Leftist Corruption Update: Federal Judge Orders IRS To Disclose White House Requests For Taxpayer Information

Federal Judge Orders IRS To Disclose WH Requests For Taxpayer Info – Washington Free Beacon

.

.
A federal judge on Friday ordered the Internal Revenue Service to reveal White House requests for taxpayers’ private information, advancing a probe into whether administration officials targeted political opponents by revealing such information.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the IRS’s argument that a law designed to protect the confidentiality of such information protected the public disclosure of such communications with the White House.

The law, 26 U.S. Code § 6103, was passed after the Watergate scandal to protect citizens from retribution by federal officials. Jackson scoffed at the administration’s claims that the statute could be used to shield investigations into whether private tax information had been used in such a manner.

“The Court is unwilling to stretch the statute so far, and it cannot conclude that section 6103 may be used to shield the very misconduct it was enacted to prohibit,” Jackson wrote in her order.

The decision was a victory for Cause of Action, the legal watchdog group that sued the IRS in 2013 seeking records of its communications with the White House and potential disclosure of confidential taxpayer information.

The group called the decision “a significant victory for transparency advocates” in a Friday statement

“As we have said all along, this administration cannot misinterpret the law in order to potentially hide evidence of wrongdoing,” said Dan Epstein, the group’s executive director. “No administration is above the law, and we are pleased that the court has sided with us on this important point.”

The lawsuit came after Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, the IRS’s official watchdog agency, revealed that it was investigating whether Austan Goolsbee, the White House’s former chief economist, illegally accessed or revealed confidential tax information related to Koch Industries.

The corporation’s owners, Charles and David Koch, are prominent funders of conservative and libertarian groups that often oppose the White House’s policy priorities.

Goolsbee “used Koch Industries as an example when discussing an issue noted in the [President’s Economic Recovery Board] report that half of business income goes to companies that do not pay corporate income tax because they are pass-through entities and that many of them are quite large,” the White House said in 2010.

His apparent knowledge of Koch’s tax history, detailed during a conference call with reporters, “implies direct knowledge of Koch’s legal and tax status, which would appear to be a violation” of federal law, said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, at the time.

.

.

Federal Judge Slaps Down Obama’s Latest EPA Regulatory Scheme

Obama’s Environmental Agenda Suffers A Big Setback In Court – Daily Caller

.

.
A federal judge in North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction late on Thursday that will prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from moving forward on an ambitious plan to expand the federal government’s power to regulate water pollution.

Judge Ralph Erickson concluded that the 13 states which collaborated to challenge the new Waters of the United States rule were likely to be harmed if the rule was allowed to be implemented, and he also concluded that the rule is unlikely to survive a final court judgment.

The ruling is a tough blow to the Obama administration, which has pushed hard for the new rule. For the time being, the injunction only applies to the 13 states in the lawsuit, while the rule will go into place for the rest of the country starting Friday.

The Waters of the United States rule, proposed in April 2014, the Obama administration’s effort to enforce its vision of the Clean Water Act. The rule would alter the definition of what constitutes the “waters of the United States” under the act, thereby increasing the amount of water subject to federal regulation. Critics, comprising Republicans along with many agricultural and business interests, argue that the new rule is a power grab by the federal government, which would give them unprecedented control over bodies of water located entirely within individual states. Some have argued that even flooded ditches could fall under federal oversight through the new rule.

The 13 states winning in Thursday’s ruling aren’t the only ones challenging the rule. Several other lawsuits have sought injunctions in federal courts, but those injunction requests have not succeeded thus far.

In his ruling, Erickson characterizes the rule as “exceptionally expansive” in how it defines the waters of the United States. If implemented, Erickson writes, it would “irreparably diminish” states’ sovereignty over their own waterways. He also found that states would incur major financial distress from the new rule, noting that North Dakota would now have to spend millions on costly mapping and survey projects before it could approve new oil wells in the state.

“The breadth of the definition of a tributary set forth in the Rule allows for regulation of any area that has a trace amount of water so long as ‘the physical indicators of a bed and banks and an ordinary high water mark’ exist,” Erickson writes. Erickson added that many parts of the rule were made without any clear scientific basis, and thus the rule appears to be “arbitrary and capricious” in nature.

“I am thrilled that Chief Judge Erickson agrees EPA’s WOTUS rule should be enjoined,” said Pam Bondi, chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association, in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation. “EPA overstepped its authority, again. The EPA should not be permitted to intrude unlawfully on state authority and burden farmers, businesses and landowners.”

The League of Conservation Voters, on the other hand, quickly slammed the new injunction.

“This is a terrible decision for the 1 in 3 Americans who have already been waiting too long for these vital protections for their drinking water,”said League legislative representative Madeleine Foote in a statement. “The District Court for North Dakota’s decision puts the interests of big polluters over people in need of clean water. Blocking the implementation of the Clean Water Rule leaves in place an unworkable status quo that jeopardizes the clean water our families, economy, and communities depend on.”

