Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Justice Dept. objects to judge’s order for ethics classes, disclosure of immigrant data

The Washington Times ^ | May 31, 2016 | Andrea Noble 

The Justice Department fired back at the Texas judge who ordered its attorneys to undertake ethics classes after finding they misled the court in a high-profile challenge to President Obama’s deportation amnesty — saying the order was beyond the judge’s authority and would cost millions to implement.
In a motion filed Tuesday asking for a stay of the order, in which U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen said DOJ attorneys were “intentionally deceptive,” government attorneys outlined their objections to both the training requirements and his requirement that by June 10 the Department of Homeland Security turn over identifying information for 50,000 immigrants who entered the United States illegally and are now participants in a government program that shields them from deportation.
“The sanctions ordered by the Court far exceed the bounds of appropriate remedies for what this Court concluded were intentional misrepresentations, a conclusion that was reached without proper procedural protections and that lacks sufficient evidentiary support,” DOJ attorneys wrote their motion for the stay.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

The Obama Administration's Disrespect For The Rule Of Law Hits A New Low

Forbes ^ | May 31, 2016 | George Leef 

The lawlessness of the Obama administration has been astounding.
Entire books have been written about President Obama’s notion that he should be and is free to do whatever he wants (such as Lawless by Professor David Bernstein, which I wrote about here). No doubt more will be.
One remarkably brazen instance I recently learned about is his administration’s funneling of money from lawsuit settlements into the pockets of left-wing activist groups. It makes you wonder if there is anything this administration won’t try to get away with.
Following the collapse of the housing bubble, the federal government initiated several grandstanding, politically motivated lawsuits against big banks for their allegedly fraudulent conduct with regard to secondary market mortgage-backed securities. Rather than fight the feds and their almost bottomless well of taxpayer dollars, several of the defendants decided to cut their losses and settle.
That enabled federal prosecutors to claim victory and wave some prominent scalps. Siphoning off billions of bank capital is bad enough, but the rule of law problem emerges in two of the settlement agreements, under which the banks (Citigroup and Bank of America) were able to reduce their penalties by making “donations” to favored left-wing activist groups.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...