The Overbearing DOJ

[American Patriot]

Ok, I ran out of ideas for titles... lol

ICE has just filed a lawsuit against the DOJ and Napalitano for making them go against the Constitution!!!!!!!!!!

[Malsua]

The government fighting each other. It just goes to show you how out of touch the liberals are.

[American Patriot]

I'll post a news article when one appears. haha Yeah. Out of touch. Maybe they will kill each other next leaving us with nothing to worry about but clean up on aisle five....

[American Patriot]

WND EXCLUSIVE

Obama sued over latest attack on Constitution

Legal demand includes 'all records' of presidential order

Published: 7 days ago

by Bob UnruhEmail | Archive Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.More ↓

Subscribe to author feed

• Tweet
• 
• 
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

Judicial Watch, the Washington-based organization that monitors government misbehavior and challenges it in court when needed, has filed a lawsuit demanding from the Obama administration the details of the new amnesty program that was installed by executive order.


Congress several times has rejected amnesty for illegal aliens, but Obama’s plan allows immigrants who can prove they arrived in the U.S. before they reached 16, and now are 30 or younger, to obtain special permission to work in the U.S.


They also must have been living in the country at least five years and be in school or have graduated or served in the military.


Tens of thousands of applicants lined up this week as Obama’s order took effect.


Now Judicial Watch has announced a lawsuit in federal court in Washington against the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security.


It is seeking documents related to the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” order from Obama that was issued in June.
Judicial Watch said the new Obama policy allows certain illegal aliens to avoid deportation and take work in the United States.


The case pursues records that first were cited in a June 22 Freedom of Information Act request: “All records concerning … the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to exercise prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children. … Such records include, but are not limited to, opinions, memoranda, or legal advice rendered by the Office of Legal Counsel. ”


While Obama’s Department of Justice admitted it received the FOIA request, there has been no response even though the deadline was July 24.


The Washington watchdog group said it also submitted a similar request to the DHS in June, but the agency, under Secretary Janet Napolitano, also has not responded.


“This new Obama amnesty program is an attack on the constitutional role of Congress and runs roughshod over existing immigration law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.


“It is no surprise that the Obama administration doesn’t want to share the legal basis for this unilateral executive action and is violating Freedom of Information Act law to keep the American people in the dark,” he said.


“President Obama and his political appointees are abusing their offices with this new amnesty program. If the administration were confident about the legality of its actions, it wouldn’t be keeping secret the legal basis for President Obama’s extraordinary decision to unilaterally change the law.”


The AP reported thousands lined up starting yesterday to apply for the special status created by Obama.
“It’s something I have been waiting for since I was two years old,” Bupendra Ram, a 25-year-old communications graduate student in Fullerton, Calif., told the AP. “This offers us an opportunity to fulfill the dreams I’ve had since I was a child.”
Obama’s maneuvers have been criticized by likely GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.


Observers note that the strategy is earning Obama support among the Latino population in the run up to the 2012 election. But members of Congress, who rejected similar plans earlier, said Obama simply sidestepped the legal process and created a backdoor amnesty.


In Arizona, which has taken a strong stand against illegal immigration, Gov. Jan Brewer took the issue into her own hands.
Brewer signed an executive order stating that participants in the federal program don’t qualify for state benefits and identification, such as a driver’s license. She emphasized Obama’s decree does not make illegal aliens legal and won’t entitle them to Arizona public benefits.

[American Patriot]

No... that's not right. That's not what was stated on television. But it's yet one more lawsuit against this administration.

[American Patriot]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...tation/?page=2

Got it. God, this stuff is "well hidden".

Google and everyone else is hiding this stuff.

Immigration agents sue to stop Obama’s non-deportation policy

By Stephen Dinan
-
The Washington Times

Updated: 12:46 p.m. on Thursday, August 23, 2012

Saying they’re fed up with being told they can’t do their jobs, 10 immigration agents on Thursday sued the Obama administration to try to halt the president’s new non-deportation policy and an earlier memo instructing them not to go after rank-and-file illegal immigrants.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Texas, adds a legal controversy to the political fight that has been brewing over President Obama’s immigration policies, which have steadily narrowed the range of immigrants the government is targeting for deportation.

