T Nation

White House April Fool's?


#1

Not sure if serious? https://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m

I'm not sure if the White House has a sense of humor, or not


#2

This part

Makes it seem fake, but my legalese is rather poor


#3

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Not sure if serious? https://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m

I’m not sure if the White House has a sense of humor, or not[/quote]

What part of the executive order could be interpreted as a joke? The title is a bit clunky, sure. It essentially levels sanctions against international cyber criminals.


#4

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Not sure if serious? https://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m

I’m not sure if the White House has a sense of humor, or not[/quote]

What part of the executive order could be interpreted as a joke? The title is a bit clunky, sure. It essentially levels sanctions against international cyber criminals.[/quote]

Well, I’m used to clunky titles coming from research science. Call it April Fools paranoia lol. As Matty said section 10 makes it seem fake but my lawyer speak isn’t honed at all. That’s why I wasn’t sure and actually asking a question.


#5

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
This part

Makes it seem fake, but my legalese is rather poor[/quote]

It effectively means that the executive order cannot be cited in a legal case against the “United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents”.


#6

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
This part

Makes it seem fake, but my legalese is rather poor[/quote]

It effectively means that the executive order cannot be cited in a legal case against the “United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents”.[/quote]

Such saver clauses are quite common. Though “any other person” could be construed to refer to an unlimited class by those who are unfamiliar with statutory construction, hence why I believe some in the thread are confused.


#7

Thanks to LegalSteel and Bismark for the clarifications, and yes that was one of my hang-ups. Political and Legal philosophy, I’m ok on I think. Legal LANGUAGE…not so much lol


#8

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Thanks to LegalSteel and Bismark for the clarifications, and yes that was one of my hang-ups. Political and Legal philosophy, I’m ok on I think. Legal LANGUAGE…not so much lol[/quote]

Not a problem, friend. Legalese can be very counter-intuitive, even to people who have been trained to read it.