Deceptive DOJ attorneys and Obamacare lawlessness

[rmt]

(Judge) Hanen cited multiple instances in which Justice Department attorneys claimed that Department of Homeland Security directive announced in November of 2014 would not be implemented until February 18, 2015, even though they knew that DHS had begun implementing a portion of the order that pertained to the original "deferred action for childhood arrivals" policy announced in 2012...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-orders-ethics-classes-for-deceptive-doj-attorneys/article/2591815


The Obama Administration is unlawfully diverting billions of dollars from taxpayers to insurance companies that sell Obamacare policies...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2016/05/23/walls-closing-in-on-obamacare-lawlessness/#49cb11250f26

[boutons_deux]

The Obama Administration Is Playing Nice With The Donald Trump Of The Judiciary

Judge Andrew Hanen wants to make America great again.

Hanen is the trial judge in a lawsuit challenging two major Obama administration immigration policies.

He appears to have been handpicked to hear this case (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/20/3780285/100000-innocent-peoples-home-addresses-become-public-thanks-judges-insane-order/) by the attorneys challenging these policies due to Hanen’s record of advocacy for harsher immigration policies (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/01/14/3611263/lawsuit-challenging-obamas-immigration-policy-will-be-heard-by-worst-possible-judge-for-immigrants/).

The judge not only halted the policies, he recently ordered the federal government to turn over the personal information (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/20/3780285/100000-innocent-peoples-home-addresses-become-public-thanks-judges-insane-order/) — including home addresses — of tens of thousands of immigrants, and ordered hundreds of Justice Department lawyers who have never even appeared in his courtroom to attend remedial ethics classes.
Needless to say, this places the DOJ attorneys litigating this case in an awkward position. Lawyers are trained to be deferential almost to the point of obsequiousness towards judges, and for good reason. A judge who respects the attorneys who practice before them will be more likely to take those lawyers’ arguments seriously. A judge who despises those attorneys can make their life a living hell.

But what is a lawyer to do once it is clear that a judge already despises them? That’s the difficult question the Justice Department team trying to defend administration programs that would allow about 5 million undocumented immigrants to temporarily work and remain in the country began to answer in a motion filed in Hanen’s court on Tuesday (http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/31133842/DOJ-Hanen-stay-motion.pdf).

Earlier this month, Hanen accused those lawyers of intentionally deceiving him about a minor issue in the case (DOJ claims that it merely misunderstood some of Hanen’s questions (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/20/3780285/100000-innocent-peoples-home-addresses-become-public-thanks-judges-insane-order/)).

After claiming that these lawyers lied to him, Hanen used that finding as the basis for an order punishing tens of thousands of people who have never appeared in his courtroom.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/31/3783398/obama-administration-playing-nice-donald-trump-judiciary/

Nothing but more judicial garbage. Thanks, Repugs!

[TheSanityAnnex]

The Obama Administration Is Playing Nice With The Donald Trump Of The Judiciary

Judge Andrew Hanen wants to make America great again.

Hanen is the trial judge in a lawsuit challenging two major Obama administration immigration policies.

He appears to have been handpicked to hear this case (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/20/3780285/100000-innocent-peoples-home-addresses-become-public-thanks-judges-insane-order/) by the attorneys challenging these policies due to Hanen’s record of advocacy for harsher immigration policies (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/01/14/3611263/lawsuit-challenging-obamas-immigration-policy-will-be-heard-by-worst-possible-judge-for-immigrants/).

The judge not only halted the policies, he recently ordered the federal government to turn over the personal information (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/20/3780285/100000-innocent-peoples-home-addresses-become-public-thanks-judges-insane-order/) — including home addresses — of tens of thousands of immigrants, and ordered hundreds of Justice Department lawyers who have never even appeared in his courtroom to attend remedial ethics classes.
Needless to say, this places the DOJ attorneys litigating this case in an awkward position. Lawyers are trained to be deferential almost to the point of obsequiousness towards judges, and for good reason. A judge who respects the attorneys who practice before them will be more likely to take those lawyers’ arguments seriously. A judge who despises those attorneys can make their life a living hell.

But what is a lawyer to do once it is clear that a judge already despises them? That’s the difficult question the Justice Department team trying to defend administration programs that would allow about 5 million undocumented immigrants to temporarily work and remain in the country began to answer in a motion filed in Hanen’s court on Tuesday (http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/31133842/DOJ-Hanen-stay-motion.pdf).

Earlier this month, Hanen accused those lawyers of intentionally deceiving him about a minor issue in the case (DOJ claims that it merely misunderstood some of Hanen’s questions (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/20/3780285/100000-innocent-peoples-home-addresses-become-public-thanks-judges-insane-order/)).

After claiming that these lawyers lied to him, Hanen used that finding as the basis for an order punishing tens of thousands of people who have never appeared in his courtroom.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/31/3783398/obama-administration-playing-nice-donald-trump-judiciary/

Nothing but more judicial garbage. Thanks, Repugs!




The lies the DOJ told involve a 2014 DHS directive that changed its handling of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals) (DACA). The DOJ told the court and opposing counsel that no action under the new guidelines would commence until February 2015. These statements were made both orally (January 15, 2015) and in a filing (December 19, 2014). But in reality, the guidelines were already being used to process immigrants, resulting in over 100,000 modified DACA applications being granted or renewed by the DHS prior to either of these statements.
This was caught by the court in April 2015, but the DOJ insisted its statements weren't lies, but rather the "innocent mistakes" of poorly-informed counsel, shifting the blame towards the DHS. Months later, the real truth has come out.

Now, however, having studied the Government’s filings in this case, its admissions make one conclusion indisputably clear: the Justice Department lawyers knew the true facts and misrepresented those facts to the citizens of the 26 Plaintiff States, their lawyers and this Court on multiple occasions.
[...]
In fact, the Justice Department knew that DHS was implementing the three-year renewal portion of the 2014 DHS Directive weeks before its attorneys told this Court for the very first time that no such action was being taken. Apparently, lawyers, somewhere in the halls of the Justice Department whose identities are unknown to this Court, decided unilaterally that the conduct of the DHS in granting three-year DACA renewals using the 2014 DHS Directive was immaterial and irrelevant to this lawsuit and that the DOJ could therefore just ignore it. [Doc. No. 242 at 17]. Then, for whatever reason, the Justice Department trial lawyers appearing in this Court chose not to tell the truth about this DHS activity. The first decision was certainly unsupportable, but the subsequent decision to hide it from the Court was unethical.
This isn't the DOJ lying about a minor procedural detail. This is the DOJ lying about the DACA modification central to the states' lawsuit against the US government. To purposely mislead the court and the defendants about the status of DACA applicants cannot be waved away with claims of foggy memories. It also cannot be waved away with claims that the DOJ had no idea so many applicants were already being processed using guidelines still being contested in federal court.

In its own defense, the Government has claimed it did not know before February 27, 2015, that the number of individuals that had been granted three-year deferrals between November 24, 2014, and the date of the injunction exceeded 100,000. It claims that it notified the Court very quickly after it realized that the number exceeded 100,000. This may be true, but knowing the exact number is beside the point. [...] Whether it was one person or one hundred thousand persons, the magnitude does not change a lawyer’s ethical obligations. The duties of a Government lawyer, and in fact of any lawyer, are threefold: (1) tell the truth; (2) do not mislead the Court; and (3) do not allow the Court to be misled. See MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT r. 3.3 cmts. 2 & 3 (AM. BAR ASS’N 2013). The Government’s lawyers failed on all three fronts. [...] The failure of counsel to do that constituted more than mere inadvertent omissions—it was intentionally deceptive. There is no de minimis rule that applies to a lawyer’s ethical obligation to tell the truth.
The DOJ's lies made the court's temporary restraining order a joke.

