Federal Judge Asks Government for Evidence

a reply to: Xcathdra
I know that you have posted on the topic quite extensively.
I do not recall you responding to these questions:

What law does the TRO affect?

What law prevents a federal court from reviewing a presidential action?

What law prevents the court from asking for evidence to support the premise of an EO?

Questions which were a response to this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Iscool

For those discussing the Courts and access to classified information.

* - Title 18 - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES ACT - Cornell

* - Department of Justice - 2054. Synopsis Of Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) Synopsis of the Act

Here is a brief overview of what the act covers (Cornell link).

§ 1. Definitions
§ 2. Pretrial conference
§ 3. Protective orders
§ 4. Discovery of classified information by defendants
§ 5. Notice of defendant’s intention to disclose classified information
§ 6. Procedure for cases involving classified information
§ 7. Interlocutory appeal
§ 8. Introduction of classified information
§ 9. Security procedures
§ 9A. Coordination requirements relating to the prosecution of cases involving classified information
§ 10. Identification of information related to the national defense
§ 11. Amendments to the Act
§ 12. Attorney General guidelines
§ 13. Reports to Congress
§ 14. Functions of Attorney General may be exercised by Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or a designated Assistant Attorney General
§ 15. Effective date
§ 16. Short title

This act spells out how classified information can be used in criminal trials, including closed hearings during the times classified info is discussed in addition to allowing a federal judge provisional access to see the classified evidence. In some circumstances the Federal judge is the only person allowed to see the evidence and can decide from their how to apply it. Federal judges can request more information from the government regarding classified information however the info is still restricted.

The link above contains the procedures for classified info in criminal court proceeding at all levels of the process.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Interesting. How is that relevant?
Is there a criminal trial involved here?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Logarock


A state is not responsible for and has no authority to conduct foreign policy nor make national security decisions.

What you are saying is that the fed, as a result of its failed foreign policy has the right to insist that the states take in whatever persons from abroad that the fed tells them? Some bullsh*t right there.

a reply to: Logarock

Yet constitutional.

Its what the Supreme Court calls a "political question" not to be resolved by the courts but at the ballot box.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Interesting. How is that relevant?
Is there a criminal trial involved here?

Read procedure 6 and stop being intentionally obtuse and lazy.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I read it.
You said it applies to criminal proceedings.

The link above contains the procedures for classified info in criminal court proceeding at all levels of the process.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

I read it.
You said it applies to criminal proceedings.

The link above contains the procedures for classified info in criminal court proceeding at all levels of the process.

and violations of the law are criminal and not civil, as the states are arguing.

The District Court held a hearing on February 3, 2017, where the states argued that certain sections of the Executive Order are contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

a reply to: Xcathdra

and violations of the law are criminal and not civil

Nice quote. Where in the motion is a criminal violation claimed? It certainly was not a criminal proceeding.

a reply to: Phage

I believe the request itself is a false logic argument. The idea behind the ban is the need for better vetting because "we don't know who the people entering the US are or what they intend to do once they get here". If we need better vetting because we don't know who these people are or what they are doing, how can anyone demand a specific list of people or threats? The whole idea is WE DON'T KNOW. How exactly do you make a specific list of people you don't know and have no information on?

We have two choices. We can let people in and hope they don't commit any crimes against us, or, we can hold off on letting them in "temporarily" until we get more information and improve our process.

Honestly, if Trump stops these people from coming in to the US until we can be reasonably certain they are safe he will be vilified for it. On the other hand, if he lets in one terrorist who hurts or kills people he will be vilified for it - by the same people.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The idea behind the ban is the need for better vetting because "we don't know who the people entering the US are or what they intend to do once they get here".

Whether or not that is actually the idea behind the ban is questionable. But the notion that we can somehow know what anyone's "intent" is, and act on that before they do anything is somewhat scary. Don't you think?
*cough*Minority Report*cough*

a reply to: Phage

what part of the quote confused you?

a reply to: Xcathdra

None of it. The quote was quite clear. It made no mention of criminal proceedings.

Which part of the motion declared criminal intent or action?

What made the proceedings criminal proceedings?

a reply to: Phage

what part of breaking the law are you just not understanding? What is your deal.. Why are you incapable of exercising independent thought instead of playing these idiotic word games that only you find amusing that do nothing but detract from the thread?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vroomfondel

The idea behind the ban is the need for better vetting because "we don't know who the people entering the US are or what they intend to do once they get here".

Whether or not that is actually the idea behind the ban is questionable. But the notion that we can somehow know what anyone's "intent" is, and act on that before they do anything is somewhat scary. Don't you think?
*cough*Minority Report*cough*

Unless someone can prove the temporary ban is about something else we have to believe it is about safety and not knowing who the people are or what they intend to do. As for intent, I hear what you are saying. If these people hang out with radical terrorists we have to assume they identify with the values and beliefs of the terrorists. The only method we have is to associate certain groups with certain behaviors. This is nothing new. Its only much more serious now than it has ever been before.

a reply to: Xcathdra
So, you are claiming that the hearing on the motion was a criminal proceeding.
Any time there is a hearing (and appeal) on a TRO, it is a criminal proceeding.

Remind me not to hire you as my attorney should I require one.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

As for intent, I hear what you are saying. If these people hang out with radical terrorists we have to assume they identify with the values and beliefs of the terrorists.

Does being from the same country constitute "hanging out?" I guess that means you hang out with neo-nazis.

If your record does not say that you hang out with neo-nazis, does that mean you do?

Those would seem to be the essence of the argument. Correct me if I am wrong.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra
So, you are claiming that the hearing on the motion was a criminal proceeding.
Any time there is a hearing (and appeal) on a TRO, it is a criminal proceeding.

Remind me not to hire you as my attorney should I require one.

I wouldnt take your case if you asked so no worries.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well, I wouldn't hire you.
So there.

(Sort of Trumpian, no?)

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well, I wouldn't hire you.
So there.

(Sort of Trumpian, no?)

more like Clinton and democrats on losing the election.