InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 15
Posts 1155
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 04/05/2008

Re: Patswil post# 334512

Wednesday, 04/13/2016 9:48:04 PM

Wednesday, April 13, 2016 9:48:04 PM

Post# of 796502
Strong words from Sweeney today.

"Instead of harm to the Nation resulting from disclosure, the only “harm” presented is the potential for criticism of an agency, institution, and the decision-makers of those entities. The court will not condone the misuse of a protective order as a shield to insulate public officials from criticism in the way they execute their public duties. Thus, avoidance of “second-guessing” an agency’s decisions several years after the fact, as described by Mr. Watt, is, with the passage of time no longer a legitimate basis to maintain documents under a protective order. The court notes that from the inception of this litigation, the government has consistently maintained that the court lacks jurisdiction over this case because the United States had no control over the enterprises. Taking the government at its word, it is surprising that defendant is concerned with the unsealing of government officials’ deposition testimony."