The Court issued the temporary injunction on February 16, 2015. The timing of this ruling was clearly made based upon the representations that no action would be taken by Defendants until February 18, 2015. If Plaintiffs’ counsel had known that the Government was surreptitiously acting, the Plaintiff States could have, and would have according to their representations, sought a temporary restraining order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) much earlier in the process. [...] Due to the Government’s wrongful misstatements, the Plaintiff States never got that opportunity. The misrepresentations of the Government’s attorneys were material and directly caused the Plaintiff States to forgo a valuable legal right to seek more immediate relief.
Unfortunately, the court is limited to what it can do in response to the DOJ's misconduct. Holding the DOJ responsible for the involved states' legal fees would result in the participating states effectively paying their own legal fees. It would be nothing more than moving around money collected from taxpayers and, thanks to federal taxes, robbing plaintiffs to pay plaintiffs. Instead, Judge Hanen has ordered that any DOJ lawyer who has -- or will -- appear in the courts of the 26 states involved in the lawsuit attend legal ethics courses. The courses will be provided by a legal agency unaffiliated with the DOJ, and the DOJ itself will be required to provide annual reports to the court confirming these courses are being attended.
This may seem like a laughable conclusion to such widespread, persistent dishonesty, but with the case currently in front of the Supreme Court, Judge Hanen only has a few options at his disposal. Awarding fees would be even more of a joke and he's in no position to find in favor of the State of Texas, much less the other 25 plaintiffs. So, this will have to do. More importantly, this opinion is on the record, in writing, and will serve as documentation of the DOJ's willingness to bend/break rules to serve its own purposes.


https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160521/08274534504/federal-judge-catches-doj-lying-sanctions-lawyers-with-mandatory-ethics-classes.shtml

[boutons_deux]

Hanen is a rightwing Repug scumbag, totally out of control.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm not sure why it is that when "liberal" judges strike down a law on constitutional grounds, they're considered "activists," but when "conservative" judges appear to manifestly disregard the law without any justification beyond anger -- by, for instance, grossly exceeding their jurisdictional authority and imposing sanctions that cannot possibly be enforceable -- that act is somehow defensible.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

(Judge) Hanen cited multiple instances in which Justice Department attorneys claimed that Department of Homeland Security directive announced in November of 2014 would not be implemented until February 18, 2015, even though they knew that DHS had begun implementing a portion of the order that pertained to the original "deferred action for childhood arrivals" policy announced in 2012...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-orders-ethics-classes-for-deceptive-doj-attorneys/article/2591815


The Obama Administration is unlawfully diverting billions of dollars from taxpayers to insurance companies that sell Obamacare policies...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2016/05/23/walls-closing-in-on-obamacare-lawlessness/#49cb11250f26

Handwave at his temper tantrum if you must.

[rmt]

After failing to win congressional approval for the funds, the Obama administration spent the money anyway and has now distributed about $7 billion to insurance companies to offset out-of-pocket costs for eligible consumers. The administration asserts that the health care legislation provided permanent, continuing authority to do so, and that no further appropriation was necessary.

Mr. Fisher, for one, did not agree, and his testimony is the first to reveal that some within the administration challenged the spending. Beginning in late 2013, he and his supervisor began having qualms about how the White House was planning to proceed. In combing through documents to make sure his agency (IRS) could defend the spending in future audits, Mr. Fisher said he came up empty.

“Cost-sharing reduction payments are not linked to the Internal Revenue Code, as far as I could tell, directly anywhere,” Mr. Fisher, now in the private sector, said in his deposition, made public last week by House Democrats who feared Republicans would release selected excerpts. “There is no linkage to the permanent appropriation, nor is there any link to any other appropriation that was indicating what account these funds should be paid from.”

... the Obama administration knew it did not have the authority to spend the money and did so regardless to strengthen the health care law in defiance of the Constitution. They say the administration violated a fundamental principle of American government: Congress must appropriate any money spent by the executive branch.

He (Mr. Fisher) said his objective was to make sure that he and his agency were not running afoul of the Antideficiency Act, a nearly 150-year-old statute that prohibits spending federal funds in excess of legitimate appropriations.

“This was about appropriations law,” he said. “For those of us who work in financial management, when it comes to the Antideficiency Act, which has criminal penalties associated with it, we take it very seriously.”

Mr. Fisher wanted to be careful not to break the law.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/us/politics/in-a-secret-meeting-revelations-on-the-battle-over-health-care.html?_r=1

[ElNono]

:lol pretty hilarious that an IRS employee comes up with this ammo for Republicans who have been on a crusade to underfund and pretty much dismantle that agency.