- Dołączono
- 25 Paź 2024
Since he almost never clarifies lame vagueposting like this anyway, here's a few wild guesses:
1. He could now be projecting onto Hardin a similar vague accusation he previously leveled at Null in particular and pursuit of the bodycam footage in general, which he seemed to consider some sort of silver bullet but has never clarified since:
[Timestamp 5:10]
There was some speculation at the time that he might have been referring to a name change not being official yet (which was easily disproven) or referring to another records request by a "Josiah Munoz" (which was obviously a troll having nothing to do with Null or Hardin), but now going through all the exhibits attached to Hardin's complaint, Nick might have been trying to insinuate that it was somehow improper for Hardin's May 23rd request to have been made in his individual capacity, when it was obvious from Hardin's May 28th request that he was by that time acting in a representative capacity on behalf of his client, just as he was in later filings requesting that his client be allowed to stream the omnibus hearing.
If that's all he's referring to, then and now, so what? At least the first of the records requests was explicitly in Hardin's own name, not a "false name," and he has the same constitutional, common law, and statutory rights that any other requestor would have, so he's not "lying" about whether his motivations stem from any past association with Null or the Farms and he is instead simply declining to harp on that topic because the pleadings were structured in a way that made it legally irrelevant. Nick's just acting butthurt that his original master plan of bombarding the judge with countless timestamps and screenshots making Null look like a meanie won't get anywhere anymore and he'll have to come up with a legal argument instead.
2. If that "real party in interest" argument isn't what he's alluding to, he might be projecting onto Hardin his annoyance at Null's public statements supposedly "lying" about two judges having ordered the sheriff to do anything. Those statements were forgivable as a layman's colloquial summary of what happened, but were not technically 100% accurate, since Department of Administration staff are not "judges" and their phone call to the sheriff with advice about an arguably analogous 2022 advisory opinion wasn't binding on the sheriff, and since Wentzell's May 2nd administrative order only governed the judicial branch's internal treatment of the "unredacted" MNDES exhibits that the Barneswalker stupidly placed in the judicial branch's possession, whereas Wentzell only referred offhand to the sheriff being a potential alternative source, which was pretty much the most he could say on that subject considering the oft-overlooked separation of powers issues involved here. That offhand reference to the sheriff wasn't necessary or even relevant to the narrow issue that was before Wentzell to decide that day, so his going off on that tangent likely signaled his strong preference that any broader public release should first go through redactions which the judicial branch was ill-equipped to do (and likely not allowed to do to exhibits anyway), which the sheriff's office has already said it is fully equipped to do for a fee, and which Hardin has already said he is prepared to pay for.
If that misunderstanding is what Nick is referring to, then all the whippets must have torched his reading comprehension because Hardin's filing described the Department of Administration's role and communications accurately, and he was close enough when paraphrasing that Wentzell's May 2nd order saying "requests can be made" from the sheriff implied that the footage was also "available" from the sheriff, albeit dependent on how requests shake out:
[L]
Other than those two possibilities, what else could even Nick's swiss-cheese wetbrain even remotely misconstrue as "lying" in this filing? Does he know something we don't?
Ostatnio edytowane:
.
