Criticize judges now. The legal establishment now allows it. Kind of. Because there is the 1st Amendment out there. They know, they know. But they do not care, and lawyers laugh how adorable it is that they do not care.

There is such a thing in the Supreme Law of the Land of the United States of America called the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

And it says, supposedly, that

And, since only Congress can make laws in regards to FEDERAL rights, universal for all citizens of the country, no state government can make such laws either.

Heard it?

I did, too.

Having heard that, I also have this:

That means that, since November 13, 2015 I cannot work BECAUSE I exercised by indigent client's due process and 1st Amendment rights, made motions to recuse a biased and corrupt judge, was sanctioned "for frivolous conduct" by that biased and corrupt judge - and was prohibited to work and earn a living, because of it, without a hearing.

And, according to law professor Margaret Tarkington, discipline of attorneys specifically FOR criticizing judges - as professor Tarkington politely put - "enjoys a recent resurgence".

Usually those who criticize judges in this country are immediately dismissed - first, by the courts, then, by the legal establishment whose livelihood depends (literally, through regulation of licenses) on the courts' whims, and then, by the public who blindly follow whatever the legal establishment and courts tells it, "because they know better" - as the so-called "disgruntled litigants".

In the so-called "Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence", a bar unlawfully created by federal courts to block civil rights litigation in federal court because federal issues "could" be raised before biased state courts - courts use an even better, more smacking, more vulgar word than the "legalese-termed" "disgruntled litigants".

"Losers".  That's what the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the trailblazer of civil rights, called people who preferred to litigate their federal claims (as the law allows them to do) in federal court:

"The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we hold today, is confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments."

So, if you were prosecuted by a corrupt state court, and another corrupt state court denied appeal, and if you want to sue (as the U.S. Congress allowed you) for civil rights violations under the Civil Rights Act in federal court, the federal court will tell you - "'we have no jurisdiction", because you are a - LOSER!  Not that courts are allowed to change their jurisdiction.  Only the U.S. Congress has such authority, under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

But courts still do that.

So, "losers" in a biased state court are not entitled to a legal remedy for violation of federal constitutional right provided to them by U.S. Congress. 

Because - they criticize state judges.

And, for that reason alone they are - how do those backyard bullies in middle school called it - LOSERS!


So, now we established that those who criticize judges are simply losers.

Even Ruth Ginsburg says so - if you complain about a "state court judgement", you are a loser.

So, why listen to losers?  To anything they are saying at all?  They are losers, after all, what good can they say?

By the way, when a lawyer surfaced on my blog with criticism of my criticism of judges and refused to reveal his identity and engage in a public online real-time video-debate, he actually claimed that the identity of the individual who makes a statement does not matter, the truth of the statement matters.

While accusing me of "chasing phantoms", "attacking the wrong targets", "getting confused" and "playing fast-and-loose with the law", and claiming, based on those conclusory allegations, without examples, that such alleged behavior on my behalf hurts my credibility, the patronizing male lawyer did not want to reveal who he is.

When I pointed out his patronizing, and conclusory, criticism from the bushes as lacking credibility, he exploded:

So, here a male attorney (or judge) needed the anonymity to be able to say the word "fuck" to a woman he never saw because she - legitimately - accused him of making unsubstantiated conclusory allegations and patronizing her.

The patronizing male lawyer Coyote Waits taught me, the misguided little woman, that his anonymity does not matter, the truth of his statements - whatever they are - is the same:

"Again, however, I will not debate you live and I will not shed my anonymity.  As a lawyer, I would think you would recognize that an argument should stand on its own." 

So, those who criticize judges are:

• "losers" - as Ruth Ginsburg transparently proclaimed in Exxon Mobil in 2005;
• attackers of the U.S. Constitution - as the President of the American Bar Association claimed in response to President Trump criticizing Judge Robart for his illegal decision;
• bigots - like Donald Trump was in criticizing Judge Curiel, even though he had a perfect right to do so, and did not even reach all problems with Judge Curiel presiding over his case; or
• idiots - as many of the news sources, and public in comments in social media, have branded President Donald Trump was in criticizing Judge Robart for making an unlawful decision, and then the 9th Circuit in making an unlawful decision

(in the 9th Circuit decision, quite likely, Ruth Ginsburg, and the Hawaii State University secretly participated - and the State of Hawaii, on behalf of Hawaii State University, is now the 1st state suing Trump for his 2nd Executive order on immigration, apparently after a consultation with Ruth Ginsburg who is not allowed to practice law and participate in consultations on a case, as a judge, and as an appellate judge on whose table this case may and likely will end - but who will stop her?)

I recently confirmed for myself the attitude toward not even criticism of judges by the legal establishment - simply asking a question.

I asked a question, on the Facebook page of the American Bar Association, what right did the family of Antonin Scalia have to own, control and distribute records related to Scalia's work as a judge (case-related notes and journals)?

