I'm uneasy about judge T.S. Ellis

[trof]

I'm not an attorney, but it sounds to me like he's asking questions and prodding where he really shouldn't.
Asking the prosecutors if they will call Gates as a witness.
Why would they telegraph that to the defense?

Shutting an opening statement off with "Living a profligate lifestyle isn't a crime."
No, it's not. But it does tell you a lot about the character of the defendant.
I just don't like the way the guy is handling this case.

I'd welcome comments by attorneys who know a lot more about this than I do.

Here's what he ruled in the Khalid El-Masri case:

"On Thursday, May 18, 2006, Ellis dismissed a lawsuit filed by Khalid El-Masri, a German citizen, against the Central Intelligence Agency and three private companies allegedly involved with his kidnapping, transport, and torture in Kabul. Ellis explained his belief that a public trial would "present a grave risk of injury to national security",[9] though acknowledging that:

If El-Masri's allegations are true or essentially true, then all fair-minded people, including those who believe that state secrets must be protected, that this lawsuit cannot proceed, and that renditions are a necessary step to take in this war, must also agree that El-Masri has suffered injuries as a result of our country's mistake and deserves a remedy.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._S._Ellis_III

BUT HE DISMISSED THE CASE.
Like "Tough shit, Khalid."

[dameatball]

1. I have the same reservations.

[W_HAMILTON]

2. He said the prosecution should stop using the word "oligarch"...

...because it has a negative connotation and George Soros is like an American "oligarch."

I'm not feeling him as a judge either. At best he seems to be grandstanding, and at worst he seems openly hostile to the prosecution.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. One of the main jobs of a judge is to prevent a mistrial because of something they did wrong.

I am not an attorney but I have always heard that.

The case WE have , we being the USA, is tremendously strong whether the prosecutor can use the word "oligarchs" or not and whether or not the judge is impatient with the amount of time spent on the lavish lifestyle the defendant enjoyed.

The meat of the case isnt how he spent the money but how he got it. And on that, there is no escape.

I am interested in hearing attorneys here discuss the case as it goes and wouldn't it be awesome if a DU member had been before Ellis in the past.

[Ms. Toad]

12. That he spent it -

is often the means to prove that he received it.

He will have legitimate income that he will be able to establish. The amount of money he spent is similarly relatively easyt to find. His illegal stream of income, less so. So if he consistently spent money well beyond that income it creates a strong inference that there was income coming in he was not reporting - to the IRS, among others.

It's how many an evildoer is caught - not for the basic crime of how they made money - but for tax fraud.

[Eliot Rosewater]

14. If the judge wants to make the point he spent money , regardless of how, that

he didnt seem to have incoming from a legit source, then that works.

If the prosecutor is forced to say it that way then so be it.

If he had ill begotten gains and spent them on poor people, it would be noble and cool but just as illegal.

But I can see why a prosecutor would want the jury to know that he spent the money in lavish, selfish, absurd ways not unlike the way a certain illegal president does.

Is it ill gotten or ill begotten?

[Ms. Toad]

18. It isn't the judge trying to make the point -

It is the prosecution.

You seem to be missing the point.

Proving an illegal income stream is often extremely hard because of the steps taken to hide it.
In that instance, prosecutors often demonstrate that the legal income stream is far less than the stream of money going out (regardless of what it is spent on).

But the means to prove that money money had to have been coming in from some mystery source, in order support the spending stream. Legal income & amout expended are far easier to prove than illegal income stream. So prosecutors often use the the two easy-to-prove streams, to prove there was an illegal stream.

That he spent money selfishly is just a prosecutorial bonus, because it makes him look bad. The same point woudl be made if he spent it on the poor. But he didn't - so the prosecution should not be denied the opportunity to establish his illegal income stream merely becaue the choices Manafort made make him look bad.

[Eliot Rosewater]

22. I know who is trying to make the point. I am trying to put as positive a spin as

possible on this judge.

[csziggy]

20. I thought the meat of the case was if he paid taxes on his income

Proving a cash flow without an appropriate amount of income declared or taxes paid is what the prosecutors are doing now. That is why they are going through the list of items and services bought by Manafort and paid by funds wired from a bank in Cyprus. I expect the Mueller team can prove that Manafort never declared funds in that foreign bank or any income from that source, not even the money spent on personal items and services that went out of that bank.

I am no an attorney but this is my theory of how they are structuring the case.

[spooky3]

4. I'm with you. One other point:

The IRS looks at spending to try to determine the amount of unreported income. So I don’t understand why the judge is cutting this testimony short. Maybe the prosecutor was belaboring trivial aspects of spending.

[Eliot Rosewater]

5. I didnt know that part, about the IRS and spending. Makes sense.

Based on what was reported I think the problem was the prosecution was going on and on about it, hopefully that is true and the rebuke is not completely out of line.

I am a little concerned about Ellis but much more concerned that ANY trial by jury will present itself an opportunity for putin to fuck with one way or another.

[Recursion]

6. Ellis is just closing off avenues for appeal later, IMO

It's what judges do

[trof]

7. How so? TIA

[More_Cowbell]

9. The judge is foreclosing possible avenues of appeal

For instance, Manafort could claim on appeal that the government's use of the term "oligarch" prejudiced his case because the jurors assumed it was a negative term. By addressing it now and having the parties brief the issue, the judge is showing that he examined the issue and heard all sides before proceeding. Even if he allows it, the evidence that persuaded him to do so will be in the court record and it will be much harder for a court of appeals to say that the issue was unfairly decided.

[trof]

10. hunh OK

[More_Cowbell]

8. There will be briefs on the oligarch issue, and Judge Ellis asked re: Gates for evidentiary reasons

After the government protested that "oligarch" is not a pejorative term, the judge said both sides can submit briefs and they will also discuss what to do with witnesses/exhibits that already use the term.

As for Gates, the government put on an FBI agent to testify about a document that Gates wrote. The judge asked why Gates wasn't testifying about it himself, and that's when it came out that the government might not call Gates.

It was the defense that brought up Gates initially, not the prosecution. The defense would love to have Gates called as a prosecution witness and then try to take him down on cross-examination. If the defense has to call him himself, that could be a problem if Gates says something they don't want him to, on either direct or cross examination.

I don't agree with the oligarch interpretation, but I'll wait to see what Judge Ellis says.

As has been noted here before, this judge is known to be tough on the side he thinks will eventually win.

[Eliot Rosewater]

15. The sign of a good judge, actually.

[Frustratedlady]

11. From the get-go, Ellis raised all kinds of flags for me. I'm also not a lawyer, but I have a fair

level of common sense and if he reprimanded the prosecution in front of the jury, I can't believe that would be allowed. Very many more of those reprimands and he'll surely influence the jurors.

I wish this trial was televised so we could keep an eye on him.

[trof]

13. So do I. I'd love to see this trial.

[Eliot Rosewater]

16. Some reprimanding in front of the jury is normal, I think. But again would be nice to hear from

attorneys on this.

[a kennedy]

19. Has or will there be reprimanding on both sides??? Defense AND prosecution???

I'm just reading all the posts here trying to get the jest of it all.......thanks to all who've tried to put in simple terms for us less law informed.

[UTUSN]

17. K&R

[UTUSN]

21. K for a DUer who likes this judge!1