The government is not quite arguing relevancy is missing. They are instead taking a very odd position that I don't know that I've seen before. They are actually admitting the documents are relevant to showing intent, but that intent is inconsequential because their motive was pure.
I don't think I've ever heard motive as a defense before in a Constitutional Law case.
Of course, motive is not a valid defense, so this is pretty lame.
Another odd position by the Government is that they have appealed, and IN THEIR APPEAL, claimed that the appeals court can't remedy the accused error made in the claims court. Uhhhhh....really? While such an outcome could make documents inadmissible in court, now that the documents are released, they could be introduced in other fashions. So what's the point of even appealing this point?
Considering that the appeals court can only deal with procedural errors, I don't see them even addressing the relevancy of the evidence. I don't think any appellate court has ever overturned a ruling because of relevancy reasons.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
