As I read the Order
Granting the Temporary Retraining Order (TRO) in STATE OF HAWAI‘I and ISMAIL
ELSHIKH vs. Donald J. Trump, et. al., I began to wonder how this document
was written with any assemblance of juris prudence professionalism. I say this knowing
it is practically impossible for a judge to write a 42 page document excluding
the title page which makes 43 in a matter of two hours. I took an extra step to
verify this by talking to lawyers who had seen judges using their clerks
assistance to complete maybe 12 pages in two hours due to needed discussion and
citation verification not to mention proof reading.
I suggest every
American read this ruling to discover what I did. Namely, that US District
Court Judge Derrick Watson who awarded the TRO had the majority of the decision
pre-written prior to entering the court! This TRO then becomes an example of
unethical conduct of a judge.
The State of
Hawaii presented a case claiming economic hardship should these six countries
be banned. Among the claims of economic hardship was a statement that tourism
declined by 100 persons from the Middle East. Notably absent is whether there
was an increase or decrease in tourism for the month in question as compared to
last year.
Yet, even Judge
Derrick Watson admits in a FOOTNOTE:
Footnote 8: This data relates to the prior Executive Order
No. 13,769. At this preliminary stage, the Court looks to the earlier order’s
effect on tourism in order to gauge the economic impact
of the new Executive Order, while understanding that the provisions of the two
differ. Because the new Executive Order has yet to
take effect, its precise economic impact cannot presently be determined."
(pgs. 20-21)
The State of
Hawaii made the outlandish claim that the University of Hawai’I would suffer
economical hardship. Absent is a statement of how many students from these six
countries currently are enrolled and how many are generally recruited a year. Somewhat
humorously, the state claimed:
… that
any prospective recruits who are without visas as of March 16, 2017 will not be
able to travel to Hawaii to attend the University. As a result, the University
will not be able to collect the tuition that those students would have paid.
Oh, the insanity!
The college can NOT collect from students who can NOT legally enter the United
States is a hardship??? Well just how many students are we talking about? Better
yet, are these foreign students being given state or federal grants that enable
them to attend the University of Hawai'i?
The State of
Hawaii went on and stated that if the ban goes into effect it will likely cause
the closing of the Persian
Language and Culture program. Oh the insanity in deleting a program that
requires TWO instructors!!! Below is a screenshot pulled from their site listing their
academic instructors! ALL TWO OF THEM!!!
Dr. Ismail Elshikh
is listed as the co-litigant. Interestingly this name is misspelled possibly
purposefully because his name is listed in news articles as "Ismail
El Sheikh." While it is not uncommon for Arabs to use various transliterations
of English for their name, it is not acceptable for someone who has lived in
America for sometime to do this. I want to have this issue resolved and
to understand the meaning behind the misspelling.
Dr. Ismail
El-Sheikh claims that his children are suffering hardship because his
mother-in-law is not able to come to America, though it was established that
she is in a the process of being able to come due to family being here.
Dr. Ismail
El-Sheikh is quoted in the TRO as having stated:
- … that the effects of the Executive Order are “devastating to me, my wife and children.” Elshikh Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 66-1.
- “deeply saddened by the message that [both Executive Orders] convey—that a broad travel-ban is ‘needed’ to prevent people from certain Muslim countries from entering the United States.” Elshikh Decl. ¶ 1
- “Because of my allegiance to America, and my deep belief in the American ideals of democracy and equality, I am deeply saddened by the passage of the Executive Order barring nationals from now-six Muslim majority countries from entering the United States.”; id. ¶ 3
- [“My children] are deeply affected by the knowledge that the United States—their own country—would discriminate against individuals who are of the same ethnicity as them, including members of their own family, and who 25 hold the same religious beliefs. They do not fully understand why this is happening, but they feel hurt, confused, and sad.”
I am further at a loss
when I read on page 23-24:
Vasquez v. Los Angeles
Cty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1250 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The concept of a ‘concrete’
injury is particularly elusive in the Establishment Clause
context.”). “The standing question, in plain English,
is whether adherents to a religion have standing to challenge an official
condemnation by their government of their religious views[.] Their ‘personal
stake’ assures the ‘concrete adverseness’ 24 required.” Catholic League, 624
F.3d at 1048–49.
The TRO was
awarded with the claim that it violates Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh’s First Amendment
rights! Yet his rights have never been in violation! At no time, and in no
place in the TRO does it state that his rights were in question!! Rather the
statement is that NON-Citizens First Amendment rights are being violated!!!
The bill makes no
illusions to religion at all. Even though they do quote an adviser to the
president they do not provide proof that there is a ban on a religion. Which of
course can be easily disproved by naming off Muslim countries that have no ban!
On Page 27 the
ruling states:
(“Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is not based on speculation about a
particular future prosecution or the defeat of a particular ballot question. .
. . Here, the issue presented requires no further
factual development, is largely a legal question, and chills allegedly
protected First Amendment expression.”); see also
Arizona Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Bayless,
320 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]hen the threatened enforcement effort
implicates First Amendment [free speech] rights, the inquiry tilts
dramatically toward a finding of standing.”). The Court turns to the merits of
Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO.
The mentioning of
freedom of speech makes no sense here! Is this evidence that Judge Derrick
Watson could not find judicial reasoning
to support his conclusion?? Can anyone see logic in this ruling?
The TRO decision states:
“Indeed,
the Government defends the Executive Order principally because of its
religiously neutral text —“[i]t applies to six countries that Congress and the
prior Administration determined posed special risks of terrorism. [The
Executive Order] applies to all individuals in those countries, regardless of
their religion.” Gov’t. Mem. in Opp’n 40. The Government does not stop there.
By its reading, the Executive Order could not have been religiously motivated
because “the six countries represent only a small fraction of the world’s 50
Muslim-majority nations, and are home to less than 9% of the global Muslim
population . . . [T]he suspension covers every national of those countries,
including millions of non-Muslim individuals[.]” Gov’t. Mem. in Opp’n 42.
The
illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can
demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at
once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment
31 Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise. See Aziz, 2017 WL 580855,
at *9 (rejecting the argument that “the Court cannot infer an anti-Muslim
animus because [Executive Order No. 13,769] does not affect all, or even most,
Muslims,” because “the Supreme Court has
never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical
exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how
inefficient the execution” (citation omitted)). Equally flawed is the
notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because
it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is
undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies,
that these six countries have
overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%.12 It
would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these
countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to
conclude, as the Government does, that it does not. (p. 30-31)
Interestingly, this statement
quotes the last
judge who ruled against President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration
restrictions but tries to hide doing so in not revealing the citation:
the
Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a
mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter
how inefficient the execution.
Worse still is the lack in
understanding that the are using math to justify their reasoning while stating
that math should not be used for this purpose. This also demonstrates that the
judgement was given prejudicially be not applying statistical analysis in math
to examine why those six countries were deemed to be terrorist supporter
countries. This provides a one sided view. Something judges are not supposed to
do.
CONCLUSION:
This TRO’s standing is based
on a belief that people who are not American citizens are under the US
Constitution! This is highly misleading, unethical and teem of nothing but
judicial activism!
Where is the outrage? Why are
the major media outlets not asking these questions? Because it would not fit
their narrative? If Judge Derrick Watson
is not removed for unethical and unConstitutional
activism, all of America will suffer! Call your Senator ask for Judge Derrick Watson to be impeached today! The evidence
is all in the TRO.
HELP FUND A NEW CIVILIZATION JIHAD AWARENESS WEB SITE!
HELP FUND A NEW CIVILIZATION JIHAD AWARENESS WEB SITE!