The 10 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and deportation officers said Mr. Obama’s policies force them to choose between enforcing the law and being reprimanded by superiors, or listening to superiors and violating their own oaths of office and a 1996 law that requires them to demand proof of legal status from those they suspect are not in the country legally.

Upping the ante, the agents are being represented by a high-profile lawyer, Kris W. Kobach, secretary of state in Kansas and the chief promoter of state immigration crackdowns such as Arizona’s tough law.

“ICE is at a point now where agents are being told to break federal law, they’re pretty much told that any illegal alien under age of 31 is going to be let go. You can imagine, these law enforcement officers are being put in a horrible position,” Mr. Kobach said.

Last week, at Mr. Obama’s direction, the Homeland Security Department began taking applications from those 30 years of age or younger who came to the U.S. as children and who have kept a fairly clean criminal record. They are being granted “deferred action,” which is an official notice they are not to be deported, and will be allowed to obtain work permits to stay and get jobs legally in the U.S.

ICE officials didn’t have an immediate comment on the lawsuit, but the Obama administration has repeatedly defended the legality of its actions.

At a House Judiciary Committee hearing in July, Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, warned of the possibility of a lawsuit and asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano if she would rescind the order before it came to that.

“Representative, I will not rescind it,” she replied. “It’s right on the law. It’s the right policy. It fits within our prosecutorial priorities. And although it came out of the Department of Homeland Security, let me say that president is foursquare behind it, embraces this policy as the right thing to do.”

She said the administration doesn’t have the ability to issue a stay of action for a broad category of people, but said the new policy is different because it invests decisions on a case-by-case basis with agents and officers, who are instructed not to pursue cases for those who meet the guidelines she laid out.

Ms. Napolitano said she’s acting in accordance with Supreme Court rulings that have established a wide latitude for discretion by the executive branch, and said federal law directs the administration to establish immigration enforcement priorities.

But in their 22-page complaint, the agents say they’ve been told in broad terms to ignore a whole class of illegal immigrants. They said they have been instructed not to bother asking for proof, but to take an illegal immigrant’s word that he would qualify for the president’s more liberal policy.

One of the instances the lawsuit cites is a now well-known case in El Paso where ICE Agent Samuel Martin picked up an illegal alien from the El Paso County jail. Agent Martin says the man tried to escape and, in the process, assaulted him and another agent — but when they got the man to ICE’s processing center agency supervisors said he had to be released under the new policies.

In that case, the issue wasn’t Mr. Obama’s recent policy on immigrants eligible under the so-called “Dream Act,” which stalled on Capitol Hill, but an earlier memo by ICE Director John Morton that said agents should focus on criminals and repeat-immigration offenders.

Chris Crane, an ICE deportation officer, president of the National ICE Council and one of those suing to stop the policy, said morale is low among rank-and-file employees at the agency.

“They feel like they’ve become the enemy because literally we have this situation where individuals that have broken U.S. immigration law as well as often times criminal law at the state or local level — they’re being released, no questions asked, but our own officers are being threatened with their careers being taken away if they go out and enforce the laws on the books,” said Mr. Crane, an ICE deportation officer.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Northern District of Texas, argues the administration policies fail to pass muster on three grounds: they infringe on Congress’s right to set immigration policy; they force ICE agents to disregard the law; and the Homeland Security Department didn’t follow the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which requires agencies to write regulations and put them out for public comment before taking big steps.

NumbersUSA, a group that pushes for stricter immigration limits, is funding the lawsuit.

Roy Beck, the group’s executive director, said what’s at stake is ICE agent’s ability to deter more illegal immigrants, who could wreak havoc with the job market.

“Without immigration enforcement, the labor market would be filled until wages fell either to the global average or the federal minimum wage,” he said. “These agents are protecting every working American’s level of income and wages.”

Read more: Immigration agents sue to stop Obama's non-deportation policy - Washington Times

[Malsua]

Any surprise that a Kenyan born Indonesian muslim would sign an amnesty?

