are inherent in marbury versus madison are like delivering a seal when requested, because there is a separate statute, and the secretary of the state had two of the hats on and he was on one hand the direct agent of the president, and that could never be examinable by the courts, but on the other hand, the original statute had imposed all of the purely ministerial duties that had to do with the recordkeeping and delivering of documents and if you had a land deed that had a seal on it, and the person asked for it no, discretion at all, but the take-care clause, there is no statute that could impose on the president, a, a mandatory duty to engage, and the notion that when the president is meeting with the department of justice and enforce federal fraud statutes and that being ministerial strikes me as insupportable. well, i think that you are missing what i am asking. which is, i think that it is paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care of the laws be fait
questions of immunity in criminal context. i tend to agree with my friend on the other side that in many respects it does reinforce the nature of the fitzgerald outer perimeter standard saying that you don t look at intent or you don t look at purpose, because content is playing a role of the content of communications, and the signature change is the acknowledgment of the looking at a president whether that president is acting in his or her role as office seeker or officeholder. again, to go back to my response to judge childs question, although it would change the nature of whether or may change the nature of whether certain things are or are not certain acts in the indictment, we think it is entirely the wrong paradigm to use, and in fact, it would be inconsistent with the fitzgerald s reasoning, and also, irreconcilable with the way that criminal law works. to say that we won t take
over time how often does it typically a signature change? because i ve looked back at my signatures from high school or from whatever from many in my 20s, 30s, it changes, but how typical is that? it s typical, but it s also very case specific. you can have people that handwriting doesn t change much at all for many, many decades and there are other people where it can change drastically over a very short period of time. the only way to ensure that is to used a get known specimens, which is a significant number of signatures and nonsignature cursive writing from within two to three years of 1977. can you tell i don t know if it s an exact science. i heard some folks on the air earlier saying that it was jeffrey toobin saying it s not an exact science. but could you tell? is it an exact science to you? well, it s kind of an interesting thing. ask someone if there is anything that is an exact science, and
signature, which would also make it look a lot alike. but more importantly, we don t see any known signatures from around the time frame of 1977. what did mr. moore write like back in 1977? in addition to that, there is a lot of cursive writing prior to the signature, and that is some excellent material for comparison purposes. but again, we need to have comparison material from within about two or three years, either before or after, 1977, sod an adequate and proper comparison. overtime how often does it typically a signature change? because i ve looked back at my signatures from high school or from whatever from many in my 20s, 30s, it changes, put how typical is that? it s typical, but it s also