Thomas DePasquale

by James A. Bacon

A year ago, University of Virginia Board member Bert Ellis was called to task for referring — in private text to two fellow board members — to his UVA critics as “numnuts.” He also referred to unnamed employees in President Jim Ryan’s office as “shmucks,” and expressed disappointment in the leadership of then-Rector Whitt Clement. The pejoratives, which were mild compared to the accusations of racism and homophobia to which he had been subjected, were deemed so insensitive that The Washington Post devoted a full-length article to the topic.

As the minutes of the March 1-3 board meeting laconically recorded, “Mr. Ellis then apologized for the texts; he said they were private and confidential messages that were still out of place.”

This April Thomas DePasquale, an eight-year board veteran, unleashed a torrent of vitriol against Ellis in a series of draft letters distributed to Rector Robert Hardie, former Rector Frank “Rusty” Conner, board Secretary Susan Harris, and perhaps others. (All emails to President Jim Ryan obtained through the Freedom of Information Act were redacted.) After getting feedback, he blasted out to the full board a toned-down version asking for Ellis’ resignation.

Here’s a sampler of DePasquale’s language. These passages come from a preliminary vomiting of thoughts, which he emailed to Harris following his attendance of The Jefferson Council annual meeting the previous evening.

Bert it hard for me to understand what honor you have, I know your taking oveer. The Jefferson Council is funny Bert built , it is have assed at best.

Ellis, a co-founder of The Jefferson Council, was honored at the Council’s Annual Meeting for his contributions to the Council and the University. He had recently garnered attention for insisting upon addressing the status of Jewish students at UVA in a confrontation with Rector Hardie during the March 2024 meeting. He said (typos and all):

Everytime I turned around you were prancing around accepting great praise. The is no honor there was nobravery what was courage’s mouthing off then saying nothing in private the meeting, then voting as a group. Meraculouls the next day you were the lion ,once we went i

DePasquale also was triggered by a student speaker at the annual meeting: an undergraduate student who presented her research into the Jefferson-Hemings paternity controversy.

You broke the basic common sense rules but no better than bringing up a third year who has proven dna not Thomas Jefferson DNA she proven he did not father those children and added value Hennings was a slut. She did curtain calls. It might be worth studying but could not find any support that one is solved. What a great lesson. Nothing proves your not a racist than being a raciwit

You have made clear you lack the skills and basic ethic to serve as a Vistor.You have had chance you are not capable of the Hornor of being a visitor. If I were you and I am not just resign it more pleasant.

Insofar as it is possible to interpret DePasquale’s tortured prose:

The Jefferson Council is “half-assed.”

Ellis “mouthed off.”

There was no honor or courage in what Ellis did.

Ellis lacks the skills and ethics to serve as a Board of Visitors member.

A third-year student did “curtain calls” in speaking about her research into the Jefferson-Hemings controversy. Denying Jefferson’s paternity is “racist.”

DePasquale did delete some of this language from his final letter to the full Board. But that’s not the relevant point of comparison. While Ellis shared his text with at least two others, DePasquale shared his drafts with at least three others: Susan Harris in the initial brain dump, and letter drafts with Rector Hardie and former-Rector Conner.

In a statement to the Post last year, someone speaking for the university said Ellis’ private messages displayed a “disappointing disregard” for “the University’s core values of civil discourse and honor.”

Will it say the same of DePasquale’s private messages?

On April 30, DePasquale did write Ellis to say, “after some thought I should not have demanded you resign.” But he has yet to apologize publicly.

The Board of Visitors meeting scheduled for Thursday and Friday will be DePasquale’s last before he rotates off the board. If he has any of the sense of honor that he claims Ellis does not have, he will ask forgiveness for his intemperate words.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

107 responses to “DePasquale Owes an Apology”

  1. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    ”Ellis, a co-founder of the Jefferson Council, was honored at the Council’s Annual Meeting for his contributions to the Council and the University.”