.

.

Federal Sources Say FBI Investigation Into Htlery’s Emails Is A Criminal Probe

FBI Investigation Of Hillary’s Emails Is ‘Criminal Probe’ – New York Post

.

.
The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured e-mail account is not just a fact-finding venture – it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.

The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.

“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” said the source. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.

“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”

Clinton’s camp has downplayed the inquiry as civil and fact-finding in nature. Clinton herself has said she is “confident” that she never knowingly sent or received anything that was classified.

The inspector general for the intelligence community has told Congress that of 40 Clinton e-mails randomly reviewed as a sample of her correspondence as secretary of state, four contained classified information.

If Clinton is proven to have knowingly sent, received or stored classified information in an unauthorized location, she risks prosecution under the same misdemeanor federal security statute used to prosecute former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, said former federal prosecutor Bradley Simon.

The statute – which was also used to prosecute Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, in 2005, is rarely used and would be subject to the discretion of the attorney general.

Still, “They didn’t hesitate to charge Gen. Petraeus with doing the same thing, downloading documents that are classified,” Simon said. “The threshold under the statute is not high – they only need to prove there was an unauthorized removal and retention” of classified material, he said.

Clinton’s lawyer in the e-mail probe is longtime Bill Clinton attorney David Kendall, who also repped Petraeus, who pled guilty earlier this year to providing classified documents to his mistress biographer.

“My guess is they’re looking to see if there’s been either any breach of that data that’s gone into the wrong hands [in Clinton’s case], through their counter-intelligence group, or they are looking to see if a crime has been committed,” said Makin Delrahim, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, who served as a deputy assistant secretary in the Bush DOJ.

“They’re not in the business of providing advisory security services,” Delrahim said of the FBI. “This is real.”

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

.

*VIDEO* Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing On The IRS Targeting Of Conservative Groups (07/29/15)


Subcommittee On Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights And Federal Courts
Chairman: Ted Cruz
Witnesses: John Koskinen, Cleta Mitchell, Stephen Spaulding, Edward D. Greim, Lawrence Noble, Toby Marie Walker, Diana Aviv, Jenny Beth Martin, Gregory L. Colvin, Jay Sekulow

.

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.
………………— Note: hearing begins at about the 18:45 mark —

.
Click HERE to visit the official website of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee

.

.

*AUDIO* Ted Cruz Discusses The TPA And TPP Agreements On The Jeff Kuhner Radio Program (06/12/15)


PART 1

.
PART 2

.

.

Federal Judge Throws Out New York Teachers’ Exam Because RAAAAAACISM!

NY Teacher Exam Thrown Out For Being Discriminatory – Daily Caller

.

.
A federal judge in New York has struck down a test used by New York City to vet potential teachers, finding the test of knowledge illegally discriminated against racial minorities due to their lower scores.

At first glance, the city’s second Liberal Arts and Science Test (LAST-2) seems fairly innocuous. Unlike the unfair literacy tests of Jim Crow, LAST-2 was given to every teaching candidate in New York, and it was simply a test to make sure that teachers had a basic high school-level understanding of both the liberal arts and the sciences.

One sample question from the test asked prospective educators to identify the mathematical principle of a linear relationship when given four examples; another asked them to read four passages from the Constitution and identify which illustrated checks and balances. Besides factual knowledge, the test also checks basic academic skills, such as reading comprehension and the ability to read basic charts and graphs.

Nevertheless, this apparently neutral subject matter contained an insidious kernel of racism, because Hispanic and black applicants had a passage rate only 54 to 75 percent of the passage rate for whites.

Once their higher failure rate was established, the burden shifted to New York to prove that LAST-2 measured skills that were essential for teachers and therefore was justified in having a racially unequal outcome. While it might seem obvious that possessing basic subject knowledge is a key skill for a teacher, District Judge Kimba Wood said the state hadn’t met that burden.

“Instead of beginning with ascertaining the job tasks of New York teachers, the two LAST examinations began with the premise that all New York teachers should be required to demonstrate an understanding of the liberal arts,” Wood wrote in her opinion, according to The New York Times.

LAST-2 hasn’t been used in New York since 2012, but the ruling will still have repercussions. Minorities who failed the exam (who number in the thousands) may be owed years of back pay totaling millions of dollars, and those who were relegated to substitute teaching jobs could be promoted to having their own classrooms. In addition, while Wood’s ruling only applies to New York City, the test was used statewide, and it could serve as a precedent for further lawsuits.

The ruling could also pave the way for another ruling finding New York’s current teacher test, the Academic Literacy Skills Test (ALST), to be discriminatory as well. That test is even harder than LAST-2, with a strong focus on literacy skills such as writing and reading comprehension, and like LAST-2 it has a very large gap in scores between whites and minorities. A lawsuit, once again being heard by Wood, is already pending, with the plaintiffs arguing that there is no clear evidence strong literacy skills are essential for a teacher.

.

.

