johnwk2
42
You are talking about “qualified immunity” but, considering the documented and outrageous account of the AG and judges’ own crimes and actions [misfeasance, malfeasance, non-feasance and abuse of judicial authority], that defense is questionable at best. But a jury ought to have the opportunity to make that call.
dderatz
43
I am not talking about qualified immunity. Judges have absolute immunity, meaning that there is no analysis of whether a judge violates a “clearly established law.” You flat out cannot sue a judge for actions taken in a judicial capacity. A little better research on your part will clarify the difference. What you will learn is that suits against judges for actions taken during a case are routinely dismissed without much analysis because you can’t sue a judge. This is not even a debatable point. See eg. Buhannic v. Friedman, Dist. Court, SD New York 2019, the Southern District of New York Court reiterated the oft cited standard that a litigant cannot sue a judge for acts performed in his or her judicial capacity.
2 Likes
That’s the funny thing - Trump’s “peers” are comprised of billionaires who have been president of the US at one time or another.
Not exactly a large pool from which to draw.
1 Like
johnwk2
45
Baloney. A judge can be removed from the bench for judicial misconduct, and a prosecutor can be held accountable for a number of reasons, including malicious prosecution.
dderatz
46
Mixing apples and oranges. The discussion was whether they could be sued, not subject to discipline. However, outside of certain Southern states, judges and prosecutors are rarely subject to discipline for presiding over or prosecuting a case.
1 Like
They will be hard-pressed to state that Trump’s rights and privileges to commit fraud were infringed upon.
Who’d thought the law and order party would be fighting for this?
As far as customary law in the US… It doesn’t apply.
1 Like
johnwk2
48
No apples vs oranges. We are talking about a specific and unique case with glaring, and multiple violations of constitutional guarantees by a judge and prosecutor, and that is in addition to their acts constituting malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance.
I believe the recent case Lanning v. Glens Falls, 908 F. 3d 19, 22 cracks open the door for a very interesting case under 42 U.S.C § 1983.
Theee is nothing all that specific or unique about the case other than your support for the defendant.
Similar statutes with no victims are followed all the time
The Supreme Court case that @Camp article cites involved a statute with no victim….
Political prosecutions are unfortunately a thing in this country.
Criminal prosecution
Please i beg you read things before you cite to them
After the criminal charges against Lanning were dismissed, he filed a § 1983 suit
To prevail on his § 1983 claims for malicious prosecution, Lanning was required to show “a seizure or other perversion of proper legal procedures implicating [his] personal liberty and privacy interests under the Fourth Amendment.” Washington v. County of Rockland, 373 F.3d 310, 316 (2d Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). ## He also had to show that criminal proceedings were initiated or continued against him, with malice and without probable cause, and were terminated in his favor. See Mitchell v. City of New York, 841 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir. 2016) ; Swartz v. Insogna, 704 F.3d 105, 111–12 (2d Cir. 2013). We conclude that Lanning failed adequately to allege that his criminal proceedings were terminated in his favor under § 1983.
DougBH
51
Not sure how a case taking over $400M dollars pretends to be neither a fine nor about money…but equity.
2 Likes
johnwk2
52
Yes, you really should. And as I indicated, [considering what our U.S.S.C. wrote in siding with Thompson] the case “cracks open the door for a very interesting suit under 42 U.S.C § 1983”.
Which involves a criminal indictment.
You really really should.
That’s the part you are missing and clearly on purpose
Because there is injuctive relief.
DougBH
55
Hardly the main point when you are taking over $400M. Can you really toss in an ounce of equity and then ignore constitutional due process rights? I guess we will find out.
1 Like
What do you mean hardly
A three year ban is relief in equity
What do you think equity means in this context?
The reference is to law in equity not equity as in equality
DougBH
57
Oh, and by the way, we are taking $400,000,000 from you. But never mind. Not important.
1 Like
johnwk2
58
And what you are missing, on purpose, is the fact NY is intentionally using a civil case against Trump to avoid and get around the legal standards which apply to a criminal prosecution, which obviously is misuse of judicial power, at least in this particular case.
That’s disgorgement. It’s not about fairness 
It’s a type of law/court.
Prosecutorial not judicial. Don’t use terms incorrectly
They are enforcing a statute through civil suit.
That’s not judicial either.
DougBH
61
Not an expert, and certainly not of what the higher courts would do, but my one minure research shows"
Subsequently, in Liu v. SEC (591 U.S. ___ (2020)), the US Supreme Court affirmed that disgorgement awards could be issued as equitable remedies by the SEC but could not exceed the wrongdoer’s net profits, as under 15 U.S.C. § 77u(d)(5), and that they should be funds returned to the defrauded investors.[8]
1 Like
