Jeremiah Wright’s Daughter Sent To Prison For Money Laundering, Lying To Federal Agents

Chickens Come Home To Roost… Jeremiah Wright’s Daughter Is Sent To Prison – Gateway Pundit

.

.
In September 2013, Jeri Wright, daughter of Reverend “God Damn America” Wright, and 12 other Democrats were charged with embezzling $16 million in Federal health grants that should have gone to AIDS charities and other programs for the poor and needy.

More than one of the defendants had direct ties to President Barack Obama.

In March 2014 Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s daughter Jeri was found guilty on eleven counts that included money laundering and lying to federal agents.

This week US District Judge Sue E. Myerscough sent Jeri Wright to prison.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported:

Jeri L. Wright, the daughter of President Barack Obama’s former pastor, is headed to jail after a federal judge on Monday revoked a deal that allowed her to remain free as she awaits sentencing on a money-laundering conviction.

U.S. District Judge Sue E. Myerscough ruled that there was probable cause to believe that Wright committed a theft while she was free on bail and ordered Wright detained by U.S. marshals in Springfield, according to Sharon Paul, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in the Central District of Illinois.

Wright’s attorney, Victor P. Henderson, could not immediately be reached for comment.

.

.

Leftist Politician In California Blocked By Federal Court From Exposing Conservative Group’s Donor List

Federal Court Blocks Dem’s Attempt To Out Conservative Donors – Washington Free Beacon

.

.
A federal court on Tuesday blocked efforts by officials in California to force a conservative group to hand over the names of its donors, saying the order could violate those donors’ First Amendment rights.

Kamala Harris, California’s attorney general and a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, demanded last year that the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) turn over its donor rolls. The court enjoined that demand pending the outcome of AFPF’s suit attempting to invalidate the order.

AFPF claims that the disclosure would subject its donors to “grotesque threats” similar to the routine attacks against Charles and David Koch, the group’s founders, and would therefore chill their free speech. The court agreed.

“Donors who have witnessed harassment of those perceived to be connected with plaintiff’s co-founders have experienced their unwillingness to continue to participate if such limited disclosure is made,” said Judge Manuel Real of the District Court of the Central District of California.

AFPF, the judge said, “has proffered sufficient evidence establishing that public disclosure would have a chilling effect on free speech.”

Harris’ does not have adequate measures in place to compartmentalize and protect sensitive personal information contained in AFPF’s annual tax filings, the court noted.

Its policies regarding the treatment of identifying donor information, the court said, is “impermissibly entirely discretionary and could change at any moment.”

Attorneys representing Harris objected to the order on the grounds that it enjoined the attorney general from gathering any information that would identify donors, not simply the specific tax filings that the state initially demanded from the group.

Harris did not object to the more narrow provisions of the injunction, which protects AFPF from having to furnish those tax filings specifically.

In a separate injunction last week, Real blocked the public disclosure of that information in light of death threats and other instances of harassment and intimidation against the Kochs and others affiliated with AFPF.

The judge noted at the time that AFPF had presented evidence suggesting that merely disclosing that information to the state would leave donors vulnerable to harassment. It cited previous attempts by high-ranking California officials to erroneously link the Kochs to campaign finance violations in the state.

Tuesday’s ruling is not a final determination on the merits of AFPF’s position, but rather an effort to prevent violations of its donors’ First Amendment rights while the court considers the case.

However, the ruling is a major victory for AFP and other groups fighting mandatory donor disclosure for 501(c)(4) issue advocacy groups that generally are not required by federal law to disclose their donors.

It is also a setback for Harris, whose focus on AFPF dovetails with a national Democratic strategy of vilifying Republican donors, especially the Kochs.

Harris is already running a scorched earth campaign, targeting potential Democratic rivals for a U.S. Senate seat that will be left vacant next year with the retirement of Sen. Barbara Boxer. “I make no apologies,” Harris said of her aggressive campaign style.

Attacks on the Kochs could be a useful populist foil for her campaign.

Anti-Koch sentiment has paid dividends for Ann Ravel, until 2013 the chair of the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission. Ravel made headlines that year when she accused the Kochs of supporting two groups that copped to campaign finance violations during the 2012 elections.

Ravel was forced to retract her claim after the Kochs denied any involvement with the groups, but not before President Obama appointed her as the co-chair of the Federal Election Commission.

Harris and Ravel teamed up to win a $1 million settlement from the two groups in 2013. That helped establish the former’s anti-Koch bona fides, pleasing many progressive commentators looking toward the 2016 Senate race.

Dan Newman, a political consultant in California, has been sounding the alarm on the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Kochs and their allies plan to spend during the 2016 election cycle.

Such warnings have boosted Democratic fundraising efforts in the past. Newman is also working for Harris’ 2016 campaign.

.

.

Federal Judge Slams The Brakes On President Asshat’s Executive Amnesty Scheme

Federal Judge Halts Obama’s Amnesty Orders – WorldNetDaily

.

.
A federal judge in Texas on Monday granted a temporary injunction halting President Obama’s executive-order driven amnesty program.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ordered the government not to proceed with any portion of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, DAPA.

In his order the federal judge said the court found “that at least one plaintiff has satisfied all the necessary elements to maintain a lawsuit and to obtain a temporary injunction.”

“The United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees and Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of United States customs and Border Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, deputy chief of United States Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Protection; Thomas S. Winkowski, acting director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Leon Rodriguez, director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services are hereby enjoined from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents…”

The outline of plans was “set out in the Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson’s memorandum dated November 20, 2014.”

The injunction is until “a final resolution of the merits of this case or until a further order of this court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court,” the judge ordered.

He cited the Obama administration’s failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Hanen also ordered that federal officials and agencies are further enjoined from implementing “any and all aspects or phases of the expansions (including any and all changes) to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.”

That was the program begun several years ago by Obama.

The judge also explained the defendants will be allowed to “reapproach this court for relief from this order, in the time period between the date of this order and the trial on the merits, for good cause, including if Congress passes legislation that authorizes DAPA or at such a time as the defendants have complied with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.”

He scheduled a conference call for counsel following a Feb. 27, 2015, deadline for a schedule for the case to be processed.

In Austin, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said, “President Obama abdicated his responsibility to uphold the United States Constitution when he attempted to circumvent the laws passed by Congress via executive fiat, and Judge Hanen’s decision rightly stops the president’s overreach in its tracks. We live in a nation governed by a system of checks and balances, and the president’s attempt to by-pass the will of the American people was successfully checked today. The district court’s ruling is very clear – it prevents the president from implementing the policies in ‘any and all aspects.’”

It’s one of two pending cases challenging Obama’s amnesty.

The other actually was developed first, and was thrown out at the district court level.

But it now is on a fast track before an appellate court in Washington, D.C.

It was filed by attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, on behalf of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona.

Klayman told WND he’s waiting now for the government to respond to the appellate court.

“We want the D.C. court to enter a preliminary injunction, stopping everything in its tracks,” he said. “We’re confident that they will agree with us.”

Obama’s amnesty plans are forecast to allow at least another five million illegal aliens in the U.S. to be given a legal status, where they could hold jobs, driver’s licenses – and critics say they would even be allowed to vote.

WND had reported earlier on the significance of the case, which was brought by 26 states against the federal government. It was predicted to go far beyond amnesty and immigration.

The fight will determine whether the United States can be run by a president and his decrees, or by a chief elected official who enforces the laws Congress writes, according to Mark Krikorian, chief of the Center for Immigration Studies, which watches the immigration situation.

“If I were a Republican politician, I wouldn’t even be arguing this on the basis of immigration,” he told WND in an interview. “I would be talking about this as just the latest and most egregious example of a president’s rule by decree.”

He said the coming dispute, which very well may extend into the 2016 presidential election or beyond, is going to decide “the balance of powers, whether Congress actually makes law or is an advisory body like the U.N. General Assembly, which is how Obama sees it.”

Obama already has challenged America’s laws a multitude of times, simply issuing orders to make changes to the Obamacare law, and on a variety of other issues, all without the benefit of a decision by Congress, which originally wrote the laws.

