Dear BENNIE G. THOMPSON “Chairman”
and LIZ CHENEY “Vice Chair”, along with, ZOE LOFGREN, ELAINE
LURIA, ADAM SCHIFF, PETE AGUILAR, STEPHANIE MURPHY, JAMIE
RASKIN, ADAM KINZINGER as “Rank & File Members” on the Select
Committee Investigating the January 6th “DOMESTIC TERRORIST ATTACK”
on the United States Capitol;
What is going on? Appears to
be more “Mutiny”! Now I would doubt that Adam Schiff could explain this one, as
he balked in trying to figure out how to answer Lawrence the puzzle master,
when he was asked if the so-far meritless “subpoenas” served by the “Select
Committee” held conditional recall obligations upon those that were compelled
to testify and did not join the ranks of the No Shows. OK, he said he did not
know of any such inherent obligations and has not yet corrected the record. I
wonder what Tribe would say about that? OK, benefit of doubt it’s the weekend
give Adam some time to read the “rules”. So, why in Hell’s Gate Kitchen did
this “Select Committee” bend over to Donald John, the main sponsor and
initiator of that January 6th “DOMESTICE TERROSIST ATTACK” on the
U.S. Capitol? Yes bending over backwards just this past Friday at 6:27pm ET,
like it was the weekend so we can get away with it - so this is still a hot
topic adventure time to buckle up! In the final inning that is, with Trump v.
Thompson, to give his legal team 2-additional weeks, so the involved parties
can finalize the complaint against Bennie Thompson, the case the Supreme Court
of the United States just granted this “Committee” a victory. This is pure
stupidity, as for real a motion “supported by good cause” and both parties to
the action in agreement? So was Trump’s “Domestic Terrorist Attack” through “good
cause” also! And this joint accommodation for a 2-week extension, wherein “the
parties agreed that the best course was to defer the Defendants’ response so
the Plaintiff can determine his next steps? This gives frivolous a whole new
chapter in the “Law Journals”. I am lost for words, as this “Select Committee”
should not have Mr. Nice Tie...this request wastes precious time and resources.
Do you think Trump would reciprocate the same kind of request? This “Committee”
should have stood its ground and denied Trump an extension, should have
delivered a close-out answer by COB on January 21st as was originally the
“Court’s” requirement and in that response the “Committee” should have demanded
“reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees as permitted by law”,
just like in the “Complaint” read for Trump under “Claim for Relief” - had he
prevailed. Then it would have meant case closed “Friday” and Trump would be on
the hook for wasting the U.S. Taxpayers $loot$, instead we read about this
outlandish dealing allowing Trump to plan his next move. What if his next move
is calling out his “Militia” again - this sucks the sail out of “DEMOCRACY”. And
what is with this “so he can determine his next steps”? It reads like a
lobotomy campaign. This is sad, and I can only guess at two considerations why
this extension was granted, as it was not necessary under any obligation and or
merits - he lost fair and square now must just go away! So either this
“Committee” is not serious any final legal standing that could or would indict
Donald John Trump as the “Master-Mind” behind the planning and execution of
that January 6th “Domestic TERRORIST ATTACK” on “My Country ‘Tis of
Thee” or else the outside legal teams employed and enjoyed by this “Committee” are
playing the same game just like Trump, stall and stall as that makes money as
someone has to stay abreast of what the other crook is doing. In that extension
request, it should have been a direct “NO”, instead of hours of conferring,
which adds up in legal considerations. And if this SCOTUS deed is still “Pending
Review”, well Brett Kavanaugh thinks that Joe Biden may have been politically
motivated to disallow the former President any room for “confidentiality”, even
more reason this “Committee” should have opted out any “extension”, as do you
really think we can trust Donald Jong Trump’s “next steps”? Do “We the People”
a favor, hire some legal experts that work not for the $buck$, but are in it as
a Patriot for Patriotism, no different then this “Committee” wanting
individuals-of-interest to come forward and shed a tear as their Patriotic duty
to Country.
Fin Gernail Freddy, Sprocket for the Lousy Hat Solidarity/Proletariat
Party
No Exercise of “Confidentiality” is requested with this
“TIP” Respectfully Submitted by the “Lousy Hat Solidarity Party” under the
Freedom of Obligation and under the guidance of Marshall v. Gordon and not
intended to “prevent or obstruct the discharge of this Committee’s legislative
duty.” In no way shape or form should this “Correspondence of Concern” impede
the House’s ability to legislate, it is just entered as a “TIP”.
~~~~~
Case 1:21-cv-02769-TSC Document 51 Filed 01/21/22
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
DONALD J. TRUMP, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-2769 (TSC) )
v.
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )
JOINT MOTION FOR A FURTHER TWO-WEEK EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND THE COMPLAINT
The parties to this matter jointly
request a two-week extension of time for Defendants to respond to the current
Complaint. In the absence of an extension, Defendants’ response is due Friday,
January 21, 2022. The Court has granted one prior extension of the response
time. The parties’ motion is supported by good cause. In the evening of January
19, 2022, the Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s Application for a Stay of
Mandate and Injunction Pending Review. See Order No. 21A272, 595 U.S. ___
(2022) (Jan. 19, 2022). The parties have since conferred with respect to
Defendants’ forthcoming response to the Complaint and the future of the
litigation. Given the recent decision from the Supreme Court and the
Archivist’s subsequent production to the Select Committee of the records at
issue in this litigation, the parties agreed that
the best course was to defer the Defendants’ response so that Plaintiff can
determine his next steps. Accordingly, the parties request that the
Court grant this unopposed motion for a two week extension of time, until
February 4, 2022, in which to respond to the Complaint. Case 1:21-cv-02769-TSC
Document 51 Filed 01/21/22.
No comments:
Post a Comment