Comments by "RiteMo LawBks" (@ritemolawbks8012) on "LegalEagle" channel.

We still had an Attorney General, US marshals, and federal prosecutor created with the entire Judiciary Act that made the federal courts.
228
@Elliandr The squatter's rights are common law for landlords. The White House is a publicly owned office, building, and resident. You can't obstruct the president, or any other branch, from doing his official constitutional and legal duties, and it trumps (not a pun) squatter's rights and eviction protections.
26
It might sound unpatriotic, but it didn't start with the US Supreme Court. Legal Eagle isn't too fond of English common law, but the right to remain silent was Made in England. The right of the poor to have a public defendant, and everyone entitled to a warning of the 5th and 6th Amendment rights during police questioning could be uniquely American law.
8
Hunter Biden is a private citizen and doesn't pose an existential threat to American democracy by attempting to run an election while out on bail. A former president getting indicted for conspiring overturning an election and deprive the right to vote is historic and much more important than Hunter Biden. I'm beginning to think the far-Right obsession is more homoerotic than a concern about a two-tiered justice system.
4
This was a great video and one of your best! The only change I would recommend would be to not refer to George III as a "tyrannical ruler." We're taught that in school, but it's a patriotic myth about the American Revolution. It's also confusing to our British friends. They had the English Bill of Rights, the right to fair trials, liberal democracy, and parliamentary supremacy before the United States. They'll understand opposition to colonialism, but referring to a constitutional monarchy as a tyrant is a bit extreme.
2
That's a weird question people keep asking. We've had the same jury system for hundreds of years, even before America was a country. Just Google how they select a jury. Everyone's not selected, but that's the not nearly as difficult as you're making it. Jack Smith and the Fulton County Prosecutor already have a grand jury impaneled now to make a decision on indictments. I could pick someone myself who'd be as close to an impartial juror as possibly for a potential Trump charge.
2
Special Master with Trump Judge: Good😁; Special Counsel with every other judge: No good😱.
2
@ 2:30 Did he have this confused and puzzled reaction when he heard that Hillary Clinton's legal team "bleached" her home server?
2
@DiscordianDisciple27 Treason against the United States ("Treason") is a very specific capital offense and the only crime included in the US Constitution with elements that must be met and can't be disregarded. This was done to prevent it from being abused like the English common law crime of high treason, which was frequently used by King Henry VIII for virtually every offensive act, except actual treason. He used it to execute his wives and remarry, and to quickly get rid of ministers he didn't like. If Jack Smith, the Justice Department, and the prosecutorial team investigating Trump and his co-conspirators had evidence of Treason, and could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, they would have charged Trump with Treason.
2
What was happening at 15:27? That looks like a scene from a horror film.
2
@michaelbindner9883 The 14th Amendment's disqualification clause is a political remedy that can come from Congress or declared by state and local election officials. The criminal courts won't addressed that as part of their sentencing. The future plea deals from Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith, and possibly Fani Willis will come with the condition that Trump can avoid prison time by agreeing to end his 2024 campaign and never seek public office again.
2
I'm not taking a stance on the sensitive political and legal topic of interpretations of the US Second Amendment, but I wonder why the makers of lawn darts didn't get it designated as a "protected weapon" rather than "a consumer product marketed to children."
2
@shadowgb Did you have a brain meltdown after getting called out for parroting talking points that you got from Right-wing media? If Trump didn't commit major felonies, there would be nothing the Special Counsel could charge him with. It's clearly not political considering the Democrats win popular majorities whenever Trump is on the ballot.
2
Nixon was a much more intelligent man and an effective politician. The difference was that Fox News didn't exist. Also, neither the GOP senators nor their voters would tolerate a criminal leading the White House. They were part of the "Greatest Generation" and put America before politics.
2
Given that so many politicians are also lawyers (e.g., R.M. Nixon, W.J. Clinton, E.L. Spitzer, R.W.L. Giuliani, and A.M. Cuomo), there are too many overlaps with political scandals. Att'y Roy Cohn, from the McCarthy's hearing and representing Donald Trump and the mafia, was disbarred before his untimely dead in the 1980s.
2
They're subjected to sanctions for abusing the court system and defaming individuals and businesses. I believe Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani have already faced disciplinary action and sued for slandering the voting-machine manufacturers. It is a matter of ethics. They're mostly competent lawyers, who should be advising their client against these frivolous lawsuits. For some reason, the Texas Attorney General hasn't received any complaints for his 2020 attempt to use the Supreme Court to overturn the presidential election in states Biden won popular majorities.
2
It's called a "vexatious litigant." It's a restriction on plaintiffs who abuse the court system by filing frivolous lawsuits.
2
I'm still watching, but did you get Roy Cohn?
1
No. That law sounds highly unconstitutional.
1
If millions of dead people voted and there were evidence, the lawsuits wouldn't be getting dismissed.
1
@chrismanuel9768 Without repeating the patriotic talking points, explain what specific action or decree made George III a tyrant? You must consider the Queen to be a tyrannical ruler as well? It's not an insult, but I don't think you're familiar with Britain history, constitutional law, or its system of government. The English have the oldest continuously functioning liberal democracy and a history of removing tyrannical monarchs. You're citing lyrics and phrases from revolutionary songs and the national anthem rather than explaining how a figurehead and constitutional monarch can be a "tyrant."
