Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FEDERAL JUDGE ADMONISHED DOJ OVER APPARENT DECEPTION: ‘I WAS MADE TO LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT’
Breitbart ^ | March 19, 2015 | by ILDEFONSO ORTIZ

Posted on 03/19/2015 10:01:56 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

BROWNSVILLE, Texas — The U.S. Government lied to a federal judge, misrepresented facts and illegally gave 100,081 illegal aliens immigration status despite a pending lawsuit and an injunction. That is the argument that attorneys representing Texas and more than two dozen other states made.

During the heated court hearing Andrew Hanen, a U.S. District Court Judge, said that the apparent violation had made him look like an idiot since he initially believed the U.S. Government.

In a heated court hearing Angela Colmonero from the Texas Attorney General’s office stated that Texas had acted promptly in November 2014 upon learning of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty and had followed all the timelines set forth with a sense of urgency.

“This was done to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreparable damage to the state,” Colmonero said referring to the cost that the individuals would bring and to the incentive for further illegal immigration. “You can’t put toothpaste back in the tube.”

During the hearings leading to an injunction handed down by Judge Hanen, attorney’s with the Department of Justice claimed that if an injunction was filed nothing would be done. That wasn’t the case, the Texas attorney said.

“The defendant did the exact opposite and gave 100,000 renewals for a term of three years under the expanded DACA,” Colmonero said. “The defendant didn’t inform the court until March 3—15 days after the injunction was filed.”

According to Colmonero’s statements, the program known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) was implemented in 2012; however in November 2014 it was expanded, changing the time of the permits from two years to three years. Therefore the permits issued by the U.S. Government are a violation.

The coalition of states asked the court to give them early access as to the defendant’s...

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; amnesty; daca; doj; executiveamnesty; hanen; obama; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: Jim Robinson

All of this court stuff has been caused by the Republican GOPES (gop elite statists) refusing to stand ground and duty to defend their constitutional separation of powers. By first defunding those presidential amnesty edicts even it meant changing senate rules to a simple majority vote citing the Hanen ruling as their excuse. Which would have restricted its use.

Levin explained an argument I call singular application advanced by some lefty professor (Georgetown ?).Claiming that Hanen’s ruling would apply only to those individuals named in the suit. But not overall to the unnamed others affected by the process and effect the government was taking that the suit was challaging. Levin then questioned that position by asking if that would apply also to Roe vs Wade as well as other SCOTUS rulings.

Not sure if that applies here because I’m not clear on what this Texas case is about from reading this . But it’s mentioned here because that seems to be where the regime is heading next.


21 posted on 03/20/2015 12:54:59 AM PDT by mosesdapoet (Some of my best rebuttals are in FR's along with meaningless venting no one reads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo
It’s impeachment, removal from office, conviction.

Sorry, you are wrong. It’s just as I stated it - "impeachment, conviction and removal from office”.

First, Impeachment: This takes place in the House of Representatives. Once the House has passed a Bill of Impeachment, the process passed to the Senate.

Second, Conviction: The Senate is responsible for holding a trial based on the Bill of Impeachment sent to them by the House of Representatives. Only upon conviction by the Senate does the process move to the third phase.

Third, Removal from Office: upon conviction by the Senate, the person convicted is removed from office.

This is how the process works, sir. It is set up this way in the Constitution. No person is removed from office without conviction by the US senate, as you would have us believe. It just does not happen that way.

22 posted on 03/20/2015 1:39:13 AM PDT by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

Might make others think twice before acting illegally just because their boss tells them to.


When I worked for the Federal gov. my name was on the contracts. I did not obey orders from anyone in awarding contracts in accordance with the law. It would be me, not them, who went to jail had I broken the law. It was under-stood that you did not ask people to break the law. It was dishonorable.


23 posted on 03/20/2015 2:21:38 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Obama is a liar and a criminal. Any judge who believes a known liar and criminal, who is the subject of a court case, needs to rethink his approach to the law.