    This, of course, does nothing to negate the allegations. In fact, one could deduce that it confirms it.

  2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    I think you said this already, JAB… slow “news” day, I guess…

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Ellis should have apologized. It’s “numb nuts”, or maybe hyphenated.

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      Exactly, I was going to comment that Ellis should have known better. Although the "b" in num nuts is silent it is still there. 'Ya beat me to it.:)

      DePee's syntax was much worse, he clearly wasted his time, if any, in skool, or school as the rest of us might say.
      DePee is gone in less than a month, the prospects for atonement seem slim and none.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Wahoo, a fish, is an animal species not known for intellectual skills.

        1. But it can drink twice its weight

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    ”The pejoratives, which were mild compared to the accusations of racism and homophobia to which HE had been subjected, were deemed so insensitive that The Washington Post devoted a full-length article to the topic.”

    WHO HE? You’re a journalist. In a paragraph referring to 3 or 4 different people…

    Would WaPo have known about the racist and homophobic slurs? When did they occur relative to the pejoratives (assumably cast by Ellis) on which they reported?

    1. Rosie Avatar

      Given Mr. Bacon’s affiliations, I’d say this is more press release than journalistic endeavor.

  5. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    The only obvious qualification to be on the UVA Board of Visitors is to have made large donations to Virginia politicians.

    https://www.baconsrebellion.com/the-jaw-dropping-political-contributions-of-uvas-board-of-visitors/

    Youngkin would do his legacy and the University of Virginia a favor if he appointed new Board of Visitors members who never made any political donations.

    Maybe appointing a high school teacher or military officer who went to UVA or a plumber who didn't go to college at all (but has a daughter at UVA) would help ground the discussions at the BoV.

    But, we live under The Virginia Way and I suspect that Youngkin will just continue to use "political donations" as the most important yardstick for consideration.

  6. Carter Melton Avatar
    Carter Melton

    Board members who act like this should not be allowed to sit at the Board table. Let them sit in the chairs along the wall with the note takers, horse holders, and guests.

    When they demonstrate a mature level of civility, they can be invited back to the table.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Shades of Helen E. Dragas. This is apparently how Conservatives "roll" these days.

      Ms. Dragas has parallels with Mr. Ellis in my view.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/e-mails-show-u-va-rector-helen-dragas-saw-little-warning-of-crisis-in-presidents-ouster/2012/09/12/608605e0-fcd5-11e1-a31e-804fccb658f9_story.html

      1. Randy Huffman Avatar
        Randy Huffman

        I don't subscribe to the Post or NY Times, so cannot open your link.

        But interesting you claim Ellis has parallels with Dragas, who was first appointed by Tim Kaine, so she must have been a Democratic donor, right? Then McDonnel re-appointed her, but it was after she tried to oust Sullivan. Here are two articles I saw, she apparently had ties to business, but was supported by Kaine and Warner…..hardly "Conservatives"

        https://www.cvillepedia.org/Helen_E._Dragas

        https://www.baconsrebellion.com/the-rehabilitation-of-helen-e-dragas

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Pretty sure, she was not a Dem but a business woman that Kaine appointed.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c7f960fb13b95e3a97a028bf2df77d2bac44c656d9e7f4bc060a2ae813a18c78.png
          I don't know of any Dems who have done what Ellis and Dragas did…, Dems are just not known to do stuff like that, often accused of doing little to rock the boat.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/74e774b129cb300f2660103d264a7243a161947dda8e1941f3ebfb910c293f6e.png
          she did donate $1000 to Kaine.

          1. John Harvie Avatar
            John Harvie

            She is/was a builder and gave a substantial endowment to the Hampton Roads VT alumni chapter to fund scholarships. How do I know? Because I served on the committee that reviewed those scholarship applications every spring for many years.

            She must have had good reasons re the Sullivan issue.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            She IS a builder as well as a respected member of the business community , but she alone can’t do what she tried to do on her own without some agreement and consensus from her peers and fellow board members.

