New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan is a seasoned jurist who is no stranger to Trump’s orbit. He has presided over the Trump Organization tax fraud trial, sentenced the former president’s close confidant Allen Weisselberg to prison over his role in the scheme, and overseen former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s criminal fraud case. There is absolutely no question this judge is out of control, biased, and is orchestrating this trial to imprison Trump. He even expanded the gag order on Trump to protect his own daughter, who has admitted to having conversations with her father Ex Parte – totally illegal. Suppose I filed anything in the Supreme Court. Justice Sotomayor would instantly recuse herself because she was on an appeal I had and even disagreed with the government. The fact that she was in my case meant she would recuse herself. This judge is an international disgrace and should be removed from the branch – PERMANENTLY!
Moreover, this judge has abused his power, for this gag order is patently unconstitutional. The gag order is unconstitutional because you cannot prevent the defendant from telling the press that the two witnesses, Daniels and Cohen, are liars and have cut their deals with the prosecutor. Then, the issue of the judge’s daughter; if the judge’s daughter could be a basis for disqualification, using a gag order and then threatening to imprison Trump for comments is not just a restriction of free speech; it is in itself an obstruction of justice. This judge is conflicted by using his power for personal gain. The mere fact that he is having discussions with his daughter, who is anti-Trump, disqualifies this judge. The appellate court or the Second Circuit Federal Appellate Court should sua sponte, which is the Latin legal term that means “of one’s own accord,” dismiss this case since they have a legal requirement to SUPERVISE the courts below. They should legally intervene and remove this judge forthwith. As one lawyer told me, New York practices law differently than any other place in the country.
When asked about the letter Stormy Daniels wrote admitting she never had sex with Trump in a January 2018 interview on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Daniels denied knowing where the letter, which appeared to have a signature different from her own, originated. But she later admitted in a March 2018 “60 Minutes” interview with Anderson Cooper that, under pressure, she did sign the letter denying the affair.
Here is the exchange with Cooper, where she called the letter a “lie.”
Cooper: So you signed and released a statement that said, “I am not denying this affair because I was paid in ‘hush money.’ I’m denying it because it never happened.” That’s a lie?
Daniels: Yes.
Cooper: If it was untruthful, why did you sign it?
Daniels: Because they made it sound like I had no choice.
Cooper: No one was putting a gun to your head.
Daniels: Not physical violence, no.
Cooper: You thought that there would be some sort of legal repercussion if you didn’t sign it?
Daniels: Correct. As a matter of fact, the exact sentence used was, “They can make your life hell in many different ways.”
Cooper: They being…
Daniels: I’m not exactly sure who they were. I believe it to be Michael Cohen.
Her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, desperately tried to attack Trump on anything because he was trying to make a name for himself. He also admitted he wanted to run for president against Trump in 2020. He was standing before the White House, calling Trump a liar. It turned out that Avenatti was convicted of defrauding Stormy Daniels himself. The burning question is, did Trump’s corrupt lawyer, Michael Cohen, pay money to Stormy Daniels that was really blackmail from her lawyer Avenatti? Did the money end up in Avenatti’s pocket? This raises questions was Trump really the victim of a fraud by Avenatti?
Even former Attorney General Bill Bar, who is certainly no friend of Trump, has said that he believes the trial involving former President Donald Trump is an “abomination” and politicized. He appeared on Fox News, and when asked about this trial in New York City, Mr. Barr said that the case is “obviously political” and an “abomination,” noting that charges were brought years later in the case. Every legal profession I know, which includes anti-Trump views, is disgusted with this case, and it is such an abuse of process that it is destroying the entire image of the legal system of the nation. Judge Juan Merchan is out to get Trump at any cost and thinks because he is a judge, he is above the law himself.
A judge is supposed to recuse himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This law MUST be strengthened to include CRIMINAL proceedings automatically instigated if violated. That is the only way to have judges realize that they are NOT ABOVE THE LAW. This cannot be the Department of Justice, which takes orders from the current president. They are prosecuting Trump for having documents when both Biden and Hillary did the same. Democrats will NEVER prosecute Democrats. We desperately need what the Roman Republic had – the Tribune of the Plebs (People), who could bring charges against anyone in government. This was supposed to be the Inspector General, but they have no power to charge anyone and are subordinate to the Department of Justice. This is why this trial will expose all the corruption in our legal system and seal the demise of the United States.
This is the post-Trump made, in which the Judge gaged Trump when, in fact, he is NOT ALLOWED to have ex parte communications without ANYONE ELSE advocating a certain outcome. This judge is turning this trial into what history will call the Trial that Killed the Republic of the United States.
