Joe steals Nancy's purse

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
lol

@ActionianJacksonian seems triggered.

Asperger. I'm sure of it.

Oh, and the low hanging fruit you gave me, Jackass. Read the title of the transcripts.

What Jackass said: DOJ was Defendant.

What the title of the case said:

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin.

Don't believe me?


Its right there in front of you. Can you effing read? No wonder you are still citing it wrongly. You can't effing read it.
Of course, I posted the link originally:

"
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

Michael Bekesha, Paul J. Orfanedes, Judicial Watch, Inc., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Daniel Schwei, Elizabeth J. Shapiro, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
"
The DOJ is who would "assume custody or control" of Presidents personal records dummy.

You suck at this.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Of course, I posted the link originally:

"
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

Michael Bekesha, Paul J. Orfanedes, Judicial Watch, Inc., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Daniel Schwei, Elizabeth J. Shapiro, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
"
dummy.

You suck at this.
Dang, man. I don't think I've ever met a more stupidly hard headed person than you.

Read the top of the brief. It says: NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.


The DOJ is who would "assume custody or control" of Presidents personal records

The plaintiffs asked for that. The court had no jurisdiction, the plaintiffs had no standing. The case was thrown out. What? Do you claim that anything a plaintiff says in a filing is precedent going forward? Whether they win or lose the suit? How ridiculous is that?

There must be a finding in the favor of the plaintiff to make your claim true. They lost the suit. At every level their claims were found to be without merit.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Of course, I posted the link originally:

"
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

Michael Bekesha, Paul J. Orfanedes, Judicial Watch, Inc., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Daniel Schwei, Elizabeth J. Shapiro, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
"
The DOJ is who would "assume custody or control" of Presidents personal records dummy.

You suck at this.
counsel for the defense ≠ defendant
 

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
Dang, man. I don't think I've ever met a more stupidly hard headed person than you.

Read the top of the brief. It says: NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.


The DOJ is who would "assume custody or control" of Presidents personal records

The plaintiffs asked for that. The court had no jurisdiction, the plaintiffs had no standing. The case was thrown out. What? Do you claim that anything a plaintiff says in a filing is precedent going forward? Whether they win or lose the suit? How ridiculous is that?

There must be a finding in the favor of the plaintiff to make your claim true. They lost the suit. At every level their claims were found to be without merit.
Precedents were set nonetheless. Motion to dismiss granted because seizure by Defendant via Defense "contrary the the PRA's express terms".

Open wide here comes the yummy airplane.....(bolded for your gnat-like attention span)

"
Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion, see44 U.S.C. § 2203(b), so the Deputy Archivist could not and did not make a classification decision that can be challenged here."

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records."

"Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government's possession, defendant submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to assume custody and control over them. Def.'s Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss at 1, 15–18. Defendant considers this to be an “extraordinary request” that is “unfounded, contrary to the PRA's express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law.” Id. at 1. The Court agrees."


There is a good reason we keep transcripts of court cases. Your theory this is null and void is ignorant I would say but I'm pretty sure it's just propaganda and you know better. You're just pushing a narrative.

This is exactly what Dershowitz meant by "The Clinton Test" in JJ's post earlier.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Precedents were set nonetheless. Motion to dismiss granted because seizure by Defendant via Defense "contrary the the PRA's express terms".

Open wide here comes the yummy airplane.....(bolded for your gnat-like attention span)

"
Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion, see44 U.S.C. § 2203(b), so the Deputy Archivist could not and did not make a classification decision that can be challenged here."

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records."

"Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government's possession, defendant submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to assume custody and control over them. Def.'s Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss at 1, 15–18. Defendant considers this to be an “extraordinary request” that is “unfounded, contrary to the PRA's express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law.” Id. at 1. The Court agrees."


There is a good reason we keep transcripts of court cases. Your theory this is null and void is ignorant I would say but I'm pretty sure it's just propaganda and you know better. You're just pushing a narrative.

This is exactly what Dershowitz meant by "The Clinton Test" in JJ's post earlier.
Dershowitz is an entertainment site's host. lulz. So everything Alex Jones says is true too. And everything said by anybody on TV is true.

Regarding the suit.

There was no precedent set. The plaintiff had no standing. Their case had no merit.

What you are citing as precedent is the defendant's failed testimony.

The absurdity of what you are saying is amazing.
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
If you can find enough redeeming value in republican policy (what ever that is) then vote for it. the republicans offer America nothing of value to vote for. They have made voting blue a non question for most of us.
It's not a binary choice for me. If I continue to be abandoned by Democrats, I will likely vote third party.
 

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
Dershowitz is an entertainment site's host. lulz. So everything Alex Jones says is true too. And everything said by anybody on TV is true.

Regarding the suit.

There was no precedent set. The plaintiff had no standing. Their case had no merit.

What you are citing as precedent is the defendant's failed testimony.

The absurdity of what you are saying is amazing.
No standing and no merit...for what reasons again?

Come on slugger, you can do it I know you can! It's right there in the script or you need time to reed moar gooder?
 

doublejj

Well-Known Member
Precedents were set nonetheless. Motion to dismiss granted because seizure by Defendant via Defense "contrary the the PRA's express terms".

Open wide here comes the yummy airplane.....(bolded for your gnat-like attention span)

"
Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion, see44 U.S.C. § 2203(b), so the Deputy Archivist could not and did not make a classification decision that can be challenged here."

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records."

"Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government's possession, defendant submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to assume custody and control over them. Def.'s Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss at 1, 15–18. Defendant considers this to be an “extraordinary request” that is “unfounded, contrary to the PRA's express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law.” Id. at 1. The Court agrees."


There is a good reason we keep transcripts of court cases. Your theory this is null and void is ignorant I would say but I'm pretty sure it's just propaganda and you know better. You're just pushing a narrative.

This is exactly what Dershowitz meant by "The Clinton Test" in JJ's post earlier.
They will have a new term for trumps escapades...."the fecal test"
 

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
They will have a new term for trumps escapades...."the fecal test"
Yeah dude, yall have just about exhausted language and law.
Let's see what am I, a black white supremacist, a fascist, a nazi, a bigot, deplorable, insurrectionist, treasonous bla bla bla bla bla

Nothing left to do but physically detain or destroy anyone you don't agree with at this point.
 
Top