Federal Judge Sets Trial Date For RICO Case Against Bill And Hillary

Judge Sets Trial For RICO Claims Against Clintons – World Net Daily

.

.
A federal judge in Florida has scheduled a trial for January for a case charging Bill and Hillary Clinton with RICO violations.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations case was filed by Larry Klayman, of Freedom Watch, who alleges over the last decade, the Clintons have participated in “acts” that constitute a “criminal enterprise” that was designed to enrich them.

WND reported earlier this year when the case was filed that it alleged actions by Hillary and Bill Clinton, in coordination with their family foundation, constituted RICO crimes.

Klayman for years has been a Washington watchdog, having engaged Bill Clinton in court battles during his presidency. He’s also taken on terror interests and foreign influences in the United States, and just over the last year or so has won a federal court judgment against the National Security Agency’s spy-on-Americans program as well as bringing a case against Barack Obama over his amnesty-by-executive-memo strategy.

According to Klayman, the Clintons, through mail and wire fraud and false statements, misappropriated documents which he was entitled to receive and possess under the Freedom of Information Act regarding Hillary Clinton’s involvement in releasing Israeli war and cyber-warfare plans and practices.

Hillary Clinton orchestrated this release to harm and thwart Israeli plans to preemptively attack Iranian nuclear sites to stop the Islamic nation’s march to producing atomic weapons, according to Klayman.

The claim also explains Klayman used the nation’s FOIA to try to get details from the State Department regarding waivers to do business with Iran – “acts [that are] alleged to be the result of the defendants selling government influence in exchange for bribes from interests which have donated to The Clinton Foundation, paid huge speaking fees to the Clintons and other means.”

WND’s attempts to obtain a comment from the New York office for Bill Clinton or the foundation have not been successful.

The order comes from Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach.

Klayman told WND that it’s time for the Clintons “finally [to] be held legally accountable.”

He alleges their “criminal enterprise” dates back at least 10 years.

It was when the Clintons left the White House in 2000 that, Hillary Clinton has claimed, they were broke.

Estimates are that since that time period, they have been paid well over $100 million, oftentimes in $250,000 and $500,000 increments for speaking.

The Clintons’ foundation also has been embroiled in scandal recently, with details being revealed about how foreign interests made donations to the Clinton-controlled organization during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as a senior government official.

“Defendants have systematically and continuously, over the last ten (10) years and more, conducted a corrupt enterprise in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act,” the filing claims, “all of which acts are continuing in nature.”

Plaintiff sues the defendants, as individuals operating a criminal enterprise, for violating plaintiff’s statutory rights to obtain documents under the Freedom of Information Act… for violating plaintiff’s due process rights, vested property rights, constitutional rights, and for misappropriating property,” the filing says.

The complaint explains, “Plaintiff has filed many Freedom of Information Act requests for public records created or held by the U.S. Department of State… which records are of the public interest and importance to the citizens of the United States… As it has now been revealed, a primary reason that the plaintiff did not receive the records to which the plaintiff is entitled by law is that Defendant Hillary Clinton – upon information and belief together with Cheryl Mills and Defendant Bill Clinton and other Clinton ‘loyalists’ – set up a private computer file server operating a private, stand-alone electronic mail system.”

It alleges Clinton’s “off the books” plan “concealed from the plaintiff public records to which the plaintiff was entitled to under the FOIA Act.”

It continues, “Using those concealed communications held on the private email server, upon information and belief, the defendants negotiated, arranged and implemented the sale of influence and access to U.S. government officials and decision-makers and official acts by State and other instrumentalities of the U.S. government in return for gratuitous and illegal payments – bribes – disguised as donations to defendant The Clinton Foundation and extraordinarily high speaking fees paid to Defendant Bill Clinton and Defendant Hillary Clinton.”

The case filing estimates the Clintons have “amassed a personal fortune (outside of The Clinton Foundation) of over $105 million.”

Klayman had only just filed court papers requesting the judge take control of Hillary Clinton’s email server, because there could be “material evidence that is in imminent danger of being lost.”

“The plaintiff files this motion respectfully requesting that the court order the preservation of that information contained on a private computer file server (‘server’) that then Secretary of State Defendant Hillary Clinton (‘Secretary Clinton) used to conceal the U.S. government records off-site, rather than at a U.S. Department of State facility,” he wrote.

.

.

Federal Court Deals Blow To President Asshat’s Executive Amnesty Scheme

Federal Appeals Court Deals Blow To President Obama’s Amnesty – Washington Times

.

.
A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against President Obama’s new deportation in a ruling Tuesday that marks the second major legal setback for an administration that had insisted its actions were legal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, which had sued to stop the amnesty, on all key points, finding that Mr. Obama’s amnesty likely broke the law governing how big policies are to be written.

“The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction,” the judges wrote in the majority opinion.

Mr. Obama had acted in November to try to grant tentative legal status and work permits to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, saying he was tired of waiting for Congress to act.

