I think we need to think through, to me also is more this position we need to have all 19 people at the table 47 days from now, and maybe this is something, if you need to tag team with somebody else on the counsel, one of the first things i kind of want to talk through is potentially how removal affects this. So i know your estate is currently litigating this issue with multiple codefendants in federal court. And while that is happening until a decision is made, we cant issue a judgment of conviction here. Yes, judge. No matter how judge rules, isnt either party going to have right to appeal that rule something. Thats correct. Both sides would have the right to appeal. So the 11th circuit could take, any idea of how long to weigh in . As long as they need to. Right. So it could potentially even optimistically be a six month turn around for the 11th circuit to come up with a decision, right . Yes, sir. If its a fourmonth trial, this starts in october, we present the entire states case, maybe even the jury has returned a verdict but we cant enter the judgment of conviction until the 11th circuit comes to a decision. Is that sort of the scenario were playing out here . Judge, i think, could we have a moment, please . Your honor, and by the way, let me add, i know this wasnt something i highlighted. This is something we need to submit for post Hearing Briefing, we can do that, but this is something that i think is a consideration we ought to be taking into mind. And that may be the best route, judge, our position on that is it depends on what the scope of judge jones order is, if he takes the position that he removes everyone or just removes those who may have some entitlement to removal. The law is unclear on how that works in a criminal case. You can see what happened, no matter how he rules, lets say he says some aspects of the case stay behind with us here in Fulton County and the 11th circuit changes their mind and reverses that entirely and says, no, the entire case has to get removed to federal court, where does that leave us in the middle of a jury trial. Is Double Jeopardy, have you removed your entire prosecution, because this case, and we have sworn in a jury, presenting evidence against the other codefendants. Judge, again, i think for those very complex, kind of fine tuned details we may need the opportunity to brief those issues. Its not easy, and weve got, again, less than two months to figure this out. So i think to kind of charge ahead without come to go some thoughts on this very soon, might be risky. So and then the other issue here is even if we say that the three prongs arent met, again with logistical issues, the states case may take four months. But voir dire with 19 Defense Attorneys is going to be a different animal than voir dire with two. So i dont think saying theyre both going to equally be four months no matter how many defendants are involved would be completely accurate, is that fair in terms of who can object to any particular question thats asked, the side bars that are requested, the sheer physical limitations if one attorney gets sick, can we so confidently say that each trial is going to be exactly four months no matter whos involved . I dont think we can say exactly. But it cuts both ways. If we had, for example, 19 people tried at one time, you have a witness up and lets say theyre subject to 19 crossexaminations, each of those 19 is not going to be the same full length crossexamination. So you would have kind of a shorter, if you took them all together, you might have a shorter time for the witness on the stand with 19 people versus if you have 19 trials of one person. And im going to the extremes just to demonstrate the point, but if you have 19 trials with one defendant each, and each of those would be fully crossed, each of those witnesses would be fully cross examined 19 times, so theres a give and a take. Some things might take longer, some things would be quicker. The other things to think in mind, this is going to be a case with a lot of pretrial motions, and again, i dont know how many hearings we need to have to sort through all of those. If we can press our time line to 40 something days, our ability to really even be able to weigh those and think through these issues, again, it just seems a bit unrealistic to think we can handle all 19 in 40something days. And thats my initial reaction. Thinking of just how to get this and are we delaying the inevitable. If we say theres no severance, arent we going to have 17 Defense Attorneys file a motion for continuance saying theyre not ready. Some counsel indicated theyre on trial in other cases in federal court, and if were just going to be sitting in a position where were having to consider continuous motion in 40 days, why delay the inevitable . Sure. Judge. The states position on that is that were here on two defendants, and so at this juncture, other defendants have filed their motions for severance, and they may raise those issues and it would be appropriate for the court to consider all of these issues in making its decision but for todays purposes, were here on two defendant, and the issue is do we pull these two defendants out, not do we pull defendant 13 out or whatever the case may be, so the states position is until those are raised by those parties once we have hearings on those that they shouldnt affect the courts decision as it relates to these two defendants. So at a minimum, i think what im hearing here is that it might be appropriate at this time to consider whether mr. Chesebro and ms. Powell proceed alone together . Whether they have provided the court and met their burden to show that they should come out. Not that the other 17 should come out, but they should come out of the pot is the states position. Okay. All right. I would like two minutes to respond. Last word from the defense, this is your motion. Judge, i will take this down. Your honor, im not trying to over simplify this. It is a complicated case, factually and procedural, as to the 19, your honor, theres not going to be there cant be a trial of 19 people and it has nothing to do with the length of time. It has to the fact that two defendants executed their right to a speedy trial and 17 others didnt. And thats our right to do and their right to do, so with all due respect, your honor, i dont know that theres truly a reason to spend much time, of course i can answer any questions, but really much time talking about 19. So really, i think the question here today to wrap up is whether its a trial of state versus powell and chesebro or two trials, one state versus chesebro, one state versus powell. All of the cases and we would like an opportunity since there will be some post Hearing Briefing to read those cases the court state cited and maybe respond to them. I looked at one. Its the one that says where theres sufficient evidence of a common scheming plan, willing ham versus state. Joinder is authorized. That doesnt mean severance is inappropriate. Those are not same thing. Just because joinder isnt authorized doesnt mean the court shouldnt sever. Let me be clear about something, you know, the state wants this case, and i think its absolutely clear in the pleadings, the state wants a case against donald trump and all of these people together. The state wants to make this case about donald trump. Donald trump is one of 19 defendants. Ken chesebro is another one. Ken chesebro is not a politician. Before six, seven months ago, he was probably unknown to 99. 999 of the population. So now to force him to sit here in a trial where theres evidence of all of these other things is just not fair, and im sorry, your honor, you know, they have a slide here, rico is different. Sure, its different. I acknowledged that in my opening. But what this slide does not say is that rico overrides the rules governing fundamental fairness, constitutional and statutory protection that are designed to protect defendants. This Willingham Case and upon information and belief, i believe most of the other cases cited by the government are cases like murder. The Willingham Case is a murder case, its a murder conspiracy case. Certainly the state understands the difference between three and four people being charged with one single conspiracy versus 19 people being charged with three or four different conspiracies and your honor, if the court were to take the states arguments at face value, there would almost never if ever be a rico case that can ever be severed and think about what that means. It means that the State Of Georgia and the various District Attorneys throughout the state can use the rico statute. Can take three, four, five, six, seven different conspiracies and at their sole discretion with no oversight by any court say that they won, bring in one indictment, and were all stuck together, and quite frankly, your honor, lets compare and contrast this to the ysl case going down a few, i dont know if its floors down or up. I think down. That ysl case, i dont know much about it, but ive watched tv and podcasts, its a common conspiracy. There were different overt acts toward the same conspiracy, and therefore the state can tie them together, but its one conspiracy and thats where i think if you read that Willingham Case, where there is sufficient evidence of a common scheme or plan. How, your honor, is the plan down in Coffee County, if its a plan, the alleged plan, have any commonality other than electing donald trump, your honor. Half of the United States took some act towards electing donald trump. If that were the only thing that mattered in terms of connecting all of these as a common conspiracy, there would be no rules of due process. And the last thing ill say, your honor, is i will go back to what we said at the beginning. I think its perfectly clear here that this trial does not have to last four months. Because what the state is assuming is that lets say, your honor, grants our severance motion, and allows us to try our case just chesebro, and then powell. Separately. Well, theyre saying, well, its all going to be the same evidence. Well, not necessarily, obviously the time hasnt come to file Motions In Limine. But we will obviously file Motions In Limine regarding the admissibility of certain evidence, extrinsic evidence of other acts that we dont think are relevant, and we have the other motion to sever the counts and no one motion, i dont think, your honor, should be obviously i know the court has to rule on all of them independently, but i would argue, judge, that you should consider them jointly in terms of figuring out The Big Picture here, which is it is within the courts control. Let me clarify something because i think the argument of the motion to sever the counts really wasnt so much as a ruling on yes, your honor. Limiting the evidence, versus heres the time were going to hear the jury. Lets say your honor was to grant that, it would be a pared down indictment, and then Motions In Limine, the things that your honor is not going to rule on it until we follow it but you might expect that if your honor grants a motion that says, all right, these 50 things in the indictment dont get read to the jury, its probably a pretty good chance either way that were also going to file Motions In Limine to say that evidence of those things that have nothing to do with mr. Chesebro also cant come in. Your honor, the bottom line is the state cannot be allowed to call something rico and the rules are out the window. It wasnt what will the General Assembly attended. It wasnt its not consistent with just basic principles of due process and fundamental fairness. With that, your honor, unless the court has any questions, we appreciate it and i reserve the remainder of my time to the extent there is any. Weve beaten the dead horse as it relates to your discretion of granting a severance between mr. Chesebro and ms. Powell. The first point i made remains, ms. Powell has filed for a speedy trial much in the same way as mr. Chesebro. Many of the defendants have filed motions to sever, and i dont think any of the case law or anything that the government has cited here today trumps my clients right to a speedy trial. She has asked for a speedy trial. She filed it timely, just like mr. Chesebro. Therefore, i think, at a minimum, her case is