EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY:

"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).


“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.


"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.


This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of
not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for
admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has
many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney
candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of
the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with
the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cos
t.
It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law.
… The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is
not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become
a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is
to humiliate and degrade it.”


In Re Anastaplo,

18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366
U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.







Thursday, February 2, 2017

Suing those who gave you shelter, for money. The list of named-concealed Plaintiffs in the "CAIR" lawsuit against (President Trump) U.S. taxpayers: a parade of audacity

I have written on this blog about the lawsuit filed in their individual capacity on January 30, 2017, by executives of a non-profit organization, Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which the U.S. Attorney General's Office during Bill Clinton's presidency characterized in a letter to a U.S. House Representative as an "unindicted conspirators" in a criminal case pointing at trial testimony about CAIR's alleged ties to HAMAS, an organization designated as a terrorist organization by several countries, including the U.S.

A lawsuit where these executives, pounding their chests about their "service" on "boards" of various non-profits and about their "serving the community", "lecturing", acting as "experts" on Muslims, Islam and Islamophobia, and about their TV-shows, appearances in the media and appearances to testify in the U.S. Congress, as well as to go on foreign missions for the President Obama's administration - and, after saying all that, without stating their personal injury, these plaintiffs, U.S. citizens that can claim no injury caused by an executive order that affects only non-citizens, are asking for money from the U.S. government - in "damages" and attorney fees.

In that previous blog, I promised to publish a table about the remaining plaintiffs in that lawsuit, the plaintiffs whose names were sealed.

Here is the table which I compiled based on information self-reported by the plaintiffs in their own complaint filed with the federal court on January 30, 2017, here it is, I downloaded it from Pacer.gov, federal courts' official register of all documents filed in courts.

Name of Plaintiffs, all self-identified as non-citizen plaintiffs

Self-described immigration status
State and County of residence within the U.S.

Self-description in lawsuit
Claimed injury – discrimination SOLELY because of Plaintiff’s or their spouses’ religious status as Muslim and national origin as nationals from the 7 designated countries
1.                John Doe No. 1 – name kept secret
Lawful permanent resident (LPR)

Michigan,
Oakland County
·                  A Muslim of Syrian national origin;
·                  Imam, or religious Muslim leader, of a religious congregation.

·                  will be prevented from returning to his home and to his congregation if leaves the U.S.
2.                John Doe No. 2 – name kept secret
F-1/student visa holder

residence location within the U.S. kept secret
·                  A student, and a Muslim of Somali origin
·                  will not be able to return and continue his education based on his lawful student visa;
·                  will not be able to pursue a path to citizenship

3.                John Doe No. 3 – name kept secret

F-1/student visa holder
Michigan,
Wayne County
·                  A student, a Muslim of Yemeni national origin
·                  will not be able to return and continue his education based on his lawful student visa;
·                  will not be able to pursue a path to citizenship

4.                John Doe No. 4 – name kept secret

Asylee
Illinois,
Cook County
·                  Muslim of Syrian origin;
·                  Fled for fear of his life and safety from Syria

In the event he leaves the U.S., he fears:
·        He will be unable to obtain the Lawful Permanent resident status;
·        Renew his work authorization;
·        Re-enter the U.S.;
·        Pursue a path to citizenship,

5.                John Doe No. 5 – name kept secret

LPR
New York,
Albany County
·                  A Muslim of Sudanese national origin;
·                  Filed for citizenship;
·                  Filed a marriage petition, to allow his wife to join him in the U.S.;
·                  His wife has a Sudanese citizenship through her parents, although she allegedly never lived in Sudan

·        That citizenship will be denied;
·        The wife will not be allowed to come to the U.S.;
·        Is unable to travel outside the U.S. to reunite with his wife, because he may be unable to return


6.                John Doe No. 6 – name kept secret

U.S. citizen
New York,
Albany County
·                  Filed a marriage petition for his wife, who is Muslim and Sudanese, and who is pregnant with their baby

