PaulsBunions said:
If they were in compliance, she wouldn't need to be suing, since the names with the torture video would be released, or the DOJ would have provided a reason for the redaction. They haven't done so. Which is what you said in your last post lol
its weird you don't care to read or even acknowledge that the DOJ has responded and provided the information it was required to provide.
Because Lil Phang does not agree does not mean she gets special treatment, regardless of what a retired judge thinks may "prevail". Reminder of how special retired Judge Emmett Sullivan was during his final days on full time activist duty, he even had USA Today criticizing his novel ideas on how to persecute Trump and friends:
Dismissal of the Flynn case result of Judge Sullivan's mistakes Meanwhile, since you decline to read any of the linked material, below are the reasons Blanche provided for not responding to Lil Phang, rando journo who thinks she's special.
She claims the Epstein Act creates a de facto SEPARATE procedure outside of FOIA. DOJ seems to be on solid footing here as her request falls exactly within the types of requests journalists submit for disclosure of government records. The Epstein Act may have provided for the inclusion of files subject to FOIA, but it would not have created a separate process.
From that, she also cannot show any harm as the basis of her suit. Her claim is without those files she cannot manufacture enough clickbait to make a living.
She is not suing over DOJ compliance with the Epstein Act - she absolutely has no standing to do that. The "torture" video had a redacted email recipient (from the material I read) that has been all but confirmed to belonging to "a Sultan" - even Blanche himself has commented separately on this. Blanche seems to incorrectly say the redaction was of "victim" info but the criticism of that was the Sultan would not be a "victim". My understanding is that is not so straightforward and can be interpreted broadly.
You may not "like" all that but there are legal processes to follow and as I said when Khanna-Massie started their charade all they did was muck up an already very muddled process. This frivolous lawsuit, "ruling" by a "retired" activist judge, done to generate headlines, shouting a claim and hiding the DOJ response.
Quote:
Plaintiff's motion is procedurally deficient at the outset for two main reasons.
First, Plaintiff lacks standing because she has not demonstrated a concrete, particularized, redressable injury, nor has she identified any legally cognizable right of action to sue. Second, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction impermissibly seeks to shortcut to the merits.
The primary purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo during the pendency of litigation, however. Yet, rather than maintain the status quo, Plaintiff's motion effectively asks this Court to resolve the merits of the case at the outset under the pretext of injunctive reliefcontrary to both tradition and precedent. Each defect alone is a sufficient reason to deny the motion.
Plaintiff fares no better on the substance. Plaintiff has not come close to satisfying the stringent burden required for injunctive relief, and the Court should deny the motion on two independent grounds.
First, the Court lacks jurisdiction because Plaintiff cannot invoke the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Where an adequate remedy at law exists, the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity does not applyand the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") provides exactly that remedy here. The Epstein Files Transparency Act (the "Epstein Act") is, in essence, a disclosure statute. Read in pari materia, the Epstein Act supplements FOIA. It does not create a freestanding jurisdictional hook outside of FOIA's remedial framework.
Second, even if the Court reached the merits, Plaintiff cannot establish irreparable harm. Plaintiff's purported "information injury"that withholding these materials deprives victims of the complete truth, frustrates Congress's transparency goals, and may affect the midterm electionsare generalized grievances that rests entirely on speculation and conjecture. Nor can she repackage that injury as economic loss: economic harm alone does not constitute irreparable injury, and, in any event, Plaintiff has acknowledged that she continues to publish on her channel; the Epstein files are one topic among many she covers. She cannot show the purported harm is certain, actual, or imminent. These generalized claims are hardly enough to warrant such an extraordinary and drastic remedy. Accordingly, the Court should deny the motion
