Mediaboss Marketing

Takings

Ilya Somin |The Volokh Conspiracy|3.25.2023 5:40 PM

In its important decision in Knick v. Township of Scott (2019), the the Supreme Court reversed Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, a 1985 decision that made it almost impossible to bring takings cases against state and local governments in federal courts. Under Williamson County, a property owner who claimed the government has taken his property and therefore owed "just compensation" under the Fifth Amendment, could not file a case in federal court until he or she first secured a "final decision" from the relevant state regulatory agency and "exhausted" all possible state court remedies in state court. At that point, it was still usually impossible to bring a federal claim, because procedural rules preclude federal courts from reviewing most final decisions by state courts. In a forceful opinion for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts denounced this "Catch-22" and emphasized that "[a] property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it." The owner does not have to first go to state court.

Access to federal court is crucial to protecting constitutional rights against violation by state and local governments. In some situations, state courts will not adequately protect those rights, and may even be part of the same political coalition as the state or local officials who violated those rights in the first place (a problem particularly likely to arise in the many states where judges are elected).

Unfortunately, a recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (which covers the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) goes against the principles outlined in Knick and threatens to create a new Catch-22 keeping takings claims out of federal court.

In Devillier v. Texas, decided in November, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled that federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear takings claims against state governments because the Fifth Amendment doesn't create such jurisdiction, and there is no federal statute establishing it either. Here is the entirety of the opinion (minus footnotes):

The State of Texas appeals the district court's decision that Plaintiffs' federal Taking Clause claims against the State may proceed in federal court. Because we hold that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause as applied to the [S]tates through the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a right of action for takings claims against a [S]tate, we VACATE the district court's decision and REMAND for further proceedings. The Supreme Court of Texas recognizes takings claims under the federal and state constitutions, with differing remedies and constraints turning on the character and nature of the taking; nothing in this description of Texas law is intended to replace its role as the sole determinant of Texas state law. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review these claims.

[the text above is slightly modified from the court's original decision, as explained here (pg. 25)].

What the court says is simply false. The Fifth Amendment does indeed create a "direct cause of action" against state governments, no less than other provisions of the Bill of Rights do. Nothing in the text or original meaning of the Constitution suggests otherwise. In the footnotes, the panel cites AzulPacifico, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, a 1992 Ninth Circuit reaching a similar conclusion. But Azul-Pacifico, a very short opinion that offers almost no analysis supporting its position, was decided prior to Knick, at a time when Williamson County was still in force and it was therefore permissible for courts to disfavor takings claims relative to other constitutional rights claims. Knick decisively rejected such theories, and the Fifth Circuit erred egregiously in failing even to cite Knick in its opinion.

Even worse, the Fifth Circuit ruling creates precisely the kind of Catch-22 that Knick forbids. Indeed, ir may be even worse! This case ended up in federal court in the first place, becauseafter the plaintiffs initially filed in state courtthe state of Texas removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S. Code Section 1441, which allows defendants to remove to federal court "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction."

Under the approach adopted here by the Fifth Circuit, takings claims against state governments cannot be brought in federal court. And if they are instead brought in state court, the defendant state can remove them to federal court and then force their dismissal! As Judge Andrew Oldham puts it in his dissent from the Fifth Circuit's March 23 denial of the plaintiffs' petition for an en banc rehearing (which, if granted, would have had the entire Fifth Circuit reconsider the panel decision), "[t]he panel decision renders federal takings claims non-cognizable in state or federal court."

This is actually even worse than the Williamson County regime, under which takings claims could at least be litigated in state court (though some lower courts did permit the kinds of removal shenanigans the Fifth Circuit blessed here). The federal district court ruling that the Fifth Circuit reversed effectively highlighted this dangerous implication of ruling in favor of the state, and specifically cited Knick, as well:

In considering the State's argument, it is important to think for a moment about the dramatic implications of such a rule. Under the State's view, it can take property from a private citizen without paying just compensation and the private citizen would be left without a remedy. Take an example. Person A owns a 20-acre vacant parcel. While Person A is on a five-year trip around the world, the State commandeers the property, constructs a state office building on the property, and utilizes the building on the propertyall without the permission of the property owner. When Person A returns home, the State tears down the building and returns the property to its original vacant state. This is a classic taking for which Person A is clearly entitled to be compensated. See Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S.Ct. 2162, 2167 (2019) ("A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it."). But not so fast. Amazingly, the State maintains that Person A would have no federal constitutional remedy against the State because a Fifth Amendment takings claim can never be brought against a State under [42 USC] 1983. This thinking eviscerates hundreds of years of Constitutional law in one fell swoop, and flies in the face of commonsense. It is pretzel logic.

