Temporary Restraining Order, Balzé Halzé.

This might be a bit more confusing---
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
http://www.reuters.com/article...-order-idUSKBN15I29B

The Department of Defense and Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) announced on Friday an agreement worth about $8.5 billion for 90 F-35 jets, the lowest price to date for the Pentagon's most expensive program.

The deal for the tenth lot of the stealthy fighter aircraft brings the price per jet to below $95 million for the first time, compared to $102 million in the previous batch, a savings of $728 million.

Trump change!

Ooh, more 'slippage', Barry. Dang, son. Your signature train wreck is about done.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...p-repeal-threat.html

if you want to watch the Judge Robart hearing in State of Washington vs. Donald J. Trump, it is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Am34eZbPRA

1 hour long

The judge asks the DoJ rep "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those 7 countries since 9/11?"

DoJ doesn't know.

Robart says "The answer is none"
"You are here arguing we have to protect the U.S. from the individuals coming from these countries and there is no support for that."

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Yemen
Sudan
Somalia
Libya

"no support for that" Maybe the judge should go to these countries and walk around a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
if you want to watch the Judge Robart hearing in State of Washington vs. Donald J. Trump, it is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Am34eZbPRA

1 hour long

The judge asks the DoJ rep "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those 7 countries since 9/11?"

DoJ doesn't know.

Robart says "The answer is none"
"You are here arguing we have to protect the U.S. from the individuals coming from these countries and there is no support for that."

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Yemen
Sudan
Somalia
Libya

"no support for that" Maybe the judge should go to these countries and walk around a bit.

I'd like to tsee this case make it up the appellate chain. I just can't see how this is not constitutional. We don't need a reason to ban travel from foerign countrries. America could do it on a whim just cuz. There is simply no right of any non-citizen or non-legal resident outside the US to travel here.

The law cannot be that we are required to offer travel from any state simply because it has a religious majority. It can't also be the law that we could ban travel from Muslim majority countries as long as we throw in a few non-muslim countries as well.

I also don't see how the judge gets to irreparable harm from the EO (a requirement for a TRO).

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
if you want to watch the Judge Robart hearing in State of Washington vs. Donald J. Trump, it is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Am34eZbPRA

1 hour long

The judge asks the DoJ rep "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those 7 countries since 9/11?"

DoJ doesn't know.

Robart says "The answer is none"
"You are here arguing we have to protect the U.S. from the individuals coming from these countries and there is no support for that."

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Yemen
Sudan
Somalia
Libya

"no support for that" Maybe the judge should go to these countries and walk around a bit.

It is rather pathetic that the left seems to think security precautions should be reactive rather than preventative except of course with respect to firearms.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
if you want to watch the Judge Robart hearing in State of Washington vs. Donald J. Trump, it is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Am34eZbPRA

1 hour long

The judge asks the DoJ rep "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those 7 countries since 9/11?"

DoJ doesn't know.

Robart says "The answer is none"
"You are here arguing we have to protect the U.S. from the individuals coming from these countries and there is no support for that."

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Yemen
Sudan
Somalia
Libya

"no support for that" Maybe the judge should go to these countries and walk around a bit.

And how many arrests of Saudis were there prior to 9/11?

Yeah, screw it. It's better to react after the fact. Let's wait until US citizens are dead before taking action. Idiot judge.

ETA: exactly, TSE.

quote:

Originally posted by cheni:


This is good.

You're right! It's very good.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
if you want to watch the Judge Robart hearing in State of Washington vs. Donald J. Trump, it is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Am34eZbPRA

1 hour long

The judge asks the DoJ rep "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those 7 countries since 9/11?"

DoJ doesn't know.

Robart says "The answer is none"
"You are here arguing we have to protect the U.S. from the individuals coming from these countries and there is no support for that."

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Yemen
Sudan
Somalia
Libya

"no support for that" Maybe the judge should go to these countries and walk around a bit.

That's a "mind made up already" type of question. He should have confined himself to the statute; it sets the President's standard as what the President deems "detrimental."

The threats against our country in using the immigrant stream, the lack of an ability to vet people from those countries and the events in Europe are more than enough facts, in my view, to support the President's conclusion.

The fact that the judge also testified as to a fact not in evidence by saying that there have been zero attacks from people of those countries is also improper. If a judge makes his own evidence without any facts from the evidence presented, it is improper. Also, none of us know what may secretly and actively be in the process, for instance.

This judge seems to have wanted to be President for a day by substituting his view of what he thought was the best national policy.

He only gets to weigh equities once the statute gets him to that point. The Judge didn't seem to deal with the statute and the power of the executive found therein.

quote:

This judge seems to have wanted to be President for a day by substituting his view of what he thought was the best national policy.

X'actly!

Perhaps Iran should file for injunctive relief to avoid the sanctions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy4uiiy0qgA

a little perspective:

SC nominee Neil Gorsuch:

Gorsuch clerked for Judge David B. Sentelle on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1991 to 1992, and then for United States Supreme Court Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy from 1993 to 1994.

From 1995 to 2005, Gorsuch was a lawyer at the Washington, D.C., law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel. He was an associate from 1995 to 1997 and a partner from 1998 to 2005.

He served as Principal Deputy to the Associate Attorney General, Robert McCallum, at the U.S. Department of Justice from 2005 until 2006.

Gorsuch was nominated to the Tenth Circuit Appeals Court by President George W. Bush on May 10, 2006,

During some of all of this time, Gorsuch was also a Visiting Professor at the University of Colorado Law School

On May 10, 2006, Gorsuch was nominated by President George W. Bush to the seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch

Chuck Schumer : "Make no mistake, Senate Democrats will not simply allow but require an exhaustive, robust, and comprehensive debate on Judge Gorsuch's fitness to be a Supreme Court Justice,"

Remember Elena Kagan’s nomination ?

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...hp?storyId=126611113

Widely admired for her intellectual acumen and administrative ability as dean at Harvard Law School, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan came to her current job of U.S. solicitor general with one gaping void: She had never argued a case in the Supreme Court — or any other court , for that matter.

At her confirmation hearing, she told skeptical senators that she was not worried, that she was bringing with her "a lifetime of learning and study" in the law — as a teacher and private practitioner, and as a lawyer for the Clinton administration.

But not all senators were convinced. Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) both said they wouldn't send someone who needed surgery to a doctor who had never operated.

Kagan, however, was unfazed, saying, "Frankly, anyone has some gaps."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
if you want to watch the Judge Robart hearing in State of Washington vs. Donald J. Trump, it is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Am34eZbPRA

1 hour long

The judge asks the DoJ rep "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those 7 countries since 9/11?"

DoJ doesn't know.

Robart says "The answer is none"
"You are here arguing we have to protect the U.S. from the individuals coming from these countries and there is no support for that."

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Yemen
Sudan
Somalia
Libya

"no support for that" Maybe the judge should go to these countries and walk around a bit.

That's a "mind made up already" type of question. He should have confined himself to the statute; it sets the President's standard as what the President deems "detrimental."

The threats against our country in using the immigrant stream, the lack of an ability to vet people from those countries and the events in Europe are more than enough facts, in my view, to support the President's conclusion.

The fact that the judge also testified as to a fact not in evidence by saying that there have been zero attacks from people of those countries is also improper. If a judge makes his own evidence without any facts from the evidence presented, it is improper. Also, none of us know what may secretly and actively be in the process, for instance.

This judge seems to have wanted to be President for a day by substituting his view of what he thought was the best national policy.

He only gets to weigh equities once the statute gets him to that point. The Judge didn't seem to deal with the statute and the power of the executive found therein.

Since when have cameras been allowed in Federal Courts?

When I was doing business there, cameras, phones, those handheld dictation devices, any electronic devices, even my ham radio HT, were strictly forbidden and Marshals enforced that with some enthusiasm. That was ~25 years ago or so.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Since when have cameras been allowed in Federal Courts?

In the Ninth, pilot projects were authorized and then extended from 2011 on. LINK

"A judge may authorize broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom and in adjacent areas during investitive, naturalization, or other ceremonial proceedings. A judge may authorize such activities in the courtroom or adjacent areas during other proceedings, or recesses between such other proceedings, only: 1) for the presentation of evidence; 2) for the perpetuation of the record of the proceedings; 3) for security purposes; 4) for other purposes of judicial administration; 5) for the photographing, recording, or broadcasting of appellate arguments; or 6) in accordance with pilot programs approved by the Judicial Conference. When broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing in the courtroom or adjacent areas is permitted, a judge should ensure that it is done in a manner that will: 1) be consistent with the rights of the parties, 2) not unduly distract participants in the proceeding, and 3) not otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. "

consequences

http://www.breitbart.com/texas...ys-sanctuary-policy/

Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez followed through and released 39 criminal aliens during the first two days of her sanctuary policy.

The sheriff’s office stated that Sheriff Hernandez declined 191 immigration detainers that were received by her office before February 1. Eight more immigration detainers received after February 1 were also declined. The sheriff also declined four requests from immigration officials to be notified of the pending release of the criminal aliens in her custody.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott responded to the lawless actions of the Travis County sheriff Tweeting, “This is why I declared banning sanctuary cities an emergency. Texas will hammer Travis County.”

Travis County Sheriff’s Office Spokesperson Kristen Dark confirmed the move by the sheriff to protect criminal aliens from federal officials will cost the taxpayers of Travis County $1.5 million this year . She also confirmed the sheriff is aware her department could also lose federal law enforcement grants if the Department of Justice certifies the county is not cooperating 100 percent with immigration officials under existing federal law.

Breitbart Texas requested information on what crimes the released aliens were charged with. Dark replied that information could only be obtained via an open records act request




http://kxan.com/2017/01/27/tra...-for-the-first-time/

Ever since Hernandez announced her new policy last Friday, Abbott said he would seek to cut $1.8 million in grant funding to Travis County as well as try to remove her from office. Hernandez’s new policy, which is scheduled to take effect on Feb.1, will prohibit deputies and jailers from inquiring about someone’s immigration status and limits how they will work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

she was sworn in as sheriff on 4 January 2017

Hernandez vowed before the election to stop cooperating with federal immigration officials at the county jail.

she was just elected 8 nov 2016.

US Marine about Travel "ban"



Maybe something that should be passed around to those that are not understanding what is going on in the 7 countries listed by President Trumps EO.

So Sanctuary Sally would rather have criminals loose on her streets to potentially prey upon the people she swore an oath to defend. I am not sure what mind set a person needs to be in for that, especially a LEO, but it has to a deep dark misguided hole she is in. Here's to hoping Gov. Abbott can get rid of her before one of her released criminals maims or kills someone.

Is it legal to not cooperate with federal immigration officers? I mean if I didn't cooperate with them i'm sure they could find something to charge me with.

quote:

The judge asks the DoJ rep "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those 7 countries since 9/11?"

DoJ doesn't know.

Robart says "The answer is none"
"You are here arguing we have to protect the U.S. from the individuals coming from these countries and there is no support for that."

I am pretty sure a whole bunch of Somalis have been arrested in Minnesota under terrorism charges. I know for sure two Iraqis were arrested in Tennessee....the two whose prints were on the IEDs in Iraq. There have been several arrested for spying and such for Iran.

Here are some others from a very quick 20 second search of Google:

The Somali (Mohamed Osman Mohamud) arrested on charges he planned to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon was a refugee. See here in 2010. He was arrested as he planned to detonate a bomb.

In 2012 Abdullatif Ali Aldosary (an Iraqi refugee) set off a bomb at a Social Security Office in Arizona.

In early 2016 an Iraqi refugee (Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan) living in Texas was accused of planning to bomb a local popular mall.

In September 2016, a Somali refugee went on a stabbing spree at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Learn more here about Dahir Adan. Knife attacks are signature terror acts for devout Muslims.

Also in September, the Chelsea bomber, Ahmad Rahimi, was arrested and we learned his family came to the US from Afghanistan and were given asylum.

And, we can’t forget the most recent successful attack by Somali refugee slasher, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, at Ohio State.

Lets not forgot that the attacks in Europe, most were from terrorists from the 7 ban countries.

So yeah Judge Dipshit, contrary to your briefing from the Lame Stream Media, there HAVE been arrests of refugees from the ban countries. Now go fuck yourself with your gavel, it will be the only intelligent thing you will have done in your career.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

...The sheriff’s office stated that Sheriff Hernandez declined 191 immigration detainers that were received by her office before February 1. Eight more immigration detainers received after February 1 were also declined...

Can someone explain the difference between a detainer and a warrant? Some Iowa Sheriffs (by no means supporters of illegal criminals) have questioned the detainers:

"An ICE detainer is simply a request by a federal agency that has no legal authority," Clinton County Sheriff Rick Lincoln said.

He and other county law enforcement officials say they have been told by their legal counsel that holding people without charge, and who have served their sentences, can open them up to legal liability.

"It’s been shown it is not defensible in court," Scott County Sheriff Tim Lane said.

Complete article:

http://qctimes.com/news/local/...68-e219badd3aa1.html

A question about rioters and protests.

Is it unconstitutional to pass a law that bans facial coverings at a protest? In other words, you can be arrested at a protest if you're wearing a mask or a hoodie with a bandanna.

Tony.