Trump's Remarkably Incompetent Pick For Federal District Court

[r3volution 3.0]

Meet Mathew Spencer Peterson


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-zvNnFjk3Q

[Zippyjuan]

"They will be the best, most qualified judges you have ever seen."

[Schifference]

This is XD Chess. Pick a terrible person because they won't like the good person.

[specsaregood]

I find his nomination refreshing, not incompetent. I want more people without the traditional experience of a judge. Hell, I'd nominate Ryan Bundy to the federal court if I had the power.

[Superfluous Man]

I just listened to the first 2 minutes. I didn't hear him not being able to answer any questions, nor any signs of incompetence.

To save us some time, where's the part of the video where he's incompetent or can't answer basic questions?

[Zippyjuan]

I just listened to the first 2 minutes. I didn't hear him not being able to answer any questions, nor any signs of incompetence.

To save us some time, where's the part of the video where he's incompetent or can't answer basic questions?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-federal-judge-nominee-asked-legal-questions-not-answer-district-washington-dc-a8111826.html


Matthew Spencer Petersen admitted he was unfamiliar with several common legal terms during questioning by Republican Senator John Kennedy at a hearing earlier this week.

Mr Petersen, a member of the Federal Election Commission, had been selected by the President to become a federal judge on the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

However, he admitted during questioning that he had never tried a criminal or civil trial.

Video of the hearing posted to Twitter by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, showed Mr Peterson failing to explain basic legal terms such as “motion in limine” - a request filed by a party to a lawsuit which asks the court for an order or ruling limiting or preventing certain evidence from being presented by the other side at the trial of the case.

Mr Petersen attempted to defend his poor knowledge of terminology to senators.

He told the hearing: “My background is not in litigation. I understand the challenge ahead of me if I were fortunate enough to become a district court judge. I understand that the path that many successful district court judges have taken has been a different one than I have taken.”

Senator Kennedy responded: “I have read your resume. Just for the record, do you know what a motion in limine is?

Mr Peterson replied: “I would probably not be able to give you a good definition.”

President Trump has already been forced to withdraw another judicial nominee this week amid concerns over his lack of experience.

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


In U.S. law, a motion in limine (Latin: "at the start", literally, "on the threshold") (Latin pronunciation: [ɪn ˈliːmɪˌne] in LEE-min-ay) is a motion, discussed outside the presence of the jury, to request that certain testimony be excluded. The motion is decided by a judge in both civil and criminal proceedings. It is frequently used at pre-trial hearings or during trial, and it can be used at both the state and federal levels.

The reasons for the motions are wide and varied, but probably the most frequent use of the motion in limine in a criminal trial is to shield the jury from information concerning the defendant that could possibly be unfairly prejudicial to the defendant if heard at trial.[1] Other reasons arise under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with discovery.[2][3][4]

Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) defines "motion in limine" as "a pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial." A motion in limine is used to get a ruling to allow for the inclusion of evidence, not only to get a ruling as to whether or not evidence will be precluded from trial. They are made "preliminary", and it is presented for consideration of the judge (or arbitrator or hearing officer) to be decided without the merits being reached first.[5]:791

Example

Examples of motions in limine would be that the attorney for the defendant may ask the judge to refuse to admit into evidence any personal information, or medical, criminal or financial records, using the legal grounds that these records are irrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, or unduly prejudicial, and/or that their probative value is outweighed by the prejudicial result to the defendant, or that the admittance of such information or evidence would otherwise violate one of the court's rules of evidence. A party proffering certain evidence can also ask for the admission of certain information or evidence via a motion in limine.

If the motion in limine to exclude evidence is granted, then the excluded records are prohibited from being presented without specific approval from the judge at the time the party wants to offer the evidence. A reference to such "highly prejudicial" evidence contrary to the tribunal's order is a ground for a mistrial.[5]:1033

[Superfluous Man]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-federal-judge-nominee-asked-legal-questions-not-answer-district-washington-dc-a8111826.html

If I understand that correctly, then it's not that he didn't understand basic questions (plural) or legal terms (plural), but that there was one particular legal term that he didn't know, which was "motion in limine."

I'm not a lawyer. Is that really a basic legal question? I've never heard of it before either.

[Zippyjuan]

If I understand that correctly, then it's not that he didn't understand basic questions (plural) or legal terms (plural), but that there was one particular legal term that he didn't know, which was "motion in limine."

I'm not a lawyer. Is that really a basic legal question? I've never heard of it before either.

I am not one either but it seems to be one a trial lawyer or judge would encounter on a regular basis. If he wants to judge cases, he should be familiar with the term. He would have a hard time ruling on a lawyer before him requesting a motion in limine if he does not even know what the motion is asking him to do or to rule on. See the example in the Wiki entry.

[Superfluous Man]

I am not one either but it seems to be one a trial lawyer or judge would encounter on a regular basis.

But this guy's not a trial lawyer or judge.

I'm not sure how common this term is. But some jargon he would quickly learn on the job. And as a non-judge, non-trial lawyer, there are other qualifications and experiences he brings to the table that others don't.

If the point is that only judges should get positions as federal court judges, then ok, I can see why some would say that. It seems debatable to me, but I can see it. But if that's the issue, then they should just leave it at that, rather than try to accuse this guy of being some kind of idiot for not intimately knowing jargon that he shouldn't be expected to know given his background.

[Zippyjuan]

But this guy's not a trial lawyer or judge.

I'm not sure how common this term is. But some jargon he would quickly learn on the job. And as a non-judge, non-trial lawyer, there are other qualifications and experiences he brings to the table that others don't.

If the point is that only judges should get positions as federal court judges, then ok, I can see why some would say that. It seems debatable to me, but I can see it. But if that's the issue, then they should just leave it at that, rather than try to accuse this guy of being some kind of idiot for not intimately knowing jargon that he shouldn't be expected to know given his background.

A Federal judge rules on critical issues. I would prefer one with knowledge and experience making life and death decisions to one learning on the job. The lower courts are the place to learn. Not having been a trial lawyer or judge is an excellent reason to reject his nomination to become a Federal Court Justice. Just my opinion. Another judge Trump nominated who also had no experience was rejected just this past week.

[Krugminator2]

"They will be the best, most qualified judges you have ever seen."

He did put libertarian Don Willett on the court yesterday too. http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/13/senate-confirms-libertarian-minded-juris

Willett is a big Lochner guy just like Rand and Napolitano.

Here is a "glowing" profile of him in a leftist trash outlet. https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-most-radical-nominee-since-neil-gorsuch-02d1bcabc8e0/

[kcchiefs6465]

I find his nomination refreshing, not incompetent. I want more people without the traditional experience of a judge. Hell, I'd nominate Ryan Bundy to the federal court if I had the power.
Definitely. And it’s kind of funny too, so there’s that.

I do wonder why Judge Napolitano isn’t considered for any of these positions.

[Superfluous Man]

A Federal judge rules on critical issues. I would prefer one with knowledge and experience making life and death decisions to one learning on the job. The lower courts are the place to learn. Not having been a trial lawyer or judge is an excellent reason to reject his nomination to become a Federal Court Justice. Just my opinion. Another judge Trump nominated who also had no experience was rejected just this past week.

This is the first time I recall ever seeing you actually say clearly what your position on something was.

[specsaregood]

A Federal judge rules on critical issues. I would prefer one with knowledge and experience making life and death decisions to one learning on the job. The lower courts are the place to learn. Not having been a trial lawyer or judge is an excellent reason to reject his nomination to become a Federal Court Justice. Just my opinion. Another judge Trump nominated who also had no experience was rejected just this past week.

And I would prefer one that maybe hasn't been completely indoctrinated and is willing to think logically, rationally and for himself. But then again, I'm no fan of our current court system; maybe you are and that's the difference.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Not having been a trial lawyer or judge is an excellent reason to reject his nomination to become a Federal Court Justice. Just my opinion.

Is it also your opinion that you would have rejected these Supreme Court Justices Without Prior Judicial Experience Before Becoming Justices (http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html)
?





Supreme Court Justices Without Prior Judicial Experience Before Becoming Justices


1. William Rehnquist Asst. U.S. Attorney General 1972-2005 Nixon (Assoc., 1972),
Reagan (Chief, 1986)
2. Lewis Powell President of the American Bar Ass'n,
Private Practice 1972-1987 Nixon
3. Abe Fortas Private Practice 1965-1969 Johnson
4. Byron White Deputy U.S. Attorney General 1962-1993 Kennedy
5. Arthur Goldberg U.S. Secretary of Labor 1962-1965 Kennedy
6. Earl Warren Governor of California 1953-1969 Eisenhower
7. Tom Clark U.S. Attorney General 1949-1967 Truman
8. Harold Burton U.S. Senator 1945-1958 Truman
9. Robert Jackson U.S. Attorney General 1941-1954 F. Roosevelt
10. James Francis Byrnes U.S. Senator 1941-1942 F. Roosevelt
11. William O. Douglas Chairman of the S.E.C. 1939-1975 F. Roosevelt
12. Felix Frankfurter Asst. U.S. Attorney, Asst. Secretary of War,
Prof. of Law at Harvard 1939-1962 F. Roosevelt
13. Stanley Forman Reed U.S. Solicitor General 1938-1957 F. Roosevelt
14. Owen Josephus Roberts Special Counsel in "Teapot Dome" investigation and trials 1930-1945 Hoover
15. Harlan Fiske Stone U.S. Attorney General 1925-1946 Coolidge (Assoc., 1925),
F. Roosevelt (Chief, 1941)
16. Pierce Butler County Attorney, Private Practice 1923-1939 Harding
17. George Sutherland U.S. Senator 1922-1938 Harding
18. Louis Brandeis Private Practice 1916-1939 Wilson
19. James Clark McReynolds U.S. Attorney General 1914-1941 Wilson
20. Charles Evans Hughes Governor of New York,
U.S. Secretary of State 1910-1916,
1930-1941 Taft (Assoc., 1910),
Hoover (Chief, 1930)
21. William Henry Moody U.S. Attorney General 1906-1910 T. Roosevelt
22. George Shiras, Jr Private Practice 1892-1903 Harrison
23. Melville Fuller Private Practice 1888-1910 Cleveland
24. Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar U.S. Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Senator 1888-1893 Cleveland
25. Joseph Philo Bradley Private Practice 1870-1892 Grant
26. Salmon P. Chase U.S. Treasury Secretary 1864-1873 Lincoln
27. Samuel Freeman Miller Private Practice 1862-1890 Lincoln
28. Noah Haynes Swayne U.S. Attorney for Ohio, Ohio Legislator 1862-1881 Lincoln
29. Nathan Clifford Maine & U.S. Attorney General 1858-1881 Buchanan
30. John Archibald Campbell Alabama Legislator 1853-1861 Pierce
31. Benjamin Robbins Curtis Massachusetts Legislator 1851-1857 Fillmore
32. John McKinley U.S. Senator 1838-1852 Van Buren
33. Roger Brooke Taney Maryland & U.S. Attorney General,
U.S. Treasury Secretary 1836-1864 Jackson
34. Henry Baldwin U.S. Congressman 1830-1844 Jackson
35. Joseph Story Speaker of Mass. House of Reps., U.S. Congressman 1812-1845 Madison
36. John Marshall U.S. Secretary of State 1801-1835 Adams
37. Bushrod Washington Virginia House of Delegates,
Reporter for Virginia Court of Appeals 1799-1829 Adams
38. William Paterson Governor of New Jersey 1793-1806 Washington
39. John Jay President of the Continental Congress,
U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs 1789-1795 Washington
40. John Rutledge Governor of South Carolina 1789-1791, 1795 Washington

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

"They will be the best, most qualified judges you have ever seen."

