Amanda Orcutt’s Post

Judge in Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial has stacked the deck against the former president. Judge Juan Merchan has allowed prosecutors from Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s office to prove a federal campaign-finance crime against former president Donald Trump by relying on blatantly inadmissible evidence — the guilty pleas of Michael Cohen and a non-prosecution agreement David Pecker struck with the Justice Department. The inadmissible evidence in question consists of (a) guilty pleas by Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to two Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) felonies in a case brought against him by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York (SDNY); and (b) a non-prosecution agreement that former American Media Inc. CEO David Pecker — Trump’s longtime friend, who controlled the National Enquirer — entered into with the Justice Department because he feared being indicted under FECA. (Relatedly, AMI agreed to pay a fine to the FEC. NDAs are technically not campaign expenditures under FECA. The category of actionable campaign expenditures is limited to expenditures that would not exist but for the campaign — e.g., polling or get-out-the-vote costs. The fact that the campaign motivates an expenditure is irrelevant if the expenditure is not within this narrow category. Judge Merchan, however, did not allow the defence to elicit Smith’s testimony — although Merchan has let both Cohen and Pecker, who have no expertise in this esoteric area of law, opine on the subject. The explanation Smith would have given is bolstered by the determinations of the Justice Department and the FEC, the two federal entities given exclusive enforcement jurisdiction over federal election law by Congress, that Trump should not be indicted either criminally or civilly — determinations that Merchan has kept from the jury despite permitting extensive evidence that the two federal agencies decided to take action against Cohen and Pecker. https://lnkd.in/g_76ziHG

"In 2020, New York became the 19th state in the country to pass a law enacting automatic voter registration, but more than a year after the planned start date, the state still has yet to implement the program." Check out my most recent story for City & State to learn what's going on with automatic voter registration in NY! https://lnkd.in/gc7d8TgS

Republicans Prepare a New Wave of Legal Attacks on Voting https://lnkd.in/gKpU37U8 Bolstered by a new high-profile legal team, RNC Chair Whatley has promised to work endlessly to file aggressive election litigation. This begins a new wave of Republican legal attacks on voting,

The question shouldn't be "who is doing a hand count?", it should be "who is willing to do it twice?" Hand-counting has a time and place (small jurisdictions/short ballots/in a manual audit/etc.). Beyond that, it is simply asking for mistakes; asking for trouble.

Almost High NOON, Tuesday, time for a Law / Commentary article by Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, and former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Justice. He is a member of the board of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. Hmm so as the House Speaker is releasing the various January 6 video tapes for review by the public, behind the scenes various states are trying to remove a contender in the next presidential election, either by indictments or removing his name altogether on their state ballots. Perhaps they need more definition of the law as written, instead of cooking up their own. Perhaps their voter roles need more cleanup and voters ID'd....Perhaps a little accounting of the number of properly registered and vetted voters vs certified ballots?....At least those thoughts come to mind. Another interesting thing is the states trying to do this and their current leadership. Simply use common sense and think between the lines.....Then again, what will the various video tapes reveal, and WHY were they not released earlier? ....What's to hide, Ms. Nancy? Doesn't support an agenda?.....an opinion.....so on to it... ...."Two state courts, the Minnesota Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Claims, have thrown out the attempts by anti-democratic groups to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment, at least with respect to the presidential primary election. The attempt to take away the ability of voters to make their own decisions on Trump’s candidacy has been temporarily halted in those states. But there are still cases ongoing in other states, among them Colorado. I’ve previously outlined why those claims are constitutionally invalid and why no state court has the legal authority to make such a decision....." READ ON, PRAY ON....STAND UNITED for FREEDOM, RIGHTS...IN GOD WE TRUST!!...PROUDLY, STRONGLY!!...all over the WORLD>>>!!

Issues: -Author of article is spinning the crux of the story by labelling her "black", "a woman" and sharing her prior felony tax fraud conviction. All that is irrelevant. -Proof of knowingly voting while not fully completing her sentence, beyond reasonable doubt; to me, is a hard sell. Questions: Does it matter if current felons vote? If the basis of the law to ban felons from voting is to prevent civic engagement, then the follow up question becomes 'what does voting itself do to harm others or deny them privileges'? If we ran statistics on actual felons who voted before sentencing, I bet that number is minuscule. Also, what damages occured or could occur by a voting felon? My Solution #28: The way things are headed, I'm sure the new social credit score will bundle this into a point system. But in the interim, allow felons to vote (not run for office) BUT require their drivers license/passport to include a visible 'felonious endorsement' until they have completed their debt to society.

