5 Burst results for "Stanley Woodward"
Opening Arguments
"stanley woodward" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Hey. So eventually, Peter Navarro did get around to answering this complaint. In October, he filed a truly bizarre motion for summary judgment, which kind of perfect the course. Yeah. By then, he'd hired Stan brand a longtime D.C. attorney without heretofore good reputation and also his partner Stanley Woodward. These guys appear to have thrown their hats in with the maga weirdos. It's so weird. It's a bizarre thing to say. But anyway, they represent Trump's comms lackey, Dan scavino, Trump's aide Walt nada, who moved the boxes to presidential records around Mar-a-Lago, and they represent our old buddy cash Patel. Plus, yeah, no. They represent at least 1 January 6th defendant who stormed the capitol. Oh, good, good. Yeah, I mean, look, everybody's entitled to counsel. But anyway, so fair enough. So bran first Brandon Woodward repeated the earlier assertion that there was something hinky about narrow trying to get government property back at the same time, Navarro was under criminal investigation. And they did not think it was that their client is like a career criminal. Yeah, she's a serially ignore of things that say we will file process if you keep ignoring it anyway. Right, exactly. He ignored Congress. He ignored ignored Nara. He ignored the Justice Department. If you ignore these things, they don't disappear. They tend to get worse. Yeah. So then Brandon Woodward argued that the PRA has neither a deadline nor any means for the government to enforce it. Let's read a little bit here. Base is the entirety of its grant upon a nonexistent deadline. The PRA merely puts the onus on the archivist to account for the maintenance and custody of presidential records of former presidents, while the PRA may authorize the archivists to seek records once a presidential administration has concluded, it provides the archivist with neither a hard deadline by which to do so nor an enforcement mechanism by which to do so. So that's a weird argument. And they say, so they cite in support of it. An article in The New York Times by Maggie haberman and Mike Schmidt. Not known governmental lawyers right now. By the way, I mean, again, we read section 22 O two that that argument is bonkers, right? The PRA does no such thing it explicitly says from its inception. This was the Congress intent was to say when you make stuff in The White House that stuff belongs to the people not to you. And you have to have to forward it if you do it on your personal account. You have 20 days to give it to the government. It's clearly got it done. Yeah, where do they get this? No deadline. I could understand if it says, you know, promptly or whatever, but it says to what he did. I think they mean like it doesn't say when narrows after the end of administration. I don't know, it's all bonkers. They also point to a case where the court said, there was no private right of civilians to sue to enforce the PRA and from which they infer that the government itself is barred from taking any enforcement action. I mean, it's so flabby. It's just beneath notice. Yeah, there are so many things in this case that are not things I just puts me in the Liz. I will tell you I read the motion to dismiss from front to back. So victory is mine. Okay. So then Brandon Woodward threw in some nonsense about replevin only applying to things with monetary value. And then they wound up by concluding that the government's claim must be dismissed as baseless legal conclusions masquerading as factual allegations. Meow. Then I guess I like patted themselves on the back for making it through the whole thing with a straight face and went out for a nice steak. Yeah. Anyway, at that point. Well done with ketchup. Yeah, good job, guys. Heck of a job. At which point, the government started clearing its throat pretty loudly about that previously filed motion for summary judgment because jiminy freaking Christmas, can you believe this shit? I mean, that's basically what they said in their subsequent briefings. I love the part where Navarro's lawyers argued that the emails were not subject to replenish on the ground that his possession was the result of an innocent oversight and therefore not willful. Of course. Navarro was rather willfully not giving them back, so rather hard to credit that argument much, but hey, Pete tried. His new lawyers also claim that Navarro wasn't entirely sure if he even has any presidential records in his possession, but absolutely promises that once some nonexistent taint team review special master processes complete, presumably at some future date long, long into the future when I guess they think Ron DeSantis will be president, right? The look, then and only then Navarro says he will fork over any presidential records that he might have. And in response to that, the government rather dryly pointed out that Navarro's