Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders 'Intentionally Deceptive' DOJ Lawyers To Take Remedial Ethics Class (zerohedge.com)
According to the Daily Caller, "The judge overseeing the challenge by 26 states to President Obama's executive action in immigration has ordered all lawyers 'employed at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. who appears, or seeks to appear, in a court (state or federal) in any of the 26 Plaintiff States annually attend a legal ethics course.'"
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Zero Hedge: In writing the ruling, Hanen quoted from the scene in "Miracle on 34th Street" when the boy is called to testify to Santa's existence and saying that everyone knows not to tell a lie to the court. Hanen went on to say that that the Justice Department lawyers have an even stricter duty: Tell the truth, don't mislead the court, and don't allow it to be mislead by others. "The Government's lawyers failed on all three fronts. The actions of the DHS should have been brought as early as December 19, 2014. The failure of counsel to do that constituted more than mere inadvertent omissions -- it was intentionally deceptive." Judge Hanen wrote in his ruling. Hanen ordered that the classes must be "taught by at least one recognized ethics expert who is unaffiliated with the Justice Department." I wonder if the judge could order the lawyers to jail for contempt of court?
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Zero Hedge: In writing the ruling, Hanen quoted from the scene in "Miracle on 34th Street" when the boy is called to testify to Santa's existence and saying that everyone knows not to tell a lie to the court. Hanen went on to say that that the Justice Department lawyers have an even stricter duty: Tell the truth, don't mislead the court, and don't allow it to be mislead by others. "The Government's lawyers failed on all three fronts. The actions of the DHS should have been brought as early as December 19, 2014. The failure of counsel to do that constituted more than mere inadvertent omissions -- it was intentionally deceptive." Judge Hanen wrote in his ruling. Hanen ordered that the classes must be "taught by at least one recognized ethics expert who is unaffiliated with the Justice Department." I wonder if the judge could order the lawyers to jail for contempt of court?
I'm not saying the story's wrong, but could you have found better sources than the Daily Caller and Zerohedge?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
When a judge rules that a member of the Peasant Class has been intentionally deceptive; they do hard time for the crime of perjury. Has anyone written an app to cross reference: wealth, political affiliation, political connections, legal immigration status, and whether you are a member ofthe Bar, etc. to decide what laws apply to you and in what way. It gets complicated.
Nixon can't wipe 18.5 minutes of magnetic audio tape but Hillary can wipe all the platters on a magnetic hard drive. See, it gets tricky.
Both articles quote the judge's order and then... y'know... LINK the order.
And you scream "I'll believe it when a source I approve of says it?" (HINT: And not the judge's actual order...)
Bet you would've said the same if Slashdot had posted a Daily Kos article about a judge slamming Bush' DoJ...
Whose attorney general Eric Holder waited until after the statute of limitation expired to decide whether or not to prosecute banks, then went to work for the same banks at a 10 million+/ year salary ?
The same DOJ whose attorney general Loretta Lynch has been doing such a wonderful job on defending constitutional rights like proclaiming she would prosecute anti muslim hate speech in the wake of the San Bernadino attacks, would not prosecute Lois Lerner for abuse of office at the IRS, and will likely let Hillary skate on her violations of national security law ?
Well I am shocked that attorneys from that DOJ would have ethics violations.
What about suspension without pay or being fired. When a lawyer purgers himself, they should actually be held accountable. This is why conservatives hate big government.
The judge could jail them if he wanted to have an actual effect on the ethically challenged DOJ lawyers. These ethics classes will be similar to court ordered driving safety classes for DUI cases. They'll show up for class to avoid fines or jail time, but they'll roll their eyes and consider it a patronizing waste of their time. And they would be correct. These lawyers aren't ignorant of what constitutes ethical behavior. They just don't care.
No surprise here. The 26 states don't have a case, found a sympathetic Republican-appointed judge who made a ruling favorable to the states, and judge retaliated against DOJ because the Obama Administration is moving ahead while repealing the decision. Republicans are always screaming about judicial activism — except their own, of course.
No wonder this site has fallen
Now that everyone is a nerd, anti-social nerds are a dying breed.
Activist judges have taken over the country, in conspiracy with lawyers. The constitution is replaced by whatever they pull out of their arseholes, and they shove that down your throat, judicial terrorism.
Lynch and Holder have run the most overtly corrupt (and therefore like most corrupt) DOJ in history.
I don't care much for Trump but I sure as hell hope he wins at this point because we need someone with the stones to actually look into and prosecute members of the former administration for their misdeeds. I can understand why that isn't a precedent most politicians want to see set, but its the only way we are going to get things cleaned up.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Lately?! Lately Slashdot has cut the scooped time down to a day or two, a huge improvement over a few months ago, of course nothing like the good old days, when Slashdot regularly had it first.
That can't be compatible with the 8th.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So?
You quote left-wing rags, founded and subsidized by sociopaths and psychopaths, ALL THE TIME!
You sound like Mr. Pot calling Mr. Kettle "black". (Or African-American for those of you who don't know American Idioms.)
Oh, Please try to keep up!
The Obama DoJ has a long history of questionable ethics and former AG Eric Holder was held in contempt by Congress for stonewalling and withholding documents. A judge can refer any counsel to the bar for disbarment proceedings over ethics violations, as what has happened to one of the Prenda lawyers. Seeing firsthand evidence of the DoJ ethics in the case before him, this was his shot over the bow that he was not leaving out that option.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
What, lawyers lie to the court? Where will the world get to?
Soon we'll have judges decisions marred by their personal political beliefs.
Really, Zero Hedge? Did you outsource your writing to China?
This post is spinning so fast it's hard to read.
What was *really* said and which side is in trouble?
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
So?
You quote left-wing rags, founded and subsidized by sociopaths and psychopaths, ALL THE TIME!
I do? Maybe you've looked through my posting history and saw something I'm forgetting but I try to keep my sources pretty respectable. And yes this means I try to avoid citing the HuffPo.
The Washington Times is not a reliable source of information. I'm sure they report lots of good stories, but if you go to the Washington Times as a primary source it's really hard not to come away with a severely distorted view of events.
I stole this Sig
I follow Supreme Court law blogs including Volokh, so on this story I'm dtf, but it is puzzling why slashdot has it.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The same judge who took (and is still taking!) Orly Taitz' birther case seriously. Really.
So the deal is that a judge who is so unethical and biased that his decisions are guaranteed to be reversed on appeal still has some power -- before he makes a decision. So he keeps the cases going on and on, throwing around the full power of a federal judge, even though he's a nationally recognized disgrace. Basically if WorldNetDaily had the power to appoint judges, they'd have a hard time topping this clown.
Why not impeached yet? It would require Congressional action, and his antics draw conservative praise while not actually causing any long-term harm since they'll be overruled. So he's there for life.
They should just mandate that for *ALL* government staff involved in legal proceedings directly or indirectly.
Additionally maybe they should require the equivalent classes for non-judicial/legal professionals on a similiar interval to remind them ALL they're supposed to be following the law, even if nobody outside the government is. (And why if that becomes true, it might be time to relax some of the laws they have passed in the meantime.)
Stereotype much?
This is a legal and political story.
If the Judge is not just spouting, he can report them to the Bar.
Or hold them in contempt.
Have gnu, will travel.
You know, if an ordinary human being lies to a judge, in a court, under oath, it's called perjury. You go to jail for that.
Oh, these are lawyers, they get special treatment? Right, so there's a higher legal standard for officers of the court. They are never, never to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. They've done that too.
A remedial ethics class is the merest slap on the wrist. What is called for is prosecution and disbarment. But you know, these are DOJ lawyers, so apparently they have a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
Wasn't Lady Justice supposed to be blind?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Really, this is a questionable action which will be most likely overturned. The court can not arbitrarily order some lawyers to be required to perform actions that other lawyers do not need to do in order to appear before the court. They are placing an arbitrary barrier in front of a section of people, which can be likened to poll tests to prevent them from appearing in court.
This case is also about immigration and enforcement of immigration laws. Laws that are FEDERAL laws, not STATE laws. District Attorneys have always had the say in terms of what crimes get prosecuted, especially when there are budget considerations (i.e. the prosecution office only has money to pay for 10 prosecutors for the year, and those prosecutors can only handle X amount of cases due to the time those cases take to prosecute). This is a STATE Judge slapping FEDERAL Attorneys because the Attorneys have made a different decision on priority of cases to bring before FEDERAL court. Now just imagine the uproar if a FEDERAL Judge did that to a STATE DA....
