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

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

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

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

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

Thursday, February 16, 2017

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".

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.

#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?


No comments:

Post a Comment