Dean Chemerinsky makes startling (and startlingly incompetent) statements in an amicus brief regarding the pardon of Joe Arpaio

I wrote on this blog about the criminal case against Joe Arpaio, see Part I and Part II here, about how politicized and unlawful the whole proceedings, including the conviction, was, and that if we want to be the nation ruled by the rule of law, we must accept that the rule of law equally applies and gives rights to people we like and especially to people we do not like.


That approach to the rule of law is, apparently, not in the mainstream of political and legal thought nowadays.

For example, recently the new dean of the University School of Law at Berkeley, California, #ErwinChemerinsky, promoted by his school as a "thought leader" and a "living legend—a person who exemplifies the very best that the field of law has to offer: brilliant, warm-hearted, thoughtful, open-minded, and deeply engaged in the culture of public service", filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging constitutionality of Presidential pardon to Joe Arpaio.

Erwin Chemerinsky is a somewhat of a notorious figure.

• He was a paid lecturer of BarBri while remaining a professor and/or a dean of various law schools, while BarBri was sued for engaging in anticompetitive activity and underhanded tactics in driving its cheaper and better rivals out of business, thus undermining the quality of legal education and, ultimately, the quality of lawyers for us, the public and consumers of legal services;
• He opposed the recall of judge Persky who sentenced an athlete from his own alma mater to 6 months in jail (3 months for good behavior) for non-consensual sex with an unconscious woman - and the conflict of interest for Chemerinsky, an attorney licensed to practice law in California, supporting a judge against public outrage, while the judicial branch regulates and controls Chemerinsky's own law license and livelihood, is clear;
• In 2016, Chemerinsky not only represented a judge who was disqualified out of several cases through the use of a peremptory challenge by prosecutors, and not only argued that an absolute right to a peremptory challenge of a judge by a party is not absolute and has some kind of constituional limitations (while representing a judge who is not a party in a criminal proceedings and has no say in the matter), but also called for a federal investigation of prosecutors against whom his powerful client (a client who belonged to the branch of the government regulating Chemerinsky's own law license) belonged.  

I do not know how "warm-hearted" Erwin Chemerinsky is, but I do know criminal law, and I have a funny feeling that Erwin Chemerinsky had no clue what he was writing about, and wrote to justify his ultimate politically sought conclusion - that the pardon is unconstitutional.

In his amicus brief regarding the supposed unconstitutionality of Arpaio's presidential pardon, Chemerinsky follows and attempts to encourage the latest dangerous trend of identity politics in law where the identity of the party defines what rights that party is given, or not given by courts.

Since the election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States I monitor an interesting phenomenon in courts – the rapid disappearance of laws as basis of judicial decisions.

Any civil rights attorney knows how difficult it is to bring a civil rights case through a motion to dismiss and/or a summary judgment.

And, any civil rights attorney knows that it is nearly impossible to obtain a preliminary injunction in a civil rights case in federal court.

All that changed when Donald Trump or a member of his administration (like Jeff Sessions) are sued – even in their official capacities, which means, as any law professor teaching Civil Rights Litigation will tell you, means that the American taxpayers are being sued.

Reason and “respect to precedents” and to statutes disappeared as well as the law.

Preliminary injunctions are handed left and right.

·        Prohibiting the President to enforce immigration laws and block entry of certain immigrants into the country for considerations of National security – now courts demand that the President spill national security secrets (for which judges do not have clearance) in open court proceedings;  now, contrary to statutory law and existing precedents, immigrants located beyond U.S. borders suddenly acquired a right to sue that they never had before, and so did their relatives within the country, as well as their supposed employers and universities where they are going to supposedly enroll – and standing on purely economic grounds is judicially created for all these categories that supposedly trump (no pun intended) President Trump’s absolute exclusive prerogative to handle national security questions and regulating who does or who does not get to get a visa and entry into the country;

·        Prohibiting the federal government from deciding whether to give or not to give states or municipalities gifts of federal money – and mandating that they finance state social and law enforcement programs, a state obligation that federal taxpayers do not have to finance, and judges have no right to enforce.

We have people suing Donald Trump for issuing an executive order (the so-called “travel ban”) and for repealing an executive order (DACA) – I will analyze the grounds for the lawsuit in a separate blog.

We have people suing Donald Trump’s administration for a “right” of immigration attorneys NOT to represent people throughout an immigration proceeding – while claiming that it is done in those same people’s best interests – and they actually win preliminary nationwide injunctions.

And, apparently, all these lawsuits are fueled and brought by lawyers who have no compunction about spending scarce judicial resources and taxpayer money, putting the law on its proverbial head and replacing the U.S. Constitution, federal statutory law and the concept of separation of powers with a wholesale judicial whim based on just one principle – the identity of the U.S. President who dared to have been elected when the establishment did not want him there.

Presidents before Trump deported people – and no lawsuits were filed.

No DACA existed before President Obama – and previous presidents were not sued, or had riots in the streets of illegal immigrants claiming their supposed right to remain in the country, simply because they already received free education at taxpayer’s expense without taxpayer’s consent in this country and simply because they were children when they were brought here by their parents.

It is apparent that the media, the public who does not like this particular President finds fault with him at every turn – hair color, choice of wife, etc.

Public discourse about what the President of the United States is doing, under the 1^st Amendment, may be as vile, without becoming violent, as the public, or its separate members, wants it to be.

Yet, federal courts are bound by laws to resolve disputes based on federal law only – and that is, as the Supremacy Clause states:

·        The text of the U.S. Constitution;

·        The laws made pursuant to that U.S. Constitution – which means only statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress; and

·        U.S. Treaties.

That’s it.

Nothing else.

There is no such thing as “federal common law”, and precedents of any federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court may not be considered to outweigh the above three components of the Supreme Law of the Land.

Moreover, rights of the President clearly established by the text of the U.S. Constitution and/or a statute enacted by U.S. Congress may not be questioned by a court unless the court wants to declared the statute the President follows unconstitutional.  Courts have no rights to CHANGE the law through interpretation – only the U.S. Congress, under Article I of the U.S. Constitution has the power to create laws.

Let us revisit what separation of powers means.

Executive branch (President)	Legislative branch (Congress)	Judicial branch (courts)
Enforces the U.S. Constitution and statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress through powers provided to the President under Article II of the U.S. Constitution	Enacts laws within its Article I authority and in compliance with the U.S. Constitution, after consulting with their constituents – VOTERS, citizens of the U.S., not immigrants and not illegal aliens	Resolve individual disputes between parties based on the U.S. Constitution and statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress

·        Federal courts may not set policy, it is an exclusive legislative function of the U.S. Congress;

·        Federal courts may not change laws through their interpretation, to mean the opposite of what the laws’ clear text says;

·        Federal courts may not write into the statutory law or into the U.S. Constitution what is not there.

Courts may only resolve individual disputes based on the existing U.S. Constitution and federal statutes and treaties – or declare those federal statutes and/or treaties unconstitutional. 

That’s it.

But, since the election of Donald Trump as the President of the U.S. it has become even more obvious that courts are not content with the role of a detached apolitical arbiter dispassionately applying the law handed down to them by the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Congress.

Courts want to be creators of the law, courts seek publicity through populist decisions, and there is a whole class of prominent, rich attorneys who support and encourage federal courts to usurp the role of lawmaker and to even change the U.S. Constitution by

Unfortunately, at least judging by comments in the media, there is a wide-spread belief in the public that anything – anything – that comes from under a pen of a judge is not only “law”, but “The Law of the Land”, to be obeyed without question, and that somehow the unlawful judicial lawmaking is, on the contrary, the way it should be, and everyone in this country “must” respect unlawful court orders made contrary to the U.S. Constitution and/or federal statutes as “law”.

And, unfortunately, prominent-name attorneys artfully manipulate the public in continuing with this dangerous illusion, that courts in this country are lawful lawMAKERS.

One of such dangerous examples that I came across recently is the now-dean of the Berkley Law School in California, Professor Erwin Chemerinsky.

Having disregarded his own conflict of interest, as a Dean of law schools that, no doubt, receives donations from large law firms representing employers that need cheap legal and illegal immigrant work force, and is a party against the federal government to make the President in a lawsuit to make him cancel his visa restrictions in order to benefit his law school and university financially, Erwin Chemerinsky recently filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona arguing that the recent presidential pardon of Joe Arpaio is unconstitutional.

This challenge to the pardon of Joe Arpaio by President Trump is a quintessential litmus test as to the rule of law in this country.

Should a legitimate exercise of presidential power as per the text of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, paragraph 2, be considered unlawful simply because it was done by a supposedly unpopular president in favor of an unpopular sheriff?

