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?
NYT wrote about it, but it's a paywalled source. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05...
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...
As requested: This is the order
And this is an editorial by the Washington Post
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
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.
Apparently you've not been keeping up with the degree of unethical behavior by the DoJ in this case.
And you are a credible authority on this... because?
Even IF he doesn't have the authority to do so, he has fired a beautiful warning shot across the bow of the DoJ and given serious ammunition to each of the 26 states fighting the unlawful amnesty which can & will be used in state courts given the behavior of DoJ lawyers before this judge.
So finally, you acknowledge that this is in your opinion... which unlike that of the judge, has zero legal authority.
How exactly do you envision that happening? The republican controlled House & Senate (which for the most part agree with the State's suit) impeaching them?
Yeah, good luck with that.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
No, that's just a piss-poor editorial of the Washington Post defending the DoJ -
The judge sets the enforcement for 26 PLAINTIFF states (not all 50) - Those are the states suing the Federal government that the DoJ is defending. The 26 states listed are part of the trial and are subject to the judges ruling and, presumably, will go along with the punishment.
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
Really?
Wanna ask the judge? Why not read his ruling... which in the end is TFA
Here is just one juicy bit:
It seems he disagrees with you.
Again, false.
It appears he has gone as far to bar any of the lawyers who have given false testimony in his court room from ever arguing in his court room again (given he can't disbar them himself)... it's punishment to ensure that future lawyers who come before him from the DoJ (or to courts in the states which make up this case) are reminded of the importance of ethics when acting as a lawyer?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
None of that will happen. Federal judges have been asserting themselves as a co-equal branch of government, and not the presidents bitches, for some time now. The punishments for DoJ lawyers who try to fuck with the federal court system have been growing gradually over time. They'll keep growing until those lawyers start taking the court system seriously.
The entire point of the justice system is that you game the system within the rules. The DoJ has forgotten that of late, or just doesn't seem to think that federal judges are important. Either way, we've seen more and more evidence that federal judges are pushing back, and escalating over time. Don't piss off a federal judge, and especially don't blatantly go out of your way to do so when your work for the government.
The judges will eventually win this fight. Never doubt it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.