Then, this judge is deliberately interfering in the 2024 election, ordering that Trump must be in court every day. So, if this drags out for months, the object is to prevent Trump from campaigning for president. That is NOT the standard rule demonstrating this judge is putting the entire country at risk and even his own family, for if this case breaks down the entire civil discord, no group of police will be able to protect him if we end up in civil war, which is increasingly becoming more likely. The entire purpose of the rule of law is to MAINTAIN civilization. When there is no rule of law, then anarchy prevails.
One of the dismissed jurors has spoken to the press about the questions they are asked. Kara McGee told the media after she was dismissed that it would be “very difficult for anyone really in this country to not come to this without prior opinions.” She added: “We all have prior opinions on the defendant unless you’ve been living in a card box.” She further explained that one of the questions they asked was: “Do you have opinions about the ability for a former sitting president to be tried in a court of law? I think the way people answered showed how they felt about the case,” she said. “The other one was: Do you have any opinions about legal limits for campaign finance donation amounts? Which I believe was another one that was kinda meant to gauge feelings about the particular case.”
Juries do not take their constitutional role as intended, and judges act as tyrants, for they are doing the very same thing that set the Revolution and the United States in motion. This judge is asking whether they will obey his command and find Trump guilty, refusing to inform them that they have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to judge the law itself and can refuse to apply it if it is not morally just and fairly administered as applied by the prosecutor. You have Kara McGee’s statement as to what she was asked. Now, let’s put this in perspective so you can see that this judge is acting UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, for he is indeed going to find Trump guilty and will try to imprison him, tearing our country apart like some corrupt Banana Republic.
Congress can pass anything. That does not make it CONSTITUTIONAL. The government can pass a law that decrees you MUST kill your firstborn. ONLY when some prosecutor and judge attempt to enforce that law do you have STANDING to challenge it in a court – not before! In France, when a law is passed, the judiciary declares whether it is constitutional – BEFORE it is applied to anyone. In our system, the government gets to abuse us FIRST, and we have to stand up and say that it is illegal. If you do not have the money for lawyers, you are guilty. Court-appointed lawyers have a virtual PERFECT 95%-99% rate of losing trials – that’s what they are there for. This is why we have more people in prison than in any other country, including China and Russia. So, for this judge to refuse to tell the jurors that they have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to reject this law as applied to Trump is in itself a violation of everything the United States fought a revolution for.
The most famous trial where a jury stood up refusing to find the defendant guilty in the face of a corrupt government was that of William Penn (1644-1718), the founder of Pennsylvania. Penn was the leader of the Quakers in London, and you can see why people fled to America. The sect was not recognized by the government and was forbidden to meet in any building for the purpose of worship. In 1670, William Penn held a worship service on a quiet street, which a peaceful group of fellow Quakers attended. Penn and another Quaker, William Mead, were arrested for disturbing the king’s peace and summoned to stand trial.
As the two men entered the courtroom, a bailiff ordered them to put their hats, which they had removed, back on their heads. When they complied, they were called forward and held in contempt of court for being in the courtroom with their hats on. Penn discovered that contempt of court is a personal prerogative of the judge and an infliction of punishment by a judge who becomes the legislator, jury, and sentencing judge.
Penn demanded to know what crime he was being charged with preaching – the cornerstone of Due Process. The judge refused to supply any information as to his crime and instead referred vaguely to common law. When Penn protested that he was entitled to a specific indictment (NOTICE), he was removed from the presence of the judge and jury and confined in an enclosed corner of the room known as the bale dock.
Penn could neither confront the witnesses who accused him of preaching to the Quakers nor ask them questions about their charges against him. Several witnesses testified that Penn had preached to a gathering, which included Mead, but one showed some hesitancy as to whether Mead had been present. The judge turned to Mead and questioned him directly. In effect, the judge became the prosecutor, as he asked Mead if he was guilty. Mead invoked the common-law privilege against self-incrimination, which provoked hostile comments from the judge. The court then sent Mead to join Penn in the bale dock out of the sight of the jury and witnesses.
Finally, after the testimony, the court concluded that the judge had instructed the jury to find the defendants guilty as charged, dictating what verdict he had expected. Penn tried to protest but was silenced and again sent out of the courtroom. The jury, for its part, proved sympathetic to the two defendants and refused the judge’s command to find the defendants guilty.
At this point, the judge became so enraged, as I would expect from Judge Juan Merchan, and sent the jury back to reconsider their verdict. When they returned with the same verdict, the court criticized the jury’s leader, Bushnell, and demanded “a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco…We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it.”
After that, the jury was sent back three more times but returned with the same verdict. Finally, the jury refused to reconsider. The judge then fined each jury member forty marks and ordered them imprisoned until the fine was paid. Penn and Mead went to prison anyway, held in contempt for obeying the bailiff’s order that they put on their hats.