The fight over amnesty is one of two focal points – the other is Obamacare – of a letter-writing campaign to encourage GOP members of the U.S. House to replace Speaker John Boehner.

The “Dump Boehner Now” campaign allows voters to reach every single Republican House member with hard-copy letters asking them to reconsider their choice as speaker. The letter says House members had the chance to stop Obamacare and amnesty, but Boehner failed to take advantage.

Joseph Farah, WND founder and campaign organizer, set up the letters campaign. He said the opposition to Boehner is based on the Obamacare and amnesty program that voters rejected in the 2014 midterm elections.

The letter explains to members of the U.S. House that two issues have “prompted Americans to turn in droves to the Republican Party in November 2014 – Barack Obama’s blatantly unconstitutional executive action to provide amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and the deliberately deceptive restructuring of America’s health-care system through Obamacare, which threatens to unravel the greatest health delivery system in the world.”

Pointing out that Republicans before the election “solemnly vowed to STOP this lame-duck president,” the letter states: “Now you have the power, right and duty to stop him.

“But it won’t happen with John Boehner leading you. You know this to be true. The trillion-dollar budget deal is just the latest proof that Boehner is not capable of leading the House to victory during this critical period.”

It’s because during the lame-duck Congress, Boehner agreed to Obama’s plan to continue funding for Obamacare and amnesty into 2015.

MSNBC did a report only days ago speculating on whether Hanen would halt the federal plan. MSNBC called Hanen “a critic of the Obama administration’s immigration policies.”

Worried MSNBC, “If Hanen decides against the Obama administration, he could block the implementation of the executive measures, which are scheduled to kick in Feb. 18. If that were to happen, the Department of Justice would almost certainly appeal the decision, which would then go to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals – yet another conservative-leaning court.”

The fact that more than half the states are participating in the case has alarmed amnesty supporters, but they still hope more and more illegals come out of the shadows and claim a place at the head of the line of those awaiting official recognition in the U.S., or at least it appears that way.

Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center told MSNBC, “People have been waiting so long for a chance to come forward and be able to work with authorization and not be looking over their shoulder all day long. We’re really trying to send the message that this should be business as usual.”

House Republicans, under Boehner, also have said they are going to take court action, but haven’t yet.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the decision was a victory.

“And a crucial first step in reining in President Obama’s lawlessness,” he added.

Klayman has explained it’s not a case mainly about immigration.

“This is fundamentally about the rule of law and our constitutional system,” he said.

“I know we would prefer, like all conservatives and patriots, to have a clear ruling that executive overreach by any president is a dangerous injury to our Constitution. Lawyers do recognize, however, that courts try to find the easiest way to reach a result. We hope to reach a ruling that the executive branch cannot rewrite the nation’s laws whether they go through the Administrative Procedures Act process or not,” Klayman said.

In an accompanying 123-page memorandum, Hanen wrote about the states’ interest in not allowing “their own resources” to be drained by the “constant influx of illegal immigrants.”

He found “States ultimately bear the brunt of illegal immigration.”

The opinion noted specifically that Washington “maintains that none of the plaintiffs have standing to bring this injunctive action. The states disagree, claiming that the government cannot implement a substantive program and then insulate itself from legal challenges by those who suffer from its negative effects.”

The judge noted the reality of the immigration situation.

“When apprehending illegal aliens, the government often processes and releases them with only the promise that they will return for a hearing if and when the government decides to hold one. In the meantime, the states – with little or no help from the government – are required by law to provide various services to this population.”

He continued, “It is indisputable that the states are harmed to some extent by the government’s action and inaction in the area of immigration.”

The judge said Obama’s program isn’t only a situation where there aren’t enough resources, so program managers pick and choose which cases to handle. Washington’s current program “is an announced program of non-enforcement of the law that contradicts Congress’ statutory goals.”

“The DHS does have discretion in the manner in which it chooses to fulfill the expressed will of Congress. It cannot, however, enact a program whereby it not only ignores the dictates of Congress, but actively acts to thwart them,” the judge said.

.

.

Gun Rights Group Kicks Eric Holder’s Ass In Federal Court

Eric Holder’s Latest Attempt To Curtail The Second Amendment Failed Miserably – Western Journalism

.

.
According to recent reports, a measure outgoing U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder hoped would restrict Americans’ access to certain firearms was struck down by a federal judge.

A Washington gun rights organization, the Citizens’ Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, petitioned the court to overturn a nearly 50-year-old law prohibiting individuals from purchasing certain guns across state lines. Holder argued against repealing the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was reportedly passed in the wake of the high-profile assassinations of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

The act targeted only handgun sales, allowing the interstate purchase of shotguns and rifles. The purported impetus behind the restriction was an effort to make obtaining firearms more difficult for potential assassins or rioters.

U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor disagreed with its premise, though, explaining in his ruling that the interstate ban violates both the second and fifth amendments to the Constitution.

Judging from the response of readers, the news of this federal court ruling is widely seen as a positive step toward protecting individual gun rights.

“Hopefully this will have wide ranging effects on our right to bear arms,” one Breitbart commenter wrote. “California narrows our selection of legal firearms every year. I would gladly give my business to some Arizona gun retailers.”

For others, this decision is just one of many needed to adequately restore the founders’ ideals as contained within the Second Amendment.

“Now we need a court to rule that a concealed license from one state allows the holder to carry nationwide with no local override,” one reader opined. “It should be no different than a driver’s license.”

.

.

Cop-Hating Mayor De Blasio Defends NY Assembly Speaker Who Was Just Arrested On Federal Corruption Charges

NYC Mayor: Powerful Dem Charged With Corruption Is A ‘Man Of Integrity’ – TPM

.

.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) said on Thursday that New York’s powerful and longtime Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D) was “a man of integrity” despite having just been arrested and charged with corruption.

Silver surrendered to federal authorities earlier in the day after being charged with allegedly taking millions of dollars in bribes. However, de Blasio stood by the speaker during a news conference at City Hall.

“Although the charges announced today are certainly very serious, I want to note that I’ve always known Shelly Silver to be a man of integrity, and he certainly has due process rights,” de Blasio said. “And I think it’s important that we let the judicial process play out here.”

De Blasio noted that “allegations are allegations” and said he didn’t believe Silver should step down at this point.

.

.

Your Daley Gator Anti-Federal Government Picture O’ The Day


……..

.

Strike One: Federal Court Rules Obama’s Executive Amnesty Unconstitutional

District Court Declares Obama Immigration Action Unconstitutional – Washington Post

.

.
Earlier Tuesday, a federal court in Pennsylvania declared aspects of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional.

According to the opinion by Judge Arthur Schwab, the president’s policy goes “beyond prosecutorial discretion” in that it provides a relatively rigid framework for considering applications for deferred action, thus obviating any meaningful case-by-case determination as prosecutorial discretion requires, and provides substantive rights to applicable individuals. As a consequence, Schwab concluded, the action exceeds the scope of executive authority.

This is the first judicial opinion to address Obama’s decision to expand deferred action for some individuals unlawfully present in the United States. [I’ve now posted the opinion here.]

The procedural background of the case is somewhat unusual. The case involves an individual who was deported and then reentered the country unlawfully. In considering how to sentence the defendant, the court sought supplemental briefing on the applicability of the new policies to the defendant, and whether these policies would provide the defendant with additional avenues for seeking the deferral of his deportation. In this case, however, it’s not entirely clear it was necessary to reach the constitutional question to resolve the issues before the court with regard to the defendant’s sentence.

This isn’t the only case challenging the lawfulness of the Obama’s immigration actions. Some two-dozen states have filed suit challenging Obama’s recent immigration policy reforms. Led by Texas, these states claim that the president as exceeded the scope of executive authority in this area. As I’ve noted before, I’m skeptical of these arguments on the merits (as is Ilya), and wonder whether the states will be able to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing to bring their claims. Yet as this case shows, even if the states don’t have standing, the legality of the president’s actions could nonetheless be decided in federal court.

.

.