The reaction was, immediately, the very same as with Coyote Waits:

(1) I was taught that I do not understand the law by a true guru in trial and appellate law

(by a foreclosure attorney who puts his religious faith - and faithfulness - on his professional profile; who, according to his own admission, has dreamed of becoming an attorney since 12 - dreamed, and dreamed

- and, after dreaming for so long, his dream has become true, and - voila! - after working for the U.S. Attorney's office he somehow left, interned in South Africa and then hit the rock bottom of attorney specialties and became the only associate in a 5-lawyer firm (3 partners, 1 "of counsel" and 1 associate - Lindquist), a foreclosure attorney

So, now his dream has come true and he can proudly cast people out of their homes without any litigation (as it happens in most judicial foreclosures, because people do not have money for an attorney and default), and when the majority of his clients, likely, do not have standing to sue - because of how mortgages are obtained and assigned in the U.S. (I often defended people in such cases and know this particular area of the law very well). 

Lindquist very obviously has to feed two young children of his own (as confirmed by his Facebook profile and his profile on his law firm's webpage), who is completely dependent on the judiciary, so he, of course, will not commit any missteps.

Yet, he had the audacity to undertake to teach me what litigation means, what documents are created in litigation and who those documents belong to. 

And, not to overdo it, he claims on his LinkedIn profile that he "enjoy[s] the human element of practicing law and am motivated by helping people resolve complex and stressful situations".  By working first as a prosecutor, and then as a foreclosure attorney.  Oh, well.

(2) I, and even my husband, were "Googled" and our "record" was found "illuminating" - because I asked a question about a judge!

That was the post:

The article, as I already wrote before, discusses that Scalia's family gave Scalia's "papers", including papers related to his work as a judge on the federal appellate court and in the U.S. Supreme Court (case-related notes and journals) to the Harvard Law Library, with the Scalia's family controlling who gets to get access to it, including a restriction until 2020 on access to court-related records, and a restriction until all presently living judges-participants in those cases will die off.

Here is my question:

Here are the comments:

I answered that notes of judges from court cases are not their own "private notes", moreover, that it is a "common practice" says nothing about legitimacy of such a practice.

Then came the backlash.

Note the tone.

I simply asked a question.

But, through that question, I implicitly criticized a judge.

And, attorney, or law student, whoever he is, David Berry, who boasts on Facebook about his legal education and even puts President Lincoln's picture as his Facebook profile picture, simply cannot have it.

Not knowing me, David Berry immediately concluded, from my question and two comments, that a judge does not own notes from a court case, that I "have no first clue of what s/he is talking about", and asks a counter-question, mockingly, whether the public owns the books Scalia has written, or letters to his friends and wife.

I answered that, while the public does not own the books, the judge did not have the right to write them while rejecting 99% of petitions coming his way, because he has no time (but has time for writing books):

And here comes the cherry on the cake: the next commentator Googled me AND my husband (whose name is not Frank, by the way, but, I understand, "Wendi Lynn" was fuming and in a hurry to post this one) - and found our background "illuminating".  Because I asked a question that criticized a judge by implication:

#AttorneyAaronLindquist was tagged on this one, and immediately "liked" it.  That was on March 7, 2017, a Tuesday, at 9:21 am - attorney Lindquist was supposed to be at work, either in his office or in court, enjoying "the human element of practicing law" and "helping people resolve complex and stressful situations" by stripping them of their homes.   

Something that is being offered in New York, for example, for less than flipping burgers

($50 is the current rate for attorneys appearing in foreclosure proceedings per appearance, for review of documents, judging by proposals that still come to my law office e-mail account despite an automatic reply for 2 years that it is closed - $50 for hours of rush review, note that the offer below is dated March 9, and the appearance is the next day, of a thick file of documents, usually with standing problems, legal research, travel to court, appearance in court, wait time, the wait may be several hours on top of that):

Apparently, on a Tuesday morning at 9:21 am attorney Lindquist had nothing to do other than discussing my own and my husband's background on Facebook, because I asked a question about a judge.

Now, let's say that the very same thing - the bullying and checking the background of a person (and husband of the person) who asked a question - would be happening at a press-conference, I would be the journalist (I am a citizen journalist, and I asked the question as such), and President Trump would be the one I am asking that question, and President Trump would say - "I've just Googled this journalist and her husband and my Google search was quite illuminating".

There would have been hell to pay in the media if the President would do something like that.

Yet, it is a routine occurrence in the "honorable" legal profession to bully people who raise concerns about judicial impropriety before the legal establishment - even if that is done implicitly, through a question.

The reaction spells out the attitude of the "honorable" profession loud and clear - DO NOT attempt to bite the hand that feeds us.

So, here goes the idea of "an argument standing on its own" - and there, there was not even an argument, a question needs to be answered on the merits - got lost upon attorneys-commentators on Scalia and his family treating court notes as their own property.

And all of the above, lady and gentlemen, was only a foreword, a preface, a precursor to - TADA! - a big change in the industry.

