By Mary Goetsch
When I received my July 20 copy of The Voice newspaper, I was perplexed by perhaps misquoted, or taken out of context, legal opinion on government records and who owns them in a commentary on page 6 by Bill Suhayda which stated that Judge Judy Berman Jackson rule a former president can keep whatever presidential records he wants. That the government has no authority to seize them.
My emotion was aroused knowing that such a decision is not usually settled in a single case, or, on the first hearing. Without a specific case citation, my guess was this information was from a news blurb and not a case on the record.
Once cases are decided on the appellate level or higher, they are published and scrutinized by legal services. I searched with words: Judicial watch v. Clinton Judge Jackson. The search led to one case and then others. Results: U.S. Dept. of the Treasury v Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp, 351 F. Supp. 3d 140 (DDC 2018). The online version was 25 pages and extremely complicated, only to find out the Motion to Compel Evidence for a pension plan was granted in part and denied in part. What does it have to do with Donald Trump?
The case suggests we don’t know and can’t know, just by reading news articles on what judges have decided or may decide in the future. Case decision can be reversed and may be reviewed. To say Trump and keep what ever records he wants….period, is not how the legal precedent operates. Here is still another case on record ownership (Dellems v. Powell 561 F2d D.C. Circuit 1977) that describes the twists and turns of legal precedent; which is on the Richard Nixon tapes and whether they could be placed under subpoena.
The case began in 1974 and lawyers, even before then tried to argue about such things such as if individuals can be detained over protesting. My conclusion is legal evidence for one’s personal debates should be left for a legal professional. One needs to look at precedent. Those cases would need to be Shepardized. I know I can’t do it and doubt if Bill Suhayda did it either.
So, here is my summary: After we can know whether the issue is finally decided, given the political, polarized nature of the subject of can Trump keep his files and, if so, what compensation would be given to redress the so-called illegal seizures at Mar-A-Lago, if there were wrongs, how to fix them? Who decides? On the other hand, how can we hold Trump and his slaves accountable for misleading the public and readership?
I had more satisfaction in finding out what skepticism really is. I figured it has similarities to thinking the same as a lawyer.
I am not certain because Skepticism came from Pyrrhonism, which originated from Pyrrhon of Elis (370 to 272 BCE). Extreme skepticism suspending judgment on every proposition. They take no part in the controversy, but instead, live according to reality as it appears. Perhaps the body of legal precedent could take a good turn by such a principle. Think how much simpler the court system could be if legal precedent could take a linear, predictable, time line. Voters should reserve judgment until the controversial cases take their finish, often to the U.S. Supreme Court.