collected during the raid is fair game." Trump's legal team says, "We would like full copies of all the relevant documents so that we can test if they are legally sound." And they have so far been repeatedly denied.

[NorrinRadd]

Judge My Cousin Vinny Napolitano predicted this. His explanation was that the Trump team's request was "too little, too late." If they really believed they had legitimate concerns, they should have been more on the ball.

[firstfloor]

I'm not confused, and I have no idea who Andrew Torrez is. Did he explain why the DOJ is not being forced to turn over a non-redacted search warrant, affidavit, and full declaration of exactly what was stolen seized by FBI agents during the raid? What guarantees do we have that the DOJ and FBI did not violate the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment when they are shielded by judicial corruption from having to show their work?

Everything the DoJ has done is by the book. It is because they have acted correctly at every step that the conservative panel of 11th circuit judges had no difficulty in giving them the decision they asked for.

OA655 covers the latest developments at 31 and 45mins.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...=1000588446040


Trump’s lawyers and Aileen Cannon have never known what they were doing. Sources on that side of the fence will only give you garbage explanations of what has happened.

[Gondwanaland]

From your response, I take it as a given that you believe the DOJ and FBI are above the law and should not be compelled by the judicial branch to operate within the limits prescribed by the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment.

From your response, I take it as a given that you are utterly incapable of providing the evidence you were requested to provide because you have none.

[Mountain Man]

So, you have no evidence to support your claim other than them deciding something you didn't like because they didn't side with your cult leader's poor legal argument. Got it.

Come back when you have actual evidence of the supposed judicial corruption of the judges. That means actual, actionable, observable evidence of corruption. Not 'waaaaaaah, I wet my nappy because they didn't make the decision I wanted'.

From your response, I take it as a given that you believe the DOJ and FBI are above the law and should not be compelled by the judicial branch to operate within the limits prescribed by the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment.