Image 01 Image 03

John Kerry and other past officials submit Declaration opposing Trump Immigration Exec Order

John Kerry and other past officials submit Declaration opposing Trump Immigration Exec Order

As part of opposition to Emergency Motion for a Stay in 9th Circuit

Late last night the State of Washington filed its opposition to the government’s Emergency Motion for a Stay pending appeal from the District Court Temporary Restraining Order halting Trump’s Immigration Executive Order.

The government’s motion was extremely strong, correctly pegging the court order as an improper usurpation by the District Court Judge of national security decisions reserved to the President. The 9th Circuit denied the stay request Saturday night until the opponents had a chance to submit papers, setting a briefing schedule to have the motion fully submitted by 3 p.m. Pacific time today.

I am not going to have time to fully analyze the legal papers filed in opposition, as I have to hit the road for a long drive shortly.

The Response, and two Declarations (Madeline Albright, et al., and Noah Purcell) are embedded at the bottom of this post.

What’s most interesting is the Albright Declaration, which includes signatures of Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E. McLaughlin, Lisa O. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, and Susan E. Rice.

The bottom line of the Albright Declaration is:

3. We all agree that the United States faces real threats from terrorist networks and must take all prudent and effective steps to combat them, including the appropriate vetting of travelers to the United States. We all are nevertheless unaware of any specific threat that would justify the travel ban established by the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017. We view the Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer. In our professional opinion, this Order cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds. It does not perform its declared task of “protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” …

4. There is no national security purpose for a total bar on entry for aliens from the seven named countries….

7. In our professional opinion, the Order was ill-conceived, poorly implemented and ill-explained. The “considered judgment” of the President in the prior cases where courts have deferred was based upon administrative records showing that the President’s decision rested on cleared views from expert agencies with broad experience on the matters presented to him. Here, there is little evidence that the Order underwent a thorough interagency legal and policy processes designed to address current terrorist threats….

10. For all of the foregoing reasons, in our professional opinion, the January 27 Executive Order does not further – but instead harms – sound U.S. national security and foreign policy.

This is a very pernicious attempt to divest the Trump administration of its lawful authority. None of these people currently is in office and can claim current knowledge of threat assessments or internal deliberations. They rely on news reports, which as we know, have been notoriously unrealiable as to the Trump administration.

John Kerry in particular is a political opponent, and has a personal interest since it is his policies which are being called into question by the Executive Order.

The Albright Declaration should not, legally, be relevant. These are FORMER officials. They are not in a decision-making position now. Their opinions, legally, are nothing more than opinions. The law clearly and unequivocally reserves national security decisions related to immigration to the President. Former officials have no legal standing to substitute their opinions for those of the current President. This is just another attempt to divest the President of his authority, something done by the District Court Judge as well.

This presents the government with a dilemma. It has until 3 p.m. Pacific time to submit a Reply. Does the government treat the Declaration as what it is — a legal nullity — which risks a one-sided record, or does it submit counter-affidavits?

We’ll continue to monitor this. I would expect a decision from the 9th Circuit sometime tonight Pacific time.

[Featured Image: John Kerry with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif Khonsari during Iran Nuke Deal negotiations]


Opposition to Motion for Stay – 9th Circuit – Trump Immigration Executive Order by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


Declaration of Madeleine Albright Et Al. – 9th Circuit – Opposition to Stay Trump Executive Immigration Ord… by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


Declaration of Noah Purcell – 9th Circuit – Opposition to Stay Trump Executive Immigration Order by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This gaggle of losers obviously feel free to defame and accuse President Trump at their leisure, attempting to denigrate his office. I wonder what their response would be if the FBI or Secret Service showed up on their door stoop with a warrant for their arrest.

This isn’t about the law. This is about the opinion of liberals and destroying anyone who dares challenge or oppose them.

I have little doubt the appeal will fail for the Government.


    Rick in reply to mailman. | February 6, 2017 at 9:40 am

    Regarding your doubt, I hope you are correct.
    The last couple of weeks are displaying the breadth and depth of leftist infiltration of American institutions. The press keeps topping itself. So-called “universities” are on display for what they really are. So-called “sanctuary” cities created by leftist politicians are in open rebellion, they say. California, our leftist, hispanic legislature says, wants to be a “sanctuary” state.
    We know the courts have been deeply subverted: just look at the SF federal judge who threw out the California people’s vote on same-sex marriage.
    Thus, I don’t have the confidence that I should in your prediction. To me it is a daily game to see which participants, if any, in any American institution feel any allegiance to our Constitution.

    Joe-dallas in reply to mailman. | February 6, 2017 at 4:36 pm

    I presume you prefer the government succeeds in the appeal – ie overturning the stay.

In response to the “Albright Declaration” submit a counter-affidavit from Sec. Tillerson stating something like this:

“It is solely within the purview of the Executive to make national security decisions, including the entry into these United States by any individual, but especially non-citizen individuals.”

Concurrently, the Federal Government attorneys should file a “motion to strike” the affidavit, and a FRCP Rule 11(c)(2) Motion for sanctions against opposing counsel for submitting an affidavit that has no basis in law or fact in relation to the case at hand (FRCP Rule 11(b)(1,2 and 3)).

Additionally, it is likely that EACH and EVERY one of the Affidavit-makers may also be charged with PERJURY. Affidavits require “personal knowledge” of the facts contained within the affidavit. It is not possible for ANY of the individuals who signed the Affidavit to ~KNOW~ that “[t]here is no national security purpose for a total bar on entry for aliens from the seven named countries.”

Thus, they have made a sworn statement, under oath, declaring that their statement is true and correct (see page 6). Legally, Perjury.

Hit them in the POCKETBOOK, for reimbursement of the Federal Government for the billable hours that the Federal Government employees had to spend responding to the nonsense affidavit.

    Ragspierre in reply to Chuck Skinner. | February 6, 2017 at 9:51 am

    C’mon, Chuck. You’re hyperventilating!

    Page 6 expressly says “…in our professional opinion…”

    It thus fails completely as any kind of evidence in the form of an affidavit. As you correctly note, an affidavit, to be admissible, states certain facts on the personal knowledge that the affiant knows to be true and correct.

    When an affiant palliates with “…in my opinion…” they cease to meet the basic test of an affidavit, and on objection, the affidavit is worthless as evidence.

    But it’s NEVER ‘perjury’. Dude…!!!

      Statement number 4 is not an opinion. It is purported as an objective statement of FACT. Actually, number 6 and 9 are as well, for the same reason.

      Statement 10 is an opinion of the overall affidavit’s purpose, and does not separately mitigate the attempted statement of an objective fact upon which that opinion is purportedly based.

      If they said “In our opinion[t]here is no national security purpose for a total bar on entry for aliens from the seven named countries.” then I would agree with you, there would be no Perjurious aspect to it because it would solely be “opinion.” Same with if they prefaced number 6 and 9.

      But they didn’t, and now they’re all subject to criminal perjury charges for filing a false affidavit, swearing to a fact that they did not know.

      It would actually be a very simple, straight-forward criminal trial. Call in the Defendant: let’s say Madam Half-Wit [Albright]. Prosecution calls her to the stand (and assuming she does not immediately invoke 5th Amendment protection).

      Madam Albright, how did you KNOW “[t]here is no national security purpose for a total bar on entry for aliens from the seven named countries.”

      Well, during our administration… ~ Objection, Relevance.

      Well, I’ve been told… ~ Objection, Hearsay.

      Well, I’m an expert in Middle eastern policy. Ok. Did you have CURRENT information on each and every person who is seeking entry from each of the 7 countries named in the executive Order? ~ No. ~ Did you have CURRENT information about the terrorist tendencies of each and every group which MIGHT or might not be planning an attack FROM one or more of those countries upon the United States of America? ~No.~

      You’re honor, we’ve proven our case that Madam Albright has made a representation, under oath, which she swore was true and correct, without basis in law or fact for making said representation to the Court.

        Ragspierre in reply to Chuck Skinner. | February 6, 2017 at 10:53 am

        I think you’re being silly, Chuck. Those statements are not perjurious. Maybe you should file a brief on your contention.

        Let’s watch and see.

          I have no desire at all to practice in the 9th Circus. None.

          In fact, when my wife was looking nationally for a position in her field, I explicitly told her that I did not want to go to the West Coast if at all possible, but I would tolerate Phoenix, AZ, because there were other benefits to living there.

          As it was, we ended up in El Paso, and have now moved to Dallas.

          I could probably write a brief on it, but who am I to be listened to? It’s black-letter law under 18 U.S. Code § 1621. I’m just some regional hick attorney who thinks that individuals shouldn’t be allowed to get away with presenting a material falsehood to the Circuit Court of Appeals, by claiming they’ve got knowledge they can’t possibly have.

