Looks like the Supreme Court has another case headed their way...

[The Original Happy Goat]

I don’t think the dancing orange orangutan’s signature is valid because we can’t tell what it says. Kind of like my doctor or mine in fact.

It doesn't matter. When it comes to pardons, there is no rule they must be signed. Or even put on paper. The document itself is only important as an evidentiary matter, to prove to a court that the pardon did, in fact, happen. And despite CO.H's protestations, there is no rule that the document must contain a signature, much alone a signature that was not devised by an autopen. The document these putative defendants would present as evidence of their pardon is an original document, not a facsimile, and therefore may be accepted by the court without any exterior authentication. If authentication is needed, however, all they need is for Biden to give testimony or sign an affidavit that he did, in fact, authorize said pardon. That's game over. Anyone who says otherwise is sorely perverting the plain meaning of the law and justice.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The president's signature isn't required for a pardon. You said look at the best evidence rule. The rule involves facsimiles of documents. It does not involve signature requirements.

If you are going to prove the existence of a pardon by means of a document purporting to be signed by the President, said document needs to be signed by the president.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

If you are going to prove the existence of a pardon by means of a document purporting to be signed by the President, said document needs to be signed by the president.

It was signed by the president.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It was signed by the president.

 

[iuwclurker]

What a stupid fkn discussion.

The fact is Trump gets literally constipated if he doesn’t file a lawsuit of some sort every day, including Sunday.

The irony is Trump is fecally incontinent so being constipated could be viewed as a blessing. For a day or two anyway.

Primal fear.

Man comes running into the barroom men’s room. Someone’s in the only stall. He screams, “Hurry man, I’ve got the runs.”

Guy in the stall groans in agony, “Lucky you.”

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Just once, you should note that literally every authority disagrees with you, and wonder why that is.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Just once, you should note that literally every authority disagrees with you, and wonder why that is.

I wonder, theoretically what would make the auto pen problematic in a criminal case and not any other. Constitutionally, other than an override, the president has to sign a bill for it to be law. Why is it not a problem for the government to be concerned with on whether those bills are legal/

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

I wonder, theoretically what would make the auto pen problematic in a criminal case and not any other. Constitutionally, other than an override, the president has to sign a bill for it to be law. Why is it not a problem for the government to be concerned with on whether those bills are legal/

It shouldn't be a problem at all. CO.H is just being Socratic. 🤣

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I wonder, theoretically what would make the auto pen problematic in a criminal case and not any other. Constitutionally, other than an override, the president has to sign a bill for it to be law. Why is it not a problem for the government to be concerned with on whether those bills are legal/

An auto pen is an AI version of a rubber stamp. It is wholly ineffective for legislation. It might be ineffective for a pardon evidenced by a autopenned document; depending on extrinsic evidence.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Just once, you should note that literally every authority disagrees with you, and wonder why that is.

Won’t be the first time I was right and they were wrong. I gottta couple of good war stories about this.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

An auto pen is an AI version of a rubber stamp. It is wholly ineffective for legislation. It might be ineffective for a pardon evidenced by a autopenned document; depending on extrinsic evidence.

So every law signed by autopen since its invention could be stricken? How about normal contracts, there are a lot of digital signatures out in the real world. I would be surprised if the autopen is not held to similar standards.

Are electronic signatures legally binding in court? | Adobe Acrobat

Are electronic signatures legally binding like handwritten signatures? Learn what you need to create legally valid electronic documents.

www.adobe.com

 

[mcmurtry66]

It was signed by the president.

do you even know what an auto pen is? i think it's these machines. expensive af. but it's not a pen you hold (thought i'd get one to sign my minion's incident reports). in no way do i believe this changes anything, obviously, as there are so many other ways to prove up biden sanctioned the pardons, but it is different than i thought. anyone could do it

Handwriting Machines - The Autopen Company

Handwriting machines from the Autopen Company enable the authentic reproduction of real handwriting. Machines can be used to address envelopes.

damilic.com

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

do you even know what an auto pen is? i think it's these machines. expensive af. but it's not a pen you hold (thought i'd get one to sign my minion's incident reports). in no way do i believe this changes anything, obviously, as there are so many other ways to prove up biden sanctioned the pardons, but it is different than i thought. anyone could do it

Handwriting Machines - The Autopen Company

Handwriting machines from the Autopen Company enable the authentic reproduction of real handwriting. Machines can be used to address envelopes.

damilic.com

I know what it is. To me, the key is that the president authorized the use of the machine. That makes the machine's signature his by proxy, and tradition says that's good enough.

Now, if someone fraudulently used the machine to sign a document the president authorized, then that document would be invalid, obviously. The auto pen is only good as far as it carries the president's authorization.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Won’t be the first time I was right and they were wrong. I gottta couple of good war stories about this.

I'm sure they are dandies.

Tell you what, if you end up right on this one, I owe you a beer.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Won’t be the first time I was right and they were wrong. I gottta couple of good war stories about this.

Isn't the first time you were wrong either and won't be the last I'm sure.

Is googlymoogly your alter ego? Seem very sure of your opinions being fact despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So every law signed by autopen since its invention could be stricken? How about normal contracts, there are a lot of digital signatures out in the real world. I would be surprised if the autopen is not held to similar standards.

Are electronic signatures legally binding in court? | Adobe Acrobat

Are electronic signatures legally binding like handwritten signatures? Learn what you need to create legally valid electronic documents.

www.adobe.com

Yes. Every law that does not bear the Presidents signature is not law.

You are the eleventy eighth person to bring up electronic signatures on commercial documents. I haven’t and won’t respond to that nonsense. Irrelevant.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I know what it is. To me, the key is that the president authorized the use of the machine. That makes the machine's signature his by proxy, and tradition says that's good enough.

I don’t think legislation has been ever signed with an auto pen. Administrations aren’t that stupid.

A president authorizing use is not good enough. The auto pen must also be so secure that only the President has access.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Yes. Every law that does not bear the Presidents signature is not law.

You are the eleventy eighth person to bring up electronic signatures on commercial documents. I haven’t and won’t respond to that nonsense. Irrelevant.

you can call it nonsense and irrelevant all you want but it illustrates that digital signatures are considered the same as regular signatures. Thus, it is in fact relevant to this discussion.

Your posts acting like digital signatures don't count is what is nonsense.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Yes. Every law that does not bear the Presidents signature is not law.

You are the eleventy eighth person to bring up electronic signatures on commercial documents. I haven’t and won’t respond to that nonsense. Irrelevant.

The Patriot Act was renewed by auto pen, and the fiscal cliff bill signed with it.

The Autopen: Presidential Use & Constitutionality | Shapell Manuscript Foundation

Learn about the presidential autopen: the constitutionality of an autopen signature, which U.S. presidents used the autopen machine, and its relevance today.

www.shapell.org

Heck, Jefferson used a form of auto pen in the day. If Congress did not want it, they have had plenty of time to deal with it

Lincoln signed pardon's using other people.

Below, signatures on pardons issued by President Abraham Lincoln that were recorded by his secretary of state or a designee, not Lincoln himself.​

​

Fact-checking Trump's claim that Biden pardons are 'void' because he used an autopen

Legal scholars say that the Constitution doesn’t require a pardon’s direct human signing, and subsequent judicial decisions and legal memoranda support an autopen’s use for similar purposes.

www.pbs.org

As usual you dismissed a point counter to yours without any explanation. Why is a digital signature being legally valid in other context totally irrelevant? You favor government efficiency, what part of flying documents all over the world is efficient?