Will be precluded from reuniting with his wife
7.                John Doe No. 7 – name kept secret

LPR
Florida
Broward County
·                  Muslim of Syrian national origin
·                  Is married to a U.S. citizen

·        Will not be able to get citizenship
·        If leaves the U.S., will not be able to come back and be reunited with his wife
8.                John Doe No. 8 – name kept secret


LPR
Missouri
Philips County
·                  A Muslim of Sudanese origin;
·                  Filed a marriage petition for his wife
·        Eligible for citizenship, but application will be denied;
·        Wife’s entry into the country will be denied;
·        He himself is restricted in his travel outside the U.S. because he will not be able to get back in

9.                John Doe No. 9 – name kept secret

LPR
residence location within the U.S. kept secret

·                  A Muslim of Syrian national origin
·        Will be denied citizenship;
·        Will be denied re-entry if leaves the U.S.;
·        The U.S. population in the under-served area where he works as one of the “few critical care physicians” will suffer

10.            John Doe No. 10 – name kept secret

“Dual” citizenship – U.S. and Syria
residence location within the U.S. kept secret

·                  A Muslim American AND a Syrian national
·        Re-entry to home will be denied if leaves the U.S.
11.            Jane Doe No. 1
name kept secret
Asylee
Michigan, Wayne County
·                  Muslim from Syria
·                  Applied for LPR
·        LPR will be denied;

If she leaves the U.S.:

·        Re-entry be denied;
·        Work re-authorization will be denied;
·        Will be forced to go back to Syria where she can be tortured or executed

12.            Jane Doe No. 2
name kept secret
Asylee
Illinois,
Cook County
·                  Muslim from Syria
·        LPR will be denied;

If she leaves the U.S.:

·        Re-entry be denied;
·        Work re-authorization will be denied;
·        Will be forced to go back to Syria where she can be tortured or executed
·         


As a general statement valid for all 12 secret-name Plaintiffs: courts are considering that a person has no standing to sue if his or her claim is speculative and hypothetical.

First and foremost, there is no legal right to compel the U.S. government to admit non-citizens into the country, whether refugees, asylum-seekers, holders of student, tourist or work visas, or green-card holders (lawful permanent residents).

There is simply no such law, and no cause of action that would support it.

Lawsuits that are trying to establish that right, and especially to sue the American government (in other words, taxpayers), for money, are not only contrary to National security, but are seeking to saddle American taxpayers with an insurmountable burden.

Imagine that the U.S. population is, reportedly, a little over 300 million at present:



and the population of the world is, reportedly, 7.5 BILLION today,


so, these lawsuits filed by ACLU and the "hero lawyers" who are suing on behalf of people who are outside of U.S. borders (did not enter through the immigration checkpoint into the country yet), and who are trying to establish a right of ANY of these 7 billion people living outside of the U.S. to sue the U.S. for their right to enter the country, and sue for money, to be paid by American taxpayers, for denial of such entry.

So, these "hero lawyers" who are bringing these cases to court in drove, are trying to bankrupt the country, and every one of its taxpayers - true heroes.

The #CAIR lawsuit is no better.

In it, immigrants who are already inside the U.S. -
  • lawful permanent residents (green-card holders),
  • student visa holders, and even
  • asylees who got into the country claiming it is unsafe for them to be outside the U.S.,  
are suing the American government for money, meaning that they are suing American taxpayers,

based on a hypothetical situation that if they leave the U.S. (without making any claims that they have an urgent need to do so within the next 90 days, the period of enforcement of the Executive Order),

there is then a possibility that they will not be allowed back inside the U.S. -

so, they are basically trying to make the U.S. government recognize that the American people have no right to establish barriers of entry into their own country for outsiders, and have to pay money to non-citizens for denial of access to the U.S.

NO country has allowed such a liability against itself and its citizens, and that includes the U.S.

