Trump Muslim Ban Appeal DENIED

[presence]

At issue in this emergency proceeding is Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which, among other changes to immigration policies and procedures, bans for 90 days the entry into the United States of individuals from seven countries. Two States challenged the Executive Order as unconstitutional and violative of federal law, and a federal district court preliminarily ruled in their favor and temporarily enjoined enforcement of the Executive Order.

The Government now moves for
an emergency stay
of the district court’s temporary restraining order
while its appeal of that order proceeds.



https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

(https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf)

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the Government from depriving individuals of their “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Government may not deprive a person of one of these protected interests without providing “notice and an opportunity to respond,” or, in other words, the opportunity to present reasons not to proceed with the deprivation and have them considered.


The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after travelling abroad.


The First Amendment prohibits any “law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I. A law that
has a religious, not secular, purpose violates that clause


For the foregoing reasons, the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is

DENIED


5620

[liveandletlive]

This is what happens when you get your law degree at Trump University

[tod evans]

This might get interesting..

[Origanalist]

This is what happens when you get your law degree at Trump University

Maybe he should sue.

[muh_roads]

Sweet, come on in! Just come on in!!

Now we can finally work to take the crown from Sweden & Germany and be the new rape capital of the world!

[tod evans]

Sweet, come on in! Just come on in!!

Now we can finally work to take the crown from Sweden & Germany and be the new rape capital of the world!

Raping out here in the Ozarks is generally reserved for immediate family members, no further removed than 1st cousins...

Foreigners will be shot on sight....:cool:

[TheTexan]

Isn't it only optional to obey their ruling anyway, considering Executive Privilege?

[silverhandorder]

FYI he is going to win this.

[69360]

I am ambivilent about the ban. But I think this ruling is flawed. If the judge has ruled that the 5th applies to all persons within the US, how can it apply to a non-citzen who is currently outside the us looking to enter and has never been here before. If I was scotus I would kick this back.

[Zippyjuan]

I am ambivilent about the ban. But I think this ruling is flawed. If the judge has ruled that the 5th applies to all persons within the US, how can it apply to a non-citzen who is currently outside the us looking to enter and has never been here before. If I was scotus I would kick this back.

One of the problems is that as written, there were no exceptions. No travel from those countries. Even if you had already been legally permitted to do so. Even green card holders. They have tried to back off a bit and allow some exceptions.

[charrob]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ5MtkTKRko

[klamath]

It was clearly a violation of the first amendment. I don't know how the SC will rule but I hope the clip the shit out of the executive branches wings. My only hope for this presidency is to see the presidency jerked back into balance with the other two branches of government.

[spudea]

The decision describes a constitutional right for foreign nationals to travel to the USA, protected by the due process clause. Most ridiculous thing I've ever read...


The Government has not shown that the Executive Order
provides what due process requires, such as notice and a
hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel.

[UWDude]

This is what happens when you get your law degree at Trump University
8 U.S. Code § 1182:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens into the US would be detrimental to US interests, he may by proclamation...suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens...or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Trump will win easily in the supreme court. It is an express power granted to the president to bar aliens he deems a threat to the United states.

Guess what you get when you fall for the media's lies and outrage?
You lose when it counts.
And you'll lose this time, too.

[Jan2017]

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
(https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf)

Thanks for the pdf of the decision . . . still reading over a while.

fer one thing, are suits against the President in the right jurisdiction here ?

Suits with Washington and Minnesota plaintiffs are in the Ninth Circuit Federal Court in San Francisco -
yet are against the executive of the United States defendant, so shouldn't they be in the US Court of Claims in DC ?

(stay order gets rescinded by US Supreme Court without consideration to other arguments on
the grounds that the states of Washington and Minnesota do not have jurisdiction over U.S. defendant -
probably what the Federal Circuit Court should have done in the first place)

[fedupinmo]

Thanks for the pdf of the decision . . . still reading over a while.

fer one thing, are suits against the President in the right jurisdiction here ?

Suits with Washington and Minnesota plaintiffs are in the Ninth Circuit Federal Court in San Francisco -
yet are against the executive of the United States defendant, so shouldn't they be in the US Court of Claims in DC ?

