Free Republic

Zelensky has no money. Humanitarian aid to the state of Palestine will have to be added to the next aid package.

Ukraine recognizes both Israel and Palestine....

So does Russia and Belarus, among the 143 nations that do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine

As of May 2024, the State of Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by 143 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. It has been a non-member observer state of the United Nations General Assembly since November 2012.

The most recent nations to recognize the State of Palestine are Ireland, Norway and Spain.

Ukrainian recognition dates to 19 November 1988. Recognition extended as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, of which Ukraine is the legal successor. The modern republic continues all "rights and duties pursuant to international agreements of Union SSR which do not contradict the Constitution of Ukraine and interests of the Republic".

Also:

On 29 November 2012, in a 138–9 vote (with 41 abstaining) General Assembly resolution 67/19 passed, upgrading Palestine to "non-member observer state" status in the United Nations. The new status equated Palestine's with that of the Holy See. The change in status was described by The Independent as "de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine". Voting "no" were Israel, Canada, the Czech Republic, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama and the United States.

[...]

The UN has, after the resolution was passed, permitted Palestine to title its representative office to the UN as "The Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations", seen by many as a reflection of the UN's de facto position of recognizing the State of Palestine's sovereignty under international law, and Palestine started to re-title its name accordingly on postal stamps, official documents and passports. The Palestinian authorities also instructed its diplomats to officially represent the "State of Palestine", as opposed to the "Palestine National Authority". Additionally, on 17 December 2012, UN Chief of Protocol Yeocheol Yoon decided that "the designation of "State of Palestine" shall be used by the Secretariat in all official United Nations documents", recognizing the "State of Palestine" as the official name of the Palestinian nation.

The question remains unanswered: by what mechanism could the SC intervene?

The only mechansm that exists. Scotus can only act in response to a petition for writ of cert, bringing the case to them. The petition would certify that the issue was finalized by the state of New York by either denying an appeal or declining to review the case. Until then, there is no finalized state action to be brought before Scotus.

Interpretations of state law would not be brought to Scotus as the highest state court is the ultimate arbiter of interpretating state law.

A prospective federal case would most likely be brought alleging violations of due process.

If I were doing lawfare, which I am not, and I could arrange things, I would have the Appellate Division slow walk it, and then I would have the NY Court of Appeals (the highest court of NY) slow walk it until after the election, and then overturn the lower courts and remand the case. The lawfare purpose of calling Trump a convicted felon until the election would be satisfied, and Scotus would never have the opportunity to say a word about the whole disgraceful process.

Regarding Bush v. Gore, that was appealed from the highest court in the state of Florida. The Trump case has not yet completed action at the trial court, and has not begun appellate action within the State.

Donald Trump risks being a “loser president” if he wins November’s election and imposes a bad peace deal on Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskiy has said, saying it would mean the end of the US as a global “player”. –

Hey Z, how does the U.S. President impose a peace deal on Ukraine? Even if the U.S. stopped supporting Ukraine, you would still have the other 31 nations of NATO, and a few non-NATO nations. Z, you make it sound like Ukraine is not a sovereign nation.

When PM Boris Johnson visited just before the conflict, did he impose your refusal of a peace agreement? Was BoJo just a messenger boy for the United States? Or did you act independently to refuse the peace offering and take to the battlefield?

As the U.S. is not a party to the conflict, how will President Trump become a loser president, if you lose a conflict you could never win? Wouldn't you be the loser president? Wouldn't it mean the end of Ukraine as a nation state? You insisted on fighting a conflict your nation had no chance of winning, and you chose to break every red line the Russians set in your vain attempt to drag others into the conflict, escalating the damage to your own country until you are sitting in the dark. And now you are preparing to say that you are not the loser. No matter how hard and bravely your people fought, you led them to disaster. And you are going to try to blame that on Donald Trump?

Why don't you ask Senile Joe Biden, Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan to get a sweet deal for you? It has all happened on their watch, and it will still be their watch until January 20, 2025.