In the #CairLawsuit, multiple, if not all, claims about POTENTIAL future travel that MAY be affected by the Executive order are without standing, as suing, for money damages, for a hypothetical situation in the future that is completely speculative.

Many of these plaintiffs say in the complaint that "in the event" that they travel - without even stating that they plan to travel, much less that they will have an urgent need that cannot be delayed to travel outside of the U.S. within the next 90 days when the Executive Order will be in effect - they may be affected by the Executive Order.

That is speculative, and courts regularly dismiss such cases on lack of standing and failure to state a claim grounds.

In this situation, it is especially bad because these people are making those speculative claims at the time of mobs of protestors and a wave of reports in the press - simply to get attention and hope that, because of pressure by protestors, a frivolous lawsuit may get through, and the frivolous plaintiffs may get money damages from American taxpayers.

Because, the second general point is that these plaintiffs ARE asking for money damages from the American taxpayers, the claim is made in the complaint, and the specifics of how the claim is made on behalf of all plaintiffs is described in my previous blog here.

There are also multiple "irregularities" in how the lawsuit was filed.


  • Names of 12 plaintiffs suing the American taxpayers for money are withheld - so American taxpayers, in the event the claims are granted, are supposed to pay to shadows without being able to verify whether they even exist; and
  • Some of their states and counties of residence are sealed, too.

That is VERY unusual for federal litigation practice.

For some reason, these people were given favors by the federal court system, and I would like to know, why.

I wrote about the other court cases filed in connection with the same executive order that is challenged in the #CAIRlawsuit, here and here, and I wrote that at first, the entire cases were treated as secret, and then, the cases appeared on Pacer.gov in public access, showing at least filings in the case, names of parties and attorneys representing them, but sealing some pleadings.

Yet, even in cases that sealed pleadings, the names of the parties were not sealed.

Here, names of all plaintiffs who are not members of CAIR (and U.S. citizens), who are immigrants (including naturalized citizens) from the 7 countries designated in the Executive Order, are made secret, and that is highly unusual.

First, these 12 plaintiffs ask for MONEY DAMAGES from the U.S. government, and American taxpayers have a right to know to whom they must pay their hard-earned money that the federal government extracts from them for fear of a criminal prosecution and lengthy incarceration in federal prisons.

Second, usually names are sealed when people are in danger, and the question is - what is it that plaintiffs fear so much while being already within the U.S., all of the 12 plaintiffs admit they already are within the United States, and their claimed "injury" is connected with alleged inability of re-entry if they leave the U.S. within the next 90 days that the Executive Order is supposed to be in effect.

Third, as a practical point and point of policy, federal courts are extremely reluctant to allow any party, especially the plaintiff/petitioner, whose identity is known, to conceal their names.

I had a case some years back where a young individual who had a YO (youthful offender) status and whose offense was sealed, was harassed by probation officer and whose YO status, and the sealed offense, were blown by a judge from a completely different county than the county that prosecuted him (and sealed the case), and where he was not even a party in the court case, clearly indicating that the judge unlawfully unsealed a sealed court case from another jurisdiction and must be subject to a restraining order.

The individual in question was a prime candidate to conceal the individual's (I don't want to use a pronoun identifying the gender) name - filing it on Pacer would have defeated the purpose of the lawsuit by making the name and the sealed offense known to the whole wide world.

The federal court where I filed denied me a request to file the case with the plaintiff's name sealed, no explanations.  I tried to explain over the phone, in writing - all applications were rejected.

As a result, the individual did not file the lawsuit at all, because, as I said, if it was to be filed with the name in the open, it would have done more damage than the injury that the lawsuit would be trying to remedy.

Here, there are TWELVE Plaintiffs out of 27, identifiable people, who do not claim that anything bad will happen to them if their names are revealed, who are suing the American taxpayers for money, but they are allowed to conceal not only their names, but, for 3 out of 12 of them - the county where they reside within the United States, too.

Nothing like being sued, for money, by a shadow.