The Natural Born Citizen clause was included for just this reason. Democratic subterfuge has led us to this place where the best interests of the country are suborned to vote pandering.

[eversman]

The government fighting each other. It just goes to show you how out of touch the liberals are.

it also goes to show how bloated, oversized, out of control and completely lawless our government really is.

Ev

[Ryan Ruck]

Obama, Holder Sledgehammer the First Amendment

August 24, 2012

In a move that could have chilling First Amendment consequences, the Obama regime this week showed that it's willing to use the full weight and power of the Justice Department to pummel any media outlet that doesn't toe the party line.

Within days of the Gallup Organization issuing, essentially, a veiled warning to the Obama gang about tinkering with unemployment numbers, Obama's DOJ jumped, jackboots first, into a multi-million dollar legal action against Gallup, in a case initiated by a former Obama operative.

Others have noted that the DOJ action occurred after Gallup had Mitt Romney ahead of Obama in its polling for a few days. But as we've pointed out, it's not Gallup's horse race numbers that have the Chicago gang concerned. This far out from the election, Likely Voter numbers are about as convincing as David Axelrod's combover. What Axelrod and his co-conspirators are really worried about are Gallup's jobless numbers.

Gallup's monthly unemployment survey of 30,000 adults is arguably the most comprehensive research done on the nation's jobless situation, other than the Bureau of Labor Statistics study of 60,000 households. Gallup publishes its research without seasonal adjustments. The BLS's version applies adjustments in an alchemic formula that's more mysterious than the Shroud of Turin.

Twice this summer, Gallup has published a report calling into question discrepancies between its unadjusted research and what is being tallied in the adjusted O-fficial statistics. In reporting in its latest jobless numbers -- in a commentary titled August Unemployment Not Looking Good -- Gallup noted (emphases added):

Regardless, barring heroic adjustments or a sharp change in direction, Gallup data suggest the seasonally adjusted U.S. unemployment rate for August will increase -- possibly substantially -- when announced in early September.

In other words, Gallup said the only way unemployment numbers don't go up next month is if someone in Obamaland puts a finger on the scale.

A few days later, Eric Holder dropped the fifty-pound sledgehammer on Gallup, joining in a "whistleblower" action. The original complaint alleges that the Gallup organization inflated the number of hours required to do polling projects for the U.S. Mint, the State Department, and other federal agencies. (Why federal agencies even think they need to do polling is another subject for another time.)

The complaint was filed by a former Gallup employee who -- in a sheer coincidence, no doubt -- was a field organizer for Obama in 2008, according to the Daily Caller and other sources. Holder's action essentially makes the Justice Department the lawyer for the former (?) Obama operative.

From the DOJ release (emphasis added):

The lawsuit was filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private parties to sue on behalf of the United States for submission of false claims to the government. The private plaintiffs are entitled to receive a share of any funds recovered through the lawsuit. The False Claims Act authorizes the United States to intervene in such a lawsuit and take over primary responsibility for litigating it. The False Claims Act allows for recovery of three times the government's losses, plus civil penalties.

For the record, Gallup's General Counsel Steve O'Brien denied any wrongdoing. "We believe that the allegations and the legal theory that the Justice Department is using are entirely meritless."

As we have detailed, Gallup's unemployment data stands to potentially refute any attempt the Obama gang makes to portray an improving economy approaching the election. Continuing abysmal jobless numbers, if accurately reported to voters, should all but doom Obama's chances in November. If the Obama administration jobless claims do not jibe with the numbers reported by Gallup, even the Obama propaganda machine, the legacy media, might start to take note.

It could be yet another coincidence that, a few days after Gallup's comments about Obama administration unemployment data, the Department of Justice announced that it had joined in a complaint that had been filed three years earlier.

The timing, however, would indicate anything but.

If Gallup did something wrong, the company should be held to account. But the timing of the action and the apparent ties of the original complainant to the Obama administration call into question the motivation behind the DOJ action.

You can say what you like about pollsters -- I never did care for 'em -- but Gallup publishes its information, much of it at least, publicly, on its website and through media outlets with which it partners. Gallup's site publishes lively articles on research ranging from why hospitals don't provide great service to how many Americans smoke. (Does a certain occupant of the White House, I wonder?)

Gallup has every First Amendment right that other media outlets have. It will be interesting to see if any other media organizations side against Obama's apparent heavy-handed attempt to stifle Gallup's voice.

[American Patriot]

Wow.

[vector7]

Companion Thread: Progressive ‘Mission Accomplished,’ Now on to Phase II — Communism

The Hope and Change Mask is slowly peeling off the face of the Dictatorship.

[American Patriot]

Ain't nothing "slow" about it, Vector. We've all KNOWN about this since the clown ran for the Presidency. He's merely verifying for us what his ultimate goal is.

I honestly am seeing him LOSING this election badly. Very, very badly.

If he wins, there's a lot of corruption there to get him back in office and the right is fighting "fair".

It will get bad if he wins.

[Malsua]

Imagine if he loses yet concocts a reason to invalidate the election? Btw, I'm taking the same tack that libs did at the end of W's term. I think it's hooey, but I'll put nothing past the criminals occupying the White Hut.

[American Patriot]

The sad part is this, Mal.... there are three months from the election to the swearing in of the new President.

That's a LONG, LONG time in terms of executive orders. Anything could happen.

[Ryan Ruck]

DOJ Targeted Public Library for Lending E-Books 'Inaccessible' to the Blind

August 31, 2012

The U.S. Justice Department says it has reached a settlement with the Sacramento (California) Public Library over a trial program the library was conducting that let patrons borrow Barnes and Noble NOOK e-book readers.

DOJ and the National Federation of the Blind objected to the program on grounds that blind people could not use the NOOK e-readers for technological reasons.

The Justice Department said the settlement is aimed at stopping discrimination: “Emerging technologies like e-readers are changing the way we interact with the world around us and we need to ensure that people with disabilities are not excluded from the programs where these devices are used,” said Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez in a news release.

A DOJ official told CNSNews.com it interviewed a woman who could not participate in the library's e-reader program due to her disability and concluded that the program had violated the ADA.

Amy Calhoun, an Electronic Resources Librarian at the Sacramento Public Library who helped launch the ebook reader project, said she was unaware of any objections from a blind person regarding the program. “I have not heard of a specific complaint directly from a patron,” she told CNSNews.com. “But I do know that patrons who are part of the statewide Braille and talking-book program do get in touch with us for audio books.”

The Sacramento Public Library Authority, which operates 28 libraries, partnered with the book store chain to provide at least one NOOK e-book reader to each of its libraries, pre-loaded with roughly 20 books in all genres.

The library describes the program as a “pilot project,” and it requires patrons to fill out a feedback survey as the program works through its initial stages.

But the Justice Department says a state or local government program that excludes people with disabilities violates the ADA, regardless of whether it is a “pilot” program.
As part of the settlement agreement, the Justice Department directed the library system to purchase at least 18 e-readers that are accessible to the blind, something that comes in the midst of budget cuts that have forced Sacramento libraries to implement one employee furlough day each month for two years.

The library says it will add iPod touch and iPad devices, which read e-books aloud with a computerized voice.

Adding the Apple devices could cost the library anywhere from $3,582 with the purchase of 18 of the most inexpensive iPod Touch models, to $14,922 if they wish to provide the high-end version of the iPad, which cost $829 a piece.

According to an article posted on NFB's website, while e-books "are an especially exciting development" for blind readers, Nook's "bookstore, desktop software, mobile software, and dedicated hardware reading devices are all inaccessible to blind users."

The settlement agreement also directs the library not to buy any additional e-readers that exclude blind or disabled people; and it requires the library system to train its staff on the requirements of the ADA, the DOJ said.

“We are pleased that the Sacramento Public Library Authority worked so cooperatively to adopt measures that will allow patrons with disabilities to avail themselves equally of the library’s programs and services,” said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, Benjamin B. Wagner.