Today, on March the 13th of 2017, the New York Law Journal, a "scholarly", but rather, a media source of the legal establishment, published an article in which two authors say that Trump's criticism of a judge is actually:

• good;
• refreshing;
• democratic, and that
• judges need to EARN public trust - not demand and presume it, as they do now.

Wow.

Consider the phrase: "Abraham Lincoln, and before him Andrew Jackson, also had harsh words for the courts. Tough-minded presidents usually do" - after a recitation the "harsh words" that Presidents Roosevelt, and Obama had for judges.

Consider the last paragraph:

"Trump has shifted the burden of proof. If the judiciary is to maintain our respect and our deference, judges across the country must show that their decisions are just not politics by another name. Otherwise, jurists can expect even sharper criticism than Trump's."

And illustrated that judicial decisions are "politics by another name" by pointing out at statements of two judges:

Ruth Ginsburg:

 "He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment".

The article mentioned that Ginsburg later apologized for that particular blunder, but it did not mention that Ginsburg later practically retracted her apology by adding to her previous statement that

• she will leave to New Zealand if Trump is elected (she is still here, so that was a fake statement, she would never voluntarily shed her money and power and disappear away from the limelight), and, recently, that
• "we are not experiencing the best of times" in the U.S., not to mention
• her recent Hawaiian trip during work time in order, likely, to fix a court case against Donald Trump - a trip to the Hawaii State University School of Law employing as professors law clerks of one of the judges who, as part of the 9th Circuit panel, was deciding the case against Trump, while his chambers were "coincidentally" located within 7 miles from where Ginsburg was hosted - and the Hawaii Law School is currently stalling my Freedom of Information request asking for records as to who paid her bills and how much those bills amounted to, that would be a separate blog).

Yet, consider what the "revolutionary" New York Law Journal article said about another blubbering SCOTUS justice, Sonya Sotomayor (I added a link to the 2005 statement to the source):

"Consider the remarks of now-Justice Sonia Sotomayor in 2005.

'All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because it is — court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know.'

Sotomayor drew knowing laughter from the audience because she exposed the hypocrisy woven into our judicial fabric. Judges are supposed to expound law, not make it. Yet, as she revealed, appellate judges make policy all the time. Supreme Court justices even more so.

Sotomayor views judges as having an expertise, a long-range vantage point, and a detachment that qualify them to wield extraordinary powers. By exploiting the law's inevitable uncertainties, judges in the Sotomayor camp have fashioned dubious "constitutional" rights to drive policy in their preferred directions."

The worst of her "offhand remark" in 2005 was that it was made to law students - people who she was teaching by her laughing comments as to what law and justice in the U.S. really is - NOTHING.   What matters is only the law that judges make, illegally, she knows, she knows, but they still do.  And the law students, and their professors, and attorneys who came to listen to her, there is no doubt that they were in that audience, too,  "knowingly laughed" - and that her "offhand remark" in 2005 did not prevent her from becoming a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

The "knowing laugh" part reminds me of what Professor Bogus has said about how brown-nosing the judiciary and endorsing, supporting and approving of judges' most asinine behavior, creates monsters:

In 2009, Sotomayor added to her arrogant "policy" remark in 2005 that decisions are made based on the judge's personal experience and ethnic background - that was here in-famous "Latina woman" remark.  That remark also did not prevent her from being confirmed for the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, given such a seal of approval, no matter what she blubbers, she kept blubbering.

In May of 2016 Sotomayor blubbered some more, now calling for lawyers to be forced into provision of free legal services to close the "justice gap" - created by attorney monopoly and attorney regulation BY courts.

In January of 2017, Sotomayor was part of the panel denying me, without review or explanation of reasoning (of course, I understand that I am not in Finland where people are entitled to reasoned court decisions, at least an explanation why the court considered it unnecessary to enforce their own recent precedents on point and not to enforce the U.S. Constitution) the petition for a writ of certiorari, without recusal of Sotomayor

despite the fact that her own statement (that same "forced labor" statement) was used as evidence in the petition, which required her disqualification, whether I asked for it or not.  I did not ask, but remember why I was suspended in the first place? For motions to recuse a judge. 

Here are excerpts from my certiorari petition that were specifically about the "justice gap", and Justice Sotomayor's comments about it - that would cause ANY honest justice to resign, but, of course, not Sotomayor (remember - " Because it is — court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know).

She knows, she knows, that what she is doing is wrong - but who will stop her?

"The so-called 'justice gap', the lack of skilled attorneys working for the poor in criminal, family and civil rights proceedings, has become a national crisis, to the point that this Court's Justice Sotomayor has publicly stated this year that she would support a mandatory pro bono work requirement as a condition of attorney licensing for all attorneys throughout this country (FN39 to Tony Maura, Sotomayor Urges Mandatory Pro Bono for All Lawyers. The National Law Journal, May 17, 2016).

New York State recognizes that it has a "justice gap" so bad that it bridges that gap with mandatory services of inexperienced (and unlicensed) law students (FN40 to 22 NYCRR 520.16(a):

If the justice gap in New York is so bad that New York mandates or encourages practice of law by unlicensed, inexperienced and unskilled service providers in order to bridge the justice gap for poor litigants, surely, New York must treasure those skilled attorneys who are already providing services to the poor, helping to bridge that justice gap.

Yet, instead, New York removes skilled attorneys who honestly do their jobs for their clients, just because they made motions to recuse a biased judge and were sanctioned by that judge (FN to Matter of Aretakis and Matter of Tatiana Neroni), and does it through disciplinary proceedings where New York courts apply collateral estoppel to a standard of proof artificially lowered to an unconstitutional level in order to allow disciplinary prosecutors to skip evidentiary hearings, without regard whether criticism of the judge was truthful".

*  *  *

I further said in the petition that Sotomayor participated in denying without an explanation or reasoning:

"On the one hand, New York recognizes that the justice gap in the state is so bad that New York mandates or encourages unlicensed, uneducated, inexperienced and unskilled service providers to provide legal services to the poor, in contravention to its own criminal laws and attorney licensing laws.  New York thus exposes indigent litigants to the danger of unskilled and dishonest providers who were never subjected to evaluation by character and fitness committees, which is exactly contrary to the declared reason of why attorney licensing was introduced in the first place - to protect consumers of legal services from unskilled and dishonest providers.

On the other hand, New York removes services of skilled attorneys who are already providing their services to the poor from the reach of those indigent litigants for unconstitutional reasons, disciplining attorneys not for doing a bad job for their clients, but for doing a good job.

Moreover, attorneys so targeted for unconstitutional discipline are, invariably, small-firm and solo criminal defense, family court and civil rights legal practitioners who work for the poor and who raise 'sensitive issues' of judicial misconduct in court, such as in attorney Aretakis' cases and in Petitioner's case.

Under these circumstances, removal of skilled attorneys from the reach of indigent consumers of legal services, specifically because they are skilled, and specifically because they skillfully and courageously argue 'sensitive' issues of governmental misconduct on their clients' behalf, while replacing them with unskilled, inexperienced and unlicensed providers, amounts to an unconstitutional unspoken policy that has the effect of blocking the poor from access to skilled legal services, thus widening the justice gap for the poor while New York pays lip service about its effort to bridge that same gap.

This year, this Court has struck in Whole Woman's Health v  Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. __ (2016) a government regulation of the medical profession which was beneficial as declared, but harmful in effect.  Harmful effect is exactly what occurs when attorney discipline is used in a way harmful to consumers.

Preventing the widening of the "justice gap" is at least as much, if not more, important as preventing the widening of "access to abortion gap".  Access to abortions only affect less than half of this country's population - women of reproductive age - while the justice gap affects the entire population."

So, I spoke about the justice gap, Justice Sotomayor's personally expressed concern about it, and the use of attorney discipline in the State of New York to widen it and to block poor litigants from skilled civil rights attorneys as a matter of policy.

And Sotomayor who made a personal pledge to fight to bridge that justice gap, participated in a decision denying, without an explanation, a petition for a writ of certiorari that could help fight that same justice gap, by preventing removal of skilled civil rights, criminal defense and family court attorneys from the reach of the poor.

Because she knows, she knows, who is going to do anything about it?  And who has the power to do anything about it?

The article in New York Law Journal now says that criticizing judges is actually a good thing.

And that judges, based on Sotomayor's and Ginsburg's statements, are politicians in black robes.

And that they should be subject to criticism, worse than President Trump's, if they fail to show through their decisions that their decisions are not just "politics by another name".

And that, if judges fail to show that, they are not entitled to either respect of deference from the public.

As revolutionary as it may sound, from such an edition as New York Law Journal, the article still fails on one important issue.

It is not President Trump, or presidents of the United States criticizing judges before him, who "allowed" or "open the gates" of criticism against judges.

What allows such criticism and make it healthy and proper is the U.S. Constitution and its 1st Amendment - that same U.S. Constitution that every judge in this country, including Ginsburg and Sotomayor, is sworn to protect.

And not "I know, I know" protect, but really protect.

And people, instead of "knowingly laughing" at the adorable ways judges violate the U.S. Constitution, their own oaths of office and people's rights, should demand action from their representatives in legislatures to introduce strict statutes giving people real remedies in dealing with judicial misconduct.

Without such remedies, they will continue to break the law while arrogantly laughing at us.

We the People, not the judges, are the popular sovereign in this country.

The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed that in the infamous Dred Scott case (I wrote about it in my blog before).

"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives."

We dictate what laws exist in this country, not judges.

And we know, we know, that what judges do in refusing to enforce the U.S. Constitution and refusing to give victims of constitutional violations real remedies at law is unlawful, unlawful.

And unconstitutional, unconstitutional.