severed from the remaining 17. It must be severed because none of the cases that the government cited point to the idea that all of those considerations trump the statutory rights of my client to a speedy trial. So, you know, we can see what post briefing comes in about severing mr. Chesebro from ms. Powell but i dont think theres any dispute at this point that ms. Powell and mr. Chesebro are severed from the remaining 17 based on our demands for speedy trial. Thank you, mr. Rapperty. Just briefly for the purposes of the record, i want to make clear, there is a dispute about severing the 2 from the 17. I want to make sure thats cleared up for the record, and just before we depart, we would ask if theres a briefing. I think we still have plenty to talk about before we wrap up for today. Obviously i think as has been made clear were on an expedited time line with the statutory speedy trial demands and we are certainly here, ready and willing to provide both defendants that right, and we plan to make that october 23rd trial date stick. With that in mind, i dont know if were always going to be able to have the luxury of preHearing Briefing and post Hearing Briefing and some of these issues may require a little more exploration than others. This one i dont think is one of those. When it comes to the question of whether to sever ms. Powell and mr. Chesebro, i certainly agree that there are always guardrails, and that rico as indicted cant just be used to do anything, but it is broadly construed and those guardrails are found and the three factors traditionally that we have gone through, really done seem to be at play here. We dont, for one, the antagonistic Defense Issue is concedes, both parties are going to be claiming they have no idea who the other is and wont be pointing the fingers at each other. I think the argument that theyre charged on two separate silos of charges strengthens the idea that there wont be confusion amongst the jurors and there wont be spillover evidence. Really, the strongest thing that im hearing, and i dont think its invalid is that its going to be kind of a matter of inconvenience, and potential added expense to have both defendants sit together. And thats certainly true, but theres also other judicial economy aspects to consider, and issues of inconvenience as well. We talk about the jurors. I dont think its we can take for granted that these would both be two equally fourmonth long trials. I think it could easily be twice that with multiple defendants and i think we need to take into account the fact that one docket goes entirely on hold while this case is going, and instead of it being, if were purely considering aspects of judicial economy which to me was really the only valid argument here, i think taking up two dockets for a period of four months also weighs into that as well as the voir dire process and the inconvenience to the jurors. So based on whats been presented today, im not finding the severance from mr. Chesebro or powell is necessary to achieve a fair determination of the guilt or innocence for either defendant in this case, and so ill deny mr. Chesebros motion to sever from ms. Powell. Ill deny in part ms. Powells motion to sever from mr. Chesebro. And the plan will be to enter a Scheduling Order for ms. Powell, mirroring that of mr. Chesebro, with the october 23rd date holding. It sounds like the state is still sticking to the position that all of these defendants should remain, and they want to address some of these removal issues. Im willing to hear that, i remain very skeptical. But we can im willing to hear what you have to say on it, and, so again, because were on a limited time frame, i dont think we have the luxury of waiting. How long do you think the state needs to respond to that issue . Two weeks. I dont think we can do that. Theres going to be motion deadlines, and we need to get Schedules Orders entered. I had to ask. Thats fine, and i had to deny. Understood. Understood. Ten days . I think the tenday mark from today. Im sending the indicator, folks are going to have more than ten days to file their standard post arraignment motions. Lets see if we can have that by tuesday of next week. Again, this is limited to how you think logistically we could possibly keep these defendants together, and i think we can limit that to ten pages. And if anyone else wants to respond they can to that issue, but. If youre still going on this issue, i did have a quick other issue, just as we have your attention to bring up. We have a pending motion to talk to the grand jurors. Right. Let me get to that. Knowing mr. Chesebro and powell are hurdling forward, and the motions are going to keep coming in, i dont think it makes sense to have these all pile up, so we would pretty much maybe just keep having these weekly sessions together and handle them one at a time. To that end, i believe were starting another trial next week. I think its a murder trial were doing next week, but looking at thursday or friday of next week, how is everyones availability . I only saw motions for mr. Chesebro, so i guess the question is directed to mr. Grubman and mr. Aurora, looking at thursday and friday morning. Were here whenever the court instructs us to be. Got it. Your honor, could we ask for friday morning. On thursday morning . Thursday afternoon . Depending on the motion. So far youve got, i believe its the two related to the grand jury and one more related this the clause. Maybe we limit it, since the grand jury issue is something that might take more time to flush out if its granted. Maybe we limit to those two for next week, and we can save the constitutional arguments for another day. Can we still do that thursday morning, though . I assume its just those two relate to the grand jury. Thursday morning or friday morning . Thursday morning, it sound like everyone. And the two grand jury motions and mr. Rafferty, if you want to jump on board and adopt them, we can obviously work you in. Clarification, the briefing for the state by tuesday, is that going to be on a question of whether its going to be a trial of 19 or a trial of 2 . Thats right. Thank you. Nothing else fro