(stay order gets rescinded by US Supreme Court without consideration to other arguments on
the grounds that the states of Washington and Minnesota do not have jurisdiction over U.S. defendant -
probably what the Federal Circuit Court should have done in the first place)

I still haven't gotten an answer anywhere to the question on Article III, Section 2, clause 2 and how it relates to this, but it appears that the issues should go straight to the SCOTUS...


In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

[Superfluous Man]

I am ambivilent about the ban. But I think this ruling is flawed. If the judge has ruled that the 5th applies to all persons within the US, how can it apply to a non-citzen who is currently outside the us looking to enter and has never been here before. If I was scotus I would kick this back.

The ruling doesn't say that it applies to any non-citizens who are currently outside the US looking to enter and have never been here before.

It says it applies to immigrants who have already been in the US and left and are trying to get back. And these people are having their 5th Amendment rights violated by Trump's EO.

[presence]

fer one thing, are suits against the President in the right jurisdiction here ?

Suits with Washington and Minnesota plaintiffs are in the Ninth Circuit Federal Court in San Francisco -
yet are against the executive of the United States defendant, so shouldn't they be in the US Court of Claims in DC ?

(stay order gets rescinded by US Supreme Court without consideration to other arguments on
the grounds that the states of Washington and Minnesota do not have jurisdiction over U.S. defendant -
probably what the Federal Circuit Court should have done in the first place)

It should be noted my OP title was misleading; this is DENIAL of "stay pending appeal" not denial of appeal.

In short this means the potus filed a temporary restraining order (TRO) to allow the travel ban to stand/stay while the appeal was being fought out in the court.

the discussion on jurisdiction was here:



Appellate Jurisdiction

The States argue that we lack jurisdiction over the
Government’s stay motion because the Government’s
appeal is premature. A TRO is not ordinarily appealable.
See Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 804 (9th Cir.
2002). We may nonetheless review an order styled as a TRO
if it “possesses the qualities of a preliminary injunction.”
Serv. Emps. Int’l Union v. Nat’l Union of Healthcare
Workers, 598 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2010). This rule has
ordinarily required the would-be appellant to show that the
TRO was strongly challenged in adversarial proceedings
before the district court and that it has or will remain in force
for longer than the fourteen-day period identified in Federal
Rule ofCivil Procedure 65(b).

We are satisfied that in the extraordinary circumstances
of this case, the district court’s order possesses the qualities
of an appealable preliminary injunction. The parties
vigorously contested the legal basis for the TRO in written
briefs and oral arguments before the district court. The
district court’s order has no expiration date, and no hearing
has been scheduled. Although the district court has recently
scheduled briefing on the States’ motion for a preliminary
injunction, it is apparent from the district court’s scheduling
order that the TRO will remain in effect for longer than
fourteen days. In light of the unusual circumstances of this
case, in which the Government has argued that emergency
relief is necessary to support its efforts to prevent terrorism,
we believe that this period is long enough that the TRO
should be considered to have the qualities of a reviewable
preliminary injunction.

[jonhowe]

I still haven't gotten an answer anywhere to the question on Article III, Section 2, clause 2 and how it relates to this, but it appears that the issues should go straight to the SCOTUS...

Are the States parties? I thought it was the AG?

[presence]

8 U.S. Code § 1182:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens into the US would be detrimental to US interests, he may by proclamation...suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens...or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

US Constitution > US Code


Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm

[Cleaner44]

These highly qualified judges should answer the question...
Is immigration a right or a privilege?

[Ender]

US Constitution > US Code
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm

This is the difference between the terms "Lawful" and "Legal".

Something can be "Legal" but unconstitutional.

[fedupinmo]

Are the States parties? I thought it was the AG?
The AG is merely an attorney for the state.

[presence]

These highly qualified judges should answer the question...
Is immigration a right or a privilege?

subjection is a slave's only privilege

all else is your Right... in exercise your Liberty

[jonhowe]

The AG is merely an attorney for the state.

I'm aware. But the AG is involved in all kinds of litigation which isn't handled by the SCOTUS. I thought maybe it was a technical way of getting out of that clause. Otherwise every lawsuit with the word "Maryland" or "California" or "Texas" in it would be in front of them...

[TommyJeff]

It's almost as if this court didn't quite know what the constitution was as they fumble through the amendments.
I dont like courts making things up as they go, that's always a poor recipe on which future courts will feast.

[Chomp]

Immigration regulations were once in place. Terrorists, anarchists, Bolsheviks were departed back,

[euphemia]

That is very true. People who had visited certain countries were not permitted entrance to the US. Countries in Europe and similar policies.

This is not a Muslim ban. Please get the language straight. It is a 90 pause in entrance from people holding unverifiable documents from seven nations.

[Brian4Liberty]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This moratorium on immigration from specific nations does not establish a religion, or restrict or enforce the free expression of any religion within the US. On that basis alone, it does not violate the 1st.

Even if one stretches the plain language of the 1st to say that this means that a particular religion can not be part of immigration criteria, which I would argue is "living Constitution" legislation from the bench, this ban says nothing about religion, and certainly does not ban all Muslims.

[specsaregood]

This moratorium on immigration from specific nations does not establish a religion, or restrict or enforce the free expression of any religion within the US. On that basis alone, it does not violate the 1st.

Even if one stretches the plain language of the 1st to say that this means that a particular religion can not be part of immigration criteria, which I would argue is "living Constitution" legislation from the bench, this ban says nothing about religion, and certainly does not ban all Muslims.

So basically the thread title is inflammatory fake news?

[jllundqu]

Did the 9th Circuit just rule that all peoples from all countries have an affirmative RIGHT to enter the US? Because when you boil it down, that's what it looks like. If the president and congress can't exclude groups of people for ANY reason they want, then ALL people have that right....

[TheCount]

Did the 9th Circuit just rule that all peoples from all countries have an affirmative RIGHT to enter the US?No, I don't think that's the case. These nations are not automatic-visa nations. All of these people had applied for - and been granted - visas. The issue would be the 'revocation' of their visas... or, rather, simply denying them entry despite their visa.

[CPUd]

Did the 9th Circuit just rule that all peoples from all countries have an affirmative RIGHT to enter the US? Because when you boil it down, that's what it looks like. If the president and congress can't exclude groups of people for ANY reason they want, then ALL people have that right....

The court pretty much said the POTUS needs to show how allowing entry from these countries poses a threat to US interests, and the govt attorneys said he doesn't have to show it. The court said in that case, they probably won't win their appeal, so no need for a stay, punt.

[69360]

The ruling doesn't say that it applies to any non-citizens who are currently outside the US looking to enter and have never been here before.

It says it applies to immigrants who have already been in the US and left and are trying to get back. And these people are having their 5th Amendment rights violated by Trump's EO.

I agree that those who have been here before have a 5th ammendment right to return. But this ruling stays the entire EO, I think erroneously. Those who have never been here before have no right, I think Trump can legally exclude them. Don't mistake can for should. So I think scotus should and will kick this ruling back for modification.

[charrob]

The ruling doesn't say that it applies to any non-citizens who are currently outside the US looking to enter and have never been here before.

It says it applies to immigrants who have already been in the US and left and are trying to get back. And these people are having their 5th Amendment rights violated by Trump's EO.


So if Trump's executive order is re-written to include exceptions for current Visa and Green card holders (independent of whether they are currently inside or outside the U.S.), then the Courts would have no problem with his executive order?

[devil21]

It's almost as if this court didn't quite know what the constitution was as they fumble through the amendments.
I dont like courts making things up as they go, that's always a poor recipe on which future courts will feast.

The Constitution is a legal guideline for the corporate government entity. It's not the law of the land and doesn't have to be followed. It's entertaining watching the various branches of government go about their checks and balances while being careful to avoid spilling that can of beans. History matters.

(it's why all branches are filled with lawyers that know that simple truth. It is worth noting that the current state of general disarray could be confusion attributed to an ongoing return to constitutional republic status, away from the corporate status of the last 150+ years. Few seem to be able to confirm if the republic is indeed being reinstated, however.)

[Superfluous Man]

So if Trump's executive order is re-written to include exceptions for current Visa and Green card holders (independent of whether they are currently inside or outside the U.S.), then the Courts would have no problem with his executive order?

Possibly.

The inclusion of current Green Card holders especially has been the most serious legal weakness I've seen brought up about it, and the point that makes this EO different than other actions by previous presidents that some Trump defenders want to compare his EO to.

[charrob]

Possibly.

The inclusion of current Green Card holders especially has been the most serious legal weakness I've seen brought up about it, and the point that makes this EO different than other actions by previous presidents that some Trump defenders want to compare his EO to.

Thanks.

[CPUd]

They're trying to rewrite it to exclude green cards, and probably taking out the minority religion stuff.

[A. Havnes]

They're trying to rewrite it to exclude green cards, and probably taking out the minority religion stuff.

That's probably their best bet, too. Let green card holders remain, and word the ban differently.

[bunklocoempire]

FYI he is going to win this.

Absolutely.

https://lut.im/WiiYZA8Jv5/bz1oKWxJb8cb1v89.jpg

[Sam I am]

One of the problems is that as written, there were no exceptions. No travel from those countries. Even if you had already been legally permitted to do so. Even green card holders. They have tried to back off a bit and allow some exceptions.

When I read the text, it looked like there were several kinds of visas which were exempt from the ban


excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

[charrob]

That's probably their best bet, too. Let green card holders remain, and word the ban differently.

Wouldn't that also include current Visa card holders? I think the judges alluded to the 5th Amendment and Due Process to apply to them as well? Trump's best bet imho would be to exclude both current Green card as well as current Visa card holders from his new re-written executive order. In other words respect the 5th Amendment due process complaints for those who have already been given the green light to be here.

As for current Visa card holders who have overstayed their Visas, I don't think he needs an executive order for that; just implement the law that states those with expired Visas need to leave.

[spudea]

Did the 9th Circuit just rule that all peoples from all countries have an affirmative RIGHT to enter the US? Because when you boil it down, that's what it looks like. If the president and congress can't exclude groups of people for ANY reason they want, then ALL people have that right....

Yes absolutely they did. Their perspective is open borders and americans must die before National Security Policy can be implemented.

[tod evans]

Did the 9th Circuit just rule that all peoples from all countries have an affirmative RIGHT to enter the US? Because when you boil it down, that's what it looks like. If the president and congress can't exclude groups of people for ANY reason they want, then ALL people have that right....

Why everybody is pissin' and moanin' just route all flights from the countries in question into Sea-Tec.

Let the courts there deal with any trouble.

[milgram]

A 9C judge has requested a review of yesterday's decision

830188541103718402
830192637550403584
830193134671888384

[enhanced_deficit]

Featured:9th Circuit Has 80 Percent Reversal Rate At Supreme Court
(http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/09/9th-circuit-has-80-percent-reversal-rate-at-supreme-court/)Daily Caller


Not to defend it but if this is "muslim ban", how come Obama is able to get back to US from his vacation since Trump peoples see him as a muslim ?

[TommyJeff]

The Constitution is a legal guideline for the corporate government entity. It's not the law of the land and doesn't have to be followed. It's entertaining watching the various branches of government go about their checks and balances while being careful to avoid spilling that can of beans. History matters.

(it's why all branches are filled with lawyers that know that simple truth. It is worth noting that the current state of general disarray could be confusion attributed to an ongoing return to constitutional republic status, away from the corporate status of the last 150+ years. Few seem to be able to confirm if the republic is indeed being reinstated, however.)

Im not sure I understand, are you saying the branches of the federal government aren't bound by the constitution :confused:
the constitution is more than a guideline it's the document creating, defining and limiting the federal government

i agree that the current federal disarray is comical.

[fedupinmo]

Featured:9th Circuit Has 80 Percent Reversal Rate At Supreme Court
(http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/09/9th-circuit-has-80-percent-reversal-rate-at-supreme-court/)Daily Caller


Not to defend it but if this is "muslim ban", how come Obama is able to get back to US from his vacation since Trump peoples see him as a muslim ?
And 85% of the world's Muslims are unaffected, too... that's more than half, I don't think it's a "muslim ban" per se...

[P3ter_Griffin]

Unfortunately the ruling is basically in agreement that


The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

means the president can pen laws from his desk. And that


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

means that any powers not forbidden in the constitution is reserved to the federal government.