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Yes there are automated aggregators now, including Google. Slashdot still relies entirely on human editors. The main benefit of Slashdot is the discussion, not the speed of breaking stories.
"Slashdot is not the Wall Street Journal. It is not The New York Times. Slashdot is an informal meeting ground. A town hall. A pub. A bulletin board in the quad on campus. Here people might not properly capitalize a proper noun. They might transpose letters in 'thier'. They might use jargon that isn't in oxford. And all of that is OK with me." -Cmdr Taco https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
You're welcome to go somewhere else if you want the most up to date breaking stories, but we have decreased the window of old stories drastically since the site changed ownership hands a few months ago. Looking back at comments from 16 years ago though, and not much has changed with the "this isn't breaking news" or "this isn't news for nerds" gripes. Guess it's somewhat of a hobby.
Past tense of mislead is misled. The word pronounced like "led" that's spelled "lead" means element 82.
You sound like Mr. Pot calling Mr. Kettle "black". (Or African-American for those of you who don't know American Idioms.)
I'm not sure why you think that phrase has anything to do with African-Americans. It doesn't.
Or is this some kind of weird attempt at poking fun at political correctness?
This man is a joke as a judge. Has the ethics of a typical neo-con that is attached to the kock bros. pants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_S._Hanen
"Andrew Scott Hanen (born December 10, 1953) is a United States federal judge of the Federal District Court in Brownsville, Texas"
FEDERAL JUDGE.
The federal government has failed and will even lie in a court of law to betray its citizens.
Wait for Donald Trump to be president.
This news - which is no doubt going to be suppressed to a massive extent by the oligarchy-controlled Big Media - is precisely what will help Donald Trump into office.
Americans are sick of the betrayal by their broken - criminally treasonous - government.
And kick out all illegals.
So, Trump could be the best politician of all time. Why? He would not follow up with his promises. And everyone would *sigh* in relief. I'll definitely admit the difference between Justin Trudeau and Trump is not much. Trudeau won because we hated the bullshit pc party, fucking around with religion(please, Canada is not a religious state, sorry we don't need that) , killing all scientific endeavour in Canada in the most incredulous manner Canada has ever seen. Or making us have some variety of national fever(fuck off, were alright, just don't see the point of ) . Trump runs on quite the opposite end of the spectrum. etween in a country - but, not so much so that certain to break it aka go with political correctness vs ummm no. Break the promise. Most people sigh. Some don't.... Generally the people that believe in the good of man.
You can't impeach someone for being a paranoid and incompetent.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Impeachment is a political act, not a criminal one. They can impeach someone for anything, such as corruption, incompetence, or because it's Tuesday.
Impeachment is a political act, not a criminal one. They can impeach someone for anything, such as corruption, incompetence, or because it's Tuesday.
Nope. Federal impeachment, while it obviously has political dimensions (duh) is for criminal offenses only. You need at least some pretext of criminal misconduct to use it. Here is what the US Constitution says about the impeachment of federal office holders:
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.
Impeachment is effectively an indictment, which is followed by a trial. Impeachment of a federal judge is a big deal, because the trial has to be conducted by the entire US senate. In the entire history of the US there have been fifteen federal judges impeached, resulting in a total of eight convictions. None of them were for incompetence or Tuesday-ism.
I wonder where people get their civics knowledge.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You sound like Mr. Pot calling Mr. Kettle "black". (Or African-American for those of you who don't know American Idioms.)
I'm not sure why you think that phrase has anything to do with African-Americans. It doesn't.
Or is this some kind of weird attempt at poking fun at political correctness?
Duh... Even as a Euro...
Calling someone black is frowned upon, with African-American as the substitute.
Thus Mr. Pot calling Mr. Kettle African-American. Yes, for political correctness.
"I really doubt that Trump would intentionally start WWIII. But he might insult someone else enough that it got started because of him."
You were a bit late to the party:
1. Hillary's husband Bill lit the fuse on WWIII when he appeased and ignored AQ as it arose under Bin Laden, and famously chose not to react to the bombing of the USS Cole, refused to kill Bin Laden, and bragged about his amazing agreement with North Korea that guaranteed North Korea would never get nuclear bombs.
