Joe steals Nancy's purse

doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian said:
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.
Click to expand...
please define bla bla bla. I already know about your other stuff.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian said:
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?
Click to expand...
Fogdog said:
You didn't read that article, did you?

After lengthy gobbledygook in the filing, here is a record of their interaction with the judge:

________________________________________________________________________________

THE COURT: What does “assume custody and control” mean in your view? What do you want them to do?

[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: Because they are also required to make them available to the public, “assume custody and control” would be to take control of the records or have somebody else take control of the records....

THE COURT: How do they take control? ... He issues a press release[:] I've got them.... Then what? What are they supposed to do?

[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: As I said, there are many options.

THE COURT: Tell me one.

[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: One option is they can call President Clinton and ask....

THE COURT: Okay. He says no. Now what?

[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: They write a nice letter. They maybe use one of these enforcement mechanisms. Maybe they try something else.
Id. at 43:18–44:12. Throughout the hearing, plaintiff remained unable to identify any avenue for relief or to specify the terms of the order it was seeking:

THE COURT: What enforcement mechanism, what thing, what power can they exercise under the statute that I can order them to do that makes your injury redressable?

[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: Once the records are determined to be [P]residential records there is an obligation to assume custody and control of them. How—and I will just say, once again, how they go about doing that—Judicial Watch is not challenging how.

* * *

And once the determination is made [that they are] [P]residential records, it opens the door. It leaves for the possibility that [A]rchives will go out and get the records. It leaves the possibility that they'll use one of their enforcement mechanisms or they may use other avenues to get them.

* * *

THE COURT: We're talking about very mushy unenforceable orders at this point.... I just don't think I could issue an order that says ‘try your best.’ Then how would anybody be able to ascertain whether they've complied[?]
Tr. at 48:24–50:24 (internal quotations added).

Ultimately, plaintiff conceded that even an order deeming the materials to be Presidential records and directing the defendant to make an effort to retrieve them would not bind the former President to produce them, Tr. at 60:14–20, and it would not make them magically available under FOIA:

THE COURT: So even if you win, what do you get?

[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: We get the possibility to discuss that when the time comes.
_____________________________________

More discussion, followed by the ruling:

CONCLUSION
Thus, because the Court is unable to provide the remedy plaintiff seeks by ordering that defendant “assume custody and control” over the audiotapes, the Court is unable to redress plaintiff's claim. Accordingly, the Court will grant defendant's motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 6] under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of standing. A separate order will issue.

______________________________________

In other words, they were laughed out of court.
Click to expand...
 
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
In other words, they were laughed out of court.
Click to expand...
Because:

"Ultimately, plaintiff conceded that even an order deeming the materials to be Presidential records and directing the defendant to make an effort to retrieve them would not bind the former President to produce them"

It's funny to see you keep trying to gloss that, no court will but it's your prerogative to be that silly I suppose.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian said:
Because:

"Ultimately, plaintiff conceded that even an order deeming the materials to be Presidential records and directing the defendant to make an effort to retrieve them would not bind the former President to produce them"

Sucker.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one citing a Fox entertainment host as proof that a failed lawsuit makes a precedent.

That is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. And you continue to dig that hole deeper.

It's ok with me, though. Carry on. I'm curious how many posts you'll make saying the same dumbass thing. Tell me again how a Fox entertainment host sets legal precedents from a failed lawsuit that the judge mocked.

Yes, I'm mocking you.
 
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I'm not the one citing a Fox entertainment host as proof that a failed lawsuit makes a precedent.

That is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. And you continue to dig that hole deeper.

It's ok with me, though. Carry on. I'm curious how many posts you'll make saying the same dumbass thing. Tell me again how a Fox entertainment host sets legal precedents from a failed lawsuit that the judge mocked.

Yes, I'm mocking you.
Click to expand...
The dismissal is the ruling, dullard. The reason for dismissal is PRA carries no criminal penalty and former potus decides what is his records, genius.

Stick to the tabloids, much better suited to your mindset.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian said:
The dismissal is the ruling, dullard. The reason for dismissal is PRA carries no criminal penalty and former potus decides what is his records, genius.

Stick to the tabloids, much better suited to your mindset.
Click to expand...
The suit had no merit and had no standing. It was thrown out by a judge who was obviously amused at the incompetence of JW's submission.

I don't know why you think it's so important. But I acknowledge your passion. (snicker)

In any case, this is ancient history by modern standards. There is one thing this lawsuit proved. Anybody can say anything they want when filing a lawsuit. So, I'll get some popcorn and pull up a seat. Let the Trump team come forward with this argument, try to use the JW vs NARA lawsuit as precedent and let us see how it plays out.

Hilarity will ensue.
 
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
The suit had no merit and had no standing. It was thrown out by a judge who was obviously amused at the incompetence of JW's submission.

I don't know why you think it's so important. But I acknowledge your passion. (snicker)

In any case, this is ancient history by modern standards. There is one thing this lawsuit proved. Anybody can say anything they want when filing a lawsuit. So, I'll get some popcorn and pull up a seat. Let the Trump team come forward with this argument, try to use the JW vs NARA lawsuit as precedent and let us see how it plays out.

Hilarity will ensue.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1563256322052595712
 
CunningCanuk

CunningCanuk

Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian said:
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?
Click to expand...
You’ve had your ass handed to you throughout this thread and you’re acting smug about it? Nobody is taking you seriously.

It’s time for a new sock account. I hope you do better with the new one.

 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1563256322052595712
Click to expand...
We've gone back and forth on this. I can see your point. You believe what you've been told and find confirmation of your belief in that transcript. You actually helped me understand how millions of MAGA GOP fascists manage to retain their belief that Trump won the 2020 election but was cheated by "voter fraud". Just like you did when reading the the transcript of JW vs NARA Defendant. Truthers, Election deniers, etc. did not read what was in front of them. They projected what they wanted to believe into what they were reading. Which is what you are doing in this thread. So, thanks for helping me understand the depth of degradation GOP MAGA fascists have undergone.

I get it now. So, going forward, why hasn't Trump used this "precedent" to force NARA to give "his" documents back? Why haven't they filed a claim in court? If JW vs NARA Defendant is as much of a lock as you say, why haven't they used it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top