The full amnesty, known as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, or DAPA, had been scheduled to begin last week, while an earlier part had been slated to accept applications on Feb. 18. But just two days before that, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued his injunction finding that Mr. Obama had broken the law.

Administration officials had criticized that ruling, and immigrant-rights advocates had called Judge Hanen an activist bent on punishing immigrants. But Tuesday’s ruling upholds his injunction, giving some vindication to the judge.

It also could mean Mr. Obama will have to appeal to the Supreme Court if he wants to implement his amnesty before the end of his term.

In the 2-1 decision, Judge Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Elrod ruled in favor of Texas, finding that the state would suffer an injury from having to deliver services to the illegal immigrants granted legal status, and ruling that it was a major enough policy that the president should have sent it through the usual rule-making process.

“DAPA modifies substantive rights and interests – conferring lawful presence on 500,000 illegal aliens in Texas forces the state to choose between spending millions of dollars to subsidize driver’s licenses and changing its law,” the judges wrote.

Judge Stephen A. Higginson dissented from Tuesday’s ruling, saying he would have left the fight over immigration policy to the White House and Congress, saying Mr. Obama should have broad discretion to decide who gets deported and how he goes about that.

Just Higginson also said the fight was a political battle, not a legal one

“The political nature of this dispute is clear from the names on the briefs: hundreds of mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, attorneys general, governors, and state legislators – not to mention 185 members of Congress, 15 states and the District of Columbia on the one hand, and 113 members of Congress and 26 states on the other,” he wrote.

.

.

Leftist Anti-Gun Nazis Smacked Down In Federal Court Over DC’s Concealed Carry Permit Restrictions

Federal Judge Smacks Down D.C. Gun Permit Requirement – Daily Caller

.

.
U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. placed a hold on Washington D.C.’s mandate that firearm owners must have a “good reason” to get a concealed carry permit in the District. The judge said the requirement took away citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Judge Scullin granted a preliminary injunction as a result of a lawsuit brought forth by three gun owners who sought to overturn the bureaucratic D.C. gun law claiming the regulations surrounding it make it impossible for the majority of law abiding individuals to qualify for a D.C. firearms permit.

“For all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms,” Judge Scullin wrote within his 23 page opinion.

Local lawmakers created the D.C. gun permitting process after Scullin ruled the District’s long-time ban on carrying firearms in public was unconstitutional last year. The process was intended to set up a process for residents and non-residents alike to apply for concealed carry permits.

Prior the passage of the law for gun permits, law-abiding citizens with permits from other states were allowed to carry in D.C. for a period time before the District took legal action to end the brief carry period.

.

.

Email-gate Update: Federal Judge Reopens Case Against Hitlery

Federal Judge Makes Massive Ruling Against Hillary Clinton – Conservative Tribune

.

.
One of the more controversial scandals dogging likely Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has been her use of a private email account on a private server to conduct official public business during her tenure at the State Department.

Government watchdog group Judicial Watch had previously sued to gain access to Hillary’s emails, which they claimed should be public record, but Hillary has kept them hidden and a court had tossed out the original lawsuit.

However, federal Judge Reggie Walton has agreed to reopen the lawsuit after Judicial Watch and the State Department reached an agreement stating that Hillary Clinton should have turned over all of the documents she held on her private email server.

It should be remembered that Hillary has claimed to have turned over to the State Department only about half of the emails on her private server, deleting more than 30,000 others she determined on her own to be “private” in nature.

According to Fox News, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said, “This is the first case that’s been reopened. It’s a significant development. It points to the fraud by this administration and Mrs. Clinton.”

This decision could ultimately result in Hillary being ordered to turn over the server to an independent third party that could objectively sort through whatever traces remained on it.

There are many who suspect Hillary’s private email server contained evidence related to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, as well as of her involvement in a “pay-to-play” scheme that involved the trading of political favors for major donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Thanks to this federal judge, America may finally find out just what Hillary has been hiding on that private server.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you are glad this judge decided to reopen the lawsuit demanding access to all of Hillary’s emails, not just the ones she decided to turn over herself.

.

.

Thanks Barack… Federal Regulation Cost American Businesses And Consumers $1.88 Trillion In 2014

Report: Cost Of Federal Regulation Reached $1.88 Trillion In 2014 – Washington Free Beacon

.

.
The cost of federal regulation neared $2 trillion in 2014, according to a new report by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State, a report by Clyde Wayne Crews, CEI’s vice president for policy, also reveals that the U.S. debt now exceeds the size of China’s economy.

“Federal regulation and intervention cost American consumers and businesses an estimated $1.88 trillion in 2014 in lost economic productivity and higher prices,” amounting to roughly $15,000 per household, the report said.

The report found that the federal bureaucracy – made up of 60 agencies, departments, and commissions – has 3,415 regulations in the process of being finalized, meaning that the number of regulations far surpasses the number of laws passed by Congress.

“In 2014, agencies issued 16 new regulations for every law – that’s 3,554 new regulations compared to 224 new laws,” the report said.