2. George W Bush got into the office and infamously got all discombobulated and distracted from AQ in Afghanistan to run off and finish his daddy's unfinished business in Iraq. He did nothing about the already nuclear Pakistan (other than name them "evil"), left Bill Clinton's amazing act of gullibility in place in North Korea, and continues his daddy's policy of partnering with the evil Saudis who are half (the other half being Iran) of the evil intellectual and financial base of the militant Jihadi terrorism that now plagues the entire planet.
3. Obama got into office and, with Hillary Clinton as his SecState, celebrated the surrender of the few gains made in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hillary acted like a kindergarten teacher with a stupid prop "reset button" with Russia (with whom relations are now the worst since the Cold War) and she and Obama and their friends in airconditioned San Francisco "social media" companies lit the fuse on the "Arab Spring". They openly bragged that this embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood (which was the last fragment of Hitler's NAZI war machine) was a great thing. This action and the complete bumbling of Syria and Iraq have created and tolerated the rise of ISIS/ISIL, a modern terrorist state. You could some of Hillary's bragging about her role in all this here except that in this campaign year the Democrat-run State Department has scrubbed it from history.
Under Clinton/Bush/Obama China is rising to be a hostile global power, Russia is back to its old evil ways of arming bad guys around the planet and grabbing land from other countries, NATO has so degraded that it cannot currently defend or deter against anybody or anything. At worst a Trump presidency allowing it degrade further would have no actual impact because it's already so weak. At best, he might shock the allies enough to wake them up about their own needs for defense. Under the trifecta of bad presidents previously named, the US has been rapidly disarming, Russia and China are rapidly modernizing and arming, and every nasty theocrat and/or dictator is going nuclear and developing ballistic missiles.
In short: There's already a third war raging on this planet that is of global scope. Nobody now could possible accidentally trigger what is already underway. Obama has now given Iran (the planet's previously greatest sponsor of global Islamic terror) about a hundred billion dollars and a clear path to nukes. The fires are just kindling all about a significant part of the globe and all that's needed is for the mad mullahs of Tehran to get their nukes. I'd give it ten years before a Pearl Harbor-style day but on a massive scale.
The US Senate confirmed Obama AG Lynch to her post right after she explicitly told them in her hearings that she had no intention of upholding her oath if confirmed.
Senators of both parties love to pontificate on high matters of principles, but they actually do what Wall St pays them (via campaign cash) to do. Obama did not want an AG who would uphold the laws, and neither did all the Wall St people who funded his campaigns with more cash than any before in history. Obama picked and nominated her, and the Senate Republicans (supposedly his opponents) joined with his Senate Democrat friends to confirm her, just as they have funded all his programs rather than actually trying to oppose him by defunding ANY of his actions.
Human beings are imperfect and easily corrupted, which is why you CANNOT ever have a massive government that is not corrupt.
The best you can do is to have a small government that puts as little power as possible into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, and keep that government out of as much of the society and the lives of the citizens as possible. The moment you let government grow and get involved in stuff is does not absolutely need to be involved in, people with money discover that they can game the system and make even more money and get even more power by influencing that government...... and the corruptible people in that government start to enjoy the corruption. The whole thing then becomes an amplifying feedback loop.
The best way to win, is not to play (the big government game)
The original poster probably posted it because these are the same sort of government lawyers who always insist they are soooooper ethical and can be trusted (fine print redacted, of course) with warrantless wiretaps (from secret courts) of our phones, e-mail and other internet snooping, and even backdoors into all our tech gear.
You Obama fanatics need to lighten up and stop screaming any time a post occurs that could possibly taint your guy. He's safely in office through until January and could murder a guy on live TV and be confident the gutless GOP in congress would do nothing while his own party would celebrate and start a number of tax-exempt online groups for infamous actual geriatric WWII NAZI collaborator George Soros to funnel his evil money through to start justifying the deed; He got a lot of the crap you wanted done - the nation has indeed been "fundamentally transformed". There's no need to keep pretending he's an ethical good guy. You can finally just accept that he's done all the nasty privacy-robbing, economy-trashing and foreign policy havok wreaking. You should be celebrating all these achievements. Gays can marry! Yay! Everything else, no matter how bad, is A-OK.
The federal government has failed and will even lie in a court of law to betray its citizens.
Wait for Donald Trump to be president.
And kick out all illegals.
I get the white power thing, I really do. I don't agree with it, but I get it.
But to hold Trump up as honest, or a straight shooter is completely divorced from reality.
Clinton lies the way most politicians lie, saying things that may be technically true in 1% of cases and holding them out as generalities. Trump... Trump just panders to everyone and anyone in range with flat out "pants on fire" lies.
He'll contradict himself in pretty any speech that he isn't reading from prepared remarks. He was for going into Libya until he wasn't. He was for the Iraq war until he wasn't. The family values/character party candidate is on his third wife, bragged about cheating and referred to his bouts of VD as his own Vietnam. The cognitive dissonance is deafening.
How about you provide that evidence that you have not been lying to me repeatedly?
App appers are appy to app your law app-licability app, because app appers love apping apps!
Apps!
We recently heard about the Sun Micro-systems vs Google case where the lawyers essentially lied about the relevance of the facts.
There needs to be a worse punishment than standing in the naughty corner, which is the current punishment. Otherwise it becomes the cost of 'doing business' and will result in 'shopping' for a suitably ignorant judge.
WTF is this??
" The federal government has failed and will even lie in a court of law to betray its citizens.
Wait for Donald Trump to be president"
Wait for what? People that think we have a king that runs this place now, are the ones that think a new king will change everything. The issue isn't the king it's the kingdom's subjects.(lying, immoral DOJ lawyers are not going to change, no matter who the king is). Much easier to put the problem of fixing it it on someone or something else, avoid personal responsibility it's the new American way.
Since you apparently can only judge a book by its cover:
YOU are not a critical thinker
YOU are too lazy to be objective
YOU are not able to coming to an independent judge
YOU are the kind of person who makes decisions based on ideological purity and truth
YOU are not the kind of person who should be trusted for advice or honesty
A person who is a critical thinker can read Pravda, Das Kapital, and the scribbles of uneducated slaves, and still extract useful information. You are claiming you are incapable of doing that if the color of the book is wrong or if the author is someone you do not like or of the wrong skin color! You are not much to judge or to give advice!
Since you apparently can only judge a book by its cover:
YOU are not a critical thinker
YOU are too lazy to be objective
YOU are not able to coming to an independent judge
YOU are the kind of person who makes decisions based on ideological purity and truth
YOU are not the kind of person who should be trusted for advice or honesty
A person who is a critical thinker can read Pravda, Das Kapital, and the scribbles of uneducated slaves, and still extract useful information. You are claiming you are incapable of doing that if the color of the book is wrong or if the author is someone you do not like or of the wrong skin color! You are not much to judge or to give advice!
You're (ironically) making a lot of unwarranted (though mostly unfalsifiable) assumptions, including a bizarre closing claim that I'm racist all based on the fact I try to avoid relying on unreliable sources as support for my arguments???
Contrary to your portrayal some of my most read sources are viewpoints that I strongly disagree with, and as opposed to making decisions based on "ideological purity and truth" I'd say my actual flaw is being a contrarian who resists ideological purity in favour of pragmatic goals.
The problem is the Washington Times and similar sources is they're actively and aggressively trying to persuade you of their world view and crafting the narrative to achieve that goal, a critical thinker would realize that although the report contains elements of truth it's non-trivial to determine which elements are the truth.
My objection was sending someone to the Washington Times as a primary source, the reasons for a person to do that is if they're trying to deceive the audience or if they're already so deceived themselves that they think they've found a good source.
I stole this Sig
Accusing the DoJ lawyers of deliberate acts of untruthfulness, Judge Hanen wrote, “The United States Department of Justice has now admitted making statements that clearly did not match the facts. It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements.”
I see that perjury is only considered a crime if you don't work for the government.
Calling someone black is frowned upon? Fuck off. Is calling someone white frowned upon? There's no negative or racist connotations to call someone black, unless you're also implying something else, where the else part is the racist part.
THE pot calling THE kettle black. Get the real meaning now?
For god's sake, whatever you do, don't tell us what the DOJ lawyers did.