There is not, as the State suggests, some sort of "state exception" that excludes state governments from the reach of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The complete opposite is true. "Historically, the United States Supreme Court has consistently applied the Takings Clause to the states, and in so doing recognized, at least tacitly, the right of a citizen to sue the state under the Takings Clause for just compensation." Manning v. Mining & Minerals Div. of the Energy, Minerals & Nat. Res. Dep't, 144 P.3d 87, 90 (N.M. 2006) (citing Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Plan. Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 306-09 (2002); Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 614-15 (2001); Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1027-30 (1992)).

The plaintiffs have petitioned the Supreme Court to take the case. The Court should do exactly that. The justices need not even do much work, if they don't want to. They can just summarily reverse the Fifth Circuit, and endorse, by reference, the reasoning of the district court (technically, a magistrate judge's recommendation, which the district judge then adopted). If the Supreme Court lets this egregious decision stand, three state governments ruling over a total of some 36 million people, will be free to seize private property and then refuse to pay compensation, without fear of having their actions challenged in either state or federal court.

Two of the judges on the panel, Higginbotham and Higginson, filed concurring opinions to the Fifth Circuit's denial of rehearing en banc, in which they defend the panel decision in much more detail than the ruling itself did. Judge Higginbotham argues that the reasoning of Knick only applies to cases brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which applies to cases brought against "persons" who deprive the plaintiffs of their constitutional rights (previous precedent holds, wrongly in my view, that local governments qualify as "persons" under Section 1983, but states do not). But Knickclearly makes the more general point that takings claims deserve access to federal court on par with other constitutional rights ("A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it") and bars the creation of "Catch-22" rules that block such access. A Catch-22 rule that blocks access to both state and federal courts, as the Fifth Circuit decision does, is even more egregious, and even more obviously at odds with Knick.

Judge Higginbotham also advances various arguments to the effect that it is desirable to confine most takings cases to state courts, because of the latter's special expertise in property law issues. These types of arguments were rejected by the Supreme Court in Knick, and for good reason. I criticize them in some detail in my article on Knick (also available here).

Judge Higginson argues that the special circumstances of the incorporation of the Takings Clause against state governments justify the kind of double standard created by the panel ruling. He argues that, even if the Takings Clause, generally, was incorporated against state governments, the right to a damages remedy for "compensation" was not, and therefore can only exist if Congress enacts a specific statute requiring it. But this makes no sense. The right to "just compensation" is right there in the Takings Clause, and there is zero evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow incorporates the rest of the Fifth Amendment against the states, but excluded this part.

Judge Oldham's dissent offers additional (mostly well-taken) criticisms of Judge Higginbotham's and Judge Higginson's opinions. He also outlines various procedural flaws of the original panel opinion. Among other things, the latter was surely wrong to dispense with so an important issue in such a cursory way.

The Oldham dissent does have a few flaws of its own. For example, Judge Oldham endorses the common, but fallacious, view that the Supreme Court incorporated the Takings Clause against the states in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. Chicago (1897). For reasons discussed in Chapter 2 of my book The Grasping Hand, this isn't true. In reality, this was just one of a number of late-19th century cases where the Supreme Court allowed property owners to bring takings cases against states and localities under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Regardless, Judge Oldham and the district court are surely right about the bottom line, and the Supreme Court would do well to adopt the main elements of their reasoning.

NOTE: The plaintiffs in this case are now represented by the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm with which I have longstanding ties, and for which I have written pro-bono amicus briefs in other property rights cases. But I do not have any involvement in this case. Back in 2001-2002, I clerked for Judge Jerry E. Smith, who is one of four Fifth Circuit judges who joined Judge Oldham's dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. The litigation of this case began long after my clerkship ended.

See the original post here:
Supreme Court Should Take and Reverse Fifth Circuit Decision that ... - Reason

The behind-the-scenes legal fight over obtaining evidence from a lawyer who represented former President Donald J. Trump in the investigation into his handling of classified documents has brought into sharper view where the Justice Department might be headed with the case.