Just that they (Trump admin) need to provide a hearing for certain non-citizen classes with an individual who can (from my understanding) subjectively decide if the non-citizen gets to stay or is forced to go.

[oyarde]

Isn't it only optional to obey their ruling anyway, considering Executive Privilege?

9th district does not have to be obeyed , it is not a real american court , just kangaroo court .

[oyarde]

No, I don't think that's the case. These nations are not automatic-visa nations. All of these people had applied for - and been granted - visas. The issue would be the 'revocation' of their visas... or, rather, simply denying them entry despite their visa.

Which gets to root cause . Easiest way to do it was just employ people and tell them to deny the Visas .

[devil21]

Im not sure I understand, are you saying the branches of the federal government aren't bound by the constitution :confused:
the constitution is more than a guideline it's the document creating, defining and limiting the federal government

i agree that the current federal disarray is comical.

Oh boy. I just wrote up a long reply to your post but deleted it and instead decided it's easier to direct you to find online a pdf titled "The Great American Adventure". Just understand the old "what has been seen can not be unseen" saying before you decide whether to read it or not. The history of this country is very, very different than what we have been indoctrinated into believing.

[TommyJeff]

Oh boy. I just wrote up a long reply to your post but deleted it and instead decided it's easier to direct you to find online a pdf titled "The Great American Adventure". Just understand the old "what has been seen can not be unseen" saying before you decide whether to read it or not. The history of this country is very, very different than what we have been indoctrinated into believing.

I was sorry to hear the post was deleted, I know that frustration
ty for your reply

[Superfluous Man]

Did the 9th Circuit just rule that all peoples from all countries have an affirmative RIGHT to enter the US? Because when you boil it down, that's what it looks like.

No. And that isn't what it looks like.

But it is true. All people do have that right. They don't have the right to compel anyone else help them do it. But provided they have the means or someone provides the means voluntarily, they do have the right to travel to the USA.

[silverhandorder]

Trump is going to over rule. Watch.

[Ender]

Oh boy. I just wrote up a long reply to your post but deleted it and instead decided it's easier to direct you to find online a pdf titled "The Great American Adventure". Just understand the old "what has been seen can not be unseen" saying before you decide whether to read it or not. The history of this country is very, very different than what we have been indoctrinated into believing.

TRUTH.

[jllundqu]

Oh boy. I just wrote up a long reply to your post but deleted it and instead decided it's easier to direct you to find online a pdf titled "The Great American Adventure". Just understand the old "what has been seen can not be unseen" saying before you decide whether to read it or not. The history of this country is very, very different than what we have been indoctrinated into believing.

That sovereign citizen BS has been floating around the interwebz for a long long time. What a bunch of BS. Not a single citation and a bunch of moronic blatherings about corporations and evil joos! Aside from the countless misspellings and grammatical errors, it reads like someone with an obvious mental health disorder had an orgy with their keyboard. It's Christian prophecy hysterics mixed with pretty lame conspiracy... not even entertaining, really.

Some gems for you all to enjoy:


"This means that all card carrying American lawyers are foreign agents, liars, traitors and communists! No wonder Jesus warned us about, “lawyers!”


Next, this god-king employed and empowered a special sect of slave drivers to further cement his will and control over the people, which initiated the birth of the: “Freemasons.”


“They were enrolled; they were murdered or they were dealt with by other devious means!” Asian historians :p lmao


and my personal favorite:


All of the world’s Martial Arts Societies and Masters are financed by the Chinese Royal family and in return the martial arts Masters have sworn a pledge to their Almighty God and to the Royal family, to provide security and protection for the Chinese Royal family. An Army of Ninja’s protect the family elders today.

Again.... insane ramblings of a disturbed person and NOT A SINGLE CITATION.

[Superfluous Man]

Im not sure I understand, are you saying the branches of the federal government aren't bound by the constitution

Isn't it obvious that they aren't?

[CPUd]

That sovereign citizen BS has been floating around the interwebz for a long long time. What a bunch of BS. Not a single citation and a bunch of moronic blatherings about corporations and evil joos! Aside from the countless misspellings and grammatical errors, it reads like someone with an obvious mental health disorder had an orgy with their keyboard. It's Christian prophecy hysterics mixed with pretty lame conspiracy... not even entertaining, really.