previous lawyer, the aforementioned earth and water guy John Irving, conceded, in that first letter that, quote, there are between 202 150 presidential records in the 1700 emails reviewed, which, a pretty high percentage, Navarro is not sending out too many personal emails out of that proton mail account. And in other words, quote, the clear record and the undisputed fact that Navarro created or received the emails on his private email account relating to and while performing duties for the administration and neither included them in his official emails, nor returned them to Nara upon request, therefore wrongfully detaining them is the sole relevant inquiry and that's a 100% of the law when it comes to replevin, right? You have my stuff and I want my stuff back. What are the odds that Peter Navarro's email is like, Peter Navarro, White House dojo or, you know, what are the odds that the email itself, the handle, his proton mail account is like, Peter Navarro, king of The White House at proton mail dot com. You know this was his work email. You know that like the entirety of those emails are like, you know, it's not like Bed Bath & Beyond coupons or old navy. It's all work emails. It's full of shit. Anyway, go ahead, I'm sorry. I interrupted. No, no, no, that was good. 70 of your best, Peter Navarro eval. Anyway, Navarro's new lawyers also claim that the PRA is vague as to whether it applies to emails or just paper letters, which, you know, seems like an odd argument to make about a statute that was amended in 2014 to add a specific provision about non official electronic messaging accounts. I mean, they are just trying shit. But okay. This week, judge collar caudalie, unceremoniously dropkick Navarro's arguments and told him to come back. The list of his claims that the judge rejected was long. She was definitely not down with the claim that Navarro didn't have to hand stuff over because the government had one side of the email exchange and that was enough. He was literally made this argument. Anyway, yeah. And she was downright pissed off that Navarro's lawyers tried to have it both ways and pretend there was a dispute as to whether Navarro had any presidential records in his possession because remember, John Irving copped to it because, you know, he's the oil spell. So she wrote, the court again notes that this is not a denial of the stated fact, but an evasion. Doctor Navarro merely contends that because of the ongoing audit, notwithstanding the results of its initial search, he can not say whether or whether or what presidential records are in his possession custody and or control. Nonetheless, in view of the entire record, it is quite clear that this is an effort artificially to create a dispute where there is no factual basis for one. Yeah, that is one pistol federal judge. But look, for our purposes, what's most interesting is what she has to say about the presidential records act, because remember,
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"stanley woodward" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"The oath keepers. And welcome to the podcast. Thanks for joining me. A lot going on. I know in the courtroom and thanks for taking the time to step out and give us an update. How in your assessment is this trial going? And where is it at what stage are we at right now? Yeah, let me just say, first of all, that it's a pleasure to be on the podcast today. As you know, the local court rules prohibit me from discussing the evidence that's in the case that we have to be careful not to run astray of violating the local court rules. But there are many things I can tell you. First of all, I can say that we think the trial is going well. That we have an outstanding team of attorneys working on this case. I'm representing Stewart roads along with Bill linder with Phil lender and James Lee bright from Dallas, Texas, to outstanding lawyers, we have the other defendants, Kelly maggs has Stanley Woodward and Julie Halle from Washington, D.C., Ken harrelson, has Brad guy from New Jersey. Jessica Watkins has a Jonathan Chris from Pennsylvania and mister Thomas Caldwell has bay Fisher from Maryland. So we have a lot of outstanding attorneys on this case and we have a great camaraderie and rapport with each other. So I just think we have an outstanding team in this trial on behalf of the defense. Let's talk about before we talk about the evidence or at least specifically Stuart roads. Let's talk about the concern that so many of us have that we are in an environment where there is intense political bias against these defendants. I mean, they're entitled to a jury of their peers. It's obviously the judge's job to make sure that that's the case, but we have an Obama judge Amit meta. By and large these judges have been very reluctant to say anything other than, yeah, we've been in D.C. a long time. These jurors are wonderful. My question is, do you feel confident even with a