With the court of claims. At the time it was filed there was a complaint, while it was a verified complaint, it did not have an affidavit affixed to it. It did not at that time have a request for a temporary restraining order attached to it. He did not have a request for relief attached to it. , the in the evening Democratic National Committee Filed a petition to intervene. This morning, sometime around a set of supplemental papers were filed on behalf of the plaintiff, the first of which was something that and it was anence , and i will mispronounce the name. There was a file for injunctive relief. Thatourt determined because of the nature of the that we would let parties come forward and say what they needed to say as we could. The court has not ruled on a petition to intervene filed on ,ehalf of the Democratic Party but did afford them the ,pportunity to file papers while the court made a standingtion of any and whether or not intervention would be granted. Unfortunately one of my c
Judge Cynthia Stevens issued her verbal intent and a hearing conducted via zoom, just two days after election day. She said a formal written decision was forthcoming. This case donald j. Trump former president inc. Versus Jocelyn Benson in her official capacity as secretary of state. An initiale to make apology, Emergency Matters usually emerge in the middle of other matters, that is their nature. Matteray at 4 00, this went to court of claims. At the time it was filed. There is a complaint for declaratory relief. While it was a verified complaint. It did not have an affidavit affixed. It did not have a request for a temporary restraining order without notice attached. We did not have a request for injunctive relief attached. Later in the evening the Democratic National committee after hours filed a petition to intervene. This morning sometime around the supplemental papers were filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The first of which was something that addressed supplemental evidence. T w
Valid and the president appealed and now the case is before the appeals court. Thank you, judge. Oyea oyea oyea, all person having business before the United States court of appeals for the District Of Columbia circuit are admonished to draw near and give attention, god save the United States and Honorable Courts. 195142, donald j. Trump,et al, and [inaudible] mr. Norris. Good morning. Good morning, your honor. May it please the court. In april of 2019 when the Oversight Committee issued this subpoena to mazars it had an extraordinarily broad view of its own investigative authority. According to the committee, the power to subpoena the president s personal papers was could he extensive with the power to legislate and did not have to give any reasons or explanation with what legislative goals its pursuing and had no duty to meaningful narrow or tailor its request. That view of its own authority is reflected in the subpoena which is drafted in incredibly broad terms and substantiated wit
Supreme court. The justices remanded the case back to the lower courts for additional consideration, including separation of powers concerns. Oyea oyea oyea, all person having business before the United States court of a good morning. Good morning, your honor. May it please the court. In april of 2019 when the Oversight Committee issued this subpoena to mazars it had an extraordinarily broad view of its own investigative authority. According to the committee, the power to subpoena the president s personal papers was could he extensive with the power to legislate and did not have to give any reasons or explanation with what legislative goals its pursuing and had no duty to meaningful narrow or tailor its request. That view of its own authority is reflected in the subpoena which is drafted in incredibly broad terms and substantiated with little more than a sentence, a vague sentence in a memo about legislation. But the committees view of its own authority was rejected by the Supreme Cour
May it please the court. In april of 2019 when the Oversight Committee issued this subpoena to mazars it had an extraordinarily broad view of its own investigative authority. According to the committee, the power to subpoena the president s personal papers was could he extensive with the power to legislate and did not have to give any reasons or explanation with what legislative goals its pursuing and had no duty to meaningful narrow or tailor its request. That view of its own authority is reflected in the subpoena which is drafted in incredibly broad terms and substantiated with little more than a sentence, a vague sentence in a memo about legislation. But the committees view of its own authority was rejected by the Supreme Court in this case 90. The Court Announced a new test that substantially restricts congresss power to subpoena the personal papers. In response to that decision the complete did not withdraw, narrow or even reissue the subpoena. It instead attaches a 25,000 word me