slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

By Kaitlyn Schallhorn, FOX News

The federal judge presiding over Paul Manafort’s case has rebuked Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and chastised lawyers on both teams for behavior in the courtroom.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III has said he hopes “to finish this case much sooner than anyone predicted.” Manafort faces tax and bank fraud-related charges for work unrelated to the Trump campaign.

Attorneys on both sides got the brunt of Ellis’ criticism after lawyers were caught rolling their eyes in response to his rulings or after stepping back from the bench.

“Rein in your facial expressions,” Ellis admonished.

As Manafort’s trial progresses – and Ellis continues to make headlines – read on for a look at the judge’s background.

Based in Alexandria, Virginia, Ellis began to preside over an indictment against Manafort in March.

A jury set to decide the fate of President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Manafort was selected Tuesday, July 31, 2018, and opening statements in his tax evasion and bank fraud trial were expected in the afternoon.

At the time, he suggested Manafort faced "the very real possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison.” He also said Manafort “poses a substantial flight risk” due to his “financial means and international connections to flee and remain at large.”

Throughout the trial thus far, the 78-year-old judge has criticized Mueller’s team for attempting to introduce evidence regarding Manafort’s “lavish” spending habits.

“Enough is enough. We don’t convict people because they have a lot of money and throw it around,” Ellis told prosecutors.

Additionally, Ellis interjected during the prosecutors' opening statement to remind jurors that wealth alone is not criminal, and he rebuked a prosecutor in front of the jury for saying “evidence will show” Manafort is guilty.

“It isn't a crime to have a lot of money and be profligate in your spending,” Ellis said.

He also interrupted a defense attorney, prompting him to give evidence of Manafort's efforts to improve American international political outreach on the spot.

Before the case even began, Ellis accused Mueller’s team of trying to take down Trump and seeking “unfettered power” in the investigation.

“You don't really care about Mr. Manafort,” Ellis told Mueller’s team during the preliminary hearing in May. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or wh**ever."

Judge T.S. Ellis III was appointed to the federal bench by former President Ronald Reagan. (Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court)

Former President Ronald Reagan appointed Ellis to the federal bench in 1987 and was confirmed by the Senate that same year.

He garnered senior status in 2007, according to the Federal Judicial Center.

His past cases include the ‘American Taliban’

Ellis sentenced John Walker Lindh, who was then 21 years old, to 20 years in prison after he pleaded guilty to charges related to his activity with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Lindh, from California, told the judge he provided "services as a soldier to the Taliban ... and in the course of doing so [he] carried a rifle and two grenades.”

The judge also threw out a case in 2006 involving a German citizen who alleged he was taken and beaten by the CIA. Ellis rejected the suit, not necessarily because of the validity of the allegations, but because of national security.

“In times of war, our country, chiefly through the executive branch, must often take exceptional steps to thwart the enemy,” Ellis said.

Ellis served in the U.S. Navy from 1961 to 1966, according to the Federal Judicial Center.

Born in Bogota, Colombia, Ellis graduated from Princeton University before getting his J.D. from the Harvard School of Law. He also studied law at the University of Oxford Faculty of Law.

Fox News’ Jake Gibson, Gregg Re and Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

woodguru

Of course having wealth is not a crime, failing to report income and pay taxes on it is. Fraudulently disclosing asset values and relevant information for loans is a crime, and making deals with loan officers that results in out of character loans in return for politically influenced political appointments is as well.

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

But has nothing to do with collusion!!!!

bahmer

It appears that T. S. Ellis III may be somewhat familiar with certain types of lawyers and that he has had cases where either the side may have tried to snooker something past him and he sounds like a fairly wise bird that has been through the ropes before. More power to him we need more judges to have a questioning eye and tey to get to the nitty gritty of these cases. Maybe if the FIFA judges were more critical we wouldn't be going through this now.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

'Collusion is not a crime, but colluding can be. In the colloquial sense, collusion simply means an act of secret cooperation, generally for nefarious ends. There’s no law you can violate that constitutes collusion in the third degree — but working with someone in a conspiracy to break the law is illegal.

It’s called conspiracy.'

This judge seems like a no-nonsense kind'a guy. As the trial will be under his watchful eye, I am currently inclined to trust the end result.

bahmer

There are those in the political realm that have walked a very tight rope trying to get around those laws as well as avoiding the prosecution tht goes with it.

bahmer

This judge like badbobby passed the Navy entrance exam and and has served admirably for this country ever since. He didn't have to become a lowly Marine as some have had to do. Just looking out for my buddy badbobby is all Slats no ill will.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Remember these words, Bahmer..."Reciprocity: What goes around comes around, karma, you'll reap what you sow, what you give is what you get...You have a choice, make the right one.

bahmer

It appears that I am damned if I do and damned if I don't I am between a rock and a hard place as the saying goes.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Conspiracy to commit a legal action?

Haha...

Run with that.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

From Ignorantia Legis Non Excusat, a blog about legal education for everyone.

This is a short post on two terms that I'm sure you're hearing a lot right now: collusion and conspiracy. They look and sound similar, and it's easy to both confuse one with the other and be unsure of the meaning and legal significance of each. And the news media, most often not trained in the law and forced into sound-bite length segments (there are exceptions on both counts) don't make it any clearer. (I'm not trying to trash the media here, but there is only so much anyone in their circumstances can do). So here goes.

Collusion, as bad as it sounds and as bad as it can be, is not by itself a crime. The only place collusion is a federal crime is in antitrust law (e.g., price fixing). Now the act of colluding--a secret agreement between two or more parties to facilitate their ends--can clearly lead to a crime/criminal activity. From the article: "For example, if Donald Trump Jr. sought “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the e******n laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an e*******l campaign. The opposition dirt is at least plausibly a thing of value. And to the extent that the Trump campaign aided, abetted or advised the Russians (or any other hackers) about what would be most useful to steal from the Democrats or how best to enhance the impact of their release, they may well have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act."

But notice: the crimes (in this case) would be e******n tampering and computer fraud, not collusion. Collusion can lead to crime; it isn't a crime itself. I have to say sloppy reporting has lead to the notion that collusion=criminality. It doesn't.

Conspiracy is a crime. Conspiracy has been defined in the United States as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions. A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime. Under most U.S. laws (federal and most states), for a person to be convicted of conspiracy, not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act in furtherance of the crime. See more about conspiracy here. And you can try your hand at reading a federal statute here (18 U.S.C. Chapter 19--Conspiracy (§§ 371-373)(defining conspiracy as a federal crime (§371), conspiracy to impede or injure an officer (§372), and solicitation to commit a crime of violence.(§373)).

So just remember: Collusion can lead to crime; conspiracy is a crime. Collusion is nowhere in the federal criminal statutes (it's only in antitrust, where it is a crime, but only there); conspiracy is right there at 18 U.S.C.§371.

Clearly there is a great deal more to these issues, but the basic terminology is always a good place to start.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Lots of words.

It's still not illegal to conspire to do something legal.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

So, you didn't read it

Got it.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

So how many years do you get for conspiring to make a sandwich?

bahmer

If there were a penalty for that, Slats would still be in the slammer.