Trouncing On American Rights Is What Tigars Do
Speak Out Against The Latest Ninth Circuit Activist Judge
Take Action Against The Latest National Injunction—Contact Info Below
Did you know that the Ninth Circuit continues to violate Article III of the Constitution? And did you know that in their latest Article III violation, you are a de facto party in activist judge Jon Steven Tigar’s latest national (all people in America affected) injunction against the Trump Admin?
Yes. Indeed you are once again a party without representation in the latest national injunction from the Ninth Circuit. Essentially, your voice is being silenced and your due process is being violated.
In the Ninth Circuit federal court, aka the “Abuse of Discretion” bench, almighty Jon Steven Tigar (an obama appointee *SHOCK!*) shot down the Trump Admin’s Third Country Rule. Your highness did this In overwhelming deference to Central American illegal immigrants over and above American citizens (who pay Tigar’s salary, btw).
The Trump Admin’s Third Party Rule was issued for the national security of Americans and against Central American illegals, and all illegals entering the southern border. But almighty Tigar ruled, and SW paraphrases, “Screw American citizens! I shall find for Central American illegals, and illegals from everywhere! In so doing, I find against American citizens who, for all I care, can rot in the hell that I am helping my leftist comrades to create.”
Take Action Now!
Contact this activist judge ASAP and let him know you demand to be a named party in this national injunction against this national injunction (it is not for you but against you), and that you demand court-appointed legal representation.
Jon Steven Tigar, District [obama] Judge
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
San Francisco, CA
Phone (415) 522-2036
Trouncing On The Rights Of American Citizens Is What Tigars Do Best
International asylum law directs asylum seekers to ask for asylum in the first safe country which they enter. This rule allows the United States to reject Central American migrants who pass through Mexico without seeking asylum. But U.S. law requires a formal “safe third country” deal before a migrant can be sent back to the “first safe country.” Of course, the U.S. has a “safe third country” deal with Canada, you know, for all of those North Pole elves caravaning through Canada.
A D.C. Circuit Judge upheld the Trump Admin Third Country Rule. But the leftists forum-shopped and found almighty Tigar whose lack of ethics did not cause him to hesitate one second in shooting down the rule nationwide. Tigar shot down the Third Country Rule in deference to Central American illegal aliens over and above American citizens.
almighty Tigar shot down the Trump Admin Third Country Rule nationwide, in deference to Central American illegal aliens over and above American citizens.
The Ninth Circuit’s multiple National injunctions prohibit the Executive Branch from applying a law or policy against/for anyone, including nonparties, i.e. for you and me. The Trump Admin’s Third Country rule is meant to PROTECT legal U.S. citizens, the majority of whom spoke at the ballot box in support of tougher immigration law.
The Ninth Circuit Court’s multiple national injunctions, on the other hand, are meant to protect ILLEGAL aliens, which deprive legal American citizens of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law (5th Amendment right which applies to legal citizens only). The latest $5B for the humanitarian crisis at the U.S. southern border should provide some semblance, if only a tiny portion, as to the expense that illegals incur upon legal citizen taxpayers. Democrats’ open borders vote shopping is not cheap! Democrats’ open borders policy costs American taxpayers billions of dollars each year. (Dare we add welfare, food stamps, and non-taxed remittances?)
And all of this is happening against American citizens, you and me, de facto parties to this National Injunction even though
a) we did not agree to be a party to this lawsuit,
b) we have no representation in the lawsuit,
c) it is being carried out in spite of our “by the people, for the people” Constitutional Law and Article III limitations on Judicial Power and Equitable Relief,
d) the duty of district judges is to apply the law, not to strike down laws or Executive orders.
Of course, we are not Central Americans making claims of asylum. But the fact that
a) over 95% of asylum claims are rejected and are in fact economic relief claims,
b) the highly suspect nature of the majority of migrants making asylum claims are 16-26 year old males (are females not being persecuted?),
c) documented proof exists that far left and progressive NGO’s are organizing and paying for the Central Americans caravans to trek through Mexico, i.e. food, water, bathrooms, places to sleep, some transportation except when a camera is around,
are but a few facts surrounding the dubious nature of these “poor people seeking a better life” as vote-hungering Democrats would like to deceive everyone into believing.