            She actually said something along those same lines herself. I’m of the view that one needs to work with other people for change – including those who may not agree or even oppose…you work to a consensus, which often involves compromise stinky toad-swallowing compromse. Too many today are too willing to actually blow up compromise and sabotage change, and I bet Ms. Dragas might well agree with that sentiment. I think Mr. Ellis might want to reconsider his approach also. It’s counterproductive.

          3. Turbocohen Avatar
            Turbocohen

            Helen is a stand up citizen who did her best to resolve issues Sullivan stood in the way of. She is neither a D or R, She is a caring individual who did her best to improve access to a UVA education for more people.

          4. Turbocohen Avatar
            Turbocohen

            Helen is a stand up citizen who did her best to resolve issues Sullivan stood in the way of. She is neither a D or R, She is a caring individual who did her best to improve access to a UVA education for more people.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            What was Helen trying to do that Sullivan would not?

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            What was Helen trying to do that Sullivan would not?

          7. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Dems never do anything bad says Larry, the never correct.
            It appears Ms. Dragas got red-pilled and was a minor Dem donor during the Kaine time. The great bulk of her giving has been recent and was to Youngkin and Miyares…maybe she realizes what did not happen at UVA back then was even more urgently needed.

            But no, Dems never do anything wrong. Just public service. RUSSIARUSSIARUSSIA wasn't made up. COVID lies were for good! All the grift that made Terry McAwful rich – good! Pete Buttigieg is the best transportation secretary ever!
            She was right.
            The BOV backing down was wrong.
            Please tell what Bert has done on the BOV that has been in any way controversial. Larry the Parrot can't, but he can mindlessly repeat the narrative he has been fed…

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            same problem Dragas had – does not play well with others..

          9. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Name the occasion on the BOV where Bert has not played well with others. You can’t. You are just being your dutiful little Dem parrot self, repeating the narrative lines of the day, supplied by your so-called elite overlords.
            Bert doesn’t play well with others…for disagreeing about the immature pet activist and her F UVA sign, which the Ryan admin botched and hid behind “free speech” because they agreed with her, but couldn’t say so or alumni $$$ would stop flowing in? But have some Rando Townie put a noose on Homer and call in the FBI!

          10. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            fairly well reported… no? He’s rude and insulting… to others… not interested in really working with others …

          11. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Nice try. Name the occasion. He has never been rude to anyone. You “tolerant” Marxists are the rude ones.

          12. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            It’s called “struggle session” and why you should never give in to it.

          13. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so he ADMITTED he was rude and insulting , right?

            so the idea is to never tell the truth – always deny and Bert went wrong on that?

          14. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            No Larry. You obviously are only the result of Marxist indoctrination and do not understand the mechanism.
            Bert got struggle-sessioned – he was ruthlessly, relentlessly, wrongly attacked, coordinated, and – for your stupid “play nice” – gets rewarded by horrible people like you (by definition, Marxists are horrible people, just to let you know). I understand how this works. I won’t stray from saying what is true. Because I know the whole point is to force the false confession…so horrible people like you can then say “See?” You’re really going to dislike it when you discover you are no longer of any use to the overlords you serve so diligently.
            Now, back to DePasquale and Harris et al. Where’s the apology? Where’s the play nice? Do you have anything besides double standards? (Hint – that was rhetorical. Of course you don’t. Marxist = horrible = lying is good to do the by any means necessary thing.)

      2. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        DePasquale’s unhinged language is how Conservatives roll?
        Do you have to blather on everything?
        I’m sure Ms. Dragas appreciates your negative accusation, and, consistent with your negative value in all comments, wasn’t she originally appointed by a Dem Gov, and Bob McDonnell re-appointed her as a conciliatory gesture, so his reasonableness could be punished by Obama and Jack Smith in a preview of lawfare we now see?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          she rocked the boat like Ellis has – and neither are really Dems..

          Dragas made her own negative impressions like Ellis is.