The shadow who you sheltered, by the way, and to whom you have given safety, shelter and support.

Claims of these individuals differ based on
  1. their immigration status, and
  2. whether they claim injuries involving third parties (spouses, children)
so I will go by group my analysis of these claims, and their merits under the current law, accordingly.

I.  Claims of unnamed American citizens 


Two unnamed plaintiffs in the "CAIR" lawsuit - John Doe No. 6 and John Doe No. 10 - have U.S. citizenship.

The Executive Order of President Trump affects only non-citizens, and there is no law that can block a U.S. citizen from re-entering the country.

Yet, John Doe No. 6 sues the U.S. government (the American taxpayers who will have to pony up the money if he manages to win the case) for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, money damages and attorney fees.

The essence of John Doe No. 6's claim is that he, a U.S. citizen residing in Albany County, New York, petitioned immigration authorities to have his pregnant wife, a Sudanese national, to come to the United States and reunite with him.

And, because of President Trump's Executive order, he now allegedly cannot reunite with his pregnant wife.

First of all, nothing prevents John Doe No. 6 to travel outside of the U.S., and reunite with his wife in any other country of the world that does not have an entry restriction.

Second, there is no law that would guarantee to anybody, including to an American citizen, a right to bring into the country a non-citizen family member - at all.

Third, there is no law that would guarantee to anybody, including to an American citizen, a right to bring into the country a non-citizen family member if the government considers her a national security risk, even if the assessment of risk is based only on the country of origin (John Doe No. 6 claims such an assessment is based solely on the fact that his wife is Muslim and Sudanese, but the Executive order is silent on faith and affects only people traveling from 7 designated countries).

Fourth, since John Doe No. 6 wife is allegedly pregnant with his baby (as he claims in his lawsuit), and he does not claim that she is close to term, that means that much less than 9 months prior John Doe No. 6 was able to "reunite" with his wife, but then they chose to separate - and now they are blaming the American government for John Doe No. 6's pregnant wife not being able to enter the U.S. for less than three months.


It is obvious that John Doe No. 6's claim is plainly frivolous - but a lawyer for CAIR took that case, filed it and is prosecuting it.

Plaintiff John  Doe No. 10, a U.S. citizen with - allegedly - "dual citizenship" (U.S. and Syrian) claims that he himself will not be allowed re-entry into the country IF he leaves within the time the Executive Order will be in effect - and that is, within less than 90 days.

If John Doe No. 10 did not voluntarily apply for Syrian nationality while already being a U.S. citizen, with an intent to renounce the U.S. citizenship, he is a U.S. citizen and nobody can block him from re-entering the country.

If he did voluntarily apply for Syrian nationality while already being a U.S. citizen, and thus renounced U.S. citizenship (there are no pleadings one way or another in the complaint), he has only himself to blame, and not the American government.

The Executive Order, once again, affects only non-citizens, and John Doe No. 10's claim is plainly frivolous - and especially so that he is asking for money damages.

 
Claims by F-1/student visa holders, their work authorization, and their "rights" to a "path" for legal permanent residence and citizenship


Plaintiffs John Does No. 2 and 3 are holders of F-1 visas who are suing the American taxpayers because, they claim, President Trump's Executive order
  • locks them within the U.S. where they are now located (the horror!) because of their fear that they will not be able to enter back inside the country IF they leave (and they did not plead any plans, not to mention urgent plans) to travel overseas, and to travel specifically to the 7 countries designated in the Executive Order;
  • will not allow them re-entry into the U.S.;
  • will preclude their work authorization,
  • will preclude their "path" for legal permanent residency in the U.S.; and
  • will preclude their "path" for U.S. citizenship.
First of all, the U.S. Constitution and federal immigration laws never bestowed a "right" of non-citizens to:

  1. enter or re-enter the U.S. on a U.S.-issued visa - visas are issued with a warning that it can be revoked at any time, for any reason, and the visa holder takes and uses that visa at his or her own risk;
  2. transform a non-working visa (F-1) into a working visa;
  3. become a legal permanent resident of the U.S. (LPR);
  4. become a U.S. citizen
Second, the F-1 visa is a student visa given to foreign students only to engage in studies within the U.S., the Executive Order was issued at the end of January, when all U.S. colleges and universities are in session, and the Executive Order is supposed to be in effect for 90 days, 3 months, before the studies are complete.