Some gems for you all to enjoy:





:p lmao


and my personal favorite:



Again.... insane ramblings of a disturbed person and NOT A SINGLE CITATION.

"Judge Dale" is Rod Class, or rodney-dale:class, a flesh and blood man who happens to be a Private Attorney General, the go-to guy when you get a traffic ticket for running a stoplight and want to turn it into a felony.

[devil21]

That sovereign citizen BS has been floating around the interwebz for a long long time. What a bunch of BS. Not a single citation and a bunch of moronic blatherings about corporations and evil joos! Aside from the countless misspellings and grammatical errors, it reads like someone with an obvious mental health disorder had an orgy with their keyboard. It's Christian prophecy hysterics mixed with pretty lame conspiracy... not even entertaining, really.

Some gems for you all to enjoy:





:p lmao


and my personal favorite:



Again.... insane ramblings of a disturbed person and NOT A SINGLE CITATION.

You're a lawyer, right jllunqu? I recall you admitting previously that you are in the legal profession in some form.

Can't imagine why you'd have an interest in suppressing the pdf info ;)

[Dr.3D]

Hard to believe, people are calling this a Muslim ban. Guess the MSM is still doing a great job of providing fake news.

[jllundqu]

You're a lawyer, right jllunqu? I recall you admitting previously that you are in the legal profession in some form.

Can't imagine why you'd have an interest in suppressing the pdf info ;)

Lord no, I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be. My father was a lawyer and was more of a patriot than you'll ever be. I'm simply a well-educated critical thinker able to differentiate bullshit from wisdom.

If you'll excuse me, I have to get more training from my Chinese martial arts masters in order to protect my illuminati overlords and the Royal Families.

Edit: What's funny is I actually do have a Shodan Menkyo in Togakure Ryu Ninpo Taijutsu (Ninjitsu) so I'll just let you swim in that conspiracy BS a little longer lmao.

[devil21]

Lord no, I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be. My father was a lawyer and was more of a patriot than you'll ever be. I'm simply a well-educated critical thinker able to differentiate bullshit from wisdom.

Hmm, ok. What do you do for a living? You previously stated on RPF that you encounter "sovereign citizen" (which is an oxymoron and makes me question your knowledge and/or motives) stuff in your line of work. I can't imagine what line of work you'd be in, other than a cop, lawyer or court staff where you would encounter "sovereign citizens".



If you'll excuse me, I have to get more training from my Chinese martial arts masters in order to protect my illuminati overlords.

Poor strawman. In fact, all of your posts in this thread are weak sauce. Choosing a few lines out of a 125 page pdf book reeks of disinfo. Btw, the contents of the pdf are accurate. Possibly painting with a broad brush but the history and information is indeed accurate. Your failure to acknowledge it doesn't change that.

[jllundqu]

Hmm, ok. What do you do for a living? You previously stated on RPF that you encounter "sovereign citizen" (which is an oxymoron and makes me question your knowledge and/or motives) stuff in your line of work. I can't imagine what line of work you'd be in, other than a cop, lawyer or court staff where you would encounter "sovereign citizens".



Poor strawman. In fact, all of your posts in this thread are weak sauce. Choosing a few lines out of a 125 page pdf book reeks of disinfo. Btw, the contents of the pdf are accurate. Possibly painting with a broad brush but the history and information is indeed accurate. Your failure to acknowledge it doesn't change that.

Lol.... This should be fun. "Let's guess what James does for a living" ... Suffice it to say that I regularly come into contact with people who buy into the Sovereign Citizen UCC code ALL CAPS NAME "UNDER DURESS" red fingerprint bullshit. And everyone I have met is a scam artist and a bullshit artist... they also are trying to sell you on the idea so they can sell you books and secret workshops on how to "declare yourself Sovereign!"

You failed to address my 'weak sauce' (really? "weak sauce?") post about the fact that entire 125 page PDF contains absolutely ZERO sources (other than links to conspiracy websites) but then you claim the "contents of the pdf are accurate." Yeah...sure they are. Believe what you want, but post a bunch of baseless BS and someone who is actually educated on the topic will call you out on it.

[TommyJeff]

Isn't it obvious that they aren't?
There is a difference between not breaking the rules/law/etc, and breaking them without enforcement. It's the job of the citizens to hold the officials accountable or replace them. Lack of proper education and complacency helps those in power avoid accountability.

[kahless]

It is not a Muslim ban but I would have no problem with a Muslim ban. The fact is their religion is in opposition to individual liberty. People will try to curry favor from the left or for political reasons for the ignorant to say otherwise or for whatever other reason but that is the fact of it.

[LibertyEagle]

No. And that isn't what it looks like.

But it is true. All people do have that right. They don't have the right to compel anyone else help them do it. But provided they have the means or someone provides the means voluntarily, they do have the right to travel to the USA.

Complete bullshit. To hell they do.

[CPUd]

829512737633992704

[devil21]

Lol.... This should be fun. "Let's guess what James does for a living" ... Suffice it to say that I regularly come into contact with people who buy into the Sovereign Citizen UCC code ALL CAPS NAME "UNDER DURESS" red fingerprint bullshit. And everyone I have met is a scam artist and a bullshit artist... they also are trying to sell you on the idea so they can sell you books and secret workshops on how to "declare yourself Sovereign!"

So you're not going to answer the question about what you do then? If you're so confident that the UCC is "bullshit" (which is an absurd statement since it clearly exists and is the code that courts operate under), I'd like to hear your evidence that it is bullshit. Clearly you are an authority on the the subject so help us out.



You failed to address my 'weak sauce' (really? "weak sauce?") post about the fact that entire 125 page PDF contains absolutely ZERO sources (other than links to conspiracy websites) but then you claim the "contents of the pdf are accurate." Yeah...sure they are. Believe what you want, but post a bunch of baseless BS and someone who is actually educated on the topic will call you out on it.

So I guess we both posted unsourced assertions about what the reality is. Here's the funny part. I've actually used those principles in court and walked away a free man, with frustrated, cursing lawyers left in my wake. That's how I know it's not bullshit. What's your evidence?
------------------

(eta: You haven't lived until a prosecutor has called you a 'motherfucker' twice in open court and you still walked out the door scot-free, case dismissed. Yes, there are trigger-happy cops and corrupt lawyers but not being an idiot around cops avoids the trigger part and once the lawyers and judges know that you know their game, they do try to pull tricks but they do also otherwise act honorably if you don't fall for them.)

[Firestarter]

I hope I’m not intruding on the discussion of the sovereign citizens. Maybe I’m not the only one to figure out that proclaiming yourself “sovereign” won’t protect you from trigger happy cops or corrupt lawyers and corporations.

Donald Trump has quietly admitted that he won’t challenge the appeal in the Supreme Court: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-latest-travel-ban-muslim-supreme-court-challenge-a7574541.html

Some Dutch law students explained the legal merits of the case.
This is only a presidential executive order (and no Act of Congress) that’s been blocked. The Congress can only by a 2/3 majority overrule an executive order (which doesn’t make this practical), but the Congress can practically block executive orders, by simply denying funding.

Judge Robart is a District Judge, which is a Federal Judge.
In accordance with Marbury vs. Madison (1803) the US court has the authority to review if a law is constitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Immigration policy can only be decided for the whole USA (so not just for one state); see pages 68-69 (IX) of Texas vs. United States (2015): http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-40238-CV0.pdf
“But the Constitution requires “an uniform Rule of Naturalization”;206 Congress has instructed that “the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly”;207 and the Supreme Court has described immigration policy as “a comprehensive and unified system.”208
(…)
Furthermore, the Constitution vests the District Court with “the judicial Power of the United States.”210 That power is not limited to the district wherein the court sits but extends across the country. It is not beyond the power of a court, in appropriate circumstances, to issue a nationwide injunction.211”

[TommyJeff]

Judge Robart is a District Judge, which is a Federal Judge.
In accordance with Marbury vs. Madison (1803) the US court has the authority to review if a law is constitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison



The court decided that the court has the authority it wants. How convenient.

[Firestarter]

Lawyers call it jurisprudence...

[TommyJeff]

Lawyers call it jurisprudence...
and the constitution calls it, not true.

[CPUd]

871698122409488385
https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/871698122409488385

[FSP-Rebel]

871760270384877568

[CPUd]

871899703889215489
https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot/status/871899703889215489

[Zippyjuan]

Trump calls it a "travel ban". His Secretary of State says it is not a "travel ban". He initially said they wanted to delay travel from certain countries for 90 days while they put in place new methods of "screening" travelers. It has been more than 90 days and they have still not started on any new screening procedures (the old ones could take as long as two years to navigate).

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html?_r=0


Trump Promotes Original ‘Travel Ban,’ Eroding His Legal Case

WASHINGTON — President Trump has excellent lawyers. They have a challenging client.

In a series of Twitter posts Monday that continued into the evening, Mr. Trump may have irretrievably undermined his lawyers’ efforts to persuade the Supreme Court to reinstate his executive order limiting travel from six predominantly Muslim countries, according to legal experts.

Saying he preferred “the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version” he had issued in March, Mr. Trump attacked both the Justice Department and the federal courts. He also contradicted his own aides, who have suggested he was causing a pause in travel, by calling the order “what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” He said it would be imposed on “certain DANGEROUS countries” and suggested that anything short of a ban “won’t help us protect our people!”

There is a reason lawyers generally insist that their clients remain quiet while their cases move forward, said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.

“Talkative clients pose distinct difficulties for attorneys, as statements outside the court can frustrate strategies inside the court,” Professor Blackman said. “These difficulties are amplified exponentially when the client is the president of the United States, and he continuously sabotages his lawyers, who are struggling to defend his policies in an already hostile arena. I do not envy the solicitor general’s office.”

Even a lawyer with strong ties to the administration said Mr. Trump was hurting his chances in the Supreme Court and undercutting the work of the Justice Department’s elite appellate unit.

George T. Conway III, who withdrew last week as Mr. Trump’s nominee for assistant attorney general for the civil division and whose wife, Kellyanne Conway, is the president’s counselor, commented on one of Mr. Trump’s posts.

“These tweets may make some ppl feel better, but they certainly won’t help OSG get 5 votes in SCOTUS, which is what actually matters,” he wrote in his own Twitter post, using acronyms for the Office of the Solicitor General and the Supreme Court of the United States. “Sad.”


Mr. Trump, his lawyers said, was now a changed man, alert to the burdens and responsibilities of his office.


“Taking that oath marks a profound transition from private life to the nation’s highest public office, and manifests the singular responsibility and independent authority to protect the welfare of the nation that the Constitution reposes in the president,” they wrote.

On Twitter early Monday, though, Mr. Trump appeared to say that the latest executive order was of a piece with the earlier one, issued in January, and with his longstanding positions.

[CPUd]

Judges cite recent Donald Trump tweet in their ruling against travel ban

Donald Trump’s love of Twitter is giving his legal team some headaches.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction placed on his so-called travel ban, and specifically referenced a tweet the President shot out in the days following the terror attacks in London that killed eight people and injured nearly 50 more.

“That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries,” Mr Trump wrote, “not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!”

As it turns out, the judges on the 9th Circuit Court saw in that tweet a statement that undermines the whole reasoning behind the travel ban.

“Indeed, the President recently confirmed his assessment that it is the 'countries' that are inherently dangerous,” the judges wrote in their opinion, “rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President’s 'travel ban.”

The judges also noted that White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer had himself instructed reporters to view the President’s tweets as official statements from the White House.

Mr Trump’s allies have long been concerned that the President’s tweeting habit will inhibit the West Wing’s ability to move policy forward.

“The point cannot be stressed enough that tweets on legal matters seriously undermine [the Administration’s] agenda and POTUS — and those who support him, as I do, need to reinforce that point and not be shy about it,” George Conway, a lawyer married to White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway, tweeted earlier this month. “These tweets make some people feel better, but they certainly won’t help [the solicitor general] get five votes in [the Supreme Court], which is what actually matters.”

The travel ban will likely head to the Supreme Court now that two US District Courts of Appeals have ruled to uphold injunctions on the President’s travel ban.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-travel-ban-muslims-tweets-used-ruling-judges-appeal-court-a7786906.html