24 posted on 03/20/2015 2:22:24 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

>>he sure can hold numerous underlings, henchmen and factotums in contempt and issue bench warrants for their arrest.<<

That’s how Watergate went from a “second-rate burglary” to a national scandal. Arrest the lowest guy and watch him turn over on his boss. And so on, up the food chain.

How long do you think Valerie Jarrett would stay true to the half breed little boy, if faced with lots of jail time?


25 posted on 03/20/2015 2:52:30 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

IF I lied to the judge I would be arrested.

Arrest them Hanen and as well as their boss Holder.

Then you can go after Holder’s boss, Obama.


26 posted on 03/20/2015 3:15:26 AM PDT by eartick (Been to the line in the sand and liked it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KitJ
Judge Andrew, you ARE an idiot. Let’s see what we can do to correct this. Hold these people accountable. Please.

Unless he orders disbarment for all DOJ attorneys involved, and a revocation of status and work permits for the 100k, his words are meaningless.

27 posted on 03/20/2015 3:17:37 AM PDT by montag813 (Pray for Israel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Bookmark.


28 posted on 03/20/2015 4:07:24 AM PDT by SunTzuWu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

” I’m not going to let one federal judge stand in my way.” Culture of corruption.


29 posted on 03/20/2015 4:26:29 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tai_Chung
That’s 100,081 violations of the law. Nothing will change until people start going to jail.

Indeed! Judge Hanen should start by holding all the DOJ attorneys in contempt and jailing them until they talk about where the directive to deceive the court initiated.

30 posted on 03/20/2015 4:47:10 AM PDT by The_Victor (If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: concernedcitizen76
From all accounts, this judge is not about to buckle.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This judge will buckle. He will wilt the same way Judge David O. Carter did with Obama’s eligibility . And...Carter was a former Marine too! ( Yes, I do mean “former”.)

This judge will be given an offer he can't refuse.

31 posted on 03/20/2015 5:01:30 AM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Bttt


32 posted on 03/20/2015 5:17:10 AM PDT by Guenevere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

until congressman do their job and start investigations with actual consequences...
until judges apply the law and put people behind bars...
nothing will change.


33 posted on 03/20/2015 5:22:47 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

This is the judge who granted the injunction. He DID do something. And took a lot of flack for it. Maybe we can just back off every once in a while?


34 posted on 03/20/2015 7:18:36 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor

These DOJ should be disbarred for intentionally misleading a federal judge by presenting knowingly false information in their filings.

The problem is that no prosecutor will take action. The whole system is corrupt.


35 posted on 03/20/2015 7:26:26 AM PDT by Repealthe17thAmendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Repealthe17thAmendment

Greg Abbott (TX) was just on “Americas Newsroom” talking to Bill Hemmer and said “The executive action could be struck down if the judge rules agains the administration.” He said he expects that to happen.


36 posted on 03/20/2015 8:09:33 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather (Congratulations Bibi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Governor Abbott: Obama Admin. Attorneys ‘Flat Out Lied’ About Implementing Immigration Action

3-20-15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xbi7WWW4MI&feature=youtu.be


37 posted on 03/20/2015 10:27:42 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather (Congratulations Bibi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

We’re probably mixing terminology here.

It’s not a judicial ‘conviction’. It’s a Impeachment conviction, or simply successful impeachment. If you read below you’ll note that for punishments beyond simple removal from office, there needs to be another Judicial Indictment, trial and so forth.

I’m referencing Article 1, Section 3

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

But things get iffy from Article 2 Section 4

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Muddles the issue further with different syntax.

So you’re line of reasoning is correct if you mean impeachment conviction, and my line appears to be correct if you mean judicial conviction.

Please tell me you’re not referencing wikipedia, The entry on the Constitution is one of the worst entries I’ve come across.


38 posted on 03/20/2015 12:39:18 PM PDT by Usagi_yo (If you're not leading, you're struggling to be relevant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

I am referencing my pocket Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 5 and Article 1, Section 3, Paragraphs 6 and 7.

And yes, you are correct that I am describing the process of Impeachment, Conviction and Removal from Office as described and established by the Constitution, and not any judicial proceedings that might occur post removal.


39 posted on 03/20/2015 4:04:04 PM PDT by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson