United States Vs. Texas (ECWd) -
You can ask most any person in Illinois if corruption is a problem in our State Government, and the answer would be yes. Ask them if they can trust their government, and it's an overwhelming, No. As we travel throughout this state we see a level of disregard for the law that frankly is frightening, as if we can't trust that our laws apply to everyone equally we are destined for tyranny.
US Attorney General Eric Holder was the top law enforcement officer in this country for most of President Obama's Presidency. The level of disregard for accountability to the law from Holder's Justice Department is nothing new. From Fast and Furious gun operations leading to the killing of our own border agent, to IRS being used to target specific groups, to date, no one has been held accountable for the gross abuse of power and disregard for the law.
I was provided a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order from Andrew S. Hanen, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, in the US. vs Texas case and clearly this Judge directed his ruling not only to the US Lawyers who violated numerous rules of conduct but to the very Justice Department ran by Eric Holder.
I took the liberty of extracting some very powerful comments from the bench and listing them as I know some will not read the 28-page order. For those willing to read it, grab a cup of coffee and pull up a seat to see just how far our US Department of Justice has gone off the rails when it comes to "Justice for All".
I can't even begin to express my gratitude for what this Judge said in his order, however, what is shared should be concerning to each and every citizen in this country who believes our Justice system is there to protect their rights.
- The duties of a Government lawyer, and in fact of any lawyer, are threefold: (1) tell the truth; (2) do not mislead the Court; and (3) do not allow the Court to be misled for the Justice served in this order.
- The Fifth Circuit has now also held that the Government must play by the rules, and, of course, that decision is now before the Supreme Court.
- the propriety of the Defendants’ (United States of America) actions now lies with the Supreme Court, but the question of how to deal with the conduct, or misconduct, of their counsel rests with this Court.
- The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ” or “Justice Department”) 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.
- When a public official behaves with such casual disregard for his constitutional obligations and the rights of the accused, it erodes the public’s trust in our justice system, and chips away at the foundational premises of the rule of law. When such transgressions are acknowledged yet forgiven by the courts, we endorse and invite their repetition
- Now, however, having studied the Government’s filings in this case, its admissions make one conclusion indisputably clear: the Justice Department lawyers knew the true facts and misrepresented those facts to the citizens of the 26 Plaintiff States, their lawyers and this Court on multiple occasions.
- Apparently, lawyers, somewhere in the halls of the Justice Department whose identities are unknown to this Court, decided unilaterally that the conduct of the DHS in granting three-year DACA renewals using the 2014 DHS Directive was immaterial and irrelevant to this lawsuit and that the DOJ could therefore just ignore it. Then, for whatever reason, the Justice Department trial lawyers appearing in this Court chose not to tell the truth about this DHS activity.
- Such conduct is certainly not worthy of any department whose name includes the word “Justice.”7 Suffice it to say, the citizens of all fifty states, their counsel, the affected aliens and the judiciary all deserve better.
- The duties of a Government lawyer, and in fact of any lawyer, are threefold: (1) tell the truth; (2) do not mislead the Court; and (3) do not allow the Court to be misled. The Government’s lawyers failed on all three fronts.
Mr. Gailey: Will Thomas Mara please take the stand?
(Attorney for Mr. Kringle)
Thomas Mara Sr.: Who, me?
(Assistant District Attorney)
Mr. Gailey: Thomas Mara Jr.
Tommy Mara Jr.: Hello, Daddy.
Mr. Gailey: Here you are, Tommy.
The Judge: Tommy, you know the difference between telling the truth
and telling a lie, don’t you?
Tommy Mara Jr.: Gosh, everybody knows you shouldn’t tell a lie, especially
in court.(Spectators Chuckling)
The Judge: Proceed, Mr. Gailey.14
The need to tell the truth, especially in court, was obvious to a fictional young Tommy Mara Jr. in 1947, yet there are certain attorneys in the Justice Department who apparently have not received that message, or more likely have just decided they are above such trivial concepts.
Anyone that reads this entire brief will be enlightened into the problems exposed and should realize very similar actions are taking are taking place with public bodies throughout this state and quite possibly nationwide.
Thank you, Judge Hanen! Your words provide a glimmer of hope that our system of Justice can work the way it was designed.
Please consider a donation to the Edgar County Watchdogs.