And they should be held accountable for that.  Really. 

We the People are not laughing.

The torturer of Muslims chosen by Muslims as a defender of Muslim rights. Oh, well...

On January 30, 2017 I have written about a Bill Clinton appointee, federal judge Leonie Brinkema from Virginia who, possibly upset because Hillary Clinton did not become president - which could lead to elevation of #LeonieBrinkema up the judicial ladder - defied immigration policy of President Trump by imposing a TRO (temporary restraining order) without an explanation of her legal grounds or reasoning.

2 weeks later, on February 13, 2017, Judge Brinkema extended the TRO in a longer opinion, with reasoning, but, seeing her reasoning now, it is clear why she did not want to put any reasoning into the initial #TRO - this reasoning simply did not hold water, and was advanced by Judge Brinkema obviously because now she is buttressed in believing that her lawless decision is good to go by the no less lawless decision from the 9th Circuit.

Here is Judge Brinkema's TRO, relying on the 9th Circuit decision, her previous TRO of February 3, 2017, and on a "declaration" of "impartial experts",

I will run a separate blog with the analysis of Judge Brinkema's masterpiece.  This blog I will dedicate to the "experts" upon whose "professional opinion" #JudgeBrinkema relied in unlawfully and unconstitutionally second-guessing President Trump's national security policy.

Here is that great team of "dignitaries".

• #MadeleineKAlbright - Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, husband of the presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who has lost the election; a personal friend of Hillary Clinton who supported her in her election campaign to the point of claiming that "there is a special place in hell for women who do not help each other"

a co-investor with George Soros, #JacobRotschild in a $350 million investment vehicle called #HeliosTowersAfrica, which intends to buy or build thousands of mobile phone towers in Africa;  In late October 2012, during a book signing in the Prague bookstore Palác Knih Luxor, Albright was reportedly visited by a group of activists from the Czech organization "#PřáteléSrbůnaKosovu". She was filmed saying "Disgusting Serbs, get out!" to the Czech group, which had brought war photos to the signing, some of which showed Serbian victims of the Kosovo War in 1999."

Watch this defender of human rights say "Get out, disgusting #Serbs!" when confronted, at her book signing, with pictures of war crimes from #Kosovo.

Either Albright was senile at the book-signing and was increasingly senile while supporting #Clinton - which is bad enough, or she has always been a xenophobic ... person ... who had some personal interest in her investments with #GeorgeSoros who, reportedly, had significant ties to people bent on sabotaging #DonaldTrump's presidency from its very start.

The next "dignitary" and "specialist" in national defense upon whose "declaration" Judge Leonie Brinkema, Bill Clinton's appointee, second-guessed President Trump's national security considerations is:

• #AvrilDHaines, Deputy Director of CIA from 2013 to 2015 and Deputy National Security Advisor under President Obama, the owner of a cafe and bookstore converted from a bar grabbed in a drug raid (I wonder whether any breaks were given to her in the purchase of that one) where she engaged in "literary readings" for the public, including erotica readings - fired as of January 20, 2017 by President Trump, which makes for a very neutral expert out of her within 2 weeks, on February 5, 2017, when she has signed the declaration in the lawsuit against the same President Trump;

• #MichaelVHayden - a retired General who served under President George W. Bush (who reportedly himself does not like President Trump), the former director of #NSA from 1999 to 2005 and the former Director of #CIA from 2006 to 2009, who retired 8 years ago and whose knowledge of the current national security situation is kind of rusty. 

General Hayden was quoted as saying in February of 2016, 7 years after his retirement, and without any access to classified information, that "Trump is Russia's useful fool".  So, General Hayden is a really neutral expert as to Trump, when he calls him a fool without any facts in hand.

So much for "expert neutrality".  Michael V. Hayden is also the one who has signed an order of torture by sleep deprivation and "liquid diet" of a #Muslim detainee #MuhammadRahimal-Afghani held without charges or due process by the U.S. Government; Michael Hayden "bitterly fought" the release of CIA #TortureMemos claiming that such release "would damage CIA morale without repair", and wrote an "unapologetically self-serving" memoir about himself where he quoted large portions from his own address to his university, and recalls a "standing ovation" to himself, so Hayden has a long self-praising memory.  Under Hayden's directorship NSA intercepted and kept metadata from telephone conversations of Americans, so he is a real fighter for human rights.

#JohnFKerry - Secretary of State under #FormerPresidentBarackObama, fired on January 20, 2017 as a result of the team change when President Trump came into office, and, likely also very bitter from not being able to continue with his government position of power.

Kerry signed the "declaration", as a "neutral expert" on national security, second-guessing the actual national security considerations of the person who fired him, within 16 days after he was fired, and while having no access any longer to the classified information that the President relied upon:

John Kerry, upon information and belief, always "served" the public in this or that capacity and never worked in private sector in his life.