So, the maximum "hardship" that the students, F-1 visa holders will have to "endure" is a spring break spent within the U.S. - which is hardly a hardship at all, otherwise, at the time the Executive Order was issued, they had to study, maintaining a "minimum course load to maintain a full-time student status", and not think about leaving the country.  In fact, if they leave the country instead of studying, they will forfeit their F-1 visa anyway and will have only themselves to blame.

Moreover, F-1 visa generously allows foreign students to stay over for 60 days after their studies are complete, unless they are allowed to work according to a new offer under an OPT program - 12 months after completion of studies plus 17 months of extension, for the total of 29 months (nearly 2.5 years) "on the job training" after completion of studies within the U.S.

Yet, F-1 visa and OPT program does not allow to permanently stay in the U.S., and does not provide for a "right" to claim LPR or U.S. citizenship.

Since there is no such right, there is no basis for a lawsuit for blocking such a "right", and the claims of John Does Nos. 2 and 3 are plainly frivolous, and even more so that John Does No. 2 and 3, while not revealing their names, and while already being allowed to live and study in this country, are suing the American taxpayers for money damages, for the "hardship" of not being able to go back and forth during their studies at will.


Claims by LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS and their right of re-entry and reunite with families

There are 5 unnamed Plaintiffs, John Does Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, and 9 who are lawful permanent residents, LPRs, and who had concerns about
  • their own re-entry, IN CASE they travel abroad (while they made no claims in the lawsuit that they will need to urgently, or even in the foreseeable future, go abroad);
  • their chances to lose work authorization if they are blocked from re-entry;
  • their chances of being denied applications for citizenship; and
  • being denied applications to bring their spouses into the U.S.

First, President Trump already issued a clarification that his Executive Order does not target LPRs (even though it was within presidential authority to do so).

Second, there is no "right" of re-entry for any non-citizen, including LPRs, and it was clear at the time when people applied for, and received LPRs, long before President Trump took office.  If the government has any concern about national security in letting back an LPR, it has a right to delay or block entry, at least pending further verification.

Third, there is no "right" of reunification with non-citizen family members on the U.S. soil.  LPRs may reunify with their family members in any other country, if they urgently want it in the next 90 days.

Fourth, a 90-day delay in "reunification" with non-citizen family members is not a hardship of actionable proportions, and especially at the time of technology:

  1. availability of money transfers to relatives outside of the country through Western Union or directly through banks;
  2. communication with overseas family members through phone, e-mail, text and video chat (Skype) for free.
One of the most egregiously frivolous claims among those of LPRs is by an LPR who is a "critical care" doctor in an "under-served area" of the United States.

Without stating that he absolutely needs to travel overseas within the next 90 days, this plaintiff makes claims for money damages against the American taxpayers because:

1) IN THE EVENT (speculatively) that he decides to travel abroad, he MAY be prevented from returning to the U.S.;

2) he MAY be denied citizenship (which, again, did not happen yet, so the claim is premature); and

3) because he will, hypothetically, not be allowed back into the U.S. IN THE EVENT (speculatively) that he decides to travel abroad within the next 90 days, his critical-care patients in the U.S. will suffer.

Somehow, this 3rd prong of a licensed physician's claim against the American taxpayers (including his own patients), for money damages, a completely speculative claim, is actually positioned as a claim to protect those same patients from hardship of being deprived of a physician.

It is very clear why this doctor, Plaintiff John Doe No. 9, conceals both his name and his location within the U.S. - because any self-respecting licensing authority would instantly strip him of his doctor's license that allows him the lucrative opportunity to practice medicine within the United States, for blackmailing the government to jeopardize the care of his critical-care patients as a hypothetical point, in order to get money in a lawsuit.

