Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 23, 2017, 09:14:16 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
102284 Posts in 2379 Topics by 1089 Members
Latest Member: Sarge
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Legal issues
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print
Author Topic: Legal issues  (Read 82337 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39977


« Reply #200 on: March 01, 2015, 05:54:12 PM »

Ah.

Fair enough  grin
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6999


« Reply #201 on: April 18, 2015, 11:37:22 AM »

As a coin collector when I was 8 I read this with interest.   I am ambivalent about the decision and note it reverses a jury decision.  Off the top of my head I am not aware of clearly stolen items being allowed to stay with the descendants of the thief.    On the other hand one could argue he did the world a favor by preserving 10 examples of what are now considered treasures and works of art:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/67853550/Rare-Double-Eagle-gold-coins-worth-104m-returned-to-family
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6999


« Reply #202 on: April 23, 2015, 08:26:06 AM »

Back in the late 70s I learned that hair could be used as corroborative evidence but not proof.  One could say a hair was consistent with a defendent's or suspect's hair but could not unequivocally say it was a unique match.   That was before DNA analysis.   Since one could get DNA from a hair follicle and maybe even the shaft one would think that hair analysis can make more "unique" matches.   So I don't understand what happened here.   But I am glad this article points out that flawed DNA testing doesn't necessarily mean the suspect is innocent.  One would think after hearing some speak in the media that every time there is no match of DMA therefore the suspect must have been innocent.   

That said if people are convicted and jailed for poor or wrong science that is shocking unto itself.   

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39977


« Reply #203 on: June 09, 2015, 09:57:06 AM »

Accidental Talmudist

A Jewish merchant in 19th century Ukraine had reached an understanding with a wealthy, non-Jewish landowner to buy a section of his forest for lumbering.

No contract was written, and when the price of lumber fell, the merchant wished to renegotiate the deal, claiming that he was not legally bound by the verbal agreement.

The landowner knew that according to civil law, the merchant was right, so he suggested instead that they take their dispute to the famous Rebbe of Tolna for a decision according to Jewish Law.

The Rebbe listened to both sides, then ruled that although there was no legal contract, the Talmud pronounces a severe curse upon one who breaks a verbal agreement, and that certainly the merchant would not wish to subject himself to this.

The Rebbe therefore found in favor of the landowner.

The landowner was pleased with the decision, but he had a question. ''In our courts there is a much longer process, and if a litigant is displeased with the court's decision, he can appeal to a higher court. And there are several levels of appeals beyond that. Suppose the merchant wished to appeal your decision. What recourse does he have?''

The Rebbe smiled and said, ''One time a wolf attacked a flock of sheep, and the animals dispersed. The wolf pursued one of them, but before he had a chance to seize it, a lion emerged and pounced on the sheep. The wolf protested that the prey was his, because he had caused the sheep to leave the flock, but the lion said that he had as much right to the sheep as the wolf, since neither had paid for it. They agreed to take their dispute before the fox, who was the wisest of all the animals.

"The fox ruled that the sheep should be divided equally between the two, and proceeded to cut the sheep in half. He noted, however, that one portion was larger than the other, so he nibbled away a bit. Then, seeing that the new portion was smaller, he nibbled away a bit of the other. This 'equalization' process continued until the fox had left nothing but the bones for the wolf and lion.

''In your courts,'' the Rebbe continued, ''there are indeed many appeals, with the result that the lawyers on each side nibble on the disputed assets. By the time a final decision is reached, all that is left for the litigants are the bones. We may not have an appeals process, but both litigants are likely to benefit from our judgment.''