1
@chrismanuel9768 Definition of TYRANNY: "A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power; e.g., People liberated from a brutal tyranny." That could apply to Putin's Russia, the CCP, and Britain's autocratic colonialism in Hong Kong, Indian Subcontinent, China, and Africa. Calling George III or any other constitutional monarchy a form a dictatorship, tyranny, or autocracy is a sign that you're not familiar with how parliamentary supremacy works. You can't trace an tyrannical abuse of power back to the a constitutional monarch because the decisions were made in Parliament, by British East Indian Company, or on the advice of government ministers.
1
I'm in complete agreement with him, but I'm surprised he didn't use "allegedly" in the title.
1
We've got the same in the US. We use pre-1789 English common law in all of our courts except Louisiana. The rules on vexatious litigant declarations are enforced by the states.
1
That's question for the courts to decide.
1
?
1
Of course not! LMAO 😁. I didn't mean to laugh in a disrespectful manner, but you can use Google Search to find the elements of a federal conspiracy charge. The best source for understanding the criminal conspiracy charges is the Justice Manual from the U.S. Department of Justice. It's got the most up-to-date case law and is followed by US Attorneys, Assistant US Attorneys, Special Counsels, and Criminal Defense Attorneys in federal court. You should remember that the government must prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. There's plenty of doubt in that factual situation you described. The full name of the crime is called conspiracy to defraud (or commit a criminal offense) against the United States 18 U.S.C. § 371.
1
It might be related the low expectations for the Trump's legal team, but we should at least appreciate the fact that they avoided the risk of court sanctions and/or criminal liability by using the lie about declassification as a legal defense. This is another example of how the Trump claims in a legal setting, and under the penalty of perjury, are vastly different from the talking points he trains his supporters to parrot.
1
Bad lawyer but good burn @ [ 8:10 ].
1
Trump wouldn't go through the shame of being forcefully removed from the White House.
1
@michaelbindner9883 I definitely agree with that. If you see comments from European and other non-Americans, they are puzzled how a man who incited a fascist insurrection at the capitol and "allegedly" unlawfully retained gov't documents classified as confidential and top secret is free to run for president on a platform to expand presidential power and pardon himself. Trump is entitled to due process and a fair trials, but I strongly dislike him for holding the country hostage. One of the few benefits of his train wreck of an administration is that he's gotten more young people interested in politics.
1
I think it was a clever idea to insert humor in a legal brief, and it was genuinely funny. Maybe I'm getting too old and grumpy, but it just has no place in a legal document or part of the record. It would be more appropriate to send it to the political branches; e.g., maybe bring attention to dark money, ethics, or special interests. Stephen Colbert's Super PAC and presidential campaign being registered with the Federal Elections Commission was a great example of using parody and humor to lobby politicians. The Supreme Court's amicus curiae filings, opinions, and legal briefs are already confusing and time-consuming for legal research. IMO, that would be similar to The Onion publishing research and medical literature in the New England Journal of Medicine or CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. I might have an unpopular opinion, but if judicial economy and efficiency truly matter and the legal briefs are from "friends of the court," then The Onion shouldn't flood the court and case record with additional paper that doesn't contain a legal analysis, argument, or a relevant question.
1
The individual states could identify him as a "vexatious litigant."
1
@dominicspallek Why would Trump be entitled to compensation. Are you claiming the Russia investigation was a vindictive prosecution or a violation of his due process rights?
1
Despite her Trumpian rulings during the post-Mar-a-Lago-raid in civil court, I don't see her having a significant impact on Jack Smith's case. She could definitely delay and/or postpone the trial, but the evidence is too damning to ignore and drop the charges. This will also be one of biggest criminal trials in American history; therefore, if she wants to set legal precedent and give Trump a fair trial, then she should behave more like an impartial judge rather than auditioning for a Foxnews job as a legal correspondent.
1
@jacklovejoy5290 We're trying to figure who were the prosecutors and represented the USA before the DOJ was formed. Was there US attorney for DC, or only state district attorney? If a president committed a federal or state criminal offense in Washington DC, who would have received the referral?
1
@rawwrrob9395 I'm in total agreement with everything you've said. I made the mistake of replying to @nanoRat before completely watching the video and fully comprehending what was his point of commenting. Your answer was very accurate and more complete than mine because I didn't take the time understand that he was referring to the "American Rule," fee-shifting statutes, and awards to recover attorney fees and court cost. I can only speak for myself, but I consider that a complicated legal question and analysis that's rare in Legal Eagle comments. I didn't expect a non-lawyer would know that. I interpreted it as suggesting that recovering attorney fees and court cost ONLY existed in British law, and for for civil cases in the US, a new type of remedy or contractual provision was needed to make the losing party liable for all litigation-related costs. Also, despite not being relevant to the post, your comment about ONLY pre-1789 English common law, case law, and equity principles being merged and restated into American jurisprudence is spot on. I agree with that as well. As an Anglophile and forever student of history, I'm always eager to go off on a tangent just to make the point that, like our native language, our legal system was also "Made in England."
1