Brian Hawthorne on Nostr: npub1v2syc…cmqq5 npub1ccn4e…6czwu #AltText GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' ...
npub1v2sycpx32th4h4aude3jq4g0kgj0p2t5062059l0fx0vcn8njs8spcmqq5 (npub1v2s…mqq5) npub1ccn4ec2s2dmhzu4cthwhy56hcsswk4z3j3kvhlhuvp96phm9zjrqj6czwu (npub1ccn…czwu) #AltText
GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION
FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE CERTAIN MOTIONS
The defendants move this Court (ECF No. 285) to indefinitely postpone their deadline for
unspecified legal motions their fourth attempt to adjourn different pretrial trial deadlines or the
trial itself. See ECF Nos. 66, 160, 167, 183. Their objective is plain to delay trial as long as
possible. And the tactics they deploy are relentless and misleading-they will stop at nothing to
stall the adjudication of the charges against them by a fair and impartial jury of citizens. The Court
should promptly reject the defendants' motion.
***
As part of their unceasing effort to delay this case, the defendants return to the Court yet
again seeking a continuance, this time asking the Court to extend for an indeterminate amount of
time the deadline for filing legal motions that they have had months to prepare. Indeed, under the
Court's earlier scheduling order, see ECF No. 83 at 6, the defendants' pretrial motions were due
to be filed on November 3, 2023, and that deadline was not vacated until the morning of November
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 292 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2024 Page 2 of 9
3, see ECF No. 205. Unless the defendants are now telling the Court that they were simply
ignoring the Court's November 3 deadline and were wholly unprepared to meet it, they must have
been largely prepared by November 3 to file their pretrial motions. Yet now, more than three
months later— and after filing multiple briefs seeking to change other filing deadlines and adjourn
the trial date entirely— they come to the Court seeking additional time to file pretrial motions. This
sequence of events fully exposes the defendants' motive here: to achieve delay.
Their motive is additionally revealed by the nature of one of the motions that the defendants
now suggest that they intend to file: a motion to dismiss based upon purported presidential
immunity. Despite the fact that the criminal conduct charged in the Superseding Indictment took
place entirely after defendant Trump left office, see ECF No. 85 at 11 93-120, he now signals (ECF
No. 285 at 1) that he will ask the Court to dismiss the charges based upon presidential immunity.
The only purpose for such a frivolous motion in this case would be to artificially create a new
avenue for potential delay, this time by attempting to manufacture an opportunity for a frivolous
interlocutory appeal. It is another transparent effort to stall the trial.
GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION
FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE CERTAIN MOTIONS
The defendants move this Court (ECF No. 285) to indefinitely postpone their deadline for
unspecified legal motions their fourth attempt to adjourn different pretrial trial deadlines or the
trial itself. See ECF Nos. 66, 160, 167, 183. Their objective is plain to delay trial as long as
possible. And the tactics they deploy are relentless and misleading-they will stop at nothing to
stall the adjudication of the charges against them by a fair and impartial jury of citizens. The Court
should promptly reject the defendants' motion.
***
As part of their unceasing effort to delay this case, the defendants return to the Court yet
again seeking a continuance, this time asking the Court to extend for an indeterminate amount of
time the deadline for filing legal motions that they have had months to prepare. Indeed, under the
Court's earlier scheduling order, see ECF No. 83 at 6, the defendants' pretrial motions were due
to be filed on November 3, 2023, and that deadline was not vacated until the morning of November
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 292 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2024 Page 2 of 9
3, see ECF No. 205. Unless the defendants are now telling the Court that they were simply
ignoring the Court's November 3 deadline and were wholly unprepared to meet it, they must have
been largely prepared by November 3 to file their pretrial motions. Yet now, more than three
months later— and after filing multiple briefs seeking to change other filing deadlines and adjourn
the trial date entirely— they come to the Court seeking additional time to file pretrial motions. This
sequence of events fully exposes the defendants' motive here: to achieve delay.
Their motive is additionally revealed by the nature of one of the motions that the defendants
now suggest that they intend to file: a motion to dismiss based upon purported presidential
immunity. Despite the fact that the criminal conduct charged in the Superseding Indictment took
place entirely after defendant Trump left office, see ECF No. 85 at 11 93-120, he now signals (ECF
No. 285 at 1) that he will ask the Court to dismiss the charges based upon presidential immunity.
The only purpose for such a frivolous motion in this case would be to artificially create a new
avenue for potential delay, this time by attempting to manufacture an opportunity for a frivolous
interlocutory appeal. It is another transparent effort to stall the trial.