Adapted from the wonderful book, Not Just Stories: The Chassidic Spirit Through Its Classic Stories by Rabbi Abraham Twerski M.D. (see http://amzn.to/1KQUKoj)
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39977


« Reply #204 on: January 05, 2016, 04:19:12 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/HuffPostLive/videos/781606261959040/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39977


« Reply #205 on: February 07, 2016, 11:40:13 AM »

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/03/judge-makes-government-pay-legal-fees-to-store-owner-whose-107700-was-seized-by-the-irs/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRovs6%2FBZKXonjHpfsX87%2B8sW6eygYkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTcZqPLnYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3NLtQN191pRhLiDA%3D%3D
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14629


« Reply #206 on: February 07, 2016, 12:09:24 PM »


Good.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39977


« Reply #207 on: May 10, 2016, 10:35:22 AM »



A Soldier’s Challenge to the President

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
MAY 10, 2016

Capt. Nathan Michael Smith, who is 28, is helping wage war on the Islamic State as an Army intelligence officer deployed in Kuwait. He is no conscientious objector. Yet he sued President Obama last week, making a persuasive case that the military campaign is illegal unless Congress explicitly authorizes it.

“When President Obama ordered airstrikes in Iraq in August 2014 and in Syria in September 2014, I was ready for action,” he wrote in a statement attached to the lawsuit. “In my opinion, the operation is justified both militarily and morally.” But as his suit makes clear, that does not make it legal.

Constitutional experts and some members of Congress have also challenged the Obama administration’s thin legal rationale for using military force in Iraq and Syria. The Federal District Court for the District of Columbia should allow the suit to move forward to force the White House and Congress to confront an important question both have irresponsibly skirted.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution requires that the president obtain “specific statutory authorization” soon after sending troops to war. Mr. Obama’s war against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL, was billed as a short-term humanitarian intervention when it began in August 2014. The president and senior administration officials repeatedly asserted that the United States would not be dragged back into a Middle East quagmire. The mission, they vowed, would not involve “troops on the ground.” Yet the Pentagon now has more than 4,000 troops in Iraq and 300 in Syria. Last week’s combat death of a member of the Navy SEALs, Special Warfare Operator First Class Charles Keating IV, underscored that the conflict has escalated, drawing American troops to the front lines.

“We keep saying it’s supposed to be advising that we’re doing, and yet we’re losing one kid at a time,” Phyllis Holmes, Petty Officer Keating’s grandmother, told The Times.

Asked on Thursday about the lawsuit, the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, said it raised “legitimate questions for every American to be asking.” The administration has repeatedly urged Congress to pass a war authorization for the war against the Islamic State. It currently relies on the authorization for the use of military force passed in 2001 for the explicit purpose of targeting the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, which paved the way for the invasion of Afghanistan.

“One thing is abundantly clear: Our men and women in uniform and our coalition partners are on the front lines of our war against ISIL, while Congress has remained on the sidelines,” the White House spokesman Ned Price said in an email.

Yet, the White House has enabled Congress to shirk its responsibility by arguing that a new war authorization would be ideal but not necessary. Administration officials could have forced Congress to act by declaring that it could not rely indefinitely on the Afghanistan war authorization and giving lawmakers a deadline to pass a new law.

By failing to pass a new one, Congress and the administration are setting a dangerous precedent that the next president may be tempted to abuse. That is particularly worrisome given the bellicose temperament of Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee.

It is not too late to act before the presidential election in November. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and House Speaker Paul Ryan have shown little interest in passing an authorization. They should feel compelled to heed the call of a young deployed soldier who is asking them to do their job.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6999


« Reply #208 on: June 06, 2016, 06:54:33 AM »

As far as I know it was Anderson Cooper's constant war against bullying (gays) that made the word ubiquitous.

I wasn't going to post this as it is just about a lawsuit till I saw this phrase, "food allergy bullying".  Another form of micro aggression.  Should "micro aggression " be grounds for assault?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/06/05/family-allergic-child-sues-panera-for-putting-peanut-butter-grilled-cheese-sandwich/ugk2bWDfWSui6f8wSFimdO/story.html
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6999


« Reply #209 on: June 23, 2016, 07:05:04 PM »

https://www.yahoo.com/news/oregon-court-cast-just-majorly-200050228.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39977


« Reply #210 on: July 18, 2016, 09:55:46 AM »

Uploaded on Feb 27, 2011

Who do you Love? (Bo Diddley) video of live performance by Quicksilver Messenger Service at Winterland in 1973.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'fair use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Video excerpt all materials presented under fair use for non-profit, research, and educational purposes, copyright reserved by the original owners including but not limited to Bill Graham Archives, LLC, and Wolfgangs Vault, who I would like to thank in advance for their kindness and patience in not having their lawyers smash me and my little youtube account flatter than hammered shit.