If it should, then we do not have the rule of law in this country.

I wrote in this blog about the criminal proceedings against Joe Arpaio and their stark illegitimacy, about jurisdictional defects in proceedings and screaming judicial bias of the Clinton-appointee judge that would make the blood of any criminal defense attorney, and of any member of the public knowing the law boil.

But, somehow, any violation of the law is good if that is against a person you do not like – because that is the sum and substance of public comments about Arpaio’s pardon.

President is bad, so his pardon is also bad.

Arpaio is bad, so to pardon him was bad – no matter what happened in his criminal proceedings, and if a judge issued a decision in those proceedings, it must be good, and President Trump should not have touched it with a pardon.

By the way, the U.S. Justice Department already moved todismiss Arpaio’s conviction as moot, over the resistance of the judge, so the prosecuting party does not want to continue to sentencing, cases should be closed and shut – if that would be any other criminal proceeding.

But, not here.

Here Dean Erwin Chemerinsky is throwing his heavy-weight name around in order to claim that the pardon was unconstitutional and to put the already dead criminal proceedings back on the docket – while making some outrageously incompetent claims that would result in an F in Criminal Law 101 and Constitutional Law 101 in Chemerinsky’s own law school, and on a bar exam.

A person who positions himself as an expert in constitutional law should have at least more self-respect than to make claims Chemerinsky is making, embarrassing himself in front of the legal community, his own students and the public – and putting into his law students an impression that the law does not matter when there is a political and financial goal to attain through the influence of courts.  And, by the way, Chemerinsky is arguing that the pardon is unconstitutional to the same judge whose decision the pardon affects – at the trial level.  Like – “Your Honor, see what that bad President did to your perfect order, declare that bad President’s Article II paragraph 2 presidential pardon authority unconstitutional NOW, what are you waiting for, he hurt your feelings so!”.

The claims of Professor Chemerinsky, through his two attorneys who both clerked for federal judges and should know better than to write such gibberish, can be seen in their full glory, here.

In view of Professor Chemerinsky’s influence on the legal community, courts and public opinion and the danger that his outrageous statements to the court present for civil rights in general, and criminal defendants’ rights in particular, I will analyze Professor Chemerinsky’sclaims, one by one, in separate blogs.

I am certainly not the only and not the first critic of Professor Chemerinsky's amicus brief regarding Arpaio's pardon, but, judging by the fairly bland criticism that I have read of the Chemerinsky's amicus brief, critics do not dare to go deep enough into the dangers of a celebrated supposed legal scholar going amok with a result-oriented attempt to influence federal judges with claims that are incompetent albeit pushed by a team of attorneys,


Larry A. Hammond (who boasts in his advertisement his involvement in "high profile criminal defense cases while demonstrating in the amicus brief a lack of knowledge of the most basic principles of criminal law)

and Josh Bendor, 

both of whom have a long history of federal judicial clerkships, which takes away any excuses that their deliberate manipulation of the court with incompetent claims is anything but deliberate.

Some of the main claims by Chemerinsky and his attorney team of former federal judicial law clerks that I am going to review in separate blogs are (I will provide a basis why these claims are not well grounded in law, fact or precedent in separate blogs):

• That proceedings against Joe Arpaio where the President granted his pardon were not criminal proceedings;
• That the notion of "criminal offense" does not equal a "misdemeanor" or a "felony";
• That federal courts must provide a remedy in each case where a public official violates people's constitutional rights;
• That there is no such thing as federal common law;
• That interpretation of Old English common law going back to the 13th century is not only a valid source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitutien, but should apparently take precedence over the text of the U.S. Constitution and its legislative history;
• that THIS presidential pardon (somehow apart from all others) is unconstitutional because it encroaches upon judicial independence (even though such a mode of "encroachment" is written into the text of the U.S. Constitution all judges, Sheriff Arpaio, President Trump, Dean Chemerinsky and his two attorneys have sworn to uphold).

Nevertheless, such supposedly "expert" legal blogs as Above the Law cited to the brief as if it is Gospel, and blasted - no, not Chemerinsky for incompetence and attempt to influence the court with his gibberish, no, of course, not - Trump again.

The use of presidential pardon is now unconstitutional, says Chemerinsky, seconded by Above the Law, for the main three reasons, here they are:

I will start posting analysis of each of these issues today.  Stay tuned.

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?