John Kerry married well - to the heiress of the Ketchup empire #TeresaHeintz whose fortune was assessed 4 years ago at 1 billion dollars, but Kerry has his own fortune assessed at the same time at about 230 million dollars (Kerry's wife is 4 times richer than the not-so-poor Kerry himself), so Kerry is a true Democrat and is very much in touch with the aspirations of ordinary people. 

Kerry is known for his sincerity and truthfulness. 

For example, while fighting hard to "raise awareness" of climate change because of fossil fuels, John Kerry reportedly has from 3 to 6 million dollars worth of stocks of those same fossil fuel industries that are, according to John Kerry, causing the catastrophic climate change.

When John Kerry became Secretary of State in 2013, he announced with much fanfare that he will divest himself of some stocks to avoid conflicts of interest.

Obviously, owning those same stocks without putting them into "blind trusts" while John Kerry was a U.S. Senator, before he became the Secretary of State for President Obama, did not present a conflict of interest for him. 

John Kerry is an "old blue blood" who has never had to work to eat, and never did, he only played politics to get more power and more money for his family, and apparently has a tremendous sense of entitlement and now, of bitterness for losing his power.

Moreover, after doing the show of "divesting some stocks" due to "potential conflicts of interest" - a gesture that was then used by the pro-Clinton press to teach President Trump how to avoid conflicts of interest - John Kerry reportedly had President Obama funnel money through Peace Corps into a non-profit run by John Kerry's daughter, #DrVanessaKerry, into a program called "#SeedGlobalHealth".  

And that was not just small amounts, it was reportedly, millions of dollars given by President Obama to Dr. Vanessa Kerry's non-profit, without any announcements of conflicts of interests or ways to "avoid" them.  I wonder whether any "public bidding" was ever involved to get those funds.

It is apparent that not only John Kerry, but also his daughter and her non-profit lost large when President Obama left office and Hillary Clinton did not replace him, which cut off the cash flow from John Kerry who is so greedy that, even having millions of his own, and a billion in his wife's fortune, he did not waive his $174,000 senatorial salary, his salary as Secretary of State, and, instead, continued to funnel more money, to his daughter non-profit, instead of simply donating to his daughter for her "worthy causes".

So, John Kerry is a really, really impartial expert on matters of national security regarding the actions of President Trump.

So - when the super-rich and super-bitchy Madeline Albright, appointee of Bill Clinton, personal friend and supporter of Hillary Clinton, hater of the "disgusting Serbs", "co-investor" of George Soros and Jacob Rothschild, teamed up with the super-rich Ketchup/Seeds-of-Health Secretary of State John Kerry, appointee of Barack Obama, who was fired by Donald Trump 2 weeks prior to the signing of the declaration by these two, and by other "declarants", and when they team up with a self-loving torture-approving Trump-insulting General Hayden, that already is a very formidable team of completely neutral experts, as any objective reasonable observer, such as Judge Leonie Brinkema, should conclude.

But, there are more participants in this nice "declaration".

There is also a #JohnEMcLaughlin on the team of declarants in support of TRO against President Trump's executive order on immigration in Virginia federal district court.

who ended his service as a national security advisor 13 years ago, so his memory must also be just a little rusty, and he - at least hopefully - did not have access to the same classified information that President Trump had access to when he prepared his Executive Order at the end of January 2017.

John E. McLaughlin has allegedly briefed "president-elect Clinton" and George Bush.

John E. McLaughlin is famous for his defense of CIA against the 6,700 page "#TortureReport" which was "accidentally" destroyed by the CIA after it caused an international scandal. 

By the way, President Obama made sure that the Torture Report will not be made public for 12 years after he has left office - that is, unless President Trump will change President Obama's decision.

Here is what this kind-looking person John E. McLaughlin, supporter of Muslim immigrants before Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Virginia federal district court, told the U.S. Senate about the use of torture - while torture was used predominantly or, rather, exclusively on Muslims detained unlawfully, and not charged with any crimes:

Well, the American public is supposed to have access to the original document, but that document is destroyed by the CIA, so what is left is regurgitated and self-serving accounts from CIA officials like McLaughlin.

It is scary that McLaughlin says that he did not mislead the Department of Justice, the Senate and the White House - because it can very well imply that they knew what McLaughlin knew, and approved.

Look how McLaughlin, the current defender of unrestricted immigration from 7 Muslim countries that are hotbeds of radical Islamic terrorism right now, navigates around the word "torture" - of Muslims. 

It is an "ethical" and a "legal" concept for him, and the CIA would never have conducted torture, in his opinion, if not approved by their legal expert that what they were doing was completely constitutional.

John E. McLaughlin is, like John Kerry, a very forthcoming and truthful guy. 

Look, for example, how he answers a direct question whether detainees were sodomized or not ("rectally abused" in the actual question):

So, for once, since looking at torture pictures of illegally detained Islamic detainees is no different, in McLaughlin's view, than looking at pictures of innocent civilians killed by no less unlawful U.S. drone strikes, torture must be good and lawful.  Iron logic.