According to the wisps of information that have seeped out of sealed court filings and closed-door hearings, prosecutors believe they have compelling evidence that Mr. Trump obstructed the governments efforts to reclaim the sensitive records and may have even misled his own lawyers.

This theory of the case has not changed much since federal agents obtained a search warrant in August based on three possible crimes, obstruction being one of them. The search turned up hundreds of sensitive government records being kept at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trumps heavily trafficked compound in Florida, after his lawyers had earlier assured the Justice Department that all such documents had been returned.

Still, the more recent developments stemming from efforts to force testimony and other evidence from the lawyer, M. Evan Corcoran, in Federal District Court in Washington, indicate that prosecutors have continued to build a case and that the inquiry remains a serious threat to Mr. Trump.

On Wednesday, a federal appeals court weighed in on the matter, ruling that Mr. Corcoran had to give the government what is likely to be dozens of documents related to his work for Mr. Trump as well as return to a grand jury on Friday to answer questions he had previously sought to avoid with assertions of attorney-client privilege.

The appellate ruling effectively let stand the decision of a lower-court judge, Beryl A. Howell, who gave a blunt assessment of the case last week. In a sealed order issued on Friday upholding the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege, Judge Howell noted that prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, had made a prima facie showing that the former president committed criminal violations, according to people familiar with the decision.

The crime-fraud exception allows prosecutors to pierce attorney-client privilege when they have reason to believe that a client in this case the former president used legal advice or legal services in furthering a crime.

Most notably, in a lengthy memorandum of law that accompanied the ruling, Judge Howell, according to two people briefed on the matter, laid out damning assertions made by prosecutors that Mr. Trump knowingly deceived the government and caused Mr. Corcoran to misstate to prosecutors where the documents were being held at Mar-a-Lago.

The existence of Judge Howells order and memorandum was first reported by ABC News. Shortly after the ABC report appeared, Mr. Trumps campaign attacked it as Fake News and ILLEGALLY LEAKED.

There is no factual or legal basis or substance to any case against President Trump, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, said of Judge Howells ruling. The deranged Democrats and their comrades in the mainstream media are corrupting the legal process and weaponizing the justice system in order to manipulate public opinion because they are clearly losing the political battle.

How Times reporters cover politics.We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.

Mr. Smiths office is likely still far from making any charging decisions. And the arguments that prosecutors presented to Judge Howell about possible crimes committed by Mr. Trump have not faced the scrutiny they would in a venue like a trial, where the burden of proof is much higher.

Still, the accumulation of details emerging from the proceedings suggests that Mr. Smith and his team are drilling down on every scrap of evidence they can find in assembling an argument that Mr. Trump may have impeded a federal investigation. For their part, some of Mr. Trumps aides have stated plainly if privately that the government and, in their minds, Judge Howell see him as a criminal.

All this has taken place in spite of predictions from Mr. Trumps allies that the documents investigation would quietly blow away after President Biden was also found to have kept classified materials after his term as vice president. A special counsel, Robert K. Hur, is investigating Mr. Bidens handling of the documents.

Mr. Corcoran, who testified before the grand jury earlier this year, is set to appear before the grand jury again on Friday in compliance with rulings from both Judge Howell and the appeals court. According to two people familiar with the events, he is not intending to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when he testifies, underscoring that he is not the target of the special counsels scrutiny.

In their initial motion to compel Mr. Corcorans testimony, prosecutors also sought to invoke the crime-fraud exception to get testimony from a second lawyer, Jennifer Little, who is based in Atlanta. Ms. Little represents Mr. Trump in the Fulton County, Ga., district attorneys investigation into his efforts to overturn his loss in that state in the 2020 election.

Prosecutors are interested in Ms. Little because she was one of the few criminal defense lawyers working directly with Mr. Trump when the Mar-a-Lago matter heated up at the Justice Department, according to two people briefed on the matter. She counseled Mr. Trump to be cooperative, the people said, and left the case soon after Mr. Corcoran was brought on by Mr. Trump.

Judge Howell ordered Ms. Little to testify before the grand jury in her recent ruling, the people briefed on the matter said. They added that Judge Howell said Ms. Little did not have to turn over a document she had sought to withhold from prosecutors.

Ms. Little and her lawyer did not respond to messages seeking comment.

The extraordinary back-and-forth in the past several weeks between Mr. Trumps lawyers, Mr. Corcoran and his lawyers, and Mr. Smiths prosecutors not to mention with multiple witnesses who are also Mr. Trumps lawyers, as well as all of their lawyers has turned the federal courthouse in Washington into a bustling hive of Trump-related inquiries.