THE USE OF ANY COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL IS USED UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF "FAIR USE" IN TITLE 17 & 107 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE. SUCH MATERIAL REMAINS THE COPYRIGHT OF THE ORIGINAL HOLDER AND IS USED HERE FOR THE PURPOSES OF EDUCATION, COMPARISON, AND CRITICISM ONLY.

NO INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IS INTENDED

'I like Dick Dale, I could appreciate him more during the surf period....like I was like.... I was anti-surf, you know? Because they were collegiate. They would like ...like during the folk era, you know...The Kingston Trio........ I was a beatnik..... I was more into jazz....grooving, sharing, umm....that kind of stuff, and like but Link Wray, man. Link Wray affected me so much that first of all, alot of my style, alot of my chords and stuff I got by copying, you know? I saw him on TV man. I'd never played guitar, and he had his guitar that looked so offensive, it was phallic...Rumble, man.....Rumble just blew me away. That's what turned me on to playing guitar. He's the father of the power chord. I still remember it as one of my strongest memories, man. It just burned itself in my mind. I heard Rumble....it was '58. When I heard that, what I heard was, dirty, man. What he was doing was saying, f#ck man, kiss my ass, you know, real rebellious shit, you know, without saying it, you know?' -John Cipollina

Quicksilver Messenger Service initially held back from signing a record deal but eventually signed to Capitol Records in late 1967, becoming the last of the top-ranked San Francisco bands to sign with a major label. Capitol was the only company that had missed out on signing a San Francisco freak band during the first flurry of record company interest and, consequently, QMS was able to negotiate a better deal than many of their peers. Quicksilver Messenger Service had appeared on the movie and soundtrack album Revolution.

Quicksilver Messenger Service released their eponymous debut album in 1968. It was followed by Happy Trails, released in early 1969 and largely recorded live at the Fillmore East and the Fillmore West. According to David Freiberg, at least one of the live tracks was augmented with studio overdubs and the tracks Calvary and Lady of the Cancer Moon were recorded in the studio just before Gary Duncan left Quicksilver Messenger Service.

These albums, which have been hailed as two of the best examples of the San Francisco sound at its purest define the classic period in the group's career and showcase their distinctive sound, emphasizing extended arrangements and fluid twin-guitar improvisation. Cipollina's highly melodic, individualistic lead guitar style, combined with Gary Duncan's driving rhythm guitar, feature a clear jazz sound, a notable contrast to the heavily amplified and overdriven sound of contemporaries like Cream and Jimi Hendrix. In 2003 Happy Trails was rated at #189 in the Rolling Stone Top 500 albums survey, where it was described as the definitive live recording of the mid-Sixties San Francisco psychedelic-ballroom experience. Archetypal Quicksilver Messenger Service songs include the elongated, continually re-titled suite based on Bo Diddley's Who Do You Love?. Additionally QMS had a reputation for joining their fans in the use of LSD during their live shows.

QMS's guitar work shimmered with a brilliance and clarity which made other bands seem murky in comparison. Unlike most members of the other San Francisco acid rock bands, who were often folkies converted to rock, John Cipollina and Gary Duncan were rock musicians before forming their band. Gary Duncan's playing clearly had the broadest scope of any guitarist among the S. F. bands and he had an expert facility to deliver it. Equally expert was John Cipollina, who also had the clearest vision of how he wanted to sound. Cipollina's playing was so completely given over to that vision, and he presented it so well, that the question of scope never arose. John's electric guitar playing was the musical essence of electricity itself, as though he was playing the current directly and the guitar was the valve that allowed him to do that.

