Liberal Forum

I mean, @golfboy  ... do you have any mulatto children?  Perhaps the paternal instinct is not as strong when they're mixed race?  Sad.  
 

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 8:25 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 8:25 pm

This fat, bald old bastard thinks he's scary from behind his computer screen. 
I guess when you realize you've lost ANOTHER argument, you have to resort to impotent threats.

I haven't lost anything.  SCOTUS had a case on their docket.  They denied cert.  That is implicitly affirming the judgment of the lower courts that they refuse to consider overturning.  And I am not saying that I am scary behind my computer screen, I am saying that you do not have the balls to come to Maine and stand, face to face with me, and call my gloriously ethical daughter a racist.  We both know that is true.  First off, you realize that it would be dangerous to your health, and secondly, because you know you don't really believe it and only say it to goad me.  But here's the news:  The goading works,  If you wanna come here and press the issue, you should only buy a one-way ticket and save your heirs the price of the round trip.

jerrab » 12 Jun 2023, 7:42 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:42 pm

--------------------------------------

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/09/politics ... index.html

In its statement Friday, the National Archives flatly disputed that claim, stating, “There is no history, practice, or provision in law for presidents to take official records with them when they leave office to sort through, such as for a two-year period as described in some reports.”Asked about Parlatore’s comments that presidents have two years to go through their records after leaving office, Jason R. Baron, former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, told CNN, “The statement is false.”“Only during his time in office does a President have the right to go through his records to separate what may be ‘personal records’ of his, from official records within the scope of the Presidential Records Act,” Baron added.

Civil Action No. 10–1834 (ABJ).2012-03-1JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.
The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff's claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 8:35 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 8:35 pm

I haven't lost anything.  SCOTUS had a case on their docket.  They denied cert.  That is implicitly affirming the judgment of the lower courts that they refuse to consider overturning.  And I am not saying that I am scary behind my computer screen, I am saying that you do not have the balls to come to Maine and stand, face to face with me, and call my gloriously ethical daughter a racist.  We both know that is true.  First off, you realize that it would be dangerous to your health, and secondly, because you know you don't really believe it and only say it to goad me.  But here's the news:  The goading works,  If you wanna come here and press the issue, you should only buy a one-way ticket and save your heirs the price of the round trip.min

Mainbitch claimed SCOTUS agreed with his daughter.   Never happened. 
Your daughter is a racist whore. 
If that upsets you, go slap the **** out of her, because we both know you're not man enough to come here and DO anything about it. 
Fat, bald old man with a room temp IQ. 

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 8:30 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 8:30 pm

I mean, @golfboy  ... do you have any mulatto children?  Perhaps the paternal instinct is not as strong when they're mixed race?  Sad.

The racist bitch didn't fall from from the tree, did she?
 

sunburn » 12 Jun 2023, 8:51 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 8:51 pm

Civil Action No. 10–1834 (ABJ).2012-03-1JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.
The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff's claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case

-------------------------------------------

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-l ... not%20NARA.

• Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.
• Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office

 

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 9:06 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 9:06 pm

The racist bitch didn't fall from from the tree, did she?

from from?


nice dodge.

illiterate moron

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 9:05 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 9:05 pm

Mainbitch claimed SCOTUS agreed with his daughter.   Never happened. 
Your daughter is a racist whore. 
If that upsets you, go slap the **** out of her, because we both know you're not man enough to come here and DO anything about it. 
Fat, bald old man with a room temp IQ.

I would need to DO something about it if I considered you anything other than a brain-damaged, child-molesting, dyslexic moron.  I wouldn't cross the street to piss on you if you were on fire.  Why would I fly across the continent to kick your ***?  You are a pretty disgusting excuse for a real man by attacking a young altruistic young woman who has never done anything to earn your enmity just to score points against her dad.  Like I said... come to Maine... you won't leave.  Stay in Idaho, I could give a ****.   

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 9:15 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 9:15 pm

from from?

nice dodge.

illiterate moron

Oh look, racist dad found a typo. 
Room temp.
 

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 9:22 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 9:22 pm

I would need to DO something about it if I considered you anything other than a brain-damaged, child-molesting, dyslexic moron.  I wouldn't cross the street to piss on you if you were on fire.  Why would I fly across the continent to kick your ***?  You are a pretty disgusting excuse for a real man by attacking a young altruistic young woman who has never done anything to earn your enmity just to score points against her dad.  Like I said... come to Maine... you won't leave.  Stay in Idaho, I could give a ****.