          Dragas herself said this:

          "In an exit interview from the position, Dragas stated that, "I believe we did the right thing in that we pushed for needed change … We did it the wrong way in that we misunderstood that when you're going to try to solve thorne-y problems at a high-profile, public institution, you need to communicate a lot — a lot more than we did — and with a lot of people. And that was a lesson that I, in particular, and the board learned the hard way."

          I agree. That's was not how to "roll" then or now.

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            DeP and Ms. Dragas are Democrats. I’m not sure how Bert votes. Ms. D may be a Dem of a dying breed. Her instincts on Sullivan were correct. How executed was a failure which has had greater consequences by letting the faculty think it was in charge.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            If you really want to be a change agent for real change – don’t be like Bert or Helen… that includes others including Dems. You need to work with others, including those you don’t like or agree with.

          3. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Oh, ok….
            Was it right for the signers of the Declaration to disagree in the way they did?
            Or are you saying something possibly correct for the first time to suggest the lawfare against Trump is wrong?

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Well, is there lawfare going on against Hunter and MENENDEZ? Maybe SCOTUS will rescue Trump from the lawfare?

          5. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            It is not lawfare if there is an actual crime. Hunter has committed many crimes – drugs, hookers, money laundering, and the gun.
            Menendez – I haven't paid attention to his case.
            Trump is invented crimes. Liberals used to abhor that until they decided they had to break all norms and civil liberties to "save democracy."

          6. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            And Cuellar has what to do with what?
            Or, are you again unintentionally making the point of lawfare. Is it coincidence that the two Dem politicians charged by Dem regime are Dems who strayed from the O’Biden Dem line? Kinda has the banana republic feel, even though I bet the odds they are crooks is pretty good. But I’d also bet you can find something, legitimate, not invented, stretched, statute of limitations waived, judge tips the scales every way possible, pretty easily on many in both parties. Spending money we don’t have and limiting freedoms is not public servic.

            Now back to DePasquale – his actions were over the top. Is it that hard to say so? Stop the deflection. Just say the truth – for once in your life. No qualifications, no whataboutism. This is like trying to get a straight answer to “how many sexes are there?” and “Is it wrong to cheat in elections?” Not hard questions. Hard to get straight answers…

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            got A question? Can it be said clearly without making it part of a mantra? 😉

          8. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Can you stop making inane comments? Playing whataboutism?

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            says the man… 😉

          10. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “It is not lawfare if there is an actual crime.”

            Dawn breaks on the Serengeti…

          11. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            So tell me Orange Man’s crime Troll?

          12. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Ukraine has what to do with the NYC kangaroo court? Remember the whataboutism thing?
            And, by the way, this is about DePasquale and his behavior. Was it wrong?
            Was Susan Harris’?
            Yes to both.

          13. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            re: " So tell me Orange Man's crime Troll?"

            one of several…

            was he innocent in NYC?

          14. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            What was the crime Larry? Please tell us in all your brilliance.

          15. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            He violated NY code. Found guilty of it by jurors who are now fear being outted to death threats? Sounds like a Mafia Don to me. Needs to be jailed before he hurts someone.

          16. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Which felony New York statute, Lar? Explain.

          17. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Which felony New York statute, Lar? Explain.

          18. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            New York v. Trump is a civil investigation and lawsuit by the office of the New York Attorney General (AG) alleging that individuals and business entities within The Trump Organization engaged in financial fraud by presenting vastly disparate property values to potential lenders and tax officials, in violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12).

          19. Bedfordboy Avatar
            Bedfordboy

            Which Code was that, precisely? Hint: has to be more than one section or the misdemeanor bookkeeping charge was time barred. You'll get no help from the indictment or the special verdict form. Nor will you find the answer in any admissible testimony or documentary evidence in the trial record. Here's your chance to save your beloved verdict from flat reversal on appeal. Go to it.

            Here's some free legal advice. Be very careful about falsely imputing death threats to the jury and acting like a "Mafia Don" to Trump. He has a lot of lawyers.