    Category
        Education
    License
        Standard YouTube License
    Music
        "Who Do You Love?" by Quicksilver Messenger Service Listen ad-free with YouTube Red

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6999


« Reply #211 on: September 27, 2016, 07:40:42 PM »

Clock Boy vs Blaze  cheesy

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/clock-boy-and-his-father-sue-glenn-beck-and-the-blaze-for-defamation/

I would rather see them in a mud wrestling match.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2016, 03:04:57 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6999


« Reply #212 on: October 24, 2016, 12:37:48 PM »

Lets see pack the Federal Court system with liberal ideologues and then work to remove the redistricting power from the States via the Courts.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/10/obamas-post-presidency-agenda-revealed-attack-state-redistricting-in-the-name-of-fairness

Liberals just refuse to go away.

I suppose he went to Soro for funding .   
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2246


« Reply #213 on: May 14, 2017, 02:25:32 PM »

https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawyerly-integrity-trump-administration

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14629


« Reply #214 on: May 14, 2017, 02:57:48 PM »

Was Goldsmith in a coma 2009-2016? Or was there not a smidgen of corruption for him to notice?



http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-fast-furious-crime-scene-photos-phoenix-2013-gang-style-assault-rifle-supplied-obama-justice-department/


Judicial Watch Obtains Fast and Furious Crime Scene Photos from Phoenix 2013 Gang-Style Assault with Rifle Supplied by Obama Justice Department

DECEMBER 18, 2014

Photos include close-up shots of Fast and Furious AK-47 rifle, blood-stained apartment, victim with massive head wound

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained graphic crime scene photos taken at the site of a 2013 gang-style assault on a Phoenix, AZ, apartment building, including a close-up photo revealing the serial number of the AK-47 rifle used by the assailants.  As a result of Judicial Watch’s October 2, 2014, public records lawsuit, the weapon has been already traced to the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning program.  The photos were also produced by the Phoenix Police Department in response to this lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. City of Phoenix (No. CV2014- 012018)). Full batch of photos can be viewed here.

According to press reports at the time of the assault, police investigating the shooting that left two wounded found an AK-47 assault rifle in the front passenger area of a vehicle that had crashed into a fence surrounding the apartment complex. Inside sources informed Judicial Watch at the time of the crime scene investigation that the AK-47 used in the assault had been provided to the assailants as part of the Obama-Holder Fast and Furious program. On October 16, 2014, Judicial Watch announced that, based upon information uncovered through its October 2 public records lawsuit, the U.S. Congress had confirmed that the rifle was tied to the Fast and Furious operation.  Attorney General Eric Holder has already admitted that guns from the Fast and Furious scandal are expected to be used in criminal activity on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border for years to come.

In an October 16 letter to Deputy Attorney General James Cole, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA) to Deputy Attorney General James Cole detail:

Based on the serial number [1977DX1654] from the police report obtained by Judicial Watch and documents obtained during our Fast and Furious investigation, we can confirm that the assault rifle recovered in the vehicle on July 30, 2013, was purchased by Sean Christopher Stewart. Stewart pled guilty to firearms trafficking charges resulting from his involvement with Operation Fast and Furious … Stewart purchased this particular firearm on December 8, 2009, one of 40 that he purchased that day while under ATF surveillance.” [Emphasis in original]

According to the Phoenix Police Department report, ATF traced the firearm on July 31, 2013, the day after Phoenix police officers recovered it. Yet, over a full year has passed, and the Department has failed to notify the Committees … This lack of transparency about the consequences of Fast and Furious undermines public confidence in law enforcement and gives the impression that the Department is seeking to suppress information and limit its exposure to public scrutiny.

In addition, despite the fact that the crime scene photos obtained by Judicial Watch clearly revealed a serial number that would show that the AK-47 used in the commission of the crime was a Fast and Furious weapon, the City of Phoenix and Department of Justice failed to turn over the incriminating photos to Congress, despite longstanding requests for such information. According to Judicial Watch sources, investigators knew at the scene and subsequently that the AK-47 was a Fast and Furious weapon.

