Takeaways from the court hearing on releasing more documents from the Mar-a-Lago search

[Bkk Brian]

51 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

It is a general principle of law that everything is legal........ until there's a law that says it isn't. 

 

For example, Roe v Wade did not make abortion legal. It said the States could not have laws that made it illegal. Same with "gay marriage."

 

Yes, the effect is the same, but the circumstances are very different: There were LAWS that said you couldn't.......... then........ those laws got struck down! Then, suddenly, you could!

 

Generally speaking, if there's no law saying you can't.......... then you can!

 

And if there are two laws that contradict each other, it's the passive position that must win, not the aggressive position.

 

(Laws that are in opposition to each other......... have the same effect as there being NO law. The individual cannot be punished for being unable to read the mind of the judge who might eventually decide!)

"Enacted in 1978 following President Richard Nixon's resignation, the President Records Act established presidential records are the property of the U.S. government that must be preserved and not the president's private property.

 

During a presidency, the incumbent president has responsibility over the "custody, control and access to presidential records," according to a 2019 report from the Congressional Research Service. 

 

But after a presidency, that responsibility moves to the archivist of the U.S., who is required under law to make the former president's documents available to the public "as rapidly and as completely as possible." At the end of an administration, the documents must be turned over to the National Archives."

 

Beside which the warrant statutes were to do with the espionage act,  conceal documents in order to obstruct a government investigations, and the federal law that prohibits the unlawful removal of government documents more generally.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

Just now, heybruce said:

Show me the law that says I can't squat in your house.

 

If Trump can legally take documents that are not his and keep them even after requests to return them, can people do the same with money from a bank?

 

To my knowledge no law regarding legal ownership of property or law against theft specifies that stolen property must be returned when possible.  It's assumed, with good reason.

Do you really need me to type out the word "tresspassing?" Really?

 

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

 

As an aside.........

 

I have been told that here in Thailand (so bear that in mind!), if someone "squats" on your unoccupied property for a certain period of time without you removing them....... you lose the right  to remove them! I think it was two years.......... but I was told this 10 years ago, so....... lol

 

Also.........

 

In California, if you allow the public to cross your property as if it was a public throughway......... say, cutting the corner across a vacant lot......... if you don't enforce your "private property" rights at least once every 5 years.......... you lose the right to close it off in the future. It can be declared a "public access."

 

(A number of Malibu homeowners got tripped-up by this. The beaches at Malibu are public, not private. In some places, the public walked down privately owned accesses to get to the beach. Awkwardly, some property owners never enforced their "private property" rights by closing off the access........ so they LOST the right to prevent people from casually walking right next to their extremely expensive houses to go party on the beach!)

 

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

 

Sometimes, things that seem to have simple answers......... don't! Lol

[ozimoron]

As Biden finished his remarks about reforming higher education, Doocy shouted a question about the FBI search of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.

"How much advance notice did you have of the FBI's plan to search Mar-a-Lago?" Doocy asked.

 

"I didn't have any advance notice," Biden replied. "None. Zero. Not one single bit."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/joe-biden-peter-doocy-fbi/

[billd766]

On 8/22/2022 at 2:30 PM, ozimoron said:

Religious instruction as a formal subject, taught part time by a priest,  was eventually scrapped by the authorities, possibly after that same year, mid 60's. The class I was banned from was year 8, first secondary year. We means most of us.

I was taught RI at school for 1 hour a week by a normal teacher (Mr Fowler IIRC) from 1955 to 1959. It was one of the very few lessons we shared with the girls school.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Do you really need me to type out the word "tresspassing?" Really?

 

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

 

As an aside.........

 

I have been told that here in Thailand (so bear that in mind!), if someone "squats" on your unoccupied property for a certain period of time without you removing them....... you lose the right  to remove them! I think it was two years.......... but I was told this 10 years ago, so....... lol

 

Also.........

 

In California, if you allow the public to cross your property as if it was a public throughway......... say, cutting the corner across a vacant lot......... if you don't enforce your "private property" rights at least once every 5 years.......... you lose the right to close it off in the future. It can be declared a "public access."

 

(A number of Malibu homeowners got tripped-up by this. The beaches at Malibu are public, not private. In some places, the public walked down privately owned accesses to get to the beach. Awkwardly, some property owners never enforced their "private property" rights by closing off the access........ so they LOST the right to prevent people from casually walking right next to their extremely expensive houses to go party on the beach!)

 

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

 

Sometimes, things that seem to have simple answers......... don't! Lol

So the FBI reclaimed the government property before Trump could claim squatters rights.

 

There are laws against trespassing, as there are laws against theft.  The law requires trespassers to vacate property that doesn't belong to them, and requires thieves (Trump) to return property that was stolen.  If the stolen property isn't returned, law enforcement has the right to take action.

 

The opinions of two lawyers who argue that the law didn't specifically prohibit a departing President from stealing stuff from the White House don't impress me.