Come on! They will never have to prove authorization. No sane and reasonable lawyer will ever attempt to go to court on this. It will be laughed out if the courtroom if someone tried. This is a seriously dumb idea.
Robert Hur interview of Biden
- Thread starter Lucy01
- Start date
I don't have to prove anything. DBM is the one claiming that he didn't authorize them. It's not my job to prove he's full of crap.
Let’s say I began building facilities to export LNG. The govt. sues me to stop construction.. The govt claims Biden issued an EO pausing all construction of LNG export facilities. I say “prove it.” Your move.
If you try to enforce the EO in court, you hafta prove there is an EO.
It must be true because it’s on the internet. You going to court on that?
HUGE unproven leap right there! Major blind allegiance assumption thought, so golf clap for that!
I think it was Brad that pointed out you don't have to prove it, because anything published in the Federal Register can simply be accepted on judicial notice.
CAN? not will or shall.
Again, prove that it is actually legit, to every letter.
That is what courts are for, right?
Actually, it says "shall." Sorry, I wasn't laying a trap for you, just writing sloppily.
That’s a fair point. But it still begs the question. It’s a federal crime to submit unauthorized material for publication in the federal register. We haven’t had a POTUS so disabled that the authority delegated to a person with the means to use facsimile signatures could be an important issue. Given the right case, any court would take evidence on this issue.
Yeah, but you're still talking about a situation in which the burden of proof will be on the prosecutor claiming the documents are invalid. Specifically, the law says that publication in the federal register creates a rebuttable presumption that a document is, among other things, duly promulgated and a true copy of the original. So if a prosecutor wants to take that on, sure, they can do that. But they better bring something more than, "Oh yeah? Prove it!"
Not so fast. Once I show the “original” signature is not the President’s but instead is a facsimile, I think I can successfully argue the burden of proving authorization has shifted.
"Once [you] show..." Exactly. It's your job to rebut the rebuttable presumption.
BTW, I don't think you're going down the right path. An autopenned document isn't a facsimile. It's an original. You're going to need to prove that the original document was autopenned, and then make a legal argument that the autopen signature is insufficient.
Right. You can’t prove a negative. I can never prove lack of authority to use a facsimile for an EO. All I can show is there is no evidence of authority. The burden should be on the govt. to produce evidence the facsimile is authorized.
No. An auto pen is as a matter of fact a facsimile. That should be undisputed.
Well, I don't think the government is the one making this argument in your hypothetical, and it doesn't matter, because the law says they don't have to. The law says there is a rebuttable presumption that if a document is published in the Register, then it was duly promulgated and is an accurate copy of the original. That's statute. What you think "should" be doesn't really matter at that point.
Once again. If what is the “original” EO is shown mot to be the presidents original signature, the presumption has been rebutted.
An auto-pen is a copy. Just a different process than a fax or copy machine or fiber stamp or another human signing the Presidents name.
No, it's really not. You're hung up on this copy business, and it's wrong. These were the original documents. There is no other original document sitting around somewhere they were copied from. They are the originals. The only question (assuming they were signed with an autopen) is whether or not an autopen signature is sufficient to properly promulgate a document. Since statute provides a rebuttable presumption that the documents are valid, you will need to no only prove that they were autopenned, but also provide a legal argument that the autopen isn't sufficient. You can't simply say, "Isn't it obvious?" And you certainly can't claim they are facsimiles, because they are not.
You may or may not be right that the autopen is insufficient, but you can't get there by pretending that an autopenned document amounts to a copy. Because that's simply not the case. Original copies are autopenned all the time. It's your job to prove that practice is simply insufficient to effectuate a particular document.
If the EO is not signed by the President, the burden will fall on the government to establish authenticity. This is simple. You are making it way too hard.
And you're ignoring statute. And also forgetting which side "the government" is on in this hypothetical.
You're the one claiming that he authorized something that he is on tape promising he would never do.
immoral nutbag? how so? He doing to many good things for you to handle?
Joe Scarborough said Biden was sharp as ever. LOL!
Whenever I read your posts, I hear them in an angry yell similar to Mama Fratelli/Mrs. Lift.
All Biden has to do is borrow Trump's sharpie that is powerful enough to move hurricanes. If he did his pardons with that, even CO would have to believe it lol
Trump was prosecuted. Biden wasn’t. Trump is front and center daily. Biden sequestered. Do you not understand the difference?
And I don’t believe the pardons are invalid. But your stupidity is just shocking.