          20. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            The Code says “a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

            Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony”

            Had not a second crime been involved (which was proven in court to the satisfaction of the jury) he would have only committed the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree which has a two year statute of limitations – which would have run out by the time he was indicted. Because there were additional crimes he was trying to cover up, it became a first degree felony crime he committed which has a five year statute which had not run out. It is not a valid defense to argue statute of limitations and the proof is his own lawyers did not argue that case. Sorry, he is and will always be a convicted felon.

          21. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            IF his conviction was wrong, the legal system will overturn it and I’d support that if so. I’m not inputing death threats … I’m pointing out reports that the folks that do security are taking care of businesses based on what they do know. We have death threats now and we know where some of the folks making them say where they got the idea and we take action accordingly.

          22. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Notice how they never can say WHY the conviction was wrong. They never will because they can be easily proven wrong. Instead, they ask questions and imply they know something we don’t. They don’t…

          23. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            The Code says “a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

            Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony”

            Had not a second crime been involved (which was proven in court to the satisfaction of the jury) he would have only committed the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree which has a two year statute of limitations – which would have run out by the time he was indicted. Because there were additional crimes he was trying to cover up, it became a first degree felony crime he committed which has a five year statute which had not run out. It is not a valid defense to argue statute of limitations and the proof is his own lawyers did not argue that case. Sorry, he is and will always be a convicted felon.

          24. Bedfordboy Avatar
            Bedfordboy

            Thanks for the gratuitous tutorial on statutes of limitation. I am quite familiar with their operation. Now, try to focus on the question before you start typing again. WHAT was the second, or predicate, crime?

            I don’t think you can wager in the BR comment section, but if I could I’d put a few bucks on your last assertion being proven wrong. And I’d give you good odds.

          25. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Oooo… I can play that game… no, you are wrong… I win!!

          26. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Oooo… I can play that game… no, you are wrong… I win!!

          27. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            🙂

          28. CJBova Avatar

            Help me out please–since you say it was proven, what is the mysterious second crime and how was it described and cited?

          29. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “While the indictment specified each of the checks, invoices, and ledger entries alleged to have been falsified, it did not specify which crime Trump allegedly concealed. A defendant is entitled to fair notice of the crime with which he is charged so that he can effectively defend himself at trial, but New York law does not require this level of specificity in the charging document. New York case law requires that the indictment allege only a general intent to conceal a crime, not an intent to conceal a specific crime.

            Nonetheless, prosecutors provided this specificity in a prosecution filing in November 2023, five months before his trial began. In that filing, prosecutors disclosed that the crimes they alleged Trump intended to conceal were violating state and federal campaign finance laws and violating state tax laws. The court rejected an additional basis offered by the prosecution, falsifying business records outside the Trump organization.”

            The referenced filing:

            https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432843/2023-11-09-das-mem-opp-defs-omnibus-motions-redacted.pdf

          30. Bedfordboy Avatar
            Bedfordboy

            The point of my predicate, or second, crime queries was to illustrate the State's intentional obfuscation of what that crime allegedly was, hampering Trump's ability to prepare for and present a defense at trial. That was an egregious denial of his due process rights.

            The "filing" you cite purportedly giving notice of what crimes Trump committed is the State's opposition to various Trump motions to dismiss. It is not evidence and it cannot cure a defective indictment nunc pro tunc. It's more of an effort to sling mud against the courtroom walls to see if anything may stick.

            Only after close of the evidentiary phase did the Court divine that the second crime was a violation of Sec. 17-152 of NY state election law, which makes it a misdemeanor to "promote or prevent the election of any person to public office by unlawful means." (Wonder where Hillary's contracting through a law firm cutout for the false Russia dossier and characterizing the campaign's payments for that dossier as "legal expenses" would fit in here?) He then selected three of the alleged offenses listed in the State's memorandum (again, nowhere to be found in the indictment) as the "unlawful means" Trump used to violate Sec. 17-152. He then instructed the jury it need NOT be unanimous on which unlawful means Trump employed. (We can have a side discussion on jury unanimity of element vs. means, but first carefully read the Supreme Court's decision in Schad v. Arizona (1991), including the concurrences and dissents.)

            To elevate the underlying misdemeanor of falsifying business records to a felony, the State had to prove Trump's intent to commit another crime, belatedly identified as violation of Sec. 17-152. New York's Court of Appeal has made clear that intent to commit another crime is an essential element of the felony offense to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The belated and insufficient notice violated Trump's due process rights to be apprised of the specific crime with which he was charged and to be given a meaningful opportunity to defend against that charge. The State's misdirection, with the acquiescence of Judge Marchan, purposefully denied Trump that right.

            The record is rife with equally egregious conduct by the prosecution and the Court. For example, Marchan allowed the jury to consider violation of federal election law as the means by which Trump violated Sec. 17-152. But during the trial he disallowed testimony from a former federal election official Trump wished to call as a witness that what Trump did is not a violation of the federal laws. Breathtakingly prejudicial and erroneous.

            Take Trump out of the equation and ask yourself if this is the way the resources and might of our justice system should be allowed to roll over a defendant. Be honest.

          31. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “…the State had to prove Trump’s intent to commit another crime…”

            No they had to prove Trump intended to either commit a crime or conceal a crime (he did not even have to commit the crime he intended to conceal). Indeed there is no requirement that it be a specific crime. They just had to show a general intent to commit or conceal a crime. In this case Trump is not being tried for that crime. Courts have upheld convictions even when the defendant had been acquitted of the crime he intended to commit or conceal.

          32. Bedfordboy Avatar
            Bedfordboy

            Your confusion (to give you the benefit of the doubt) illustrates the due process violations inherent in the State's approach.

            The sole statutory violation repeated ad nauseum in the indictment is falsifying business records in the first degree in violation of Penal Law Sec. 175.10. 175.10 turns the misdemeanor of falsifying business records proscribed by Sec. 175.05 into a felony (with a longer statute of limitations the State used to belatedly file this case) if the "intent to defraud [required by 175.05] includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." It matters not a whit whether the State relies on the "commit" or "conceal" alternative. The State must prove Trump's intent with respect to such crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. His specific intent is an essential element of the offense and cannot be, as you erroneously suggest, satisfied by proving some "general intent to commit a crime". Notice of the crime charged and an opportunity to defend against it are bedrock and undisputed requirements of Constitutional Due Process.

            So now we return to the infamous "second crime", state election law Sec. 17-152. That Section makes it a misdemeanor to engage in a conspiracy "to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means." (Ironically, the Statute of Limitations for that misdemeanor also is 2 years and standing alone would have been time barred just like a falsifying business records claim under 175.05.) By jury-rigging (pun intended) the misdemeanor state election law as the predicate crime required by the felony statute Sec. 175.10, the State rendered the "unlawful means" of the election law statute into an essential element of the crime proscribed by 175.10. Due process requires timely and sufficient notice of those crimes to allow a defense against them. That is the fundamental reason why the State's AND Marchan's gamesmanship in specifying both the second crime, Sec. 17-152, and the "unlawful means" required by that statute a fundamental denial of due process.

            This and myriad other reversible errors will play out at the appellate level. It will be a case of first impression on some issues: no other criminal case has been prosecuted based on the obscure Sec. 17-152.

            That says a lot in and of itself.

          33. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            "His specific intent is an essential element of the offense and cannot be, as you erroneously suggest, satisfied by proving some "general intent to commit a crime"."

            From the earlier referenced filing:

            "In addition, there is "no requirement that the People allege or establish what particular
            crime was intended." People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 193 (1989). Rather, the People need
            only establish "general intent to commit [or conceal] a crime . . . not [defendant's] intent to commit
            [or conceal] a specific crime." People v. Thompson, 206 A.D.3d 1708, 1708 (4th Dep't 2022); see
            also People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274, 279 (1980)."