You put that in quotes. Someone actually said this, word-for-word?

[spudea]

So you're telling me that Federal Judges don't have court staffers that handle all the minutia and legalese procedural bull shit, and also help with legal research??? Wow please inform the entire judicial branch of these unneeded employees!!

[Superfluous Man]

Is it also your opinion that you would have rejected these Supreme Court Justices Without Prior Judicial Experience Before Becoming Justices (http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html)
?

In most cases they probably could well have been rejected.

Same with the guy in the OP too, for all I know. I'm not going to go out on a limb and say I expect him to be any good. I have no reason to think that.

I just don't see why not having a background where he made much use of the phrase "motion in limine" is a big deal.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

As of Monday [Oct 29], of the 58 nominees Trump has announced, the committee has rated 28 “well qualified,” 13 “qualified” and two “not qualified.”

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/standing_committee_on_federal_judiciary_not_qualif ied_rating




So how does this compare with other presidents? Anybody know?

ZippyJuan Group, you get paid to do this research, so do you want to look this up?

[Swordsmyth]

Definitely. And it’s kind of funny too, so there’s that.

I do wonder why Judge Napolitano isn’t considered for any of these positions.

Because he is a controlled opposition swamp creature:
Judge Nap: Too Early to Say Mueller Probe Is Biased Against Trump (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?517774-Judge-Nap-Too-Early-to-Say-Mueller-Probe-Is-Biased-Against-Trump)

[r3volution 3.0]

"They will be the best, most qualified judges you have ever seen."

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/20/4d/e6/204de6e7fc813af5773ff8880be4161d.gif


I just listened to the first 2 minutes. I didn't hear him not being able to answer any questions, nor any signs of incompetence.

To save us some time, where's the part of the video where he's incompetent or can't answer basic questions?

All of it. For instance, the Daubert standard

[Superfluous Man]

All of it. For instance, the Daubert standard

All of it, just not any of the first half of it?

I must have given up right before the important part.

[Intoxiklown]

In most cases they probably could well have been rejected.

Same with the guy in the OP too, for all I know. I'm not going to go out on a limb and say I expect him to be any good. I have no reason to think that.

I just don't see why not having a background where he made much use of the phrase "motion in limine" is a big deal.

I can see where it'd cause concern (for the prosecution side of the house) as it opens doors for grounds for appeal, dismissal, ect. Showing where a judge who convicted someone did so in contrast to a motion or law that the judge was found to be ignorant of would be a defense attorney's dream. That's my objective answer.

My personal answer would be that as someone who always represents themselves Pro Se (Pro Se is to act as one's own attorney) I find it extremely odd that anyone within the justice system judicial side wouldn't understand what Motion in Limine is. I have used this motion myself (I was charged with concealed weapon when I was 19), and it is a very basic legal maneuver for a defense team. Meaning it's a very basic motion for someone on a prosecution team. And that was a time before the internet and Google that I was able to find and understand how to implement that motion.

[TER]

FYI: Matthew Peterson’s specialty isn’t litigation (sorry CNN), it is election fraud.

LOL

This week ahead will be fun to watch..

[devil21]

Definitely. And it’s kind of funny too, so there’s that.

I do wonder why Judge Napolitano isn’t considered for any of these positions.

Nap is too independent.
Judges do what theyre told. They work for the Rothschilds. During big economic transitions like going on now the courts are stacked with yes men that will rubberstamp whatever comes down from on high. FDR iirc did the same thing to scotus to get the new legal system rubberstamped in the 30s. The nominee is the OP is likely one of the rubberstampers chosen knowing he will rule however he is instructed.