D.C. jury and a kind of progressive political establishment that you can get a fair trial? Well, that's a good question. And obviously, we won't know the answer to that until the trial is over. But let me just say this, we spent three days selecting the jury two weeks ago. And we went through an enormous amount of questions to the potential jurors. The jury pool was a large pool, the judge called in many more potential jars than normal and there were a lot of jurors, a lot of individuals on the jury panel that were excused because of cause. And so these were people who truthfully said, I don't think I can render a fair verdict. I don't think I can be fair in this situation. And you know, all during that process, my prayer was that people would just tell the truth. If they were so convinced about their views of January 6th and what these defendants were involved in, that they could not be fair, would just tell the truth. And you know, I think in large measure, most of them did that. And so, you know, I'm optimistic that we have a good jury. I'm an optimist by nature, and I'm just going to say that I think that the judge did a good job in this case. I mean, certainly, you know, there were decisions that he's made that we disagreed with, but overall, I'm hopeful that we have a good jury listening to the evidence in this case.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"stanley woodward" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Guys, there's a huge trial going on the oath keepers trial and I'm delighted to welcome to the podcast Ed tarpley, Ed's a criminal defense attorney from Louisiana. He's practiced law there for 42 years. In fact, he served as the district attorney in Louisiana from 1991 to 1997. He's one of the attorneys on the team representing Stuart roads Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the oath keepers. And welcome to the podcast. Thanks for joining me. A lot going on. I know in the courtroom and thanks for taking the time to step out and give us an update. How in your assessment is this trial going? And where is it at what stage are we at right now? Yeah, let me just say, first of all, that it's a pleasure to be on the podcast today. As you know, the local court rules prohibit me from discussing the evidence that's in the case that we have to be careful not to run astray of violating the local court rules. But there are many things I can tell you. First of all, I can say that we think the trial is going well. That we have an outstanding team of attorneys working on this case. I'm representing Stewart roads along with Bill linder with Phil lender and James Lee bright from Dallas, Texas, to outstanding lawyers, we have the other defendants, Kelly maggs has Stanley Woodward and Julie Halle from Washington, D.C., Ken harrelson, has Brad guy from New Jersey. Jessica Watkins has a Jonathan Chris from Pennsylvania and mister Thomas Caldwell has bay Fisher from Maryland. So we have a lot of outstanding attorneys on this case and we have a great camaraderie and rapport with each other. So I just think we have an outstanding team in this trial on behalf of the defense.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Dinesh Interviews the Attorney for Oath Keepers' Founder Stuart Rhodes
"Guys, there's a huge trial going on the oath keepers trial and I'm delighted to welcome to the podcast Ed tarpley, Ed's a criminal defense attorney from Louisiana. He's practiced law there for 42 years. In fact, he served as the district attorney in Louisiana from 1991 to 1997. He's one of the attorneys on the team representing Stuart roads Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the oath keepers. And welcome to the podcast. Thanks for joining me. A lot going on. I know in the courtroom and thanks for taking the time to step out and give us an update. How in your assessment is this trial going? And where is it at what stage are we at right now? Yeah, let me just say, first of all, that it's a pleasure to be on the podcast today. As you know, the local court rules prohibit me from discussing the evidence that's in the case that we have to be careful not to run astray of violating the local court rules. But there are many things I can tell you. First of all, I can say that we think the trial is going well. That we have an outstanding team of attorneys working on this case. I'm representing Stewart roads along with Bill linder with Phil lender and James Lee bright from Dallas, Texas, to outstanding lawyers, we have the other defendants, Kelly maggs has Stanley Woodward and Julie Halle from Washington, D.C., Ken harrelson, has Brad guy from New Jersey. Jessica Watkins has a Jonathan Chris from Pennsylvania and mister Thomas Caldwell has bay Fisher from Maryland. So we have a lot of outstanding attorneys on this case and we have a great camaraderie and rapport with each other. So I just think we have an outstanding team in this trial on behalf of the defense.
77WABC Radio
"stanley woodward" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"Mister Epstein and mister Roman did not respond to requests for a course not you a hole. The names of those receiving the latest ran a subpoenas in the investigation related to January 6th have dribbled out gradually with investigators casting a wide net on a range of issues, including mister Trump's post election fundraising in the so called fake elector scheme. So now they're investigating January 6th, the constitutional efforts to fight, the election, fundraising efforts, president Trump, after he was president, the documents, and they've subpoenaed around 40 people. I bet they've subpoenaed a hundred now. One of the recipients people familiar with the case said, Dan scavino, mister Trump's social media director who rose from working at a, look how they put him down. And he Trump golf course to become one of the most loyal west wing a and Maggie how did you start out? What did you start out? Where were you writing? Obituaries? For your weekly newspaper? Has remained an adviser since mister Trump left office. Stanley Woodward won a mister Shiva's lawyers declined to comment. This is the game they play. See, we got both sides. In other words, Bernie Carrick. Former New York City police commissioner, mister carrot, who promoted claims of voter fraud alongside his friend Rudy Giuliani. So what? Was issued a subpoena by prosecutors with the U.S. attorney's office in Washington. His lawyer, Timothy, pylos and on Monday, mister parler said his client had initially offered to grant an interview voluntarily. No, no, no, no. They don't want anything voluntarily. The subpoena seek information in connection with the fake electors plan. Vermont's associates of mister Trump have received subpoenas related to other aspects of the investigations into his efforts to cling to power. But in a new line of inquiry, some of the latest subpoenas focus on the activities of the save America political action committee, the main political fundraising conduit for mister Trump since he left off. Here's what is going on. These career bureaucrats are sitting around, they hate Trump's guts. Headed by a guy who was an Obama guy, appointed by Biden to run the U.S. attorney's office. He's a radical left. This his wife is a radical leftist. They're in D.C.. That's the U.S. attorney. This guy graves. Matt graves, I think, his name is. And they're sitting around a table. What else can we do? What did we find? We got this call. Let's go after the lawyers. Can you imagine having access to a lawyer's cell phone records? Can you imagine and I'm sure they're using the crime fraud exception under the under the various codes of conduct in the rare states. But so what? This is a massive effort to threaten the Republican Party. The threat in the Trump campaign that threatened Trump supporters and to ensure that in the future, nobody dares to challenge the Electoral College. But that's not the purpose of the Electoral College. This country we're not losing it in many ways we've already lost it. That's this department has spent more than a year focused on investigating hundreds of rioters who were on ground at the capitol. But this spring started issuing grand jury subpoenas to people like Ali Alexander, a prime minister organizer with a pro Trump stopped the steel group, who helped plan the march to the capitol after mister Trump gave a speech that day at the ellipse near The White House. Look at this, freedom of association, freedom of speech, political campaigns. The FBI, the U.S. attorney's office and the attorney general of the United States are up to their eyeballs and politics. Now, up to their eyeballs and politics. And two months before the midterm election. America. You better wake up and you're better wake up fast. While it remains unclear, how many subpoenas have been issued in that early round, the information they saw was broad. Oh, yeah. Broad, can you imagine? According to one subpoena obtained by The New York Times, say yes for any records or communications from people who organize spoke at or provided security for mister Trump's rally at the ellipse. You believe that? They also requested information about any members of the executive and legislative branches who may have taken part in planning or executing the rally. The rally, if this is not a violation, of the First Amendment, our framers are rolling in their graves right now. We're trying to obstruct influence on Peter delay. The certification of the presidential election. Oh, I've got some for you. Maxine waters, Jamie Raskin, Barbara boxer. At least 20 of the subpoenas were sent out and saw an information about and communications with several lawyers, including Giuliani and eastman. Took part in the elector scheme. And then I have here one more second, mister producer. I know I'm way over here. At the same time, and it's not an accident, this from the Business Insider. With more than 40 Trump lawyers singled out for ethics complaints. And even more facing charges, legal experts joke maga now stands for making attorneys get attorneys. It's called the 65 project. So the 65 project is made up of all these activists leftist lawyers. Among others, and they're filing ethics complaints in these various states against these various lawyers to take away their law license. They're living. Their career,