The graphic crime scene photos include, but are not limited to, the following:

The Fast and Furious AK-47 laying in the front passenger well of the assailant’s vehicle
The Fast and Furious AK-47 in the police department evidence room
A close-up shot of the Fast and Furious AK-47 clearly revealing the ID number
A picture of the blood-stained apartment of the victim shot in the assault
A close-up picture of the victim with a massive gunshot head wound
A close-up shot of the victim’s ID
A handgun found at the scene of the crime
Three weeks following the July 29, 2013, assault, four suspects were apprehended in a raid conducted jointly by Phoenix police detectives and investigators from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). According to press reports at the time “numerous rifles and handguns” were found when, “Detectives from the Phoenix Police Department and Homeland Security Investigations served federal search warrants.”

The presence of DHS investigators immediately raised questions because Phoenix was the central location of the ATF’s deadly Fast and Furious gunrunning operation. Operation Fast and Furious was a Justice Department/ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) program in which the Obama administration allowed guns to go to Mexican drug cartels in the hopes that the guns would end up at crime scenes, thereby advancing gun-control policies. Fast and Furious weapons have been implicated in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of other innocents in Mexico.

The failure to provide Congress with reports about the Phoenix crime scene is not the first time the Obama Justice Department has been accused of withholding Fast and Furious information. On June 28, 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt by the House of Representatives over his refusal to turn over documents about why the Obama administration may have lied to Congress and refused for months to disclose the truth about the gunrunning operation.  It marked the first time in U.S. history a sitting Attorney General was held in contempt of Congress.

Separate Judicial Watch litigation for these documents, which had been subjected to an extraordinary executive privilege reelection season claim by President Obama, forced their release.  Attorney General Holder announced his surprise retirement two days after the federal court ruling that led to the disclosure of the documents and to President Obama’s abandoning all of his controversial executive privilege claims that had kept the documents secret for nearly three years.


“Another Obama administration Fast and Furious cover-up has been undone by Judicial Watch.  These crime scene photos graphically illustrate the legacy of President Obama and Eric Holder’s deadly Fast and Furious lies,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Even as the evidence and casualties mount, the Obama administration is still secreting information about its reckless program. These photos show the American people firsthand the bloody consequences when an out-of-control administration will not even admit – or correct – its own mistakes.”

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

https://aclj.org/executive-power/acljs-files-lawsuit-over-ag-lynchs-secret-meeting-with-bill-clinton-will-hold-obamas-justice-department-accountable

I told you about the Obama Justice Department’s incompetence and corruption when, over four months ago, I called for Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s resignation.

I told you about General Lynch’s decision to hold a secret meeting on her airplane with former President Bill Clinton – just days before the FBI interviewed his wife, the former Secretary of State, as part of a criminal investigation; and just days before General Lynch announced the former Secretary of State would not be indicted.  Here’s what I said in June:

Misconduct. Dishonesty. Impropriety. No matter what word you choose, Attorney General Lynch’s secret meeting with former President Bill Clinton was flat-out wrong.  She’s clearly disqualified from participating in the investigations into former Secretary of State Clinton’s private email server.

And she must resign.

I’m leading our senior litigation team preparing to file legal demands and ethics complaints.  If the DOJ doesn’t respond and she doesn’t resign, we’ll be back in federal court.
As promised, we took action. We sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Obama Justice Department and the FBI, demanding answers on how such a careless and perhaps intentionally underhanded meeting was allowed to happen.

The FBI acknowledged our FOIA requests, and even granted our request for expedited processing by determining that we had shown our requests concerned “[a] matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.” The Justice Department remained silent.

Then, last week’s earth-shattering news hit that the FBI – a component of the Justice Department – was reopening the underlying criminal investigation.

And early this week, the FBI advised the ACLJ Government Accountability Project that “[n]o records responsive to your request were located.”  Hard to believe. What may be even harder to believe, though, is the fact that the Department of Justice completely ignored our lawful requests for records. Or maybe that’s just par for the course.

So today, we’re forcing their hand. We’re taking the Obama Administration to federal court. Again. We’re filing a lawsuit against the Department of Justice, to ensure true justice. If the corruption and flippant disregard for the law won’t stop, neither will our Government Accountability Project, and neither will our lawsuits.