Therefore, though We The People are obviously not subject to the Third Country Rule, by virtue of the Ninth Circuit blocking the President’s Proclamation, this rule now stands against “the people of the U.S.,” that is the legal citizenry of America who elect government officials. We, as unrepresented parties in this injunction, are affected by it to our detriment
So-Called Asylum Seekers (And I Have Beachfront Property In Arizona For Sale)
The so-called “asylum” seekers—and let’s get real—are an undue burden on middle class America. These economic illegals seep into America—in lower and middle class cities and neighborhoods, including shopping areas, entertainment areas, places of employment, etc. Lower and middle class Americans are subjected to loss of jobs, loss of income, strain on welfare systems, strain on healthcare systems, strain on education systems and resources, subjected to increased violence, disease, and illegal drugs (see Texas statistics on illegal alien crime), and a whole host of problems brought on by unassimilated, uneducated, diseased, “entitled” illegal immigrants and their multitudinous children. (How does a family on welfare with 12 kids afford 14 cell phones?)
We are the unrepresented parties in National Injunctions blocking the President’s orders concerning illegal immigration. We must demand our day in court to defend our side of the issue. Demand “little-j” judge Tigar, that we be named parties in this National Injunction, and we demand legal representation appointed to us.
Article III, Bill Of Rights, Supreme Court Precedent OVERWHELMINGLY For American Citizens
1. Citizen’s Due Process
- 5th Amendment – No person shall be… …deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
- Defenders of national injunctions contend that they ensure that individuals who did not challenge a law are treated the same as plaintiffs who did. But they do not address the Constitutional rights of individuals who do not want to be “treated the same.” That is, citizens whose right to elect a President is being trampled on when unelected activist judges override the power of the Executive Branch.
- 14th amendment – …nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
- Contact your State government — senators, representatives, and attorney general. Demand that your state be excluded from this national injunction, and any future national injunction coming out of the mound of fecal matter commonly called San Francisco.
2. The President’s Inherent Authority To Restrict The Entry Of Aliens
- 8 U. S. C. §1182(f) – “The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) vests the President with authority to restrict the entry of aliens whenever he finds that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”.
- Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Thomas concurring opinion – Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judicially enforceable limits that constrain the President. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 600 (1988). Nor could it, since the President has inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country. See United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U. S. 537, 542-543 (1950); accord, Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U. S. ___, ___-___ (2018) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 13-14).
- Fiallo v. Bell – The admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U. S. 787, 792 cited by Chief Justice John Roberts in Trump v. Hawaii.
- Trump v. Hawaii, Chief Justice John Roberts –- The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under §1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States. Pp. 9–24. (a) By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions. It thus vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA (Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc.).
3. Article III Limitations On Judicial Power And Equitable Relief
Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Thomas – The Supreme “Court has long respected traditional limits on equity and judicial power.” See, e.g., Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107, 115 (1897)
3a. Equitable Relief
- Lewis v. Casey, Justice Antonin Scalia – It is the role of courts to provide relief to claimants, in individual or class actions, who have suffered, or will imminently suffer, actual harm; it is not the role of courts, but that of the political branches, to shape the institutions of government in such fashion as to comply with the laws and the Constitution.
- [District] Judges have directed or managed the reconstruction of entire institutions and bureaucracies, with little regard for the inherent limitations on their authority.
- Missouri v. Jenkins, Justice Thomas – The exercise of this authority [“virtually unlimited equitable powers to remedy …constitutional violations”] has trampled upon principles of federalism and the separation of powers and has freed courts to pursue other agendas unrelated to the narrow purpose of precisely remedying a constitutional harm.
- There is no difference between courts running school systems [Missouri v. Jenkins] or prisons [Lewis v. Casey] and courts running executive branch agencies [national injunctions],
- Schlesinger v. Reservists To Stop the War, Chief Justice Warren Burger –To permit a complainant who has no concrete injury to require a court to rule on important constitutional issues in the abstract would create the potential for abuse of the judicial process, distort the role of the Judiciary in its relationship to the Executive and the Legislature and open the Judiciary to an arguable charge of providing “government by injunction.”
- …implicates only the generalized interest of all citizens [aliens in this Tigar injunction] in constitutional governance and is thus merely an abstract injury rather than the concrete injury that is essential to satisfy Art. III’s “case or controversy” requirement.
- And, in defining the nature of that injury, we have only recently stated flatly: “Abstract injury is not enough.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974).
- [seeking asylum is abstract because no alien is guaranteed asylum, no illegal alien is granted unquestionable entry into the U.S. under any means]
The court has no constitutional basis to decide disputes and issue remedies for those who are not parties.
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, Chief Justice Roberts – Article III does not give federal courts the power to order relief to any uninjured plaintiff, class action or not.
- Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn, Justice Thomas – For most of our history, courts understood judicial power as “fundamentall[y] the power to render judgments in individual cases.”
