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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Activist judges, presidents with executive orders, and a supine Congress with no backbone to stand up to it.
Rather let them get away with it and hope it blows up in their face than stand up to it and get called names.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
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'
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.
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.
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.
How about you provide that evidence that you have not been lying to me repeatedly?
WTF is this??
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
While I only dispute your assertions to the extent that I date it the conflicts back to the 1950's, and probably consider the Korean War to be the start of it, that's not what anyone who uses the term WWIII means. As you probably knew.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.