U.S. Travel ban blocked 1 day before it was commence

The travel ban has been blocked nationwide at all ports, points of entry, etc.-and will NOT be stayed or abated for any appeals. I've enclosed a copy of the Judges's 40 page order and reasoning for those who want more detail or those legal afficiando's who want the facts driving the legal ruling. :smile:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/politics/travel-ban-3-0-blocked/index.html

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015f-2bab-d519-a57f-7fabf1450002

Reply 1

nulli tertius

21

Original post by luq_ali

The travel ban has been blocked nationwide at all ports, points of entry, etc.-and will NOT be stayed or abated for any appeals. I've enclosed a copy of the Judges's 40 page order and reasoning for those who want more detail or those legal afficiando's who want the facts driving the legal ruling. :smile:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/politics/travel-ban-3-0-blocked/index.html

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015f-2bab-d519-a57f-7fabf1450002

There is so much wrong with this.

Trump's Executive Order was made on 24th September stating a commencement date. The Plaintiffs, who had already injuncted previous Executive Orders only sought permission to bring this further claim on 14th October and actually brought the claim on 15th October. It is obvious that a deliberate decision was taken by the Plaintiffs to prevent the government from appealing before the ban and the temporary restraining Order came into effect, The court should have refused the injunction for lack of timeliness.

The US Supreme Court refused to uphold a temporary injunction on parts of Trump's previous travel ban. The new order not only injuncts the same parts of the new travel ban that the Supreme Court refused to uphold, but does not even mention the previous Supreme Court ruling. The judge has completely ignored law that he doesn't like.

This judge will not grant a stay of the order pending appeals. The Appellate Court can and probably will do so.

There seems to be no realisation that the government lawyers have progressively removed the issues with the two previous travel bans that justified emergency action by the courts. The travel ban itself is probably unconstitutional, but that of itself doesn't justify emergency action by the courts.

The judge seems to have got into the same Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction mess that happened with the first travel ban. Temporary Restraining Orders are unappealable unless they have the character of a Preliminary Injunction. The same Appellate Court to which this appeal will go decided that a very similar Order on the first travel ban had the character of a preliminary injunction. Therefore the Order is appealable and the judge can't, as he has tried to do here, have a second go with another hearing to decide whether this Order should be converted into a preliminary injunction. Again, the judge has simply ignored a court ruling binding on him that he doesn't like.

Reply 2

luq_ali

OP

21

First, thank you for taking the time to respond in a meaningful, deliberative, articulate, lucid, and concise way to this very hot-bed issue.

It is very true that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to leave in place the temporary injunction-but their reasoning did not go to its merits-the order was set to expire in a matter of days, so the U.S. Supreme Court essentially said "okay-you said all this was temporary-you said all this was just to be put into place to establish safety protocols, and thereafter would NOT be necessary-if you are now saying something different, you are going to have to absolutely, subject to strict scrutiny justify it going forward-you all said you needed a temporary ban-okay-but if it is something more than that, it definitely raises the question of religious/national origin discrimination -but we will not need to address that at this time-YET-because you all are claiming this is just to put into place additional, fair, non-discriminatory vetting procedures and nothing more."

So that is the fuller picture. Now, out comes this new order. We can not forget the public statements made by the administration, when the first order came out, since that order, the public campaign promises, the explicitly stated need for a Muslim ban-the refusal-when given the chance-to take that back-and continued evidence, of discriminatory intent. The U.S. courts, as you know, under the federal rules of evidence, are allowed to use statements, made out of court, by a person in litigation, called hearsay(with all its various exceptions)-and that is to show intent, state of mind, etc. Now, if I can go into a court of law, as is the rule of law-and say, for example, that I heard you say something-it doesn't have to be recorded, no video tape is required-no other proof than my saying you said something...and that can be taken as evidence, to be used to convict me of a crime, to be used to put me in jail, sentence me, and if a capital case, take my life...just my some person saying I said something-can be evidence, used against me in a civil case-of all kinds...this is the Federal Rules of Evidence, incorporated into state law all over the U.S. Well, the standard of admission of evidence, from the ACTUAL WORDS, THOUGHTS-see the intent from the very beginning was discrminatory-it was clear, bragged about publicly, doubled-down on-tweeted, spoken by the author of the travel ban-his own words show his intent.

So if you have a bowl of soup-for example, and find a roach or other insect in it-taking that little piece out does NOT decontaminate that bowl soup or pot of soup, such that one should go on eating it and pretending the filth you found -initially as evidence-well, you know, its okay now. (no way-would I eat it! :smile:

) Now, there is in every law, legislative intent, and in the case of executive orders-when applicable the intent -if stated-can be inferred from the words, actions of the executor. Trying to change things up, sanitize it-noting that NOT one of those countries in the ban has had any role in any terrorist attack in this country-the attacks aren't coming from illegal or legal immigrants-they are coming from U.S. citizens-of whatever race, ethnicity-and we need to add-religion too.(but when the perpedtrator is white and christian or unaffiliated or white supremacist, well, there is NOT the uproar.)

So while I appreciate the time you spent, in writing what you wrote and the arguments you make, the judges -did not ignore anything. This man's own words and actions and promises and declarations and discriminatory intent sank his actions and thus, the judges are actually enforcing U.S. law against racial/ethnic/national origin discrimination.

Original post by nulli tertius

There is so much wrong with this.

Trump's Executive Order was made on 24th September stating a commencement date. The Plaintiffs, who had already injuncted previous Executive Orders only sought permission to bring this further claim on 14th October and actually brought the claim on 15th October. It is obvious that a deliberate decision was taken by the Plaintiffs to prevent the government from appealing before the ban and the temporary restraining Order came into effect, The court should have refused the injunction for lack of timeliness.

The US Supreme Court refused to uphold a temporary injunction on parts of Trump's previous travel ban. The new order not only injuncts the same parts of the new travel ban that the Supreme Court refused to uphold, but does not even mention the previous Supreme Court ruling. The judge has completely ignored law that he doesn't like.

This judge will not grant a stay of the order pending appeals. The Appellate Court can and probably will do so.

There seems to be no realisation that the government lawyers have progressively removed the issues with the two previous travel bans that justified emergency action by the courts. The travel ban itself is probably unconstitutional, but that of itself doesn't justify emergency action by the courts.

The judge seems to have got into the same Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction mess that happened with the first travel ban. Temporary Restraining Orders are unappealable unless they have the character of a Preliminary Injunction. The same Appellate Court to which this appeal will go decided that a very similar Order on the first travel ban had the character of a preliminary injunction. Therefore the Order is appealable and the judge can't, as he has tried to do here, have a second go with another hearing to decide whether this Order should be converted into a preliminary injunction. Again, the judge has simply ignored a court ruling binding on him that he doesn't like.

Reply 3

nulli tertius

21

Original post by luq_ali

It is very true that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to leave in place the temporary injunction-but their reasoning did not go to its merits-the order was set to expire in a matter of days,

You are referring to the Supreme Court decision in September. I was referring to the one in June.

the judges -did not ignore anything.

The single judge in the Hawaii case did not refer to this Supreme Court judgement nor to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the Washington State case on the first travel ban. Both were relevant; both were binding, both were ignored..

Reply 4

luq_ali

OP

21

Apologies, but what you are claiming, is 100% inaccurate, as to both the U.S. Supreme Court and The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (and for that matter, any circuit court of Appeals in the United States) First, as to the U.S. Supreme Court, the refusal to hear or dismissal, as moot, of the initial case brought (the part that was expiring) was NOT binding and is NOT binding upon any court of law in the U.S. Stare Decesis is NEVER created by the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court, to grant Certiorari, defer ruling, dismiss as moot-on any case-never has been since the Court existed.(I have personally filed motions in federal appellate courts involving this issue, as well as motions in The U.S. Supreme Court on a case seeking review, several years ago, involving this bedrock principle of law)Rather, only a direct ruling on the issue, as an opinion, on the issue or issues, resulting in a ruling and opinion-which is NOT the case at all, would create binding precedence. That is not the case here, as previously noted.

Moreover, apologies, but you are also 100% incorrect on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals-they have NEVER issued a ruling overturning the lower courts and creating some binding precedent that was violated, to the contrary, they have ruled against -as has every federal appellate court in the land, over and over against the travel bans-repeatedly, in defeat, after defeat against the bans.

It was only the U.S. Supreme Court which reinstated the bans-on that limited and temporary basis then dared -on the expiring order-the administration-if they tried to change it up or make it a permanent order-that the administration would have to overcome a mighty and huge hurdle in trying to make such permanent in a new ban, as is the case with the current ban. So, apologies, but you are incorrect on both counts, the 9th Circuit precedent NEVER did what you are claiming, to the contrary, actually-those rulings all went against the travel ban in part or whole, in clear defeats of the ban. A sampling of the defeat upon defeat upon defeat of the travel bans you are referring to PRIOR to this one are below also, its not just a single judge in Hawaii ruling against the ban, but also in Maryland, as well, with more to come) The ruling in September from the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed as moot, the issue arising from the Supreme Court emergency filing in June-your history and understanding of the filings seems to be confused, and perhaps this is where the inaccuracy of what you are arguing arises, which I am happy to be able to correct.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/12/us/politics/document-Read-the-Ninth-Court-of-Appeals-Ruling-on-Trump.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/9th-circuit-travel-ban/index.html

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-na-9thcircuit-travel-ban-20170530-story.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/28/trump-travel-ban-legal-battle-242045

Original post by nulli tertius

You are referring to the Supreme Court decision in September. I was referring to the one in June.

The single judge in the Hawaii case did not refer to this Supreme Court judgement nor to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the Washington State case on the first travel ban. Both were relevant; both were binding, both were ignored..

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 5

nulli tertius

21

Original post by luq_ali

Apologies, but what you are claiming, is 100% inaccurate, as to both the U.S. Supreme Court and The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (and for that matter, any circuit court of Appeals in the United States) First, as to the U.S. Supreme Court, the refusal to hear or dismissal, as moot, of the initial case brought (the part that was expiring) was NOT binding and is NOT binding upon any court of law in the U.S. Stare Decesis is NEVER created by the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court, to grant Certiorari, defer ruling, dismiss as moot-on any case-never has been since the Court existed.(I have personally filed motions in federal appellate courts involving this issue, as well as motions in The U.S. Supreme Court on a case seeking review, several years ago, involving this bedrock principle of law)Rather, only a direct ruling on the issue, as an opinion, on the issue or issues, resulting in a ruling and opinion-which is NOT the case at all, would create binding precedence. That is not the case here, as previously noted.

Moreover, apologies, but you are also 100% incorrect on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals-they have NEVER issued a ruling overturning the lower courts and creating some binding precedent that was violated, to the contrary, they have ruled against -as has every federal appellate court in the land, over and over against the travel bans-repeatedly, in defeat, after defeat against the bans.

It was only the U.S. Supreme Court which reinstated the bans-on that limited and temporary basis then dared -on the expiring order-the administration-if they tried to change it up or make it a permanent order-that the administration would have to overcome a mighty and huge hurdle in trying to make such permanent in a new ban, as is the case with the current ban. So, apologies, but you are incorrect on both counts, the 9th Circuit precedent NEVER did what you are claiming, to the contrary, actually-those rulings all went against the travel ban in part or whole, in clear defeats of the ban. A sampling of the defeat upon defeat upon defeat of the travel bans you are referring to PRIOR to this one are below also, its not just a single judge in Hawaii ruling against the ban, but also in Maryland, as well, with more to come) The ruling in September from the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed as moot, the issue arising from the Supreme Court emergency filing in June-your history and understanding of the filings seems to be confused, and perhaps this is where the inaccuracy of what you are arguing arises, which I am happy to be able to correct.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/12/us/politics/document-Read-the-Ninth-Court-of-Appeals-Ruling-on-Trump.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/9th-circuit-travel-ban/index.html

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-na-9thcircuit-travel-ban-20170530-story.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/28/trump-travel-ban-legal-battle-242045

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

Please read the two final pages of the majority judgement. They (but not the previous parts on granting certiorari) are a binding precedent.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

Please see page 9 and see also the District Court's reaction to that judgement at:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3519570/Gov-Uscourts-Wawd-241761-163-0.pdf page 4 lines 11-13

Compare that with the final paragraph on page 39 of

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4111837/Hawaii-v-Trump-TRO.pdf

Where are the Supreme Court and 9th Circuit rulings cited in the Hawaii case?

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 6

luq_ali

OP

21

I'm not really sure if you are simply confused, or trying to cause confusion. The orders you are citing, not one of them support your argument, which is EXACTLY why the two federal courts have ruled what they ruled. Moreover, the two court rulings in question, are not with regard to previous travel bans, expired temporary measures, they are wholly dealing with Proclamation 9645. I mean, you are free to go on saying the various orders say what they do not say, claiming they created things they did not create and doing whatever you are trying to do.

But, you are plainly wrong, and its a waste of my time arguing with you when you obviously have never practiced law in the U.S. in any federal court and are not qualified and admitted to practice law. Bottom line, you are wrong-but you are obviously out here with an agenda hoping to further the white supremacist and nationalistic principles that are being shot down by court after court. In that regard, you can keep on posting as much as you want and trying to confuse people or arguing against official court rulings and saying they are wrong and without authority-yet, still they stand and have not be over-turned, and your arguments are showing a fundamental lack of understanding of court procedure, separate orders, proper reading of cases, etc.

But all everyone needs to know is the Proclamation 9645 is blocked, period.

Proclamation 9645: Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats

September 24, 2017

Original post by nulli tertius