- City of Chicago v. Morales, Justice Scalia – The rationale for our power to review federal legislation for constitutionality …only extends so far as to require us to determine that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to this party, in the circumstances of this case.
- It seems to me fundamentally incompatible with this system for the Court not to be content to find that a statute is unconstitutional as applied to the person before it, but to go further and pronounce that the statute is unconstitutional in all applications. Its reasoning may well suggest as much, but to pronounce a holding on that point seems to me no more than an advisory opinion–which a federal court should never issue at all, see Hayburn’s Case , 2 Dall. 409 (1792), and especially should not issue with regard to a constitutional question, as to which we seek to avoid even non advisory opinions, see, e.g., Ashwander v. TVA , 297 U. S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). I think it quite improper, in short, to ask the constitutional claimant before us: Do you just want us to say that this statute cannot constitutionally be applied to you in this case, or do you want to go for broke and try to get the statute pronounced void in all its applications?
- Warth v. Seldin, Justice Lewis Powell – The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party, even though the court’s judgment may benefit others collaterally.
- Morrison v. Olson, Justice Scalia – To understand the limits that standing imposes on “the judicial Power,” therefore, we must “refer directly to the traditional, fundamental limitations upon the powers of commonlaw courts.” Honig v. Doe, 484 U. S. 305, 340 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). These limitations preserve separation of powers by preventing the judiciary’s entanglement in disputes that are primarily political in nature.
- It is not for us to determine, and we have never presumed to determine, how much of the purely executive powers of government must be within the full control of the President. The Constitution prescribes that they all are.
- Scott V. Donald, Justice Shiras – The theory of the decree is that the plaintiff is one of a class of persons whose rights are infringed and threatened, and that he so represents such class that he may pray an injunction on behalf of all persons that constitute it. It is, indeed, possible that there may be others in like case with the plaintiff, and that such persons may be numerous; but such a state of facts is too conjectural to furnish a safe basis upon which a court of equity ought to grant an injunction.
- The decree is also objectionable because it enjoins persons not parties to the suit.
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn, Justice Thomas – The Judiciary has one primary check on the excesses of political branches. That check is the enforcement of the rule of law through the exercise of judicial power.
Illegals Do NOT Have The Same Constitutional Rights As American Citizens
- Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Thomas – The plaintiffs cannot raise any other First Amendment claim, since the alleged religious discrimination in this case was directed at aliens abroad. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990).
- Thus, if a case involved a conflict between a law and the Constitution, judges would have a duty “to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.” The Federalist No. 78, at 468 (Alexander Hamilton); see also Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, at 178.
- United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, Judge William Rehnquist – Indeed, the claim that extraterritorial aliens are entitled to rights under the Fifth Amendment – which speaks in the relatively universal term of “person” – has been emphatically rejected. Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 . Pp. 268-269.
- Respondent’s reliance on Reid, supra, is misplaced, since that case stands only for the proposition that United States citizens stationed abroad could invoke the protection of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Similarly, those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212 .
- Respondent also contends that to treat aliens differently from citizens with respect to the Fourth Amendment somehow violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He relies on Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971), and Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291 (1978), for this proposition. But the very cases previously cited with respect to the protection extended by the Constitution to aliens undermine this claim. They are constitutional decisions of this Court expressly according differing protection to aliens than to citizens, based on our conclusion that the particular provisions in question were not intended to extend to aliens in the same degree as to citizens. Cf. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 79 -80 (1976) (“In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens”).
- Indeed, we have rejected the claim that aliens are entitled to Fifth Amendment rights outside the sovereign territory of the United States.
President Trump stands on solid Constitutional and Judicial ground in all he has done, and tried to do, to curtail illegal immigration thus far. These activist judges must uphold the Constitution or else be impeached.
Since no one is taking ANY action against these rogue judges, it is, as always, up to the people. Contact Judge Tigar ASAP. And please forward this to others sharing the same concern.
Until the next time… And there will be another until the Supreme Court lays down the law curtailing these leftist abuses of the courts called national injunctions.
Quote from Kevin McAleenan, Acting DHS Dir: “Two, we need to target an attack to transnational criminal organizations. This is an organized smuggling effort. The logistical effort to move 100,000 people through a country every four weeks is immense. This is noticeable. It involves commercial bus lines that are controlled by criminal organizations. We need Mexico to crack down on these operations in their territory.”
Samuel Bray, “Multiple Chancellors: Reforming The National Injunction”
Findlaw.com Supreme Court Resources