“Corruption is a cancer: a cancer that eats away at a citizen's faith in democracy, diminishes the instinct for innovation and creativity; already-tight national budgets, crowding out important national investments. It wastes the talent of entire generations. It scares away investments and jobs.”
Yup. Meanwhile I’m paying &4 per gallon for gas, my 401K is tanking and I’m spending $350 more per month for my health care because of the BBB. Absolutely infuriating
It isn't just that Flynn's case was time barred. It was as to anything other than malicious prosecution because he filed his administrative claim (Form 95) way late. (apparently there is no statute of limitations on suit if your claim is just "deemed denied" but you still had to file the Form 95 timely)
Malicious prosecution has a different "start date" under the FTCA: the cause of action accrues when the final judgment of the prosecution is entered. So his actions may have been timely under the FTCA., But there is a way bigger problem--you can't sue for malicious prosecution PERIOD if you weren't found innocent. Either under the FTCA or by any other means.
The DOJ has the "discretion" to waive bringing defenses; the question now before us is, can they do that for corrupt reasons. The FTCA needs to be amended to prevent such waiver unless the government can show good cause for the waiver. Perhaps, for example, a person was in a coma for 7 months after the injury.
As far as the J6 cases go, the claims under the FTCA means YOU, not someone acting on your behalf, filed the Form 95 timely. There is no such thing as a "class action form 95" So all the folks in the alleged Class C are SOL. That leaves 46 people who claim they did file form 95. No clue as to when they did it--it had to be within 6 months of being gassed or whatever. Some of them apparently filed within the last 6 months (class 2).
But to the extent their claims are Bivens claims, that means the FTCA is not the right statute to sue under. Those are separate causes of action. And the statute of limitations on a Bivens claim is based on the tort statute of limitations in the state where the injury occurred. In DC, that is 3 years. Basic math says 1/6/21 was more than 3 years ago.
If DOJ waives THESE defenses, the corruption is overwhelming.
[I got this info via AI, but it is an AI that cites the relevant statutes and case law.
I sincerely hope that ethical lawyers and legislators are working out ways of getting our money back when we finally throw out Trump and the Republicans who enable him.
Infuriating. And I’m so tired of being infuriated.
It never ends‼️
It has become a full time job.
Depressing read. Now watch the J6 conspirators line up for their settlement.
Well since so many J6 are pedos, they’ll be in jail soon and get to spend any of that money
Waste. Fraud. Abuse. Corruption.
The central figure. Trump.
The wanna be mob boss that lies all the F’ing time‼️
“Corruption is a cancer: a cancer that eats away at a citizen's faith in democracy, diminishes the instinct for innovation and creativity; already-tight national budgets, crowding out important national investments. It wastes the talent of entire generations. It scares away investments and jobs.”
-Joe Biden
Yup. Meanwhile I’m paying &4 per gallon for gas, my 401K is tanking and I’m spending $350 more per month for my health care because of the BBB. Absolutely infuriating
“I’ll take Liars, Crooks, and Traitors for $800, Ken”…
A “reasonable” extension of selling pardons — Adore Donald for Fun and Profit!
Gime gime gime is all they know
This is sickening. I want to scream
It isn't just that Flynn's case was time barred. It was as to anything other than malicious prosecution because he filed his administrative claim (Form 95) way late. (apparently there is no statute of limitations on suit if your claim is just "deemed denied" but you still had to file the Form 95 timely)
Malicious prosecution has a different "start date" under the FTCA: the cause of action accrues when the final judgment of the prosecution is entered. So his actions may have been timely under the FTCA., But there is a way bigger problem--you can't sue for malicious prosecution PERIOD if you weren't found innocent. Either under the FTCA or by any other means.
The DOJ has the "discretion" to waive bringing defenses; the question now before us is, can they do that for corrupt reasons. The FTCA needs to be amended to prevent such waiver unless the government can show good cause for the waiver. Perhaps, for example, a person was in a coma for 7 months after the injury.
As far as the J6 cases go, the claims under the FTCA means YOU, not someone acting on your behalf, filed the Form 95 timely. There is no such thing as a "class action form 95" So all the folks in the alleged Class C are SOL. That leaves 46 people who claim they did file form 95. No clue as to when they did it--it had to be within 6 months of being gassed or whatever. Some of them apparently filed within the last 6 months (class 2).
But to the extent their claims are Bivens claims, that means the FTCA is not the right statute to sue under. Those are separate causes of action. And the statute of limitations on a Bivens claim is based on the tort statute of limitations in the state where the injury occurred. In DC, that is 3 years. Basic math says 1/6/21 was more than 3 years ago.
If DOJ waives THESE defenses, the corruption is overwhelming.
[I got this info via AI, but it is an AI that cites the relevant statutes and case law.
Next up, Millions for John Eastman …
I sincerely hope that ethical lawyers and legislators are working out ways of getting our money back when we finally throw out Trump and the Republicans who enable him.