McLaughlin did not give a direct answer at all, he says that "you can find, in any wartime situation, some examples that are unpleasant to read about" - not that the situations were horrible, atrocious killings of innocent people without the beloved due process of law, but that it is simply "unpleasant to read about it".

And as to the allegedly "tough prosecutor" for the Department of Justice who allegedly did not find any "prosecutable offenses" in any cases of CIA torture reported to him - first, that says a lot about the prosecutor himself, and then, if he did, in all likelihood he would have lost his job. 

And look how John E. McLaughlin, this polite man with mild manners and soft speech, answers questions of a Congressman in a televised real time, and talks about his agency torturing people, torturing Muslims, who are illegally detained without any charges pending:

So, the 6,700 page torture report detailing that torture, in graphic detail, in fact, in detail so graphic that even the "classy" President Obama did not think that the American public is ready to see it - for another 12 years - a torture report so bad that CIA risked charges of contempt of Congress by "accidentally destroying it"  -  was not really describing torture, according to McLaughlin.

The report, according to McLaughlin, "overemphasized" "the degree to which there was something you would call brutality".

And here is how McLaughlin admits to what his agency had done to those illegally detained people, Muslims:

"we may have made a few terrorists uncomfortable for a short period of time in order to get information that we felt was essential to protect the United States".

So, if it was just the matter of making "a few terrorists" simply "uncomfortable", and "for a short period of time" - how come such measures are undertaken to not show the American public the exact extent of how "uncomfortable" those people were made?

And, apparently, for John E. McLaughlin, drowning, sleep deprivation for hours, exposure to heat and cold, "colon feeding" are just "uncomfortable" procedures in order to exact information for protection of the country.

But, John E. McLaughlin, who was now chosen by lawyers of immigrant Muslims to protect them in court, is a man who considers that sodomizing a person illegally arrested, seized and detained, kidnapped, without any legal charges, is completely legal, justifiable, and constitutional.

The next member of the team of "dignitaries" upon whose opinion Judge Brinkema relied while unlawfully second-guessing the President's immigration policy, was #LisaOMonaco,

Lisa O. Monaco was the freshly fired by President Trump on January 20, 2017. 

Same as John Kerry, Lisa O. Monaco, according to her biography, never worked in private sector, she only conveniently "served" the public where it is safe to do so for a lawyer - lawyers working for the government are never targeted by courts with sanctions for frivolous conduct, are never suspended or disbarred, as civil rights and criminal defense attorneys are, in alarming numbers.

Before President Trump was elected, when supporters of Hillary Clinton had no doubt that Hillary Clinton will be president in 2017, there were hints dropped that Lisa O. Monaco can be given a position in Hillary Clinton's administration - and it was cautiously mentioned that Lisa O. Monaco was once considered for the position of U.S. Attorney General.

There is nothing that makes a "neutral expert" better than being fired instead of promoted.

Lisa Monaco, no doubt, had clearance at the time before she was fired.

And, as part of that clearance, there is no doubt that Lisa Monaco, as well as all other members of the "declarant team", knew that she had no right whatsoever to disclose the contents of classified information she had access to without permission of the U.S. President - which she obviously never thought to seek.

Yet, she submits her freestyle musings about national security in a declaration, filed in open access on behalf of private parties, who are foreigners that came from countries with elevated threat of radical Islam terrorism.

It is interesting to mention that in 2014, Lisa O. Monaco was criticized, when she worked for Barack Obama as a national security advisor, of not being forthcoming in what exactly the country needs to be saved from the potential of radical Islamic terrorist attacks that racked Europe - that she would not say words "radical Islam" when warning parents to just "watch out" for "tendencies towards terrorism" in their children.

At that point, the critic of Lisa O. Monaco's speech, himself a Muslim, said that "you can't have national security by PR".

On top of being a national security adviser and having access to all information from around the world on ISIS terrorism, for Lisa O. Monaco, terrorism coming from radical Islam is also personal. 

Her own brother ran in the Boston Marathon while Lisa O. Monaco, reportedly, watched on the sides, so the horror of having a loved one subjected to a terrorist attack within the United States by radical Islamists cannot be lost on Lisa O. Monaco.

Yet, then, 3 years ago, during the "reign" of Barack Obama, Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy stated:

This criticism of Lisa O. Monaco for, essentially, subverting counter-terrorism work by failing to name the real problem, was published in 2014, long before Donald Trump has ever announced that he is going to run for presidency, in June of 2015.

At this time, the President prohibited entry into the country from 7 countries where radical Islamic terrorism is on the rise, and prohibited entry not of just Muslims, but by all people coming from those countries.

Lisa O. Monaco cannot misunderstand importance of additional vetting of immigrants coming from countries where identity records may not exist, and where even passports can be easily bought.

One does not have to have any clearance to read the news reports indicating that an ISIS bomber bought a Syrian passport to infiltrate into France, and conduct a terrorist attack there.

