Welcome to How to Legal—Bitesize where you can get quick legal info to help you navigate through this era of fake news, misinformation, disinformation, and/or defamation.
Since I don’t want to see anyone else act on fake news, or BS being peddled by rule-breaking officers of the court, and do something stupid, or violent, and end up in prison, below is a tweet with legal info. It’s about former President Trump’s motion over the FBI search at Mar-a-Largo and case law.
The motion was filed today in the Southern District of Florida.
Click here to read Trump Motion.
See, Robert Legare, “Trump files motion over Mar-a-Lago search,” CBS News, August 22, 2022.
Tweets with educational legal info regarding case law
For folks not familiar w/ legal filings, the ‘at 782’ is a reference cite in Trump’s filing. It supposed to tell the court that the argument made is supported on page ‘782’ of the ‘US v Nixon’ decision. As John notes, the Nixon case ends at page ‘716’. There is no page ‘782’.— Don Lewis (@DonLew87) August 23, 2022
Yup. Here’s a screenshot of the end of U.S. v Nixon. All non lawyers incl #MAGA can verify what John & Don are saying is true. Click the link to read decision: https://t.co/A8gzE4sToo#Trump #ReadCourtDocs #vacateoathbreakerrulings #SaveDemocracy #Legal #Education #MarALago pic.twitter.com/DZA3axdWKf— Marinka ReadCourtDocs Peschmann ⚖️ (@Marinkapm) August 23, 2022
Here’s the screenshot from my Tweet of US v Nixon from Casetext.com so you can verify the truth yourself. Scroll to the end. Thanks!
As demonstrated above people need to keep a close eye on lawyers to see who is telling the truth and who is not. Indeed, it can be tedious, but at the end of the day, lawyers tell on themselves in court filings.
Unethical, oath breaking judges echo-chamber inapplicable or distorted case law in their rulings
The good thing about lawyers who submit inapplicable or distorted case law in court filings is they show you who the ethical and unethical judges are and provide evidence of it.
Unethical judges hellbent on throwing a case for whatever unjust gain would likely echo chamber inapplicable or distorted case law as if it were legitimate in their rulings, violating judicial canons and their oath.
Judges who don’t echo-chamber inapplicable case law don’t do that. See?
Trump’s lawyers are having a rough day in court.👇 pic.twitter.com/fvCM3vsu5l— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) August 23, 2022
The good news is everyone can follow the docket (Trump v United States (9:22-cv-81294) here thanks to Courtlistener and see what’s going on.
All non-lawyers can learn more about looking up case law and the justice system by using legal resources. To see another case where lawyers submitted inapplicable case law in a legal brief, go here: Lawyer submits inapplicable case law. Dirty Tricks? Oops?—How to Legal.
I hope you have learned something new and found this helpful. Thanks for visiting How to Legal–Bitesize.
Update: And the plot thickens. Indeed. Judges show you who they are by their rulings. Judges with lifetime appointments no less.
Disturbingly & in a total about face from her earlier order, the judge orders DOJ to detail all items seized, which altho under seal, still calls for an accounting of what could be highly classified material.— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) August 27, 2022
Top secret means grave danger to national security in the wrong hands https://t.co/rI3eQhiOmI
Nothing on this website may be construed as legal advice. While I have litigated as a pro se plaintiff when Reuters and Wall Street Journal’s reporting exposed judicial misconduct, I am not a lawyer. This information is for educational purposes. If you need legal advice, please consult with a licensed professional in your area.
If you see any typos or mistakes, kindly send me an email so I can fix them.
If you appreciate my efforts in trying to prevent more people from acting on fake news, harming others, and ending up in prison, please send donations here.