NEW EVIDENCE UNVEILS DISTURBING FACTS ABOUT HILLARY'S EMAIL SCANDAL

Frontpage Magazine ^ | August 2, 2019 | Deborah Weiss

[Stanwood_Dave]

No, I don't decide thing's just from headlines, but am aware of some of the "defenses" that were raised in the 9th circuit circus, following the Randy Weaver / Ruby Ridge incident.

It was a VERY VERY RARE time any court, in the United States stripped the Law Official's (That would be the FBI) of "Implied Immunity Protection[s.]"

United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. State of IDAHO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lon T. HORIUCHI, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98-30149. Decided: June 14, 2000
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1471745.html

United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. State of IDAHO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lon T. HORIUCHI, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98-30149. Decided: June 05, 2001
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1430138.html

If I recall correctly, the court found the "Complaining Witnesses" {i.e. the FBI} LIED, so ergo, they lose / loss "Implied Immunity Protection[s]" status.

My legal background, no formal legal education, been to the Washington State Supreme Court, three times {accepted}, made case law in all three, one time refused permission to Intervene / Join as Necessary Parties of Interest. But the Washington State Supreme Court in that instance, had no problem using a section from our brief, and creating a holding from "Subject Matter," that was not "Joined," "Briefed," or "Argued." Reference New County Formation, i.e. political. Thus creating "Stare decisis." Personally I'd go with the Stare at the Human Excrement on the Wall.