Like I said, internet tough guy. 
Won't even defend his racist whore of a daughter. 

Anyone here surprised?    
 

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 9:24 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 9:24 pm

Like I said, internet tough guy. 
Won't even defend his racist whore of a daughter. 

Anyone here surprised?  

I HAVE successfully defended my daughter.  She followed the law in her jury selection choices.  The trial judge agreed with her.  The Maine Supreme Court agreed with her.  The First District Federal Court of Appeals agreed with her.  The defense attorney refused to take the hint and appealed to SCOTUS.  They put the case on their docket, but, after what must have been only a cursory review, quickly determined the defense's case was completely and totally without merit and denied cert.  Three courts agreed with her and SCOTUS, by their denial, tacitly agreed with their assessment.   And you have the temerity to call that young brave altruistic public servant a racist WHORE??? Shame on you.  

 
 

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 9:34 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 9:34 pm

I HAVE successfully defended my daughter.  She followed the law in her jury selection choices.  The trial judge agreed with her.  The Maine Supreme Court agreed with her.  The First District Federal Court of Appeals agreed with her.  The defense attorney refused to take the hint and appealed to SCOTUS.  They put the case on their docket, but, after what must have been only a cursory review, quickly determined the defense's case was completely and totally without merit and denied cert.  Three courts agreed with her and SCOTUS, by their denial, tacitly agreed with their assessment.   And you have the temerity to call that brave altruistic public servant a racist WHORE??? Shame on you.

Wait, you said the Appeals Court put the case on SCOTUS docket.  Why are you changing your story now?
And your daughter IS a racist whore.   Kicked the only black man off the jury of a black defendant to ensure she got a conviction. 
And SCOTUS didn't agree with her.  Unlike you, they aren't racist. 
Pathetic. 
 
 

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 9:48 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 9:48 pm

Wait, you said the Appeals Court put the case on SCOTUS docket.  Why are you changing your story now?
And your daughter IS a racist whore.   Kicked the only black man off the jury of a black defendant to ensure she got a conviction. 
And SCOTUS didn't agree with her.  Unlike you, they aren't racist. 
Pathetic.

Of course they agreed with her. If they had disagreed with a case they had placed on their docket, they would have said so.
 

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 9:54 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 9:54 pm

Of course they agreed with her. If they had disagreed with a case they had placed on their docket, they would have said so.

They don't have to agree to not bother with a case, *******. 
You really aren't very bright, are you?
 

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 10:00 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 10:00 pm

They don't have to agree to not bother with a case, *******. 
You really aren't very bright, are you?

five of them do.

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 9:48 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 9:48 pm

Wait, you said the Appeals Court put the case on SCOTUS docket.  Why are you changing your story now?
And your daughter IS a racist whore.   Kicked the only black man off the jury of a black defendant to ensure she got a conviction. 
And SCOTUS didn't agree with her.  Unlike you, they aren't racist. 
Pathetic.

a racist WHORE?

shame on you.  SHAME on you.

golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 9:48 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 9:48 pm

Wait, you said the Appeals Court put the case on SCOTUS docket.  Why are you changing your story now?
And your daughter IS a racist whore.   Kicked the only black man off the jury of a black defendant to ensure she got a conviction. 
And SCOTUS didn't agree with her.  Unlike you, they aren't racist. 
Pathetic.

if SCOTUS DIDN'T agree with her, then I guess that means they must have disagreed with her?  I mean, SCOTUS wouldn't let some racist prosecutor totally violate their Batson rule without putting her in her place, would they?  What happened????

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 10:09 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 10:09 pm

if SCOTUS DIDN'T agree with her, then I guess that means they must have disagreed with her?  I mean, SCOTUS wouldn't let some racist prosecutor totally violate their Batson rule without putting her in her place, would they?  What happened????

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
child rapist

opinion is worthless
 

jerrab » 12 Jun 2023, 7:45 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:45 pm

ex president means not president anymore.

You seem to forget that the Presidential Records Act, applies to BOTH the President and former President, dumbarse!!

sunburn » 12 Jun 2023, 6:39 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 6:39 pm

but the supreme court said national archives have no claim on them if they're not in their possession.

Wonderful how things so vague become so specific governing by reasonable doubt beyond actually evolving in plain sight.