New York Court of Appeals

No, it didn't.

That entire conviction was vacated in April 2024 by the New York Court of Appeals.

The highest court in the state actually looked at the trial and determined that the trial judge improperly admitted what's called uncharged acts evidence.

Meaning the jury heard testimony from women whose allegations were not actually part of the official criminal charges, right?

It can never be introduced simply to show criminal propensity.

And the newsletter zeroes in on this.

The author notes that the New York Court of Appeals vacated Weinstein's 2020 conviction specifically because the trial judge violated that 1901 Molyneux rule.

Right.

Now, people may say, well, geez, that's New York State.

But our New York State Court of Appeals, a far left-leaning court, or let's put it this way, they're all left-leaning, all appointed by either Cuomo or Governor Hochul, ruled unanimously that only citizens can vote in our elections.

So why would we let people who are ineligible to vote get on our voter rolls.

So cleaning up voter rolls actually became kind of part of a topic today with my sheriff's seminar.

Now, people may say, well, geez, that's New York State.

our New York State Court of Appeals, a far left leaning court, or let's put it this way, they're all left leaning, all appointed by either Cuomo or Governor Hochul, ruled unanimously that only citizens can vote in our elections.

So why would we let people who are ineligible to vote get on our voter rolls.

So cleaning up voter rolls actually became kind of part of a topic today with my sheriffs.

... following a 2020 trial, he was initially found guilty and sentenced to 23 years in prison.

However, four years later, the New York Court of Appeals overturned the ruling with a four to three vote.

At the time, it was reportedly decided that testimony from prior bad acts witness, witnesses, so other witnesses that have accused him of things, should not have been allowed because it was unnecessary to establish defendant's intent and served only to establish defendant's propensity to commit the crimes charged.

Yeah, duh.

But the ban's been tied up in litigation ever since and has never actually been enforced.

The New York Court of Appeals is now considering taking up the case.

That's the state's highest court.

And they'll have the final say.

New York's highest court heard the weed smell case and said nothing.

So Wednesday afternoon, the Third Circuit opinion in the New York Court of Appeals took arguments on the odor question in the official issue statement.

Crimes suppression hearings and whether penal law 2205 enacted as part of the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act, with marijuana spelled wrong, applies to post-enactment suppression hearing concerning a pre-enactment search.

Fascinating.

The courts have recognized this fully.

Thus, the Court of Appeals of New York declared in an important case, While not technically trustees, for the title of the corporate property was in the corporation itself, they were charged with the duties and subject to the liabilities of trustees.

Clothed with the power of controlling the property and managing the affairs of the corporation without let or hindrance as to third persons, they were its agents.

But as to the corporation itself, equity holds them liable as trustees.

obviously interlocking directorates and all that term implies must be effectually prohibited before the freedom of american business can be regained the prohibition will not be an innovation it will merely give full legal sanction to the fundamental law of morals and of human nature that no man can serve two masters the surprising fact is that a principle of equity so firmly rooted should have been departed from it all in dealing with corporations for no rule of law has in other connections been more rigorously applied than that which prohibits a trustee from occupying inconsistent positions from dealing with himself or from using his fiduciary position for personal profit and a director of a corporation is as obviously a trustee as persons holding similar positions in an unincorporated association or in a private trust estate who are called specifically by that name The courts have recognized this fully.

Thus, the Court of Appeals of New York declared, in an important case, While not technically trustees, for the title of the corporate property was in the corporation itself, they were charged with the duties and subject to the liabilities of trustees.

Clothed with the power of controlling the property and managing the affairs of the corporation, without letter hindrance, as to third persons, they were its agents.

but as to the corporation itself equity holds them liable as trustees while courts of law generally treat the directors as agents courts of equity treat them as trustees and hold them to a strict account for any breach of the trust relation for all practical purposes they are trustees when called upon in equity to account for their official conduct nullifying the law but this wholesome rule of business so clearly laid down was practically nullified by courts in creating two unfortunate limitations as concessions doubtless to the supposed needs of commerce first courts held valid contracts between a corporation and a director or between two corporations with a common director where it was shown that in making the contract the corporation was represented by independent directors and that the vote of the interested director was unnecessary to carry the motion and his presence was not needed to constitute a quorum second the courts held that even where a common director participated actively in the making of a contract between two corporations the contract was not absolutely void but voidable only at the election of the corporation the first limitation ignored the rule of law that a beneficiary is entitled to disinterested advice from all his trustees and not merely from some and that a trustee may violate his trust by inaction as well as by action it ignored also the laws of human nature in assuming that the influence of a director is confined to the act of voting Everyone knows that the most effective work is done before any vote is taken, subtly and without provable participation.