[Ryan Ruck]

EMILY MILLER: DOJ Accused Of Targeting Gun Industry With 'Choke Point' Program

June 2, 2014

The Obama administration, after failing to get gun control passed on Capitol Hill, has resorted to using its executive power to try to put some in the firearms industry out of business, House Republican investigators say.

The assertion is included in a report recently released by California GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Citing internal Justice Department documents, the committee concluded that the administration used a program known as Operation Choke Point to target legal companies that it finds “objectionable.”

The program was started in 2013 to protect consumers by “choking” alleged fraudsters’ access to the banking system. The Justice Department essentially forces banks and third-party payment processors to stop accepting payments from companies that are considered “high risk” and are supposedly violating federal law.

However, the documents released by Issa’s committee show the federal government lumped the firearms industry in with other "high-risk" businesses including those dealing with pornography, drug paraphernalia, escort services, racist materials, Ponzi schemes and online gambling.

The committee also reported that Attorney General Eric Holder was informed the program has been shutting down legal businesses.

“We have documented that they are going after gun and ammunitions manufacturers, gun sellers and non-deposit lenders. Their own memos show they are well beyond enforcing the law,” Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., said Friday.

Luetkemeyer sponsored an amendment, which the House passed ​​Thursday night,​ which prohibits federal funds in the next fiscal year from being used to carry out Operation Choke Point. The Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act amendment passed by voice vote.

“There is an orchestrated effort by [the Justice Department] and [the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] to do away with entire industries instead of going after the bad actors. This is wrong,” said Luetkemeyer, a former bank regulator, who currently serves on the House Financial Services Committee.

He said the goal is to stop the Justice Department by establishing “safe harbors for legal entities to do business.”

The congressman also said that if the amendment doesn’t fix the problem, he will introduce legislation to do it.

Justice Department spokesman Emily Pierce said Friday that all the assertions by the House committee are “false.” She said in an email that the documents Issa released actually “make clear that we are targeting fraudulent and illegal behavior.”

Pierce also said the department will continue to hold “accountable” the financial institutions that process fraudulent transactions.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for firearms and ammunitions manufacturers, said that several of its members have had banking relationships wrongfully terminated as a result of Operation Choke Point.

​The group argues the federal government is discriminating against businesses “simply because they are engaged in the lawful commerce of firearms.”

Andrew Arulanandam, National Rifle Association spokesman, said Saturday that the group is working with members of Congress and affected parties to get answers about the program.

“The efforts of the Obama administration to impose its vision of a ‘fundamentally transformed’ America have already fallen hard on those who value the Second Amendment,” he said. “Some fear this could be yet another example of [the president’s] ‘phone and pen’ style of imperial governance.”

[American Patriot]

I think we need to start targeting these idiots with a choke point... if you know what I mean.

[Ryan Ruck]

Some big news about the DoJ!

Federal Judge Accuses DOJ Attorneys of Defrauding The Court, Threatening Witness in Case of ATF Whistleblower Jay Dobyns

January 26, 2015
By Katie Pavlich

Late last week reporter Tim Steller of the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson published a piece about alleged serious misconduct and intimidation from DOJ attorneys during the trial and lawsuit of former ATF agent and whistleblower Jay Dobyns against the government.

One of the recently unsealed documents, a Dec. 1 opinion by Judge Allegra, finally explains why in October the judge voided his original decision, made in August, to award Dobyns $173,000. (He later reversed his decision to void the judgment, which still stands.) The reason: The judge believed that Justice Department attorneys had “committed fraud on the court.”

One area in which Allegra decided deception had occurred was in the treatment of Thomas Atteberry, the special agent in charge of ATF’s Phoenix office, and Carlos Canino, then the assistant special agent in charge of the agency’s Tucson office. In 2012, a Justice Department attorney, Valerie Bacon, asked both Atteberry and Canino not to reopen the investigation into the arson at Dobyns’ Tucson home because it could hurt the Justice Department’s defense in this case.