What happens if Donald Trump is convicted of a felony next week? How will it affect the election? Among the 50 states, only Maine and Vermont (as well as the District of Columbia) allow felons to vote while they are serving their sentence, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In about half the states, felons automatically recover their right to vote after they have completed their sentence. In the other half of states – felons must meet other conditions, such as completing probation and parole and paying any fines or restitution or must receive a pardon from the governor to recover their rights. Florida (Trump's home state) watered down their past legislation from outright loss of voting rights for felons. Read more here how Florida laws may still affect Trump: https://lnkd.in/gygniSNc There will be a push that Trump should not even be allowed to appear on the ballot in some states if he has no voting rights at the time of the election. Certainly, this is the case for anyone else. Will we see another Supreme court ruling in Trump's favor such as we saw after Colorado's highest court ruled the former president was ineligible to run because of his actions around the Capitol riot? This was only three months ago. Does anyone doubt there is considerable effort being made solely on Donald Trump's behalf to counteract rules and laws that apply to anyone else? Read more on the likelihood of a conviction for Trump soon below. I am not an American. However, I would ask Americans to vote for those who support all of the population through works and actions. Don't vote for those who promote hatred, fear and are dividing your nation. #trump #2024 #usa #laws #election https://lnkd.in/gsmRq_tT  

Hand counting of paper ballots:

"Once rarely used, the filibuster has become a routine part of Senate life and has kept significant legislation bottled up. It was central to efforts to blockade civil rights legislation in the past but in recent years has ensnared gun control, health care and other social policy measures. The Senate has been chipping away at the filibuster for decades, providing alternative ways to pass tax legislation, for instance, on simple majority votes — a process both parties have employed to enact economic measures. Democrats eliminated the 60-vote threshold for judicial and executive branch nominations in 2013 after they were frustrated by Republican filibusters against President Barack Obama’s appeals court nominees. Republicans later ditched the filibuster against Supreme Court nominees in 2017 to place conservative nominees on the court. But the most significant recent attempt to gut the filibuster against legislation fell short in January 2022. Democrats, stymied on a voting rights bill that they said was needed to overcome voter suppression efforts in the states, tried to establish a new Senate precedent that would override the requirement for a supermajority vote on bills specifically related to election laws, saying such bedrock measures merited special status." --- https://lnkd.in/da2PYNdW WASHINGTON — Time may be finally running out on the filibuster, the signature dilatory tactic in the Senate embraced by some as a protector of minority rights ...

What Homeowners Should Expect from the HOA Understanding Your Rights and Expectations as a Homeowner in an HOA Homeowners joining an HOA should expect a certain level of service, rooted in legally recognized rights and basic principles of respect. Here’s what to anticipate: Responsive Communication: HOAs should answer homeowners’ inquiries unless they are absurd, threatening, or intended to harass. Transparent Record-Keeping: HOAs must maintain accessible records, including financial data, ensuring homeowners can easily access important information. Fair Disciplinary Actions: Homeowners should receive fair notice and an opportunity to be heard before any disciplinary actions are taken. Equal Treatment: Laws and regulations must be applied fairly to all homeowners. Voting Rights: Homeowners should have a fair opportunity to vote in significant elections and be informed of their eligibility to vote. Self-Education: Homeowners should educate themselves on HOA rules to ensure they receive fair and reasonable treatment. For Legal Advice, Homeowners Should Consult an HOA Attorney If you’re facing issues with your HOA management company, consulting an HOA attorney can provide valuable insights and solutions. At Hudack Law Estate Planning Attorney, we specialize in offering comprehensive legal services tailored to the unique needs of homeowners dealing with HOA concerns. Whether you’re in California or Arizona, our experienced team is ready to assist you. Contact us today at (877) 314-4309 or our Arizona office at (602) 777-7882 to learn more about how we can help you protect your rights and navigate your HOA relationship effectively. Speak with an HOA attorney to explore your options and ensure fair treatment within your community.