John Doe No. 9's claim is not only completely frivolous, but is obviously immoral.



THE THREE ASYLEES SUING PEOPLE WHO GAVE THEM SHELTER, FOR MONEY, BECAUSE THEY CANNOT GO BACK TO DANGER AND THEN RETURN BACK TO SHELTER AT WILL

 
There are three "asylee" (people who were granted asylum by the United States), John Doe No. 4 and Jane Does Nos. 1 and 2, in the list of name-concealed plaintiffs in the "CAIR" lawsuit.
These asylees are suing the American taxpayers who accepted these three people, gave them protection, support and shelter, for
  • money damages,
  • attorney fees,
  • injunctive and
  • declaratory relief -
claiming that IF these asylees, who got to remain in the U.S. claiming fear of persecution and being unsafe OUTSIDE of the U.S., and to bring their families within the U.S., run a risk that they will not be allowed to re-enter the U.S. if they CHOOSE to leave the protection of the U.S. and go where they claimed in their asylum application it was unsafe for them to remain.

Imagine.

Somebody is knocking on your door saying:

  • big bad wolves are chasing me, I will die if you do not open your door and not give me food, shelter and protection of your house.
You open that door.

You then set the rules which do not even target the person you protect, but that say - ANY person who arrives from these areas, I will not be able to let in because I consider people arriving from those areas a safety risk for myself, and reserve a right to WAIT until I CHECK THEM OUT.

On hearing that new rule, the asylee then tries to get money from you through a court proceeding, claiming that:

  • now he wants to go back to the big bad wolf, where he previously claimed to you, in order to get your food, shelter and protection, that it was too unsafe for him to be; and
  • after he went back to danger, he now claims he has a right to return under your protection, even though he clearly showed that he is in no danger (since he went back into that claimed danger) and, likely, was never in danger in the first place, and lied to you to get your sympathy to open that door and give him that food, support and shelter.
Because that is exactly how this lawsuit against the U.S. government looks, where 3 asylees are seeking money damages and attorney fees from the coffers filled by American taxpayers at the threat of criminal prosecution for not paying those taxes, because it is such a great human rights violation for them to remain for extra 90 days within the very country where they came and begged to let them in and provide with - once again - food, shelter and support - because it was allegedly unsafe to be outside of the U.S. borders.

Moreover, these asylees dare to try to manipulate public sympathy even more by saying that in the event (speculatively, without any claims of necessity to go outside the country, or exact plans to do so within the period of enforcement of the Executive order, or within any foreseeable future period at all)
  • that they leave the protection of the U.S., thus forfeiting their asylum in the first place, Executive Order or no Executive Order,
  • they will not be able to re-enter and "may be sent back" where they "can be tortured or even executed".
Logic obviously left the drafters of the complaint, because a person who is in fear of his life, will not seek to go back to where his/her life was in jeopardy, and sue his/her generous host because there is a likelihood that the host will not allow him back while s/he left - because then there is a possibility that s/he will be "sent back where he can be tortured or even executed".

The easy solution, do not leave where you are safe, for the place where you can be tortured or executed, in the first place, so that you would not be denied re-entry into the safe haven, and have to return TO YOUR OWN COUNTRY where you can be tortured and executed - because of your own choice to leave the safe haven - obviously, did not cross the drafters' mind.

Yet, the desire to ride the wave of public "sympathy" "inspired" only and exclusively by frustration that not their presidential candidate was elected (as is clear from the first 15 no-standing plaintiffs in the same lawsuit, including a co-chair of the fraudulently organized Women's March, and some people who claimed to have had President Obama's ear) broke all records of shamelessness when name-concealed asylees were included into the lawsuit, and "inspired" to sue their hosts for money damages for non-existent injuries.

For shame.



No comments:

Post a Comment