Atteberry and Canino were listed as witnesses in the case, but the judge didn’t hear about the DOJ effort to squelch the investigation until the trial, which he considered a concealment by the Justice Department. They went ahead and reopened the case, which remains unsolved, anyway.

More alarming was the other “fraud on the court” that Allegra cited: “An ATF agent who testified in this case may have been threatened by another witness during the trial.” Justice Department attorneys ordered the agent not to report the threat to the court or he would face repercussions, Allegra said.

As a refresher, Dobyns is the first law enforcement agent to ever successfully infiltrate multiple layers of the notoriously dangerous and violent Hells Angels motorcycle gang through "Operation Black Biscuit." After doing so and after his identity was exposed, he received death threats against himself and his family. ATF did nothing to protect him. When his house was burned to the ground at 3 a.m., ATF supervisors tried to frame him for the arson after Dobyns blew the whistle and exposed supervisors had done nothing to address serious and credible threats against his family. (You can read a detailed account of the situation here). As a result, Dobyns sued the Bureau.

In August 2014 that lawsuit and trial came to an end with Federal Judge Francis Allegra ruling in Dobyns' favor and awarding him $173,000 in damages.

After a long six year court battle with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Special Agent and whistleblower Jay Dobyns says he as been vindicated after Federal Judge Francis Allegra ruled in his favor late Tuesday. Dobyns, who infiltrated the dangerous and deadly Hells Angels gang as an undercover agent years ago, brought a lawsuit against the Bureau after supervisors ignored death threats to his family, which included plans to murder him either with a bullet or by injecting him with the AIDS virus, kidnapping and torturing his then 15-year-old daughter and kidnapping his wife in order to videotape a gang rape of her. Contracts were solicited between the Hells Angels, the Aryan Brotherhood and the MS-13 gang to carry out these threats, which were laid out in prison letters and confirmed through FBI and ATF interviews of confidential informants inside numerous detention centers. In 2008, his Tucson home was burned to the ground. When the fire was started, his wife and children were inside. Luckily, they escaped. Instead of investigating, ATF supervisors accused Dobyns of being the arsonist.

"I have been vindicated. First, I must thank God who provided me with strength and faith during these events. I thank those who have supported me; family, friends, peers and strangers but mostly my wife and kids – they have been the true victims here and been forced to suffer too needlessly," Dobyns wrote about the ruling on his website, where he released the news. "An agency I spilled my own blood for and enthusiastically accepted every dirty assignment on behalf of for twenty-seven years, knowingly and intentionally accused me of a crime I did not commit; being a person who would murder his own wife and children by fire."

In his opinion, Allegra said ATF exhibited "organizational weaknesses," in handling the threats against Dobyns and described ATF officials as demonstrating misfeasance in the case "rooted in the sorry failure of some ATF officials."

“The violations occurred because of the way officials like ASAC Gillett and RAC Higman functioned – and were allowed to function – after the arson, especially in terms of how Agent Dobyns was treated”; “In the courts view, the evidence showed that ASAC Gillett and Agent Higman knew that Agent Dobyns was not responsible for the fire, and still allowed him to be treated as a suspect as a form of payback. Moreover, ATF officials knew, or should have known, that individuals like ASAC Gillett and Agent Higman should not have been allowed to participate in the investigation – as it turned out their conduct was not only reprehensible, but predictably so. In donning blinders in this regard, ATF officials compounded potential harm that might have befallen the Dobyns family,” the opinion states.

It seems that this apparent misconduct by the DOJ attorneys is what led Allegra to make a dramatic ruling on Oct. 24. That day, he barred seven Justice Department attorneys who had led the case until then from making any further filings in the case. The DOJ is fighting that ruling.

Shortly after the ruling, Allegra withdrew his opinion without explanation, now we know why. Court documents show DOJ attorneys allegedly intimidated a key witness in Dobyns' case against the government, threatening that if he testified, his career at would be over.

“On October 29, 2014, the court, invoking RCFC 60(b) and other provisions, issued an order voiding the prior judgment based upon indications that defendant, through its counsel, had committed fraud on the court," Allegra wrote in an unsealed opinion from December 2014. "The Sixth Circuit has indicated that fraud on the court consists of conduct: 1. On the part of an officer of the court; 2. That is directed to the ‘judicial machinery’ itself; 3. That is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth; 4. That is a positive averment or is concealment when one is under a duty to disclose; 5. That deceives the court."

After the opinion was issued, ATF's lead internal affairs investigator Christopher Trainor, a key witness in the Dobyns' case who testified at the Tucson and Washington D.C. portions of the trial, told Judge Allegra he had been threatened by a DOJ attorney and witness for the government, Charles Higman, in 2013 for his work in compiling evidence against ATF in the case. An internal criminal investigation was opened against Higman in 2013 after Trainor's allegations and Higman was accused of perjury in Allegra's August 2014 opinion, which was withdrawn after new revelations.

According to a letter to Judge Allegra from the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, OPR has "received multiple inquiries regarding whether the Federal Circuit's December 18, 2014 Order remanding the case of Jay A. Dobyns v. United States, No. 08-700C (FMA), to the Court of Federal Claims for further proceedings will affect the inquiry recently initiated by OPR into allegations that Department of Justice attorneys committed misconduct in the Dobyns case," and "the court will order depositions of at least some of the attorneys and other witnesses in this case, as well as the receipt of other relevant evidence."

Further, DOJ has allegedly been intimidating and conducting harassing surveillance of Dobyns' attorney Jim Reed. More from Steller:

Perhaps the most bizarre and worrisome allegations emerged in Reed’s Jan. 11 filing, which was originally filed under seal but unsealed by the judge except for a few redacted words. Reed, who is based in Phoenix, wrote that he “has felt himself under extreme surveillance for the last sixty days, both fixed and moving, and under lesser levels of surveillance for many months before that.”

“In the last 30 days,” Reed wrote, “counsel’s automobile has been broken into but with nothing stolen, as apparently has been his home, for which counsel has filed Phoenix Police Department complaints.”

DOJ is standing by it's attorneys as "outstanding civil servants." Attorney General Eric Holder has been informed by Allegra of the alleged defrauding of the court by DOJ attorneys.

"I said all along they were cheating. Everyone was like, "sour grapes, disgruntled agent, whiny narcissist, etc." Just a fraction of the dirty games ATF and DOJ played on me are coming out. Reporters are finding it all on their own with no prompting from me (below). This is only the portion of what Judge Allegra has unsealed and allowed to be exposed. More and better dirt on these people is coming. The evidence of abuse from the trial? That's old news and minor compared to DOJ / ATF attorneys and witnesses defrauding federal courtrooms and judges. Jones and Brandon knew/know about this and did NOTHING, yet they call themselves "leaders". They are executive bagboys. DOJ is defending the reputations and careers of corrupt attorneys - the very same attorneys who tried to frame me and lied, cheated and stole to do it. They are all paid to cover for Holder and his "team" and do so shamelessly. Justice and truth are not their missions. Coverup and self protection is. To them "Justice" and "Truth" are meaningless words carved in the facades of their buildings. This is the tip of the iceberg of what is yet to come," Dobyns wrote on his website about the revelations. "I can only make one guarantee. Its not of victory. Its that I will not quit and will not be broken."

The House Oversight Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committees both have new chairmen, Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Sen. Chuck Grassley, who should both be looking into this is and demanding answers, especially with confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch later this week.

David Codrea has also written a piece about these revelations that's worth reading.

[vector7]

Sessions: Why Confirm an AG Who’s Going to Execute an Unconstitutional Policy?

January 29, 2015 - 4:21 PM

By Lauretta Brown
Subscribe to Lauretta Brown RSS



(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said Thursday that President Barack Obama’s executive action plan for illegal immigrants was unconstitutional and therefore Congress must not confirm Obama’s attorney general nominee who is committed to executing that “illegal and unconstitutional” policy.

“So, why would we want to confirm someone who's going to continue to execute an unlawful, unconstitutional policy?” Sessions told CNSNews.com.

At the Capitol on Thursday, CNSNews.com asked Sessions if illegal aliens have a right work in the U.S.--a claim attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch had made the day before in her confirmation hearing in response to a question from Sessions.

“The law says they don’t, and it explicitly says an employer can't hire someone who's illegally here," said Sessions.

“There's no question about this," said Sessions. "This is why the president's action, his amnesty, is so stunningly, dramatically dangerous--because our Congress considered what he wanted to be done and rejected it.

"And the president goes beyond," said Sessions, "saying well I don't have enough, I'm using prosecutorial discretion about who gets deported to the point where he says I'm giving up to 5 million people work authorization, Social Security benefits, Medicare benefits, an ID card [to individuals] who under the law are here unlawfully.”


Attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch being sworn in at her confirmation hearing on Jan. 28, 2015. (AP Photo)

“This is, as Professor Turley has so eloquently stated, an incredible constitutional overreach,” said the senator. "And Congress is not a potted plant, it needs to defend itself, it has certain powers that it should use to block this wrongdoing. One of those powers is confirmation power, so why would we want to confirm someone who's going to continue to execute an unlawful, unconstitutional policy?”

“One of the other powers, will soon be on the floor, is the power of the purse,” he pointed out, “and Congress has no responsibility to fund an executive program that they oppose as a matter of policy or, and in addition, is illegal and unconstitutional. So Congress should not give money to the Executive branch to execute a plan that's unlawful and especially when the American people by a substantial majority oppose what the president's doing.”
Session said he was “just baffled by the President's assertions of power that are so baseless,” adding “I don't think that we should feel obligated to confirm someone who stated in the hearing that she intends to continue those policies.”

CNSNews.com followed up: “Do you think Loretta Lynch should clarify her remarks to you where she said, 'I believe the right and the obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here?'”

“Well I think that revealed her thinking, so they got scared about that because American people begin to see just how broad their view is on this issue,” Sessions replied.

“Secondly all she really said was, when she retracted, was that it's the 5 million people. Well that's the complaint about the president's action. He had no authority to give them the work permit, so she's supporting what the president said.”

"She refused to say that she would not take legal action against an employer who gave preference to lawful workers over ... workers with an Obama Card,” said Sessions.

[Ryan Ruck]

Hmm... Someone at FedEx forget to make their regular "donation"?

FedEx Uses ‘Common Carrier’ Defense Against DOJ Drug Shipping Charges

Company argues it can’t police millions of packages for ones that might potentially contain illegal items

March 26, 2015

FedEx Corp. filed to dismiss Justice Department charges of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances for its alleged role in transporting illegal prescription drugs, arguing that it is legally protected as a company that carries goods for the public.

The FedEx motion, filed in San Francisco district court Wednesday, argues that as a common carrier, FedEx cannot reasonably be expected to police the millions of packages it carries each day that might potentially contain an illegal item. A common carrier is typically defined as a transportation company that is paid to take cargo indiscriminately and serves the general public, which can include railroads, trucking companies and airlines.

The case is a key test for how much legal responsibility delivery companies bear for the contents of packages they deliver. FedEx moves more than 10 million shipments a day on average and says it can’t police every one.

If FedEx is found guilty, the U.S. attorney’s office has said it could face a potential maximum fine of twice the revenues it made engaging in that business, or about $1.6 billion.

The Justice Department filed an indictment in July alleging that FedEx repeatedly ignored warnings from government officials from as far back as 2004 that the delivery company was breaking the law by shipping drugs ordered from online pharmacies that dispensed them to anyone who filled out an online questionnaire. It charged FedEx with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, conspiracy to distribute misbranded drugs, distribution of controlled substances and misbranding drugs.

The department filed a superseding indictment in August, alleging that FedEx knew that payments from certain pharmacies resulted from invalid prescriptions and charging it with conspiracy to launder money.

FedEx pleaded not guilty.

An expanded version of this report appears at WSJ.com.

So, the DOJ can't be expected to keep track of and round up the 10 million illegals in the country (about the number they like to use) but FedEx should be expected to know what's in 10 million packages a day?