          Fortunately, I don’t really have to. The Congressional Research Service did a pretty decent one in 2014:

          Of note therein:

          A witness testifying under oath or affirmation violates this section if she gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory. (numbered page 8, last paragraph)

          The test for materiality under Section 1621 is whether the false statement “has a natural tendency
          to influence or [is] capable of influencing the decision-making body to which it [is] addressed (numbered page 9, 1st full paragraph).

          Also, it appears that whomever ASKED these individuals to write said affidavit (if anyone) may ALSO be separately guilty of the crime of Subornation of Perjury under 18 U.S. Code § 1622.

Humphrey's Executor | February 6, 2017 at 9:32 am

We may not be at war with ISIS but ISIS is at war with us. Per a NYT article on 2/4 the “lone wolves” aren’t so lonely. ISIS provides them encouragement, coaching, and in some cases, logistical support. And they have said they will try to infiltrate the refugee stream.

It’s easy to criticize from the sidelines, but being responsible for the Nation’s security changes one’s point of view. Even Obama conceded as much (at least when he was the one in the job and being criticized, now maybe not so much. Politics come first for him.)

Immigrants from the seven named counties were identified by the Obama administration as requiring special scrutiny when it removed these countries from the visa-waiver program.

Now along come some of the same people responsible for identifying these countries as “problem countries” in the first place, claiming that they really aren’t a problem at all.

John Kerry, hmmm…. didn’t he used to have a job?

This is a very strange maneuver for Kerry et al to pull. A bunch of people who aren’t in the administration have no more to say about anything than anyone else in the audience. Their opinions, “professional” or otherwise, carry no weight whatever. The principle of “separation of powers” only comes into play when everyone trying to deal themselves in have some actual powers. These turkeys don’t.

So what is the actual purpose of this grandstanding?

    It’s an ethical* method of giving the liberal silly goose gaggle of the 9th Circus their talking points on how they should rule.

    *Ethical in the sense that sending them emails from partei headquarters with the same message could be called out as unethical, maybe illegal.

    My question is; whether this is going to be heard before the 9th enbanc or just a 3 judge panel? If a 3 judge, whoever loses will simply ask for it to go enbanc.

    More wasted time, as this will wind up at SCOTUS for final action and everyone knows it.

    I thought that an action between a state and the Federal government went straight to SCOTUS, or has what I learned multiple decades ago in high school civics gone down the memory hole?

97 Tech Companies Including Twitter, Netflix File Legal Brief Condemning Trump’s Immigration Order [From ZeroHedge]
Now we have 97 tech companies weighing in to determine American immigration-policy-by-judge. This case, so far, makes a mockery of our legal system and Constitution.
As mailman says above, this should be a no-brainer, but that feeling is based on our lingering belief in the integrity of our institutions.
One positive from all of this is that the enemies of America are being flushed out into the open.

Isn’t this the same group of people that incessantly blamed GWB for the 9/11 attacks because he wouldn’t ground every commercial airline flight in the nation once he learned that AQ was planning on using commercial airliners in some way, to attack some place, some time?

Remember when the left exploded all outrageously outragety when Obama banned Cuban refugees from entering the USA just a mere few weeks ago?

facebookisfacist | February 6, 2017 at 12:48 pm

So this butt head Kerry, burns the Middle East to the ground, turns it into a war zone from one end of Africa to another, and we are suppose to listen to his council on this same region?

Any one wonder why the liberals think it is a good idea to import a culture that is so anti-women.

Just drone bomb them instead. Did not the last President bomb a citizen without due process?

John Kerry especially (though Monica’s suckee’s Madeline Alldark is at least as bad) long has been an arrogant egotistical traitor since his Swift Boat days, and was no better as Secretary of State. I’ll never forgive GOP Senators for being grossly derelict in their duty and violating their oaths of office to uphold and defend the Constitution by confirming the vile, lawless, fascist cad like I’ll never forgive them for failing to impeach and convict 0bama (or whatever his real name is and wherever he was really born, two of countless things this evil poser has lawlessly hidden from the country). The corrupt Dim who re media of course has convenient coverup amnesia failing to recall how 0bama’s first 100 days were no better, though of course they were so busy with their groveling genuflecting they didn’t notice.