          34. Bedfordboy Avatar
            Bedfordboy

            To refresh your recollection, the "referenced filing" you again cite as hornbook New York law is from a prosecutor's brief. If the State's view of the law were always correct, there would be no need for briefs by the defense or rulings by the court on the correct statement of the law. Prosecutors would always win.

            The fallacy of your argument is apparent from the cases cited by the State and parroted by you. Mahboubian, Thompson and Mackey deal with burglary that can be escalated in degree if unlawful entry or presence in a structure is coupled with the "intent to commit a crime" therein. Such intent to commit a crime, which need not be committed or completed, is an element of a single, defined offense, not a bootstrapped separate crime from another statute intended to escalate a misdemeanor into a felony.

            Your arguments remind me of the Bar's nickname for a federal judge in Boston years ago: Judge "Never in doubt, often in error."

            I'm done. If this particular issue is adjudicated on appeal, we'll see who has the correct take on the law. The appellate court(s) may not even reach our dispute because the statute under which Trump was convicted as applied to this case is unconstitutionally vague under both the US and NY Constitutions.

          35. CJBova Avatar

            Still makes no sense whatsoever not to specify what the crime is. Remember Jimmy Carter lusted in his heart? What kind of crime was that? One for the thought police?

          36. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Well, while there is no requirement to specify the crime, the prosecution did actually specify the crimes he tried to conceal.

          37. Turbocohen Avatar
            Turbocohen

            The declaration of Independence was written and signed by felons.

          38. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            which ones?

          39. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            which ones?

          40. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            who were they?

          41. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Really, Walter, you don’t know? It is a part of the public record and readily available…. and it’s “crimes” as in plural.

          42. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Tell me the crime.

          43. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            No.

          44. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Cuz you can’t, Beria.

          45. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Already have, Sport, just not to you.

          46. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Already have, Sport, just not to you.

          47. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Then tell me what the “crime” is.
            Tell all of us who are so blinded by love for Trump that we can’t understand complicated legal principles, known only by the “elite.”
            Tell us. Quit prevaricating.

          48. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            As I said, I have already answered this question… don’t you know the new rule about not repeating posts… obviously you don’t…

          49. CJBova Avatar

            Eric not sure why you flagged this. Was it the sarcasm about prevaricating and Trump-love? I asked the same question on what crime and haven’t seen an answer.

          50. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Prevarication is lying. See here:

            https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/prevarication#:~:text=Prevarication%20is%20when%20someone%20tells,the%20kitchen%20window%20got%20broken.

            I have not lied and it is a personal attack on my character (something I thought was against the rules). I answered your question directly 15 hours ago.

          51. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Prevarication is lying. See here:

            https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/prevarication#:~:text=Prevarication%20is%20when%20someone%20tells,the%20kitchen%20window%20got%20broken.

            I have not lied and it is a personal attack on my character (something I thought was against the rules). I answered your question directly 15 hours ago.

          52. CJBova Avatar

            Thank you for the time reference! I missed that comment.
            As I said, I read the prevarication comment as simple sarcasm, not an assault on your integrity.

            No identifiable”crime” has been articulated by Bragg. I like the description of “hodgepodge of dubious theories.”
            https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432843/2023-11-09-das-mem-opp-defs-omnibus-motions-redacted.pdf
            https://reason.com/2024/05/29/trump-jury-instructions-invite-conviction-based-on-a-hodgepodge-of-dubious-theories/
            “This theory assumes three things: 1) that Trump recognized the Daniels payment as a FECA violation; 2) that he knew about Section 17-152, a moribund, rarely invoked law; and 3) that he anticipated how New York prosecutors might construe Section 17-152 in light of FECA. The first assumption is questionable, the second is unlikely, and the third is highly implausible. Yet you would have to believe all three things to conclude that Trump approved a plan to misrepresent his reimbursement of Cohen as payment for legal services with the intent of covering up a FECA-dependent violation of Section 17-152.”

