Legalectric

Whew, what a long train ride.  This was not exactly relaxing, and was an example of the extreme weather of climate change.  There were two avalanches in Montana that shut down the rails, one, then tracks closed and reopened, then another, and tracks reopened the day before our train left (panic, looking at flights just in case), and then a mudslide that took out Amtrak service between Portland and Seattle and it’s still out, that affected both Coastal Starlight and Empire Builder, though they did get Empire Builder back in service in time for us to get to Portland.  Then the Oroville dam, OMFG, 180,000+ people evacuated  (and late yesterday, order just lifted for some).  Horses evacuated too, people taking over county fair grounds, how on earth do you evacuate 180,000 people?!?!?  And that meant that the Amtrak Coast Starlight couldn’t go through northern California past Redding, and had to go around the evacuation area, so it was to be a bus from 2:30 a.m. in Redding to 6:30 a.m. Sacramento, but that was delayed too as we sat on sometimes napping on a siding in the train until the busses of passengers arrived from the delayed northbound train at 6:30 a.m.  We were lucky and got to go on the nearly vacant crew bus down to Sacramento, and from there back on the train to Paso Robles.  ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.  More on that later…

On the train, over dinner, it’s luck of the draw for dining companions.  One dinner on the Empire Builder, we were in the mountains where the avalanche was (dark, couldn’t see a thing). They seated us with a guy our age, and then a younger woman came in and joined us. Near the end of the meal (whew, good timing!) she said she’d seen this huge building in Chicago, and snapped a photo, and looked at it later and saw it was TRUMP! She said she was surprised and aghast!  Wanted to do some photoshopping.  Well, that opened the door, and the guy next to her, a recently retired intelligence service staff, boasted he was a Trump supporter and there was no excuse for all the violence (who’s being violent, 1 million women, NOT!) and he started going off on refugees, particularly Syrian, that the camps are ISIS infiltrated, and then how the courts were all wrong about the EO13769 because tRump’s Executive Order was about “national security” (doubt he’s even read the Executive Order or the Court Orders). The latter, he knows nothing about.

Blatant misstatements like that, despite our captive situation in the booth, AAARGH, I just can’t let slide.  I brought up the challenged language of the EO pretty much verbatim, the sections challenged which gives priority on those who are minority religions in those seven predominately Muslim countries, so on its face is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

… to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.

And of course there’s tRump’s repeated anti-Muslim campaign promises, and pledge to end Muslim immigration, which he leaves up on his website (I-N-T-E-N-T anyone?):

And then there’s the court order, held up by the Federal appellate panel that upholds the District Court Order granting the Restraining Order, where it was noted that even though specifically asked, the gov’t had provided no proof of any security basis, nothing, no evidence at all, and WA/MN had provided much evidence that it was religion based. The diner advocated for it to work its way through the legal system, but didn’t even acknowledge that 5 of 5 judges taking this on ruled against it, and this case is the general constitutional challenge, not plaintiff specific, and it IS in the legal system, losing at every turn.  He of course did not acknowledge tRump’s vocal public dissing of the judge and the Order, and now the 3 judge appellate panel and their order — HELLO — we’re looking at a constitutional crisis (tRump’s choice to hang a portrait of “Pres. constitutional crisis” Andrew Jackson should be evidence too!).

But our dining companion is not a lawyer, and not a reader or curator of the facts or law of EO13769,  just an “intelligence” worker if he’s going to raise it should be conversant of the Executive and Court Orders, who should know the backgrounds of those who have been terrorists in the U.S. (clue: not those 7 countries), and who should be well aware of the white U.S. citizen terrorists in our midst that tRump is removing from scrutiny by focusing only on those 7 countries and Muslims generally.  This tRump devotee is one of so many who don’t care about facts.  Expect that you will be challenged!

Then Flynn’s ejection happened, and I looked for our “intelligence” retiree yesterday to get his take (SNORT!) as I’ve been seeing rumblings of intelligence community revolt.  One would think that as a former member of this “intelligence community” that Flynn’s (and others) Russian involvement would trigger significant concerns about his leader tRump.  But as my ex would say, “Goes to show you don’t think.”

The tRump Regime is slowly coming apart, each day there’s something new.  Access to ability to challenge these things in the courts takes immense resources that most of us don’t have.  But each of us does have the ability to spend a little time every day to make more phone calls (202-456-1414, they answer now, but won’t take a message, forward to staff person, or open Comment line), send more emails, fill out more contact page forms, attend more Town Hall Meetings, and spread the word.  Figure out your focus, what issues you know best, and get to it.  It is having an impact.

Now, where is it that we apply to be “paid protesters?”

Trump issued a Memorandum (FR Doc. 2017-02656) to “reconsider” the Obama administration’s “Definition of the Term “Fiduciary”; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice, 81 Fed. Reg. 20946 (April 8, 2016),” specifically, “You are directed to examine the Fiduciary Duty Rule to determine whether it may adversely affect the ability of Americans to gain access to retirement information and financial advice.”

Memorandum of February 3, 2017 – Fiduciary Duty Rule

We saw what directives to examine something goes, i.e., DAPL and KXL.  Here, it’s been in the federal courts, where the courts are upholding the Fiduciary Duty Rule.

What’s the Fiduciary Duty Rule?  It means that financial planners have a fiduciary duty to their clients, and must put their interests first, i.e., put them first over the planner’s financial interest in pushing business one way or another considering their remuneration for their services, commissions, etc.

tRump thinks the Fiduciary Duty Rule is a bad thing!  How does he justify this?  He doesn’t have to.  With a stroke of the pen, he knocks it down (probably not understanding this, either!).

But here comes another federal court decision where Obama’s Fiduciary Duty Rule was challenged, and the court upheld the Rule:

US court upholds Obama-era retirement advice rule

Here it is, the Court Order:

17-35105_Upholds Restraining Order

Tell the White House what you think of tRump’s Executive Order 13769 Muslim Ban:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Looking forward to catching up with Ted Nace soon in San Francisco.  He’s author of Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy — get your copy HERE.

Alan Muller and I had the good fortune of meeting him through our “no coal” work and the “No New Coal Plants” list that was instrumental in stopping so many coal gasification plants across the U.S., including Minnesota’s Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project (see also www.camp-site.info)and the NRG coal gasification plant proposed for Delaware.  He wrote this Orion article about that coal gasification fight (a couple things are off — hey, Ted, it’s an ORANGE crate!!):

Orion-Stopping Coal in its Tracks – Ted Nace – JanFeb 2008

And from that, he also also wrote:

Climate Hope: On the Front Lines of the Fight Against Coal

Check these out, you can find them reasonably priced at www.abebooks.com.  Support your independent bookseller!

FRIDAY UPDATE:  Court Order Halting tRump Immigration Action — Washington A.G.

From Geekwire – Press Conference on courthouse steps

Written ruling “soon.”  Looking forward to that Order — covers the parts they challenged, the Constitutionally of parts 3 and 5, per AG’s Office.

On Monday, Washington State’s Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, filed a Complaint in federal court challenging the constitutionality of tRump’s Executive Order 13769, and a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to stop enforcement of this Order.  Several jurisdictions have filed for, and received, restraining orders regarding particulars of that Executive Order, but this Washington State filing was the first generally challenging the Constitutionality of the Executive Order.

Thank you, Washington State, for posting these pleadings:

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as Filed

Complaint as Filed

And  just a bit ago, Minnesota’s Attorney General Lori Swanson joined our state with Washington State in suing Trump.

Read the Complaint, it’s a delight, particularly because it quotes from tRump’s campaign page where he lays out his intent to stop Muslim immigration — and it’s still posted on his site as of earlier today — what an idiot:

AG Lori Swanson (with Taffy, above) had this statement today:

Attorney General Lori Swanson Joins Lawsuit Over Federal Executive Order

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson has joined a lawsuit against the federal government that alleges that the January 27, 2017 Executive Order that imposes blanket entry restrictions to the United States for people from certain countries is unconstitutional.

Attorney General Swanson said: “It does not pass constitutional muster, is inconsistent with our history as a nation, and undermines our national security.” She added: “America can keep its people safe without sacrificing bedrock constitutional principles.”

The Attorney General joined the lawsuit filed earlier this week by Washington State, which is supported by major corporations concerned about the impact of the travel ban on the economy and their employees. The lawsuit alleges that the Executive Order violates the equal protection, establishment, and due process clauses of the United States Constitution and the federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which prohibits discrimination in the issuance of visas on the basis of nationality, race, or place of birth or residence.

The lawsuit alleges that the Order is overbroad in imposing a blanket travel ban on people from certain countries “and sweeps within its ambit infant children, the disabled, long-time U.S residents, those fleeing terrorism, and those who assisted in the United States in conflicts overseas” who do not pose a security risk.

The lawsuit describes the impact of the travel ban on people with a lawful right to be in the United States, such as parents and their children, students with valid student visas, and scientists and other employees with valid work visas, who either cannot leave or return to the United States under the Order and some who have been separated from family. The lawsuit also describes the chilling effect of the Order on recruitment for employers and academic institutions.

Four different federal judges have temporarily halted certain detentions under the Executive Order.