CEI, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, found that the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services (HHS), Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) account for 48 percent of all federal regulations.

The EPA issued 539 final rules in the Federal Register last year, up 12.5 percent in five years.

Enforcing regulations alone cost the government $59.5 billion in 2014.

Government regulation has led to a hidden “tax” for Americans, the report said, as businesses pass along compliance costs to consumers.

“Economy-wide regulatory costs amount to an average of $14,976 per household – around 29 percent of an average family budget of $51,100,” the report said. “Although not paid directly by individuals, this ‘cost’ of regulation exceeds the amount an average family spends on health care, food and transportation.”

Aside from passing costs onto consumers, the report said, regulation is a way for the federal government to further agendas without relying on the legislative system.

“Rather than pay directly and book expenses for new initiatives, federal regulations can compel the private sector, as well as state and local governments, to bear the costs of federal initiatives,” the report said.

Regulations hit small businesses the hardest, averaging $11,724 per employee for firms that employ fewer than 50 people in 2012. The overall cost per employee for all companies comes to $9,991.

The cost of regulation has grown so large, according to the report, that if it was a country “it would be the world’s 10th largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India.”

The regulatory state has been growing for decades. The report notes that 90,836 rules have been issued since 1993.

The Federal Register, the government’s official record for all federal regulations, was
77,687 pages long at the end of 2014, the sixth-highest page count in history.

“Among the six all-time-high Federal Register page counts, five have occurred under President Obama,” CEI said.

The report also noted that the national debt, which currently stands at $18.152 trillion, is now larger than China’s economy. China surpassed the U.S. to become the largest economy in the world last December.

“The national debt topped $18 trillion in December 2014,
the same month the International Monetary Fund calculated China’s economy to
be worth $17.6 trillion in terms of purchasing power parity, making it the world’s largest economy (albeit still significantly lagging the United States on a per capita basis),” CEI said.

.

.

Regime Lawyers Finally Admit Obama Violated Federal Injunction By Approving 2,000 Amnesty Applications

Obama Administration Violates Federal Court Order, Approves 2,000 More Amnesty Applications Despite Injunction – Liberty News

.

.
The Obama Administration has defied Federal Judge Andrew S. Hanen’s injunction once again, this time approving an additional 2,000 amnesty applications for work permits.

Thursday, Obama’s lawyers admitted to Judge Hanen just before midnight that the Department of Homeland Security had violated the injunction by approving the applications despite the fact Hanen admonished the administration two months ago for failing to comply with his ruling.

This latest development comes as DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson continue attempting to reassure Congress that Obama’s amnesty program has halted and that the administration is in full compliance with the court order.

Obama’s lawyers stated to Judge Hanen that “The government sincerely regrets these circumstances” and they are taking immediate steps to remedy the situation.

Via WT

“The last time I checked, injunctions are not mere suggestions. They are not optional,” the Iowa Republican said. “This disregard for the court’s action is unacceptable and disturbing, especially after Secretary Johnson’s assurances that his agency would honor the injunction.”

The Justice Department didn’t respond to a request for comment Friday, but Homeland Security officials said Mr. Johnson has asked his department’s inspector general to investigate what went wrong.

Judge Hanen had already been pondering whether to sanction the Justice Department lawyers after they admitted to misleading him – they said inadvertently – on more than 100,000 amnesty applications approved between the Nov. 20 date Mr. Obama announced the new program and the Feb. 16 date the judge issued his injunction.

Thursday’s filing, however, appears to be worse, since it breaks a direct injunction…

The lawyers also had to correct a previous number they’d given the court, when they’d said just 55 applications had been approved in the immediate aftermath of the injunction. The actual number, the lawyers admitted, was 72. They blamed “additional errors.”

Judge Hanen said he was surprised that the three-year applications were being approved, since he thought the administration had told him none of the new program was in effect. Justice Department lawyers said they hadn’t mean to mislead him, and had included in their briefing papers documents showing that the three-year approvals were to take effect last November – but apologized nonetheless for leaving the wrong impression.

What a complete and total crock…

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Texas Governor Goes After Obama Admin. For Acting ‘Outside The Law’ In Defying Judge’s Immigration Order – The Blaze

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott blasted the Obama administration Friday after Justice Department attorneys admitted the administration violated a federal court order by granting about 2,000 extended work permits to illegal immigrants.

“After months of obfuscation and stall tactics by the Obama administration, the president’s lawyers, have been forced to admit that they acted outside the law by implementing president’s executive amnesty – even after a federal judge had ordered them to stop,” Abbott said in a statement.

Texas is leading a multi-state lawsuit to stop President Barack Obama’s executive actions from November to shield about five million illegal immigrants from deportation. In February, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued an injunction to halt much of the order.

But late Thursday, Justice Department attorneys admitted to Judge Hanen that the Department of Homeland Security had approved about 2,000 applications for three-year work permits.

“The government sincerely regrets these circumstances and is taking immediate steps to remedy these erroneous three-year terms,” the administration lawyers said.

However Abbott sees the admission as part of a pattern.

“Not only did President Obama’s executive action violate the U.S. Constitution; his lawyers’ actions show a blatant disregard for the rule of law that has become typical of this administration and directly violates one of the fundamental principles upon which our nation was founded,” Abbott continued.

.

.

Republican Governor Of Tennessee Signs Bill Prohibiting State Cooperation With Federal Gun Control Laws

TN Gov. Signs Bill Prohibiting State Cooperation with Fed Gun Control Laws – Big Government

.

.
On April 30, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam (R) signed Senate Bill 1110 – a bill which bars state cooperation with federal gun control laws.

Sponsored by Senator Richard Briggs (R-Dist. 7), SB 1110 “prohibits the use of any public funds, personnel, or property to enforce any federal law or regulation that regulates the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearms accessories.”

SB 1110 passed the house by a margin of 74 to 20 and the senate by a margin of 24 to 1.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the measure was “originally introduced in the House as HB1341 by Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver.” At that time, Weaver said, “I’m from the cut that there is no need for Washington D.C. to be the end all and be all with regards to the regulatory world. We should respect our 10th Amendment and shift the power back to the states and that’s what House Bill 1341 does.”

What was true for HB 1341 is also true for SB 1110.

This law comes on the heels of another blow to federal gun control signed by Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) last week. On April 29, Pence signed Senate Bill 433 – a bill that “repeals the prohibition against manufacturing, importing, selling, or possessing a sawed-off shotgun.”

SB 433 addresses the ban on short barreled, modified shotguns and will also present a challenge to the federal government’s “title II firearm” policy requiring registration fees and transfer records each time the firearm changes hands.

.

.

Federal Judge Slaps Down Obama Regime’s Request To Let Executive Amnesty Move Forward

Federal Court Slaps Down Request To Let Obama’s Amnesty Move Forward – Daily Caller

.

.
A federal judge denied Tuesday night the Obama administration’s request to allow President Obama’s executive actions on amnesty to move forward.

The Southern District Court of Texas is hearing a lawsuit from 26 states against the Department of Homeland Security over the executive actions President Obama announced in November he would be taking to extend legal status and work permits to 5 million illegal immigrants. Judge Andrew Hanen stayed Obama’s immigration plans in February – and soon after discovered that the Justice Department had misled the court about the details of the plan.

Tuesday night, Hanen denied the Justice Department’s March request to stay his injunction against the plan, meaning the latest amnesty will not move forward for now.

That’s not all. Hanen’s ruling ordered the DOJ to produce all documents and metadata regarding what the department knew about the amnesty plan, and when, in response to the department’s flub with the court.

Part of President Obama’s current amnesty plan, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), would provide amnesty for about 4 million illegal immigrants who are parents. Another section would upgrade Obama’s 2012 immigration program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), by extending the period illegal immigrants would be exempt from deportation from two to three years.

While DOJ reported to the court that the DACA upgrade would not go into effect until Feb. 18 – two days after Hanen issued a temporary injunction against it – the administration belatedly admitted in March that it had already issued the extended amnesty to 100,000 illegal immigrants.

“Due to the seriousness of the matters discussed therein, the Court will not rule on any other pending motions until it is clear that these matters, if true, do not impact the pending matters or any rulings previously made by this Court,” Hanen wrote of DOJ’s admission that it had moved forward with the program anyway.

DOJ nevertheless filed a motion days later asking the court to lift its injunction, because the freeze purportedly interferes with DHS’ “effort to effectively allocate limited enforcement resources.”

The court ruled that the administration’s actions “were indeed misleading.” Hanen denied the plaintiffs’ request to strike the government’s pleadings entirely, but left the door open to future repercussions, saying the court “may impose some other sanction in response to the misrepresentations made to the Court.”

Now the administration has until Apr. 21 to comply with the court order for information.

“At a minimum, however, Defendants have created special circumstances that necessitate further investigation,” Hanen wrote in the order. The ruling requires that DOJ hand over the documentation of all drafts and metadata regarding editing of the March advisory which misled the court on DAPA’s content – and specified that the agency cannot “destroy” or “erase” any data, just in case.

.

.

Tea Partiers Gear Up For Class-Action Lawsuit As Federal Judge Orders IRS To Turn Over List Of Targeted Groups

Federal Judge Orders IRS To Release List Of Tea Party Groups Targeted For Scrutiny – Washington Times

.
…………

.
A federal judge ordered the IRS this week to turn over the list of 298 groups it targeted for intrusive scrutiny as the agency defends against a potential class-action lawsuit by tea party groups who claim their constitutional rights were violated.

The IRS had argued it shouldn’t have to release the names because doing so would violate privacy laws, but Judge Susan J. Dlott, who sits in the Southern District of Ohio, rejected that claim and ordered the tax agency to turn over any lists or spreadsheets detailing the groups that were targeted and when they filed their applications.

