![]() Motorola, Inc., which is the first court opinion in the United States setting reasonable and nondiscriminatory (“RAND”) rates for standard essential patents. City of Seattle, overseeing a consent decree involving an overhaul of Seattle Police Department practices and procedures. Credit Suisse, construing the statute of limitations for Section 16(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, was reversed by the Ninth Circuit, but adopted by the United States Supreme Court in an 8-0 opinion. Judge Robart has presided over several notable civil and criminal cases. 1969) and Georgetown University Law Center (J.D. Prior to his appointment, he was with Lane Powell in Seattle for 32 years where he served as Chair of the Litigation Department and Managing Partner. That is Litigation 101.Judge Robart became a United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington in June 2004. but is is very unwise for any litigant to disparage the judge hearing your case. The White Hosue issued a statement about the order referring to the judge’s order as “outrageous.” Soon after, the White House issued a new statement omitting the word “outrageous.” Judges are supposed to be above personal comments. He referred to Judge Robart as this “so-called” judge. The judge granted the motion to issue an order enjoining or preventing the use of the travel ban. Even so, the judge wrote that there was “overwhelming amount” of evidence that the travel ban was directed at the Moslem religion, which is unconstitutional. ![]() ![]() Trump, the candidate’s many anti-Moslem statements. But, we wonder if the judge looked at Mr. Bush appointee, rightly pointed out that it is a “bit of a reach” to say that Donald Trump’s anti-Moselm statement in June, 2015 would make him anti-Moslem. When asked, your explanation is simply false, that suggests the government did not know what its reason was. Conway withdrew her explanation soon afterward. Only there was no such massacre in Bowling Green. Kellyanne Conway, senior adviser to the President, said on MSNBC that one of the reasons they issued the travel ban was the “massacre” in Bowling Green, Kentucky. That allowed the judge to conclude it was an improper motive.Īnd, it did not help that just as the judge was reviewing these motions and briefs. Michelle Bennet could not support her preferred reason with any facts. If the offered reason does not hold water, then the finder of fact can conclude the true motive was an improper motive, such as discriminatory bias. That constitutes a judicial admission that the proponent of the ban does not know why it instituted the travel ban. That sort of answer in court just kills your case. The government’s lawyer should have some reason planned to offer the judge, something more specific than protecting the public. So, there is no support for the travel ban, added the judge. Judge Robart replied there have been none. Then the question becomes, how many terrorist acts were conducted by persons from these seven countries. The judge, James Robart, asked why did the Trump administration implement the travel ban? When Michele Bennet, the government’s lawyer, explained it was to protect the U.S. He appears to have viewed the travel ban as unconstitutional, because it favors one religion over another. There is at least one federal statute that prohibits discrimination in regard to immigration policy. Does the it make sense? We see the same analysis when the judge reviews the administration’s travel ban. Then, you ask the employer for its explanation. It starts with an adverse personnel action that does not make sense.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |