My old pal, Roger Stavis, with whom I’ve tried cases and prosecuted appeals, knows what he’s talking about. In a New York Times op-ed, he explains with the same fair and neutral perspective the mechanics of an appeal in Trump’s conviction in the New York County “hush money” case. Forget all the academics and pundits, if you want to know how it really works. Roger has spent decades in the trenches and knows what he’s talking about.

Mr. Trump’s legal team can approach his appeal on several fronts, but only one, concerning the legal theory behind the falsifying business records charge, is likely to hold out anything more than the slimmest of hopes for the former president. Continue reading →

Pamela Paul wrote about the disconnect between what the college students today were taught as being virtuous and why these pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel protesters won’t find their activism embraced by their future employers.

Activism has played a big part in many of these young people’s lives and academic success. From the children’s books they read (“The Hate U Give,” “I Am Malala”) to the young role models who were honored (Greta Thunberg, David Hogg) to the social justice movements that were praised (Black Lives Matter, MeToo, climate justice), Gen Z-ers have been told it’s on them to clean up the boomers’ mess. Resist!

Continue reading →

Following Trump’s photo op on June 1, 2020 at St. John’s Church in Lafayette Square, with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley reaiized the error of his participating in the venture.

Soon enough, Milley recognized the error of his decision and apologized, saying, “I should not have been there. My presence in that moment, and in that environment, created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.”

Continue reading →

This week, thousands of Americans who previously held strong beliefs that the criminal justice system is rigged against the accused celebrated in droves as the one person they all agreed was a No Good Rat Bastard Who Totally Did it was found guilty by a jury of his peers.

Social media trended with the terms “Guilty,” “There is a God” and “Rule of Law” for days following the verdict. Strangely, these were the same accounts posting things like “ACAB,” “No Justice, No Peace” and “Free [insert name of local felon]” only days earlier. Continue reading →

One of the most basic thought experiments is to replace the target of an action against a disfavored group with a favored group, and see if you still approve. The problem with this experiment is that under the progressive ideal, where achieving the goal of standing up for whomever they’ve deemed oppressed is the only thing that matters and should be accomplished by any means necessary, they just don’t care. When you wrap yourself in the glory of righteousness, the ends justify the means.

So it was at UCLA, as reflected in the complaint in Frankel v. Regents. Continue reading →

The website now shows “website is under maintenance” where it once showed an article written by Rabea Eghbariah, a Palestinian human rights lawyer and a doctoral candidate at Harvard entitled Toward Nabka As A Legal Concept. According to the New York Times, the law review’s Board of Directors has issues.

In a statement, the board of directors, which consists of faculty members and alumni, said it had decided to suspend the website on Monday after learning two days earlier that not all of the students on the Law Review had read the essay before publication. Continue reading →

Ilya Somin argues that President Joe Biden’s proclamation on securing the border is likely ultra vires, and will eventually be struck down. The ACLU has already announced that it’s taking it to court, because it involves one of its favored groups, so of course it is. And they will likely prevail, eventually. But in the meantime, there is a crisis at the southern border, an influx of immigrants that the United States lacks the resources and infrastructure to absorb. Something must be done.

There’s no denying that the executive order President Biden signed on Tuesday — significantly curtailing the number of asylum seekers allowed into the country — is a head-spinning reversal for a president who promised to undo Donald Trump’s policies at the border. It’s worth remembering that Biden wasn’t alone on that front. Eight out of 10 Democrats running in the presidential primaries said in 2019 that they would make walking across the border without permission a civil infraction, like a traffic ticket, instead of a criminal offense.

Continue reading →

As a Class E non-violent felony, conviction for the crime of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree is subject to a range of punishment, from probation to a term of imprisonment, the maximum of which is an indeterminate sentence of 1 1/3 to 4 years.

Within the sentencing parameters, there are many variations, such as a split sentence involving part incarceration and the balance probation, and conditions such as home or weekend detention, curfews and ankle monitors. Continue reading →

After the stunning implosion of a sweet plea deal that, all things being equal, should never have been allowed to escape the grasp of the defense, Hunter Biden is going to trial. You remember Hunter Biden, whose conduct was denied and pooh-poohed when initially raised, another fabricated conspiracy theory of the right crafted as disinformation to harm his father, which turned out to be not merely true, but damning?

Last September, a federal grand jury charged Mr. Biden with three felonies: lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the federal firearms application used to screen applicants and possessing an illegally obtained gun for 11 days, from Oct. 12 to Oct. 23, 2018. Continue reading →

Like many of us who found the legal theory upon which the New York County “hush money” indictment of Trump problematic, former prosecutor turned prawf Randall Eliason had his doubts.

The New York courts appear to be mixed on this question and there is no definitive ruling from the state’s highest court. If Bragg’s theory is that the false entries were part of a scheme to defraud an agency such as the New York State Board of Elections, then a court might apply this broader definition. If his theory is that it was a scheme to deceive the voters, I think a court is likely to hold that does not constitute fraud. (Part of the problem, as I discuss below, is that we don’t know exactly what Bragg’s legal theory is.)

Continue reading →