The Stupid (and, by the way, dishonorable) Judge Aileen Cannon

[ouch]

Allow me to start off by saying that there's no way that I'd become a judge because I know that my brain wouldn't be wired properly to be one. Yet, here we have Judge Cannon who thinks that she's a fair and proper judge. So, my question is, after continuously learning about how messed up her judgy calls are and basically how stupid she is, is there a chance in hell that she'll be terminated as a judge?

MSN

As the report notes, in the case of Christopher Wilkins, she provided jurors with a verdict form that did not list "not guilty" as an option and defense lawyer Jeffrey Garland formally filed an appeal on Thursday.

In an interview, he explained, "How far does somebody have to go to school to say that a verdict form is supposed to say guilty and not guilty? That would be one of the more egregious versions of jury instruction error… it’s such a rare error.”

He added, "This is the judge’s deal. This is nobody else’s deal. I’m gonna tell ya, I’ve done a lot of appeals, and I’ve got a pretty good winning record. This is a great issue."

 

[Credence]

Whoa. That is huge IMO

 

[Common Sense 1]

The left pissed at Judge Cannon?
Wow What a surprise.....

More upset will be coming

 

[Galactic Spin]

The left pissed at Judge Cannon?
Wow What a surprise.....

More upset will be coming

Off topic whining.

Scared of the topic?

 

[ouch]

The left pissed at Judge Cannon?
Wow What a surprise.....

More upset will be coming

The Left (and Right) should be pissed off. All court cases should be presided over by fair and honorable judges - not Walmart specials.

 

[mike2810]

The left pissed at Judge Cannon?
Wow What a surprise.....

More upset will be coming

In the case mentioned in the OP. do you agree with Judge Cannon in providing a jury verdict slip without the option of "not guilty"?

 

[Frank Apisa]

I did not witness this, but was told afterwards: In a courts martial on an air base where I served, the presiding judge, at the start of the trial, ordered the AP's to "Bring the guilty man in."

Jeez!

 

[JasperL]

The left pissed at Judge Cannon?
Wow What a surprise.....

More upset will be coming

She's an idiot and an incompetent.

As best I can tell, she's presided over just four trials and screwed up three of them. And they're stuff anyone sitting on a US District Court should know. Like, you know, giving the jurors a form that provides guilty or not guilty options.... What's more incredible is the prosecutors and defense agreed on a form, idiot Judge Cannon rejected that for her own creation, then screwed that up and provided an obviously guilty man the good chance at having the verdict overturned and at least a new trial.

 

[Frank Apisa]

She's an idiot and an incompetent.

As best I can tell, she's presided over just four trials and screwed up three of them. And they're stuff anyone sitting on a US District Court should know. Like, you know, giving the jurors a form that provides guilty or not guilty options.... What's more incredible is the prosecutors and defense agreed on a form, idiot Judge Cannon rejected that for her own creation, then screwed that up and provided an obviously guilty man the good chance at having the verdict overturned and at least a new trial.

I suspect Cannon is not long for the bench. But she more than likely will survive until after the Trump affair.

 

[911Sparky]

She also forgot to swear in the jury until 6 hours after the trial began, this happened a couple months ago.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The left pissed at Judge Cannon?
Wow What a surprise.....

More upset will be coming

There appears to be a basic misunderstanding of how judges are supposed to do their job.

Judges are supposed to make their decisions based on the law and facts that are argued before them and that is ALL the law and facts that the judges are supposed to consider. If counsel does not argue a point of law that is favorable to their case or that is unfavorable to the opposition case, then the judge is not supposed to consider that point of law (predating cases cited in cases that are not specifically cited by counsel argued may be considered by the judge as the are a part of the cited cases).

I am personally familiar with two cases where that was an essential factor. In one, the court would have made a decision (likely favorable to the Plaintiff) had not counsel for the Respondent cited a 300 year old statute that said that the court actually had no jurisdiction to hear the case at all. Had counsel not cited that case the court could have proceeded on the basis that the parties had concurred in the proceeding being held in that court. In the other, the court based its decision on a 200 year old case which specifically detailed what decision should be made in similar circumstances. Had that case (which neither the court nor counsel for the appellant had ever heard of) not been cited, the decision of the court would likely have been the reverse of the one it actually made.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I did not witness this, but was told afterwards: In a courts martial on an air base where I served, the presiding judge, at the start of the trial, ordered the AP's to "Bring the guilty man in."

Jeez!

You are referring to the traditional (and apocryphal) "Sergeant, march the guilty bugger in." (from the French "Sergent. Mars le salaud coupable dans.") remark often attributed to military tribunals.

 

[mrjurrs]

Allow me to start off by saying that there's no way that I'd become a judge because I know that my brain wouldn't be wired properly to be one. Yet, here we have Judge Cannon who thinks that she's a fair and proper judge. So, my question is, after continuously learning about how messed up her judgy calls are and basically how stupid she is, is there a chance in hell that she'll be terminated as a judge?

MSN

As the report notes, in the case of Christopher Wilkins, she provided jurors with a verdict form that did not list "not guilty" as an option and defense lawyer Jeffrey Garland formally filed an appeal on Thursday.

In an interview, he explained, "How far does somebody have to go to school to say that a verdict form is supposed to say guilty and not guilty? That would be one of the more egregious versions of jury instruction error… it’s such a rare error.”

He added, "This is the judge’s deal. This is nobody else’s deal. I’m gonna tell ya, I’ve done a lot of appeals, and I’ve got a pretty good winning record. This is a great issue."

Stupidity is only grounds for impeachment if it is a nonpartisan conclusion.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You are referring to the traditional (and apocryphal) "Sergeant, march the guilty bugger in." (from the French "Sergent. Mars le salaud coupable dans.") remark often attributed to military tribunals.

Almost certainly. I was pretty sure the thing was apocryphal...but it just doesn't sound as funny if you don't make it sound real as possible.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Almost certainly. I was pretty sure the thing was apocryphal...but it just doesn't sound as funny if you don't make it sound real as possible.

Considering that in military trials the determining body almost always has had full access to all of the investigative paperwork, in about 90+% of the cases "March the guilty bugger in." is actually appropriate. The only issues in most military trials is the ACTUAL offence committed, the degree of culpability of the offender, and the appropriate penalty to be imposed since it is almost always the case that the accused "did the deed alleged". One of the reasons why that is the case is that the paperwork involved in a military trial is a real pain in the butt so no one really wants to go through it unless necessary.

In reality, the most common "verdict" in the case of an alleged "military offence" is "Sergeant, would you please see what you can do to straighten this soldier out?". There is no paperwork and the soldier's career isn't blighted.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Considering that in military trials the determining body almost always has had full access to all of the investigative paperwork, in about 90+% of the cases "March the guilty bugger in." is actually appropriate. The only issues in most military trials is the ACTUAL offence committed, the degree of culpability of the offender, and the appropriate penalty to be imposed since it is almost always the case that the accused "did the deed alleged". One of the reasons why that is the case is that the paperwork involved in a military trial is a real pain in the butt so no one really wants to go through it unless necessary.

In reality, the most common "verdict" in the case of an alleged "military offence" is "Sergeant, would you please see what you can do to straighten this soldier out?". There is no paperwork and the soldier's career isn't blighted.

My run-in with military justice came when I was morning report clerk. Managed to get an off-the-books three day to go home. The squadron Sergeant Major kinda okayed it...and so did the squadron adjutant. When I came back from the week-end, I discovered that the adjutant had been replaced.

Oh, shit! Sergeant Major tells me that squadron commander wanted to see me. So I reported. Captain says, "I know you were AWOL...and I'm not going to ask you any questions so you don't lie to me. Sign this. It was a blank Article 15 page...and I signed. He dismissed me.

Sergeant Major meets me outside and asks, "Did you mention any names?"

"No, sir," says I...almost shitting in my pants.

"Smart move!" he says.

I was very young. Had just turned 18.

Interesting happening.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

My run-in with military justice came when I was morning report clerk. Managed to get an off-the-books three day to go home. The squadron Sergeant Major kinda okayed it...and so did the squadron adjutant. When I came back from the week-end, I discovered that the adjutant had been replaced.

Oh, shit! Sergeant Major tells me that squadron commander wanted to see me. So I reported. Captain says, "I know you were AWOL...and I'm not going to ask you any questions so you don't lie to me. Sign this. It was a blank Article 15 page...and I signed. He dismissed me.