Judge Dlott also ordered the IRS to say whether a partial list of targeted groups reported by USA Today is authentic as a number of tea party groups try to win certification for a class action lawsuit against the IRS.

“The return information sought is directly related to the issue of class certification in this federal court proceeding,” the judge said. “The names of the putative class member organizations and their control dates – the date which the putative class member organizations submitted their applications for tax exempt status to the IRS – are directly related to the issue of class certification.”

The judge has not yet certified the tea party groups as a class, and the information that they’ve obtained so far through depositions remains under seal. But backers say if they can be certified, then they will begin to try to pry loose some of the key information about how the IRS chose which groups it went after in its targeting.

“We’re at the precipice,” said Mark Meckler, a member of one of the tea party groups suing, and also president of Citizens for Self-Governance, which is funding the litigation.

The Ohio lawsuit is the only major legal jeopardy still remaining in the courts for the IRS — though the agency is still facing an FBI investigation, according to documents obtained by True the Vote, a tea party group, under the Freedom of Information Act.

Earlier this week the deporting U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. informed House Speaker John A. Boehner he would not prosecute Lois G. Lerner, the former senior executive who’s at the center of the targeting scandal, for contempt of Congress. The prosecutor said Ms. Lerner didn’t waiver her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination when she delivered an opening statement at a congressional hearing but then refused follow-up questions.

The scandal developed after the IRS acknowledged it singled out tea party groups for special scrutiny, and asked intrusive questions that agency executives later said were inappropriate. The IRS’s inspector general concluded that 298 groups were targeted, with all but a handful of them leaning toward the conservative side.

But the IRS has resisted releasing the official list, arguing that is private information.

“The Internal Revenue Service cannot disclose the identities of the potential class members because that is return information protected,” the administration said in its court filings.

The judge disagreed, saying exemptions in law apply to a case like this.

Several other cases had been filed in Washington, D.C., by tea party groups trying to force a judge to proactively halt any future targeting. The judge tossed those cases, saying that the IRS insists the targeting has ended, so there is no further action needed.

But some groups are still awaiting approval, including one that’s been pending for more than five years, which their lawyers argue means the IRS is still targeting despite its insistence that its program has ended.

Commissioner John Koskinen has said groups that are still waiting could take a deal, promising to limit their political activities to 40 percent of their business, but the groups argue that would mean giving up rights since they believe under current law politicking can be almost 50 percent of their activities.

.

.

Over 100,000 Federal Employees Owe Back Taxes Totaling $1.4 Billion

More Than 100,000 Feds Owe Back Taxes – Washington Examiner

.

.
Federal employees owed more in delinquent taxes last year than any year in the past decade, costing the Internal Revenue Service $1.4 billion in 2014.

The 113,805 civilian government employees who declined to pay all of their taxes last year would be ineligible to work for federal agencies under a House bill introduced last week that would hold officials accountable for evading taxes.

Four in 100 federal employees owed the IRS last year, according to the tax agency’s annual delinquency report released Tuesday.

Among cabinet-level agencies, the Department of Veterans Affairs had the highest rate of tax delinquency, with 15,476 of its employees evading all or part of their taxes in 2014.

VA staff collectively owed nearly $162 million in back taxes, the report said.

In the House of Representatives, more than 500 staffers together didn’t pay the IRS $6.7 million last year.

Five of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ 41 staff members owe money. With just 1 percent of its employees owing the IRS, the Treasury Department had the lowest rate.

“It is disconcerting that federal civilian employees owe more than one billion dollars in back taxes,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “These employees are not exempt from their civic responsibility to fulfill tax obligations, and those who refuse to pay what they owe should be held accountable.”

The Oversight Committee will review the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2015 during a mark-up session Wednesday.

.

.

Federal Judge Not A Happy Camper After Being Lied To About Executive Amnesty By Obama Regime

Federal Judge Admonished DOJ Over Apparent Deception: ‘I Was Made To Look Like An Idiot’ – Breitbart

.

.
The U.S. Government lied to a federal judge, misrepresented facts and illegally gave 100,081 illegal aliens immigration status despite a pending lawsuit and an injunction. That is the argument that attorneys representing Texas and more than two dozen other states made.

During the heated court hearing Andrew Hanen, a U.S. District Court Judge, said that the apparent violation had made him look like an idiot since he initially believed the U.S. Government.

In a heated court hearing Angela Colmonero from the Texas Attorney General’s office stated that Texas had acted promptly in November 2014 upon learning of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty and had followed all the timelines set forth with a sense of urgency.

“This was done to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreparable damage to the state,” Colmonero said referring to the cost that the individuals would bring and to the incentive for further illegal immigration. “You can’t put toothpaste back in the tube.”

During the hearings leading to an injunction handed down by Judge Hanen, attorney’s with the Department of Justice claimed that if an injunction was filed nothing would be done. That wasn’t the case, the Texas attorney said.