As we explained in our Complaint, we’re demanding records like this:

Any and all records containing the names of any DOJ official, staff or employee who participated in any discussion regarding the meeting between General Lynch and Bill Clinton that occurred on Monday, June 27, 2016, at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona.
Any and all records, communications or briefings prepared, sent, received or reviewed by General Lynch or any other DOJ official, staff or employee, at any time, containing any discussion of or in any way regarding the meeting between General Lynch and Bill Clinton that occurred on Monday, June 27, 2016, at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona.
Any and all records of any communication or briefing received by General Lynch, any DOJ official, staff or employee from Bill Clinton or his staff regarding the meeting between General Lynch and Bill Clinton that occurred on Monday, June 27, 2016, at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona, regardless of whether the communication or briefing was received before, during, or after the meeting. 
Any and all records of any communication or briefing prepared, sent, received or reviewed by General Lynch, her staff, or any other DOJ official or employee or any other person from June 13, 2016 to Sunday, June 26, 2016, containing any discussion of or in any way naming, regarding, involving or referencing Bill Clinton.
Any and all records of any communication or briefing prepared, sent, received or reviewed by General Lynch, her staff, or any other DOJ official or employee after the meeting on Monday, June 27, 2016, between General Lynch and Bill Clinton at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona, containing any discussion of ethics rules or DOJ Standards of Conduct governing attorneys in connection with the meeting or Lynch’s relationship with Bill Clinton.
Any and all records of any communication or briefing prepared, sent, received or reviewed by General Lynch, her staff, or any other DOJ official or employee after the meeting on Monday, June 27, 2016, between General Lynch and Bill Clinton at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona, containing any discussion of the press, responding to the press, or the content of any press release or public statements in connection with the meeting.
We told the Court: “The Defendant [DOJ] has wholly failed to respond to Plaintiff’s FOIA request.” In fact, the Obama Administration’s failure to respond violated the statute in two ways. So we brought two Counts.  First, in Count I, we explained:

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A), Defendant was required to determine whether to comply to Plaintiff’s request within twenty (20) days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays. Pursuant to this same provision, Defendant also was required to notify Plaintiff immediately of the determination, the reasons therefore, and the right to appeal any adverse determination to the head of the agency.
Then in Count II, we described the additional violation:

Defendant is in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii), in that Defendant has failed to make “a determination of whether to provide expedited processing,” which “shall be made, and notice of the determination shall be provided to the person making the request, within 10 days after the date of the request.”
The bottom line of our lawsuit is this: the “Defendant is unlawfully withholding records requested by Plaintiff pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552.” The Justice Department’s answer to our suit will be due in about 30 days. We’ll let you know how they respond and keep you informed as our newest lawsuit progresses.

General Lynch has disqualified herself from this critical investigation. She has no business having any involvement in an FBI investigation of this magnitude. We will do, and are doing, everything we can to hold her accountable.

Today’s filing is our fourth major federal lawsuit filed against the Obama Administration over its corruption and failure to comply with FOIA – the law.  We’ve filed eight FOIA requests demanding information from: 1) the Obama State Department about the Iran lie, 2) the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components about its “jihad” word purge, 3) the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI over Attorney General Lynch’s secret meeting on a plane with former President Bill Clinton, 4) the FBI and the DOJ regarding its decision to censor the Orlando jihadist’s 911 transcript, 5) the State Department over its funding of an organization that was involved in an attempt to unseat Israel’s Prime Minister, 6) the Obama State Department over its inaction on the ISIS genocide against Christians, 7) DHS and its components over the wrongful granting of citizenship to potential terrorists, and Cool the State Department over apparent pay-to-play collusion with the Clinton Foundation.

We are currently in ongoing litigation against the Obama Administration over the Iran lie, inaction on genocide, collusion with the Clinton Foundation, and now the secret meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. We are also winning in multiple federal lawsuits against the Obama Administration’s IRS over its unlawful targeting of conservatives groups.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!