John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark have property confiscated by FBI.

Trump lawyer with Santa Fe ties has phone taken by federal agents

A Santa Fe-based lawyer who helped formulate a discredited theory about mass voter fraud during the 2000 presidential election was the recipient of a search warrant served by federal agents, who confiscated his cellphone outside a restaurant last week.

Court documents filed by John Eastman's attorneys in New Mexico's U.S. District Court ask a judge to return the phone, which was taken by agents outside a restaurant June 22.

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/n...cle_0eae96b2-f68d-11ec-896f-2312d47011fc.html
 
A Fox News piece on the matter Monday night included video of agents serving the warrant, during which Eastman repeatedly asked to see the warrant before surrendering the cellphone. After he gave an agent the phone, he was handed the warrant.

"I want you to see that they took my property before providing me the warrant. I'd like to read the warrant," Eastman said in the video clip.
 
Given the video that's emerged of that incident, I'd say Eastman's getting his phone back, and anything the FBI or DOJ got from it is totally inadmissible in a court proceeding.
 
BidenPresident said:
A Fox News piece on the matter Monday night included video of agents serving the warrant, during which Eastman repeatedly asked to see the warrant before surrendering the cellphone. After he gave an agent the phone, he was handed the warrant.

"I want you to see that they took my property before providing me the warrant. I'd like to read the warrant," Eastman said in the video clip.
Click to expand...

Really weird that someone who wanted to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States is suddenly a strict constitutionalist.
 
BidenPresident said:
A Fox News piece on the matter Monday night included video of agents serving the warrant, during which Eastman repeatedly asked to see the warrant before surrendering the cellphone. After he gave an agent the phone, he was handed the warrant.

"I want you to see that they took my property before providing me the warrant. I'd like to read the warrant," Eastman said in the video clip.
Click to expand...

Yep, totally illegal seizure of his property and it's all on video. The FBI screwed the pooch on that one. They had to serve the warrant first, then take his phone, not the other way around. Yes, it is a technicality, but Eastman's a lawyer and the FBI should have known better. That phone and everything on it is inadmissible.

I will expect if there is anything juicy on it, it will illegally be leaked in the coming days regardless. The show trial continues...
 
Cypress said:
Really weird that someone who wanted to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States is suddenly a strict constitutionalist.
Click to expand...

Funny how they believe in the Constitution when trying to save their own ass. But telling VP Pence to do something unconstitutional is perfectly acceptable.
 
Cypress said:
Really weird that someone who wanted to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States is suddenly a strict constitutionalist.
Click to expand...

Funny how the TDS crowd doesn't give a shit about the law being followed and the rights of the accused when it suits their political purposes...
 
BidenPresident said:
"According to his filing, Eastman's phone contains "emails that have been the subject of an intense, five-month privilege dispute between movant and the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol."

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/n...cle_0eae96b2-f68d-11ec-896f-2312d47011fc.html
Click to expand...

Well, now they're useless to anyone trying to use them to get Trump or Eastman regardless of content... The FBI fucked that away by an illegal search and seizure.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
ILLEGAL. You must present the warrant before the search and seizure, not afterwards.
Click to expand...


18 U.S. Code § 3103a - Additional grounds for issuing warrant

(b)Delay.—With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if—
(1)the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3103a
 
BidenPresident said:
18 U.S. Code § 3103a - Additional grounds for issuing warrant

(b)Delay.—With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if—
(1)the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3103a
Click to expand...

As the filing points out on pages 8 to 11, that doesn't apply here. That's for situations where the person served is actively resisting, or otherwise cannot be given the warrant up front. In fact, several rulings by the Supreme Court are included showing that exact thing and that it doesn't apply here. Eastman was not resisting or otherwise a threat, and asked for the warrant several times before officers took his phone without giving it to him.

Illegal search and seizure.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
As the filing points out on pages 8 to 11, that doesn't apply here. That's for situations where the person served is actively resisting, or otherwise cannot be given the warrant up front. In fact, several rulings by the Supreme Court are included showing that exact thing and that it doesn't apply here. Eastman was not resisting or otherwise a threat, and asked for the warrant several times before officers took his phone without giving it to him.

Illegal search and seizure.
Click to expand...

No. Refers to "adverse outcome." You are wrong on the facts.
 
BidenPresident said:
No. Refers to "adverse outcome." You are wrong on the facts.
Click to expand...

What "adverse outcome" could there have been? Eastman stood there. He wasn't even cuffed up by the officers. He asked repeatedly to see the warrant. They could have easily provided it up front. Your claim doesn't apply in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top