A WARNING TO THE MSM, BE VERY CAREFUL OF YOUR FAKE NEWS YOU SPEW …
As reported at Sky News, First lady Melania Trump has accepted damages and an apology over allegations stemming from a Daily Mail article previously published in the newspaper that “included false and defamatory claims” about her work as a model. The amount of damages was not disclosed in court, although it is estimated that the total payment of damages and costs is believed to come to less than $3m (£2.4m).
Melania Trump has accepted damages and an apology over allegations about her work as a professional model.
The action was against Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail, after it ran an article headlined “Racy photos and troubling questions about his wife’s past that could derail Trump”.
The amount of damages was not disclosed in court, although Sky News understands the total payment of damages and costs is believed to come to less than $3m (£2.4m).
The article published in the newspaper and on Mail Online last August “included false and defamatory claims” about the First Lady “which questioned the nature of her work as a professional model, and republished allegations that she provided services beyond simply modelling”, the court heard.
The piece referred to rumors that a modelling agency Mrs Trump worked for in Milan was “something of a gentleman’s club” and another in New York “operated as an escort agency for wealthy clients”.
Her lawyer John Kelly said the story included statements that Mrs Trump denied the allegations and that Paulo Zampolli, who ran the modelling agency, also denied the claims.
The article, he said, also said there was no evidence to support the allegations.
The Court substituted their judgement as to what constitutes a threat of American security for the president’s …
Donald Trump Responds to Appeals Court Ruling on Executive Order on Temp Travel Ban … “SEE YOU IN COURT”
TRUMP RESPONDS …
President Donald Trump responded to the 9th circus ruling to this executive order calling for a temporary travel ban by tweeting, “SEE YOU IN COURT”. And so they will as the 9th Circuit court of appeals has a 80% reversal rate at the United States Supreme Court. One has to wonder why they even have this court of appeals if that many decisions are overturned and reversed. It is obvious that this court is political and operates outside the U.S. Constitution.
“SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” He later said to reporters that the judges had made “a political decision.”
“We have a situation where the security of our country is at stake, and it’s a very, very serious situation, so we look forward, as I just said, to seeing them in court,” he said.
AND LEST WE NOT FORGET THEY JUST GAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NONE …
A great piece from Eugene Kontorovich, read is all.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has just upheld a nationwide temporary injunction on President Trump’s executive order relating to refugees and visas from certain countries. I think the court’s opinion is weak in most respects, but I will address one of the most interesting and potentially far-reaching aspects.
Generally, the president has vast discretion in issuing visas. One of the major arguments against the executive order is that while in principle a president can limit immigration from the seven affected countries, it would be unconstitutional for President Trump in particular to do so, because in his case the action is motivated by impermissible religious bias. The central exhibit for this argument is his campaign statements about a “Muslim ban.”
While the 9th Circuit did not address this at great length, focusing instead on due-process arguments, it did accept the basic validity of the form of the states’ argument. “The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions,” wrote the court.
There is absolutely no precedent for courts looking to a politician’s statements from before he or she took office, let alone campaign promises, to establish any kind of impermissible motive. The 9th Circuit fairly disingenuously cites several Supreme Court cases that show “that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.” But the cases it mentions do nothing more than look at legislative history — the formal process of adopting the relevant measure. That itself goes too far for textualists, but it provides absolutely no support for looking before the start of the formal deliberations on the measure to the political process of electing its proponents.
9th Circus Fedeal Appeals Court Rules Against President Trump on Travel Ban (Update: Trump’s Reaction … See You in Court”)
LIBERAL 9TH CIRCUS COURT AT IT AGAIN …
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 yesterday to maintained the freeze on President Trump’s immigration order that would temporarily ban individuals from coming from 7 countries and entering the United States until the vetting process was examined and improved. Thus, they have refused to reinstate the temporary travel ban. Once again the liberal activist judges of the 9th circus court, the most over-turned appeals court in the United States have gone rogue.
A federal appeals panel has maintained the freeze on President Trump’s controversial immigration order, meaning previously barred refugees and citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries can continue entering the United States.
In a unanimous 29-page opinion, three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit flatly rejected the government’s argument that suspension of the order should be lifted immediately for national security reasons, and they forcefully asserted their ability to serve as a check on the president’s power.
The judges wrote that any suggestion that they could not “runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”
Trump reacted to the decision on Twitter, posting just minutes after the ruling, “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” He later said to reporters that the judges had made “a political decision.”