Sergeant Major meets me outside and asks, "Did you mention any names?"

"No, sir," says I...almost shitting in my pants.

"Smart move!" he says.

I was very young. Had just turned 18.

Interesting happening.

More correctly "I was very young. Had just turned 18. But was a really quick learner.".

One of the oldest "off the books" military offences is "Conduct likely to annoy a Sergeant." (another is "Conduct likely to embarrass an officer.").

 

[Common Sense 1]

Off topic whining.

Scared of the topic?

Judge Cannon will not be removed from the case (Trump) so just give us a break squealing
about her over and over.

If she made a mistake I would assume she will be overruled by an appeals court.
Judges are overruled on a regular basis. It's the way our system works.
You have your DC judge for the other trial and should be happy.

 

[ouch]

Judge Cannon will not be removed from the case (Trump) so just give us a break squealing
about her over and over.

If she made a mistake I would assume she will be overruled by an appeals court.
Judges are overruled on a regular basis. It's the way our system works.
You have your DC judge for the other trial and should be happy.

Isn't there a much larger concern about a judge who seems to play the role with deciding how to sway a plea/verdict much like Judge Cannon's court room behavior? Most folks like a judge who presides over trials who is fair. So far, the J6 judge appears to be handling matters fairly. That could change and if it does, then it should be pointed out and if it gets way out of hand, then said judge should be removed in my opinion. Judge Cannon has displayed enough incompetence, and, or dishonesty that holds concerns with the case stated in the OP as well as the very important MAL doc's case that begs for her removal. This shouldn't be a battle over which political side should allow their favorite biased judge to rule court cases - but honorable and fair judges who know how to properly judge cases should be the main objective. Judge Cannon is clearly a big problem!

 

[ouch]

DJT's Cannonball keeps playing games while Jack Smith keeps taking it. None of this probably matters anyhow - classified secrets have already been given out and once DJT becomes dictator over the US after the next election, watch what happens during his magical screaming show on steroids then. Maybe DJT will 'officially' make judge Cannon queen of Mar-a-Lago.

Legal experts shred Judge Aileen Cannon for granting Trump "delay"

"Not a good sign for those who want a trial in May," former Mueller prosecutor warns.

www.salon.com

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon authorized a paperless order delaying the deadlines she'd previously set for October 2023 through May 2024, when the trial for Trump and his three co-defendants in the case is scheduled to start in Fort Pierce, Florida.



"Judge Cannon puts CIPA deadlines on hold until she rules on Trump’s pending motions," national security lawyer Bradley Moss wrote on X, formerly Twitter. "Now the real question becomes how long it takes her to make a ruling."


"Not a good sign for those who want a trial in May. We haven’t even reached the point in CIPA where the court has truly difficult decisions to make," tweeted Brandon Van Grack, a former Justice Department official who served on special counsel Bob Mueller's team.

 

[Cardinal]

Cannon has learned from her mistakes from last year. Rather than make non-legal rulings that'll be overturned by the appeals court, she's simply entertaining every single delay in order to guarantee that trial never starts (let alone concludes) before the election. She knows how to be a biased a judge now.

 

[mrjurrs]

Allow me to start off by saying that there's no way that I'd become a judge because I know that my brain wouldn't be wired properly to be one. Yet, here we have Judge Cannon who thinks that she's a fair and proper judge. So, my question is, after continuously learning about how messed up her judgy calls are and basically how stupid she is, is there a chance in hell that she'll be terminated as a judge?

MSN

As the report notes, in the case of Christopher Wilkins, she provided jurors with a verdict form that did not list "not guilty" as an option and defense lawyer Jeffrey Garland formally filed an appeal on Thursday.

In an interview, he explained, "How far does somebody have to go to school to say that a verdict form is supposed to say guilty and not guilty? That would be one of the more egregious versions of jury instruction error… it’s such a rare error.”

He added, "This is the judge’s deal. This is nobody else’s deal. I’m gonna tell ya, I’ve done a lot of appeals, and I’ve got a pretty good winning record. This is a great issue."

Cannot be terminated. Can be impeached.

 

[poweRob]

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What is really interesting is the Defendant's position that the trial has to be delayed because the Prosecution is being slow to deliver its copies of the material that the Defendant's created in the first place or which was seized from the Defendants pursuant to valid search warrants.