The latest example came on Thursday when lawyers for Mr. Trump including Mr. Corcoran appeared before a new chief judge, James E. Boasberg, with lawyers for former Vice President Mike Pence. They were there to discuss some issues related to Mr. Pences testimony before a grand jury investigating Mr. Trumps efforts to overturn the 2020 election, an inquiry also being overseen by Mr. Smith, the special counsel.

Late last month, prosecutors under Mr. Smith filed court papers seeking to stop Mr. Pence and Mr. Trump from asserting claims of executive privilege to limit the scope of Mr. Pences testimony. Representatives for Mr. Pence have said the former vice president would also seek to pare back his testimony by invoking the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, which is intended to protect the separation of powers.

Judge Boasberg, after hearing arguments on both subjects, said he would issue a decision later, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Read this article:
Court Action Underscores Peril for Trump in Documents Investigation - The New York Times

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under anOff-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant.

On March 23, 2023, Cincinnati Financial Corporation and CFC Investment Company,a subsidiary of Cincinnati Financial Corporation (Borrowers) entered into theFifth Amendment to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement by and among thelenders party thereto and PNC Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent. (FifthAmendment). The Fifth Amendment and Exhibit A to the Fifth Amendment replaceLIBOR references with comprehensive SOFR provisions throughout; add new BaseRate and Benchmark language; add conforming changes provisions; provideBenchmark Replacement language; update the definitions for the Corporate Member,Managed Syndicate, and Managing Agent; include a new category of Permitted Liensin the definition in Section 1.1, and amend Schedule 1.1(A), Exhibit 2.10 andExhibit 2.4.1.

The foregoing description of the Fifth Amendment does not purport to be completeand is qualified in its entirety by the full terms of the First, Second, Third,Fourth and Fifth Amendments; Exhibit A to the Fifth Amendment; and the Amendedand Restated Credit Agreement dated May 13, 2014.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

Exhibit 10.2 - Fourth Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreementdated February 26, 2019 (incorporated herein by reference to the company'sCurrent R eport on Form 8- K dated February 28, 2019, Exhibit

10.6 .

Exhibit 10.3 - Third Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement datedFebruary 4, 2019 (incorporated herein by reference to the company's CurrentR eport on Form 8-K dated Exhibit 10.1) .

Exhibit 10.4 - Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement datedMarch 31, 2016 (incorporated herein by reference to the company's Current Reporton Form 8-K dated April 4, 2016, Exhibit 10.1).

Exhibit 10.5 - First Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement datedFebruary 8, 2016 (incorporated herein by reference to the company's CurrentReport on Form 8-K dated February 11, 2016, Exhibit 10.1).

Exhibit 10.6 - Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated May 13, 2014(incorporated herein by reference to the company's Current Report on Form 8-Kdated May 13, 2014, Exhibit 10.1).

Exhibit 104 - The cover page from this Current Report on Form 8-K, formatted asInline XBRL

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read more:
CINCINNATI FINANCIAL CORP : Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant,...

Mar. 28A local chiropractor intentionally ingested lead to hide the fact that he had poisoned his wife with the substance, a Hartselle investigator said in a recent court filing.

Brian Thomas Mann, 34, a Hartselle resident with a chiropractic business in Decatur, was arrested Sept. 2 after being indicted for the attempted murder of his wife. According to a pending divorce case filed by his wife, Mann intentionally poisoned her with lead particles, leading to her hospitalization from Jan. 18, 2022, to March 3, 2022.

Mann has denied the divorce allegations and pleaded not guilty in the criminal case. He is allowed under a $500,000 bond to work on weekdays with restrictions on his locations, but he must report back to Morgan County Jail on weekends.

Hartselle police Lt. Alan McDearmond last year obtained a search warrant for Mann's Facebook and phone records and last week, after he obtained the records he sought, his affidavit explaining why he had probable cause for the search warrant was disclosed in court filings.

In the affidavit, McDearmond said the Morgan County Department of Human Resources contacted him Jan. 26, 2022, about the "possible intentional poisoning" of Mann's wife, who at the time was unresponsive in UAB Hospital. In attempting to find the source of the lead, McDearmond wrote, investigators went to Mann's house and asked him how his wife could have ingested so much lead. Mann had no answers and "led investigators through the house and assisted in looking for something that might have been in the home."

On Jan. 28, 2022, McDearmond said, he met with Alabama Department of Public Health inspectors at the Coleman Street Northwest house and they collected samples in an unsuccessful effort to find the lead source. Mann at that time said his children had tested negative for lead poisoning, but that he had not been tested, according to the affidavit. McDearmond said Mann had no symptoms of lead poisoning when they met and that witnesses confirmed he had no prior symptoms.

Story continues

At McDearmond's suggestion, Mann then reported to Decatur Morgan Hospital to be tested for lead, according to the affidavit, and reported to the nurse practitioner there that he was suffering from symptoms.

"The nurse practitioner said Brian told her he did an X-ray on himself and observed a substance in his gut, which he believed to be lead. The nurse practitioner advised Brian that she needed to repeat the X-ray," according to the affidavit. "Brian asked why another X-ray was needed and she explained the need to determine if it was chronic or acute ingestion. She said Brian became visibly nervous and she thought he may leave."

The nurse practitioner reported to McDearmond that the X-ray she then took "showed a substance in his colon that didn't appear to have been there for long."

McDearmond said he later subpoenaed Mann's medical records and "believes the medical records indicate Brian intentionally ingested lead to provide the impression he was also being poisoned."

Divorce case

The issues in the criminal case against Mann are also prominent in the divorce case in which his wife alleges he intentionally caused her "to unwittingly ingest particles of lead."

Through her lawyer, Jerry Knight, Mann's wife filed a discovery document asking Mann to admit 32 separate facts. Last week Mann's lawyer, Britt Cauthen, asserted his client's Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself in declining to answer 26 of the requests for admission.

Knight responded by asking the court to deem each of the unanswered requests to be declared as facts for the purpose of the divorce case, arguing that the Fifth Amendment was an improper response and that many of the requests had been admitted previously.

According to Knight, Mann had effectively admitted that he was the beneficiary of $1.3 million of life insurance on his wife, whereas his wife was the beneficiary of only $52,000 of life insurance on Mann. In supporting his claim that these facts had been admitted, Knight's motion said Mann's previous lawyer had turned over documentation of the life insurance policies, thereby waiving any Fifth Amendment privilege.

Mann denied requests for an admission that his wife ingested vitamins or food supplements in capsules provided to her by Mann for several months prior to her hospitalization.

Mann's wife also filed a motion earlier this year seeking to end Mann's visitation rights with their children. The motion argued that Mann's "birth mother is thought to reside in South Korea where (Mann) was born" and that the wife "is fearful (Mann) might flee to South Korea or elsewhere if he continues to be allowed time out of jail." A hearing on the motion is scheduled for April 20.

After Mann's arrest Sept. 2 on the attempted murder charge, he was released on $500,000 bond Sept. 7 with conditions that included wearing an ankle monitor and surrendering his passport within 24 hours of his release. Mann failed to turn in his passport and failed to alert Community Corrections or the court that he could not find it, leading Circuit Judge Charles Elliott to revoke his bond Sept. 14.

On Jan. 11, Elliott who is the judge in both the criminal and divorce cases allowed Mann to be released again on $500,000 bond with conditions that include returning to jail every weekend from 4 p.m. Friday to 8 a.m. Monday. On weekdays, he is not permitted to leave his house after 6 p.m. or before 8 a.m., compliance with which is ensured through a GPS ankle monitor.

Elliott said he was granting Mann's release because his continued incarceration prevented the chiropractor from fulfilling alimony and child support obligations in the divorce case. "I'm having to balance assuring your presence in court, assuring the safety of any potential victim or witness in the case, but also allow for your wife and children to be able to survive and have food to eat and have shelter," Elliott said at the time.

Mann's criminal trial is scheduled for Aug. 14.

eric@decaturdaily.com or 256-340-2435. Twitter @DD_Fleischauer.

See the original post:
Hartselle police: Chiropractor ingested lead to allay suspicion - Yahoo! Voices

Former President Trump's attorneys filed a motion last week to quash a Georgia special purpose grand jury's investigative report which recommended indictments in connection to alleged efforts by him and his allies to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

Now, a judge on Monday gave the district attorney until May 1 to respond.

In a 52-page page filing, which includes 431 more pages of exhibits, Trumps Atlanta-based attorneys, Jennifer Little, Drew Findling and Marissa Goldberg, argued that the conduct by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Fulton Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, who presided over the special grand jury, and the jurors themselves, including special grand jury forewoman Emily Kohrs, tainted the investigation. Trump's legal team demanded another judge recuse the prosecutor's office from handling the case.

"The whole world has watched the process of the (special purpose grand jury) unfold and what they have witnessed was a process that was confusing, flawed and, at times, unconstitutional," the filing says. "Given the scrutiny and gravity of the investigation and those individuals involved namely, the movant President Donald J. Trump, this process should have been handled correctly, fairly and with deference to the law and the highest ethical standards."

In an order Monday, McBurney ordered Willis' office to respond to the motion no later than May 1.

MANHATTAN GRAND JURY WEIGING TRUMP CHARGES EXPECTED TO RECONVENE: REPORT

READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP

This comes as The Wall Street Journal reports a Manhattan grand jury considering charges against Trump over alleged hush money payments to porn actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign was reconvening on Monday as well.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis attends Shaq's 51st Birthday Celebration on March 10, 2023 in Atlanta. Willis's office investigation whether former President Trump or his allies violated state law in pushing to overturn the 2020 election results.

The Georgia motion argues McBurney violated the rights of some of the parties targeted in the investigation by speaking to the media.

In deeming the investigation criminal instead of civil in nature, McBurney caused "a negative ripple effect on the constitutional integrity of the entire process as it permitted the compulsion of testimony from out-of-state witnesses and impacted the application of core constitutional privileges such as the Fifth Amendment and sovereign immunity," according to the motion.

Story continues

"During the course of the SPGJ investigation, the Supervising Judge indicated bias on more than one occasion by making prejudicial comments. More specifically, he made improper remarks impacting the Fifth Amendment rights of the accused. As argued above, this behavior affected the substantive rights of witnesses and non-witnesses alike, including President Trump," the motion says.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg arrives at Manhattan Criminal Court March 27, 2023, in New York City. His office has been investigating alleged hush money payments by former President Trump to porn star Stormy Daniels.

Last summer, as the motion notes, McBurney prevented Willis from questioning Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, a named "target" of the investigation, due to a political conflict of interest. Little, Findling and Goldberg, therefore, argue Willis, a Democrat, should have been disqualified from the entire probe.

The judge on Feb. 13 ordered the release of a redacted version of the final report "as a means of protecting the due process rights of individuals who may be names in such report."

TRUMP HUSH-MONEY GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS 'CANCELED' FOR WEDNESDAY, SOURCES SAY

Former President Trump seen arriving on March 25, 2023, to his first rally since announcing his 2024 presidential candidacy in Waco, Texas. He is facing possible criminal indictments in New York and Georgia.

Just five days later, foreperson Kohrs spoke to the Associated Press, the New York Times and the Atlanta Journal Constitution and gave a 42-minute on-camera interview with NBC and a subsequent on-air interview to CNN. "The foreperson's now widespread statements have provided a first-hand glimpse inside the SPGJ process an otherwise historically secretive affair," the motion says. Another five grand jurors spoke on condition of anonymity to the Constitution Journal on March 15.

"Collectively, the six jurors statements reveal a tainted process incapable of producing valuable evidentiary material and a District Attorneys Office who provided constitutionally flawed instructions," the motion says. "The foreperson disclosed grand jurors opinions as to the credibility of witnesses, their strategic decisions in drafting the report, and general discussions between the jurors. She ultimately revealed that the SPGJ recommended at least twelve people for indictment."

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis launched an investigation into whether former President Trump attempted to interfere in the 2020 election.

The special purpose grand jury was desolved on Jan. 9, 2023. The investigation involved interviews from 75 witnesses, including Trump allies Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows and Lindsey Graham. Willis first announced her investigation into whether Trump violated state law in pushing to overturn the election results in February 2021. The special purpose grand jury was convened about six months before Trump announced another bid for the White House in 2024. In the weeks prior the announcement, Willis reportedly began ramping up the probe.

"President Trump was inextricably intertwined with this investigation since its inception," the motion says. "The efforts under investigation squarely relate to his bid for a second term as President of the United States."

Trump's legal team asked for a hearing on the motion and that it be presided by Chief Superior Court Judge Ural Glanville or another Superior Court judge, but not McBurney.

Fox News Digital reached out to the district attorney's office for comment Monday.

Continued here:
Georgia judge orders Fulton County DA to respond to Trumps motion seeking to quash grand jury report - Yahoo News