Later, the jury members won a writ of habeas corpus and were released from prison. Penn and Mead left England after their release from prison, having a taste of English justice, and sailed to America. (Earl Warren, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It”, p. 113-115). Thus, Pennsylvania was founded. This was the Bushel’s Case (1670) 124 E.R. 1006, a famous English decision on the role of juries and that they possessed independence to decide the validity of the law being prosecuted. American judges who REFUSE to inform the jury of their CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY are traitors to the very foundation of the United States and are making war against the Constitution.
In 1895, in the case of Sparf v. United States written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the United States Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such an argument has been presented to them, informing the jury of their Constitutional Right under We the People.
In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge. This illustrates that the very same powers of the judge in the case against William Penn are alive and well. This is what is taking place in New York right now by the very questions this judge is asking the jurors – will you find Trump guilty because I said he is?
In recent rulings, the courts have continued to prohibit informing juries about jury their CONSTITUTIONAL right to nullification. In a 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan (417 F.2d 1002), the Court affirmed the concept of jury nullification but upheld the court’s power to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect. The Moylan court wrote:
“If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit.” — 4th Circuit Court of Appeals United States v. Moylan 1969
So, how can the government refuse to explain the right of the jury? This is the ultimate tyranny, depriving the jury of informing them that they are the CHECK AND BALANCE against corrupt prosecutions that are taking place right now! Disgracing the United States on the world stage. Judge Juan Merchan is destroying the United States just as the judge did in the case against William Penn. This is what it always comes down to: Justice = Just US.
The Democrats think that they can simply oppress Trump and the Republicans and rig the election to keep their agenda of Climate Change, reducing the population by 2 billion+, and waging World War III against Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea simultaneously. On top of that, they are pushing to terminate all paper money, moving to a DIGITAL dollar to ensure you cannot pay that 16-year-old girl next door to watch the kids while you and your wife go to dinner. How about paying that enterprising young boy to shovel your driveway when Climate Change dumps three feet of snow on your house because of Global Warming? OMG – they are not paying taxes, which is why the government cannot balance the budget – it’s all your fault. As the data already shows, the 80,000 armed IRS agents target people under $200,000 because those above have accountants and lawyers.
This insane Judge Juan Merchan thought by requiring Trump to be in court every day for at least the next two months, he would end his campaign for president, preventing him from ordinarily scheduling a series of campaign speeches at fundraisers and rallies. This is violating everyone’s right to vote. This judge has also effectively protected Biden and the Democrats from any claim that he is afraid of debating Trump when he will not be allowed to leave New York City – the cesspool of the United States – not the Big Apple.
Even our foreign clients see it as a political trial. This judge has not just undermined the respect for the American legal system, but he has destroyed the image of the United States as the land of the free, home of the brave, and the promise of justice for all. This calls into question asking our young men to die on the battlefield for a Constitution and rights that the courts have been shredding since COVID. According to Gallup Polls, the confidence in our legal system in 2014 was only 47%, compared to Russia at 28%. In June 2022, the Gallup Poll reported that the CONFIDENCE in the Legam System collapsed to 25% – lower than in Russia in 2014.
Judge Juan Merchan should have permanently dismissed this case, if not the bench, but he is so biased that they think they can pull this off. He intends to sentence Trump to prison Trump, and this prosecutor already says it is time for “rich white guys” to go to prison. This judge has guaranteed that Trump will be using this trial as the center point of how bad the Swamp has become. 
NOT one of our thousands of non-US institutions views this as a legitimate trial., even those who dislike Trump. You cannot do this in a nation that is supposed to be the beacon of liberty to the world when we also have more people in prison than Russia or China, even when China has 1.5 billion compared to our 300 million. Either Americans are the most corrupt people on the planet, or we have the most corrupt legal system. Trust me – it is the latter.
This trial will be the first to tear the United States apart at the seams. Once the rule of law collapses, NO NATION has ever survived as history stands as witness. The arrogance of this judge has been unimaginable since the trial of William Penn.
We can see what the computer is projecting. Out of six separate models, four all give this election to Trump. But two have unimaginable returns of 59% to 61%. This abuse of this judge will most likely swing the undecided to Trump because this is exposing how bad the legal system has become.
Then, look at the forecast for 2028. We are looking at a 78% v 19.2% on the first model, which has never been seen except for maybe George Washington. But the underlying response is even worse. The computer is showing a higher probability that the 2028 election will not even take place. It is rapidly approaching the time to turn the lights out on this failed experiment of a Republic they call a Democracy, which it is not – the United States. We will have to redesign the government just as they did in 1776.
