Decision in the MMF law suit

I just posted this on EF.  The judge in the MFF law suit has issued a decision dismissing every important argument made, except for a few housekeeping things, apparently to try to make it look like the order wasn't completely for Biden and NARA.
 
As I said, the judge's argument dismissing NARA's responsibility to add records to its Collection, like Darnell and Wiegman, is particularly false and incoherent. Even after NARA admitted to me in an email that they *had* such a responsibility, which several MFF filings discussed so the judge could not have missed it!
 
Here is the post:
 
I hope Bill and Larry keep fighting and there are still some things that may be accomplished, (particularly, I think, on appeal, rather than in front of this judge). But this is an awful decision.
 
Right off the bat you know you're in trouble when Judge Seeborg summarizes the findings of the 4 bodies --the WC, Rockefeller and Church comms, and the House Select Comm--that investigated the murder: they "concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole culprit responsible for the assassination".  WOW. I thought everyone knew the House Comm found a likely conspiracy, was unable to go further, and passed its findings to the Justice Dept. which did nothing.  Could the judge be unaware of this?  
 
He admits questions have been raised about the murder: "historians and members of the public have continued to seek more information about how such a tragedy could have occurred".  IOW, questions like how could Oswald have done this and why, where was JFK's protection, etc.  Questions *not* including, e.g., did Oswald in fact do it, and if not who did?
 
This ignorance changes the whole context of the case.  If you think the question is merely how Oswald did it and why, rather than *whether* he did it--was it a coup?--you can be a lot more comfortable deciding the case as the judge has done.  Smaller questions about adding details to a firm conclusion that Oswald did it make dismissals of a lawsuit asking larger questions that much easier.
 
The heart of the suit is the claim that NARA is the successor agency to the ARRB, , and has taken the responsibility for updating the Records Collection by seeing to it that all JFK records are released for public view.  But NARA has done little or nothing since to perform these duties.
 
No, its not the successor, says the judge.  "Nara and the ARRB are two distinct entities, separately referenced in the JFK Act and tasked with separate statutory functions".  Despite the fact that NARA is required to set up the JFK Records Collection to which the ARRB was required to send the records it collected. 
 
The judge's reasoning means that for the 19 years between when the ARRB closed and the 2017 deadline was established to collect all JFK records, no one was in charge. No one was responsible to see that work was done. Worse, he thinks that was Congress's intent.  How ridiculous is that?
 
He said the 1998 memo of understanding between the CIA, ARRB, and NARA did not change this; it "did not impose any specific responsibilities on NARA". The reader is free to speculate what other purpose the memo had. The judge is silent on that.
 
The heart of the case was lost right there when the judge claimed NARA had no responsibilities to continue the ARRB's work.  Apparently the judge thinks NARA's  only responsibility is to house the Collection,
 
Except for the bone he threw to require NARA to maintain accurate reference and to release certain legislative records, so as to try to appear balanced.
 
But my favorite part of the decision is when the judge addresses the suit's showing of NARA's  refusing to look for documents under the JFK Act, even when they are specifically requested to do so. He cites a case claiming plaintiffs are "not entitled to wholesale improvement by court decree". Thus he concludes showing a pattern and practice is insufficient for a remedy. Individual cases must be challenged. Strange logic. How do you show a pattern of actions without talking about the actions that constitute the pattern?
 
Here is the whopper the judge uses to dismiss the suit's argument :  "While Plaintiffs *outline examples* of NARA failing to search for documents under the JFK Act, Plaintiffs *make clear* that they are challenging a pattern and practice of NARA,*not* NARA's action in any individual instance. Where do the MFF briefs make that "clear"? The judge cites no  language showing anything of the sort. His claim is utterly false. In fact the MFF briefs show some particular cases that make up the pattern of NARA misbehavior for which a remedy is needed.
 
I know this from personal experience.  After being told by staff that NARA accepted recommendations for records to add to its Collection, I asked their general counsel, at staff's suggestion, to add the Darnell and Wiegman films as JFK records, and explained their significance.  They have not done so. That is not "outlining examples' but a specific case of inaction being challenged.  The MFF briefs cited this case several times to show what NARA is actually doing and for which a remedy is needed. The judge could not have missed it.
 

This note is just from a once over of the decision.  Bill and Larry did a helluva job laying out the case for the judge in multiple briefs.  Again, the judge's order is an awful response.

Wow. This is is not and should not have anything 
to do with who did it. It is about the government following its own laws. Openness and transparency are the issues, not whether the WC got it right.

FFS. 

This shouldn't even be a difficult decision to make.

The law says "X" should happen

Biden, Trump, NARA, CIA all do/did "Y".

Quite pathetic. One good thing is that it might make the general public more suspicious of what is being hidden. Leading them to demand answers.