That is exactly what the President is trying to prevent, by simply delaying travel from problem countries to enhance the vetting process.

Yet, Lisa O. Monaco, a person whose brother very nearly escaped falling victim of an Islamic terrorist attack, a person during whose time in office the ISIS bombing in France occurred, when the terrorist came to France using a bought Syrian passport, Lisa O. Monaco, a lawyer is now lying to the court that no threats exist in people coming from those country - because of what, because Lisa O. Monaco is pissed she did not get a job from President Trump she was promised by the Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton?

It is apparent that Lisa O. Monaco is, indeed, an "apologist" who, according to #ZuhdiJasser, founder and president of the #AmericanIslamicForumforDemocracy, has been and now is putting obstacles in creating true counter-terrorist protection in the country, now by thwarting President Trump's immigration policy, trying to prevent the work that needs to be done - simply because she may be upset that she did not get promotions she wanted from Hillary Clinton, and that, ladies and gentlemen, in my personal view, is treason.

#LeonEPanetta - yet another appointee of Barack Obama who missed the gravy train with the new administration of Donald Trump coming into office.  Leon E. Panetta was part of the management of the American intelligence community at the time, according to #EdwardSnowden, his employees were spying on the American people.  Now Leon Panetta is fiercely protecting human rights against the "bad" President of the United States who is taking lawful steps to ensure national security.

#MichaelJMorell - the appointee of President Obama who was at the wheel of intelligence activities when Edward Snowden exposed the American intelligence community for illegally spying on American people.  Now Michael J. Morell, obviously, is the truthful and forthcoming fighter for human rights - and he is even more truthful that he did not receive any positions in the new administration of President Trump.

#JanetANapolitano - has retired from her position of the Secretary of Homeland Security for Barack Obama 4 years ago, so she does not have anything reliable to say as to considerations of President Trump as of end of January 2017, but lack of evidence and lack of authority to disclose information that she did have access to, did not stop her.

Janet Napolitano's rise into government, and into power, started with representation of #AnitaHill claiming sexual harassment by the #USSupremeCourt justice #ClarenceThomas, the only African American judge on that court - as a result of investigation, though, Justice Thomas was not impeached and kept his position.

In 1993 Janet Napolitano was appointed as a U.S. Attorney General for the District of Arizona, which was her first job in the government that started her powerful career.

The appointment was by President Bill Clinton, husband of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump's opponent in presidential races.

Janet Napolitano was also appointed, more recently, to the position of Secretary of Homeland Security, by Barack Obama, and, even though she did not serve in his second term in office, she apparently retained some warm feelings for the two presidents that helped spearhead her career.

#SusanERice is a yet another freshly-fired national security advisor of former President Barack Obama.

The value of Susan E. Rice as a "neutral professional expert" to be used in a civil rights litigation is that she has been known to come unprepared to an TV interview on behalf of President Obama's administration and instead of Hillary Clinton who chose not to make what could be used as incriminating statements against her about Benghazi, and to lie on behalf of Hillary Clinton and President Obama's administration.

Here is what Rice, reportedly, did that earned her an eternal gratitude of Hillary Clinton and President Obama - and a position in President Obama's administration, until she was booted by President Trump.

Very likely, Rice, after having "taken the fall" for Hillary Clinton, and did not let her down in the ensuing months of congressional investigation on Benghazi, she must have been offered a very lucrative position in Hillary Clinton's administration - which, obviously, tanked when Donald Trump, and not Hillary Clinton, was elected president.

For these stellar qualities - being able to

• blunder in front of international TV crews,
• take a fall for her seniors in front of the entire world, and
• lie without compunction -

Susan A. Rice was, apparently, kept in her position as a national security advisor by President Obama until she was booted by the new President on January 20, 2017.

All the above conduct and circumstances make Susan E. Rice a prime, neutral, impartial, diligent and professional expert against President Trump on the issue of national security.

As I said at the beginning of this blog, Bill Clinton appointee, Judge Leonie Brinkema, found arguments of this "professional" crew of "truthful" and "neutral" "experts" irresistible and granted the extension of TRO without much reliance on applicable precedent, her analysis was similar to the 9th Circuit's recent analysis, in a case where the 9th Circuit, a court with multiple disqualifying conflicts of interest, clearly fixed the case against Donald Trump.

I will publish analysis of Judge Brinkema's reasoning in a separate blog, this blog I put in first, as a background to show how truthful the facially neutral legalese of Judge Brinkema actually was.

Which brings me to the most important question.

Do we have a rule of law in this country?

Or do we have a rule of men - and women? 

• The higher the pedigree,
• the richer,
• the more connection they have or cite,
• no matter what horrible things are in their past and
• what actual record of untruthfulness and conflicts of interest of their own they have to come and act as "truthful" experts in spite and retaliation

a "court of law" will rule in their favor?

That's "the rule of law" that is being celebrated in the media and social media alike?

Seriously?