The ABA and the State of Wisconsin legal establishment warns the U.S. President not to criticize the hand that feeds them

After President Trump publicly called Judge Robart who made an illegal decision in an immigration case a "so-called judge" the ABA President claimed that criticism of a judge by the President was uncalled for and somehow "attacking" a judge is attacking the U.S. Constitution.

That is the same reaction from the ABA as came when President Trump criticized federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel for conflicts of interest (rightfully, see here, here and here). 

ABA President's feelings about criticism of a judge by President Trump in February of 2017 were seconded by a collective statement of 52 Wisconsin Bar governors:

It is interesting that the statement of the Wisconsin Bar governors does not reflect the opinion of the all Wisconsin attorneys - for example, a Wisconsin criminal defense attorney Michael Cicchini protested the protest in stating that the Wisconsin bar "governors" did not express his ideas and violated people's Freedom of Speech rights when they urged upon the public not to criticize judges, public servants.

Time to separate political activities of the Wisconsin's organized bar from its regulatory activities - like Arizona attorneys are trying to do now?

As to criticism of judges - the legal profession's position in viciously attacking the President and calling criticism of another branch of the government, "coincidentally", the branch that controls the legal profession's own livelihood, is not only disingenuous - it is shamefully hypocritical.

It is like saying - have your free press, have your social media and blogging, let's use it at large to attack those we do not like, but, do not dare to bite the hand that feeds us.

Well, maybe, if the judiciary feeds and controls the legal profession, licensed attorneys, who may be disbarred or suspended - and many are - for criticism of judges, are not very believable in trying to persuade the public that criticizing a judge is somehow inappropriate and is an equivalent of an attack on the Constitution?

When you see dirt in your house, you clean it, not sweep it under the rug.

And that includes exposing and trying to bring accountability upon judges committing misconduct - the way the person criticizing a judge understands it.

Stifling criticism, with even the most benign of intentions never helped.

Here, intentions of the legal profession are far from benign - those are acts of faithful slaves protecting their masters.

Irresponsible instigators urge people to skip school or work to protest - again. And, when you are booted, do what?

Since the very beginning of President Trump's time in office, efforts were made by his political opponents to sabotage the presidency, by all means.

That organizers of sabotages were trying to accomplish that goal by:

1. a "Women's March" in Washington, D.C. on the day right after inauguration, where people were manipulated into participating and being counted as protesting "against Trump" while they were told while invited that the march was not going to be a protest against Trump;
2. by a series of frivolous lawsuits challenging a perfectly legal immigration order of the President, see, for example, the amicus brief of the State of Texas exhaustively explaining the applicable law on the subject, as well as an article by Garrett Snedeker is the deputy director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding;
3. by a series of "protests" when people walked out of jobs or out of school to protest President Trump or his appointees, like Betsy DeVos, the Minister of Education, and more protests like that are urged and disseminated by the so-called "liberal" news sources.

My question to instigators, or organizers of such protests is - who will return the skipped school time to those kids?

Who will protect parents in court when they are brought in for truancy of their children, even high school children - which is chargeable against the parents as child neglect?

Who will provide new jobs for people who lost theirs because they foolishly responded to these protests and skipped work?

CNN finally consulted with an expert about legality of "church sanctuaries"

Yesterday, I posted a blog on three issues:

1. that houses of worship in the United States do not have a legal right to provide "sanctuaries" to illegal aliens against application of federal immigration laws;
2. that when religious official in those house of worship do harbor such illegal aliens, they:
1. commit federal felonies; and
2. are asking to have their tax-exempt status revoked, which also means that donations to such organizations will also not be tax exempt.

Today, CNN took its collective head out, at least temporarily, from where it has been for quite some time, and consulted another legal expert who confirmed Nos. 1 and 2 on the above list.

Moreover, CNN described that people, including religious people, were arrested in the past for harboring illegal aliens.

Finally.  Reality starts to set in.

Arizona to attorneys for the condemned - bring your own drugs to kill your client

The death penalty in the U.S. is, likely, close to an end.

Many states already abolished the death penalty, many states that did not abolish it yet, suspended it given the amount of wrongful convictions, prosecutorial misconduct that caused such conviction - up to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Williams v Pennsylvania where the DA's office did not only obtain a death penalty by fraud, concealing Brady material and solicitation of perjury, but the DA who sought and obtained the death penalty by fraud used that conviction to get elected as a judge and blocked habeas corpus/appellate relief for the condemned prisoner 4 times.

Arizona invented an execution "protocol" which contains provisions so inhumane that you may wonder what was mentally wrong with people inventing it.

First, the protocol provides for a "contingency" - to revive the inmate, even with the help of defibrillators, if his heart stops (if he goes into a cardiac arrest) before the state has a chance to kill him.

  

Second, the "protocol" magnanimously "allowed", in fact, suggested, that attorneys for the condemned prisoners, PRODUCE the EXECUTION DRUGS to have their own clients EXECUTED.

No, I am not delirious.

Here are the relevant pieces of the protocol.

So.

At the time when

• death penalty states are boycotted by the international community and report "difficulties" to "obtain" drugs for execution, when
• the State of Missouri trying to use "secret pharmacies" to get such drugs were recently ordered by a court to reveal the name of such pharmacy;
• the State of Texas, even after purchasing such drugs, had them seized by FDA and had to go to court to get the drug back (which lawsuit, upon my information and belief, did not succeed yet still)

the State of Arizona expects as a way out of this "problem" to get the execution drugs from the unlikeliest of source - the condemned prisoner's ATTORNEYS, CAPITAL DEFENDERS who have a DUTY to FIGHT FOR their client's LIFE to the last SECOND of his or her life, are offered an "opportunity" to bring drugs to cause his DEATH?

Is it a thinly veiled threat that their clients have two "choices" - to go "peacefully" and painlessly, on their own "consent", with drugs provided by themselves, wherever they might find them - or suffer torture in execution?

That's the hint?

Are Arizona Corrections officials nuts?

They surely left their moral compass someplace.

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?

It is time for the federal government to revoke tax-exempt status of churches giving sanctuaries to illegal aliens, and to prosecute such church officials for violation of federal laws

The concept of using churches as sanctuaries from secular laws is ancient.

Watch how it works - in a screenplay of Victor Hugo's "Notre Dame de Paris".

A prisoner condemned to death by secular authorities, when brought to the place of execution, runs into the church and is thus absolved of the reach of secular laws requiring her execution for as long as she stays within the church.

Yet, in the U.S. the church is separated from the state, and the concept of church as a sanctuary is not legal.

Otherwise, imagine how many people will live in churches to escape criminal prosecution.

As I wrote on this blog, harboring illegal aliens is a federal felony.

And, in 2015, for example, the Obama administration was engaged in immigration raids to deport illegal aliens from Central America - which "sanctuary churches" defied -

but the Obama administration did not dare to prosecute the churches involved in violation of federal criminal laws.

ACLU was nowhere near those Obama raids, it was not newsworthy and not raining donations at that time like it does now.

ACLU did not put out donation solicitations aimed at President Obama at that time, like it does now aimed at Trump, saying:

Nope.

Didn't do that.

In November of 2016, after President Trump was elected, but while President Obama remained in office, some churches and synagogues started offering sanctuaries to illegal aliens.

Those were federal crimes, but the Obama administration chose not to enforce federal criminal and immigration laws, leaving the job to be done for the successor, and instead spending the last days in office by throwing parties and "showing class" to the throng of its admirers.

Nor did Obama administration order raids of the churches and synagogues whose officials committed the federal crimes of harboring illegal aliens.

Nor did the Obama administration start forfeiture proceedings against church properties for using the property acquired with the help of tax exemptions, and thus with the help of tax money, for committing federal crimes.

Nor did the Obama administration direct the IRS to revoke the church's tax-exempt status since 400 churches, while continuing to claim tax exemption from the federal government, were openly defying federal laws, and were taking a political stand against the President Obama, defying President Obama's authority to enforce immigration laws.

President Obama refused to do his job in the last months in office, leaving the unpleasant, but necessary job to enforce federal criminal and immigration laws to his successor.

Now, President Obama disappeared for a "long-deserved vacation" sponsored by a "billionaire friend", and is posting pictures from that vacation of such questionable character that even Obama's ardent supporter and Trump's ardent opponent John Oliver finally criticized Obama for "fiddling while Rome is on fire" for posting pictures of his "kitesurfing adventures with billionaire friend Richard Branson".

A good choice of friends, by the way, Mr. former President.  I wouldn't think you would go kitesurfing with an ordinary citizen, the Democrat and classy guy that you are.  A billionaire is more your kind of friend.

But, now that President Trump is saddled with doing the job that President Obama refused to do - I, as an American citizen and taxpayer, have a question:

• if churches are allowed to break the law in:
• harboring illegal immigrants;
• obtaining tax exempt status from IRS and then engaging in political activities, without revocation of that tax-exempt status

then all of us mere mortals, are also allowed to disregard the law?

Any law?

We have equal rights here in our free country, don't we?

So, if people who violate statutory laws, created by American people's elected representatives, are treated as the good guys, and the organizations that harbor such people - and, in their turn, violate the law - are also treated as part of the "movement", instead of criminal enterprises - if breaking the law is suddenly in vogue, is breaking the law allowed only to illegal immigrants?

Why?

Why not to us all?  That would be only fair, isn't it right?

We will have our own home-made good little (or not so little) chaos.

And, by the way, I see more information about such "sanctuary churches" offered by NYCLU and ACLU on social media, as well as openly praising "policies" of state officials irresponsibly encouraging violation of federal law.

And that is why continuously soliciting from the public tax-free donations, the tax free status given to ACLU by that very person who they are suing (and, by the way, when a President is sued in his official capacity, as ACLU is doing, it is the American people who are being sued, and ACLU fails to disclose that detail), on a condition that ACLU does not engage in political activity.  Just visit ACLU.org - and see how aggressively those donations are solicited:   

So, donate $5, $10, $50, $250, donate more - but while you are donating, do not be so sure that your donation will be tax free, if ACLU's tax exempt status is revoked for engaging in political speech and activities.

And yanking ACLU's and NYCLU's tax-exempt status will only be fair under the circumstances.

As lawyers, you want your freedom of speech on political matters?

Great.  Have your freedom of speech.

Just pay your taxes, like every one of us, while you engage in that free speech.  That is the federal law on tax-exempt status that ACLU and NYCLU, as law firms, must know very well.

And have your donors pay their taxes on the money they donate - I will then see how many people would like to donate to ACLU.

So, while federal authorities are engaged in immigration enforcement, they need to apply federal law evenly to everybody who is violating it, and that should include:

• charging church and synagogue officials and city officials giving "sanctuaries" (harboring illegal aliens) with federal felonies;
• revoking their tax exempt status;
• bringing forfeiture proceedings against properties used to harbor or transport illegal aliens.

And, while doing all of the above, the federal government, acting on behalf of American citizens and at their expense, should not be swayed by the fact that those are churches, synagogues, ACLU and NYCLU - the only relevant fact is whether these entities and people do or do not violate the law.  If they do, they must be held accountable, to the fullest extent of the law.

Consider the sense of entitlement projected by the story of a Denver church where an "undocumented immigrant" (an illegal alien) "took sanctuary" after she was given a deportation order and was denied a request for extension.

I do not see why this illegal alien considers that the church is somehow free of the reach of federal law.  Since where she is, is well known and announced, nothing prevents federal authorities from storming that church, arresting and deporting the illegal alien, and arresting the church officials and charging them with a felony of knowingly harboring the illegal alien.

Because, in our nation that supposedly lives under the rule of law, nobody is above the law, and if the law is broken, there should be accountability for it.

There is a deportation order for Jeanette Vizguerra.  Using the church as "sanctuary" is still defying that order and being in contempt of court, which is a crime of its own.

Yet, the illegal alien Jeanette Vizguerra is giving conferences claiming that she "will not allow the system to break her".  Nobody is breaking her.  She has broken the law, lived in the country since 1997 illegally, while people who want to lawfully immigrate into the U.S. were patiently waiting their turn.

Harboring illegal alien is a federal felony.  The Denver church that is harboring Jeanette Vizguerra are committing federal felonies, and should be prosecuted for their crimes in accordance with the law.

If immigration laws are not enforced, legal immigration is not encouraged, instead, illegal immigration is encouraged.

Will the federal government do its duty and enforce the law against those who break it and sabotage the actions of immigration enforcement?

It had better do that.

 

Delaware County (NY), the one that claims that it does not have inventory of equipment bought with taxpayer money, bought new cars. Where did the old ones go?

In May of 2015, a scandalous audit of New York State Comptroller showed that Delaware County, NY allowed its social workers to use County-issued cars as their own, and allowed their workers to sell good cars "for scrap" for $350 to their friends, see the complete official audit report here.

Despite the audit, and even despite the allegedly pending at this time FBI investigation, the Delaware County did not become more diligent or cautious with taxpayer money.

The Delaware County adamantly claimed in response to my FOIL request that it does not have inventory (which means, it does not do accounting) of printing and scanning equipment bought with taxpayer money. 

Considering that the audit of the New York State Comptroller found in May of 2015 that Delaware County allowed its workers to

• not only use County cars for their own (which I personally observed when I still lived in Delhi, when social workers dropped off their kids on the Legion field for various sports activities, stayed to watch the game and then loaded their kids back into County cars to transport them home),
• but also to sell good County cars for scrap to their family and friends, and considering the trick of "surplus sales" with printing and scanning equipment that Otsego County has been caught doing recently -

the lack of inventory of printing and scanning equipment can only suggest that printers and scanners in Delaware County are also sold for peanuts to family and friends, and that's why the inventory is not available, at least for FOIL requests.

Then, Delaware County also claimed that its monthly cell phone bill is on 321 pages - that is in a poor rural County

• with under 50,000 people,
• with a population that continues to dwindle while the government, and the taxes, continue to grow, 
• a County considered the 10th worst to live in in the United States, with 2nd highest heating and cooling costs in the country, seconding only Alaska. 

While many people at high levels of the County government ran recently, and a new, but not so new, insider Acting County Attorney Amy Merklen was recently installed, it appears that Delaware County continues to buy new expensive equipment, while not having a proper accounting of what happened to the old equipment.

Recently I received a tip from Delaware County, NY, with the following pictures:

The reader also sent me a message indicating: "lately we have been noticing a whole line of new cars for the county & the police, the licenses plate have the lettering AH OR AD as well as the line of cars seem to be of a higher class, not your standard government car like the Nissan SUV *(PATHFINDER) in this pic which happens to be bought from a dealership in Ulster County.

 

Village police has two new unmarked vehicles One is a all Black, I think it's a Dodge Challenger & the other one I will have to ask what the make is".

As a Delaware County taxpayer - even though I do not reside in the County, I have to pay County taxes on the properties we have in the County - I have a question that I will surely be asking the brand-new Delaware County Chairwoman of the Board of Supervisors - did Delaware County struck a gold mine somewhere?

• Horses for crowd control in a ghost County?
• $7,000 imported police dogs?
• 321 pages of a County cell phone bill?
• A lot of county officials resigning - and no inventory of taxpayer funded equipment?
• And now - Nissan SUV new county cars?

Smells like a lot of rats to me.

I will make sure the feds will know about this new and exciting development in Delaware County history of use of taxpayer money.

And, of course, I will publish what the County says NOW to FOIL requests, to specific questions -

1. were these new vehicles purchased at a competitive price at a public auction, or again without public bidding, and, likely, with kickbacks to County officials who were in charge of buying these vehicles?
2. was buying these new cars within the County budget?
3. what funds were used for new cars?
4. who specifically, which County officials have got those new cars?
5. how many cars were bought?
6. what cars and how much was paid for each?
7. where did the old cars go -

was there a public auction?  Did they go to the highest bidder?  Or were they, as in the "good olden times" distributed amongst family and friend, as "scraps".