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 Generals office stated that Texas had acted promptly in November 2014 upon learning of President Barack Obamas 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 cant put toothpaste back in the tube.
During the hearings leading to an injunction handed down by Judge Hanen, attorneys with the Department of Justice claimed that if an injunction was filed nothing would be done. That wasnt 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 didnt inform the court until March 315 days after the injunction was filed.
According to Colmoneros 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 defendants...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
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.
Sorry, you are wrong. Its 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.
Might make others think twice before acting illegally just because their boss tells them to.
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.
>>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?
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.
Unless he orders disbarment for all DOJ attorneys involved, and a revocation of status and work permits for the 100k, his words are meaningless.
Bookmark.
” I’m not going to let one federal judge stand in my way.” Culture of corruption.
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.
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.
Bttt
until congressman do their job and start investigations with actual consequences...
until judges apply the law and put people behind bars...
nothing will change.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.