You honestly don’t see the difference between the Bush v Gore case and the State of New York v Trump?

The primary difference is Bush had been adjudged by the highest court in the state of Florida. In Trump, the case has been heard by the lowest court, a trial court, sentence has not yet been rendered, and appeals have not been exhausted at the two levels of appellate courts in New York state.

Scotus does not just take up cases and issue opinions. Any case must be brought to Scotus. A petition for writ of cert would be indicated after the highest court in the state upholds the lower court or denies review of the case.

What Ukraine power grid doink after last night?

After last night, long term they will need to import more electric and perhaps fix the grid to run it on. Imported electric is expensive so Uncle Sam will have to borrow more money to pay Ukraine's future electric bill.

By the way, Russia's Kharkiv offensive has stalled. Russian victory is not as assured as you would like to think. Really, your acceptance of Russian propaganda is embarrassing.

Not stalled. Uke troops taken from other areas arrived. Mission is to destroy Uke military. Russians need not advance when dead targets are replaced with more targets. When Ukes run out of replacement targets, Russians advance.

As for "Russian propanganda," try Austrian Colonel Marcus Reisner for an Austrian military professional analysis of the militaryu situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk7D_TliAuE

The Russian Momentum is back

May 29, 2024

Colonel Markus Reisner analyzes and explains the strategic, operational and tactical approach of the Russian armed forces during their second winter offensive and at the beginning of the upcoming Russian summer offensive. What are the current Ukrainian defensive measures and what challenges are the Ukrainian armed forces currently facing?

Welcome to the Austrian Theresan Military Academy.
0:06
I'm Colonel Markus Reisner, I'm the head
0:08
of the Institute One of the officers basic training.

Stay there. it is where your loyalty lies.

from reading all the legal mumbo jumbo that you SPAM all over the place as if it’s the word of G-d, I can assume you were a JAG type paperpushing pogue.

You can assume that, just as you assume everything else. You assume your propaganda will pass as log as you can cry anti-semitism at anything that does not agree with Israeli government propaganda.

For the love of doG, I quoted Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant; retired Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland; Omer Bartov, a professor of Holocaust and genocide studies; and the United Nations, the very creator of the free territory of Israel.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/10/opinion/israel-gaza-genocide-war.html

What I Believe as a Historian of Genocide

Nov. 10, 2023

By Omer Bartov

Mr. Bartov is a professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University.

[excerpt]

Genocide as a legal concept differs from ethnic cleansing in that the latter, which has not been recognized as its own crime under international law, aims to remove a population from a territory, often violently, whereas genocide aims at destroying that population wherever it is. In reality, any of these situations — and especially ethnic cleansing — may escalate into genocide, as happened in the Holocaust, which began with an intention to remove the Jews from German-controlled territories and transformed into the intention of their physical extermination.

My greatest concern watching the Israel-Gaza war unfold is that there is genocidal intent, which can easily tip into genocidal action. On Oct. 7, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Gazans would pay a “huge price” for the actions of Hamas and that the Israel Defense Forces, or I.D.F., would turn parts of Gaza’s densely populated urban centers “into rubble.” On Oct. 28, he added, citing Deuteronomy, “You must remember what Amalek did to you.” As many Israelis know, in revenge for the attack by Amalek, the Bible calls to “kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings.”

The deeply alarming language does not end there. On Oct. 9, , said, “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” a statement indicating dehumanization, which has genocidal echoes.

[...]

The same day, retired Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland wrote in the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, “The State of Israel has no choice but to turn Gaza into a place that is temporarily or permanently impossible to live in.” He added, “Creating a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a necessary means to achieving the goal.”

- - - - - - - - -

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/un-expert-warns-new-instance-mass-ethnic-cleansing-palestinians-calls

UN expert warns of new instance of mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, calls for immediate ceasefire

14 October 2023

[excerpt]

GENEVA (14 October 2023) – A UN human rights expert warned today that Palestinians are in grave danger of mass ethnic cleansing and called on the international community to urgently mediate a ceasefire between warring Hamas and Israeli occupation forces.

“The situation in the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel has reached fever pitch,” said Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967.

[...]

“Israel has already carried out mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians under the fog of war,” the expert said. “Again, in the name of self-defence, Israel is seeking to justify what would amount to ethnic cleansing.

I also enlisted in the US military when I was a teen.

Then you swore an oath, and it was not to Israel.

I agree. I’m of a mind that the prosecution knew the judge would rule that any of three predicate crimes would fulfill the predicate crime requirement, and they need not have actually been committed. Perhaps it was just particularly good fortune, or clairvoyance, or unlawful ex parte communication.

I’m saying the Jury instructions violate the Sixth Amendment per the SCOTUS in that one can find him guilty of Crime X and another can find him Gulity of Crime Y and that’s good enough for a Conviction. SCOTUS ruling says the exact opposite.

That is simply not what Judge Merchan said or did. Nobody is finding Trump guilty of crime X or Y. Any verdict can only find him guilty or not guilty of crime X. There is only one crime charged and only one that need have been committed. The jury cannot find Trump guilty of a predicate crime, and a predicate crime need not have been committed. The jury must find Trump guilty of the only crime charged which includes that the falsification of a business record have been committed with the intent to cover up a predicate crime. Trump must have had the state of mind, at the time of business record falsification, to cover up a predicate crime. That could have been a crime which was never committed. That the predicate crime was not committed would not change whatever intent was had at the time of falsification.

In the Trump case, it was very difficult to know what, in particular, he was defending against. The particular nature of the alleged offense seems to have been kept hidden until revealed in the instructions to the jury, after the defense closing argument. That is relatively insane.

There are probably a few hundred real issues with this case, but a non-unanimous verdict is just not one of them.

Judge Juan Merchan Tells Jury They Do Not Need Unanimity To Convict Trump, Introduces 4-4-4 Rule

At best, this is wildly misleading.

For a charge of making a false business record to cover up a crime, the crime being covered up is the predicate crime. The false business record may have been made with intent to cover up one of three different predicate crimes and Merchan said it did not matter for which of the three predicate crimes the individual juror finds intent to cover up, as long as the jurors unanimously find that a false business record was created with intent to cover up a crime. While the business record need be falsified with the intent to cover up a predicate crime, the predicate crime need not have been committed. That need only have been the intent, the mental condition, at the time of falsifying the business record.

The logic of what Merchan instructed may be questionable, but he did not instruct the jury that its verdict did not need to be unanimous. He said that the finding of different predicate crimes may still lead to a unanimous verdict.

Where the Scotus justices find to overrule a lower court, the legal logic of all nine justices could be different, with an opinion of the court and 8 concurring opinions, they all agree to overrule the lower court. The decision of the court would still be unanimous. This is somewhat similar. However, in the Trump case, it was very difficult to know what, in particular, he was defending against. The particular nature of the alleged offense seems to have been kept hidden until revealed in the instructions to the jury. That does not say the jury need not be unanimous, but it is still relatively insane.

There is a whole lot of smoke and mirrors going on, but not an instruction that the jury can submit a non-unanimous verdict.

The whole case is an unholy abortion, but Merchan did not say the jury does not need to be unanimous. He said that in reaching a unanimous verdict the individual jurors need not base their finding of guilt upon the existence of the same predicate crime.

The merit of what Merchan did say is questionable, but he did say they have to reach a unanimous verdict.

There are numerous Supreme Court rulings saying the Jury has to agree in unanimity on the crime committed.

Did that stop Merchan?

Do you know of some non-unanimous verdict?

https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-york/ny-laws/ny_criminal_procedure_law_270-35

§ 270.35 Trial jury; discharge of juror; replacement by alternate juror.

1. If at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict, a juror is unable to continue serving by reason of illness or other incapacity, or for any other reason is unavailable for continued service, or the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case or has engaged in misconduct of a substantial nature, but not warranting the declaration of a mistrial, the court must discharge such juror. If an alternate juror or jurors are available for service, the court must order that the discharged juror be replaced by the alternate juror whose name was first drawn and called, provided, however, that if the trial jury has begun its deliberations, the defendant must consent to such replacement. Such consent must be in writing and must be signed by the defendant in person in open court in the presence of the court. If the discharged juror was the foreperson, the court shall designate as the new foreperson the juror whose name was second drawn and called. If no alternate juror is available, the court must declare a mistrial pursuant to subdivision three of section 280.10.

2. (a) In determining pursuant to this section whether a juror is unable to continue serving by reason of illness or other incapacity, or is for any other reason unavailable for continued service, the court shall make a reasonably thorough inquiry concerning such illness, incapacity or unavailability, and shall attempt to ascertain when such juror will be appearing in court. If such juror fails to appear, or if the court determines that there is no reasonable likelihood such juror will be appearing, in court within two hours of the time set by the court for the trial to resume, the court may presume such juror is unavailable for continued service and may discharge such juror. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall affect the court's discretion, under this or any other provision of law, to discharge a juror who repeatedly fails to appear in court in a timely fashion.

(b) The court shall afford the parties an opportunity to be heard before discharging a juror. If the court discharges a juror pursuant to this subdivision, it shall place on the record the facts and reasons for its determination that such juror is ill, incapacitated or unavailable for continued service.

(c) Nothing contained in this subdivision shall affect the requirements of subdivision one of this section pertaining to the discharge of a juror where the trial jury has begun its deliberations.

Mistrial.

When it is as clear as that, it nonsensical for the judge to think he can get away with it. The probability of Trump consent is about zero. A mistrial works for him. They can start all over.

SCOTUS stepped in, in 2000.

Not exactly. In Bush v. Gore, the highest court in the state ruled and that was appealed, brought to SCOTUS. SCOTUS cannot just jump in. The matter has to be brought to them.

In Trump, the lowest court in the state has not yet reached a verdict. There are two levels of appeal in the state if there is a conviction.

https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-york/ny-laws/ny_criminal_procedure_law_270-35

§ 270.35 Trial jury; discharge of juror; replacement by alternate juror.

1. If at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict, a juror is unable to continue serving by reason of illness or other incapacity, or for any other reason is unavailable for continued service, or the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case or has engaged in misconduct of a substantial nature, but not warranting the declaration of a mistrial, the court must discharge such juror. If an alternate juror or jurors are available for service, the court must order that the discharged juror be replaced by the alternate juror whose name was first drawn and called, provided, however, that if the trial jury has begun its deliberations, the defendant must consent to such replacement. Such consent must be in writing and must be signed by the defendant in person in open court in the presence of the court. If the discharged juror was the foreperson, the court shall designate as the new foreperson the juror whose name was second drawn and called. If no alternate juror is available, the court must declare a mistrial pursuant to subdivision three of section 280.10.

2. (a) In determining pursuant to this section whether a juror is unable to continue serving by reason of illness or other incapacity, or is for any other reason unavailable for continued service, the court shall make a reasonably thorough inquiry concerning such illness, incapacity or unavailability, and shall attempt to ascertain when such juror will be appearing in court. If such juror fails to appear, or if the court determines that there is no reasonable likelihood such juror will be appearing, in court within two hours of the time set by the court for the trial to resume, the court may presume such juror is unavailable for continued service and may discharge such juror. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall affect the court's discretion, under this or any other provision of law, to discharge a juror who repeatedly fails to appear in court in a timely fashion.

(b) The court shall afford the parties an opportunity to be heard before discharging a juror. If the court discharges a juror pursuant to this subdivision, it shall place on the record the facts and reasons for its determination that such juror is ill, incapacitated or unavailable for continued service.

(c) Nothing contained in this subdivision shall affect the requirements of subdivision one of this section pertaining to the discharge of a juror where the trial jury has begun its deliberations.

Maybe the Duchy of Grand Fenwick can threaten them with the Q bomb.

why do you think the average age is 43-45?

They were slower and easier to catch?