          53. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            THe Jury did, right?

          54. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Exactly! Which is why I wrote “…which was proven in court to the satisfaction of the jury…” which is what Carol asked an explanation for.

          55. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Well, they were wrong and should be investigated and have protestors at their homes….

          56. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            there sometimes seems to be variability in interpretation ….Waltler seems to benefit from it greatly.

          57. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Yeah, I am having a hard time seeing sarcasm there but this is Carol’s prerogative and interpretation and I accept it. Lord knows I fling sarcasm around a good bit.

          58. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            as they say, your mileage may vary…..

          59. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            Hunter's gun crime is not that big a deal in my mind. There should be a plea. He should pay a fine. Maybe commit to a 6 month probation with drug tests. His tax evasion charges are much more serious.

            Menendez is a different story. If he's guilty as charged, he needs to do time.

            The New York trial of Trump was nothing but lawfare.

            In 2008, Obama's campaign (with the direct knowledge of Obama) tried to pay off Rev Wright. Nobody thought to bring charges against Obama.

            The classified documents case against Trump is way too close to what Biden did for any charges to be valid.

            The election interference case against Trump is weak. It seems to me that case hinges on the interpretation of a single phone call. Room for reasonable doubt.

            The insurrection charges are ridiculous.

          60. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You go to jail over tax law that you paid back?

            Agree on Menéndez.. if he did it, lock em up!

            What did you say the wanted to impeach Biden over?

            Did Obama or his campaign do that?

            If Biden responded over the docs that Trump did, he’d deserve the same.. he did not.

            Do you think illegal electors at the behest of Trump to overturn the election is “weak”?

            Do you not believe that people who support Trump have been arrested for directly threatening
            people? Do you think when he implies more of his supporters will go off that it’s not his fault and
            he’s urging them to not turn into criminals or do you think he’s more like a Mafia guy who says
            he’s done nothing and can’t help it if people are loyal to him go do bad stuff?

          61. StarboardLift Avatar
            StarboardLift

            She did work with others, the entire BOV put her up to the task of getting Sullivan to resign, she acted at their behest. Left holding the bag as the well-oiled PR machinery of the U fired up the faculty, it's true she was unprepared for the fury unleashed. She took an oath to the Commonwealth, not the U.

          62. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Ah.. she was put up to it… ? Did you read her own words about how she did on efforts to get rid of Sullivan? She admits she did it wrong, right and fouled up.

          63. StarboardLift Avatar
            StarboardLift

            "We did it the wrong way…need to communicate…" so that you're not left holding the bag. She took the fall for a bunch of spineless liars who abandoned her.

          64. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            what was she trying to accomplish in gettng rid of Sullivan..what kind of changes?

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Is this Thanksgiving and the children’s table?

  7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    I think you said this already, JAB… slow “news” day, I guess…

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Sometimes a chowder head is, well, just a chowder head.

    Don't worry that children never listen to you; worry that they are always watching you. -Robert Fulghum, author (b. 4 Jun 1937)

  9. disqus_VYLI8FviCA Avatar
    disqus_VYLI8FviCA

    DePasquale’s communications skills are appalling. Had he graduated from the College he might more adept at presenting a cogent argument. He is an embarrassment to The University not just for his childish behavior but for his horrid command of the English language.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I cannot disagree. It reads like a drunk speaking. Perhaps………..

      But he's gone, and GAWD knows how the newly appointed will act as likely more aligned with Ellis?

  10. Turbocohen Avatar
    Turbocohen

    DePasquale is not the problem, the real problem is who appointed him to the board.

  11. Turbocohen Avatar
    Turbocohen

    DePasquale is not the problem, the real problem is who appointed him to the board.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      who voted for him?

      I thought they were appointed…

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      who voted for him?

      I thought they were appointed…

Leave a Reply