“The defendant did the exact opposite and gave 100,000 renewals for a term of three years under the expanded DACA,” Colmonero said. “The defendant didn’t inform the court until March 3 – 15 days after the injunction was filed.”

According to Colmonero’s statements, the program known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) was implemented in 2012; however in November 2014 it was expanded, changing the time of the permits from two years to three years. Therefore the permits issued by the U.S. Government are a violation.

The coalition of states asked the court to give them early access as to the defendant’s documents and files since they couldn’t be taken at their word, Colmonero said.

DOJ attorney Kathleen Hardeck appeared nervous as she stuttered her response saying it was the terminology used that led to confusion, but once they saw that things could be misinterpreted they had tried to notify the court.

“When I asked you what would happen and you said nothing I took it to heart,” Hanen said. “I was made to look like an idiot. I believed your word that nothing would happen.”

During the hearing Hanen talked about possible penalties if, in fact, the evidence proved that the government had lied. He said it would probably not be financial since the taxpayer would be footing the bill over damages already made to them.

After hearing the arguments from both sides Hanen said he would issue a ruling in the near future.

.

.

Federal Government Shelled Out $125B In Bogus Payments Last Year

Feds Shelled Out $125B In Bogus Payments Last Year – Washington Times

.

.
The government paid out $124.7 billion in potentially bogus payments last year, the government’s chief watchdog said Monday, blaming a controversial tax credit for the poor as well as increased bad payments in Medicare and Medicaid.

One major problem is tracking when Americans die – the Social Security Administration admitted last week that its rolls are filled with names of more than 6 million folks who are listed as 112 years of age or older.

The Government Accountability Office said Social Security has trouble maintaining the Death Master File, and other agencies have difficulties in getting the information to update their own files and halt payments to those no longer alive to collect benefits.

SEE ALSO: Rand Paul emerges as the harshest GOP critic of Clinton emails

At the same time, being improperly listed on the Death Master File can cause nightmares, said Judy C. Rivers, a woman who has twice been erroneously listed, leaving her denied for jobs, rejected for apartments and forced to live in her car.

At one point she spent an hour haggling with a bank that was refusing to open an account for her but wouldn’t tell her why. Eventually the manager told Ms. Rivers her Social Security number had been listed by the federal agency as deactivated “due to death.”

“The Death Master File has been like a propagating hydra underlying all my problems,” she told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

SEE ALSO: VA refusing to comply with Congress on transparency, reforms, lawmakers say

It took her four years to clear up enough of the problems that she was able to be approved for a credit card again.

Social Security’s inspector general said a 2008 investigation found more than 20,000 people who were wrongly listed in the death file.

The agency says its hands are tied and it must release some information about those in its death file in response to open-records requests, leaving those erroneously listed open to even more fraud if an unscrupulous actor gets their number and realizes they are still alive.

Social Security insists it hasn’t found an instance where someone’s identity was compromised solely because of being wrongly listed.

Sean Brune, senior adviser to the deputy Social Security commissioner, said less than half a percent of the 2.8 million new death reports they get each year are inaccurate.

The agency gets its information from banks, post offices, and federal and state agencies that pay out benefits, such as the Veterans Affairs Department or Medicare.

Social Security paid out a little more than $8 billion in improper payments last year, according to GAO investigators. The supplemental security income program had a 9.2 percent error rate, while the retirement benefits program had a much smaller error rate of four-tenths of a percent.

The biggest problems, however, came at Medicare, whose basic fee-for-service program paid out $45.8 billion in improper payments, or nearly 13 percent of its outlays, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which botched 27.2 percent of its payments, for a total of $17.7 billion, the GAO said.

Medicaid, Medicare Advantage and unemployment insurance rounded out the top five worst programs in terms of dollars spent on potentially bogus payments.

The government paid out $124.7 billion in potentially bogus payments last year, the government’s chief watchdog said Monday, blaming a controversial tax credit for the poor as well as increased bad payments in Medicare and Medicaid.

One major problem is tracking when Americans die – the Social Security Administration admitted last week that its rolls are filled with names of more than 6 million folks who are listed as 112 years of age or older.

The Government Accountability Office said Social Security has trouble maintaining the Death Master File, and other agencies have difficulties in getting the information to update their own files and halt payments to those no longer alive to collect benefits.

SEE ALSO: Rand Paul emerges as the harshest GOP critic of Clinton emails

At the same time, being improperly listed on the Death Master File can cause nightmares, said Judy C. Rivers, a woman who has twice been erroneously listed, leaving her denied for jobs, rejected for apartments and forced to live in her car.

At one point she spent an hour haggling with a bank that was refusing to open an account for her but wouldn’t tell her why. Eventually the manager told Ms. Rivers her Social Security number had been listed by the federal agency as deactivated “due to death.”

“The Death Master File has been like a propagating hydra underlying all my problems,” she told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

It took her four years to clear up enough of the problems that she was able to be approved for a credit card again.

Social Security’s inspector general said a 2008 investigation found more than 20,000 people who were wrongly listed in the death file.

The agency says its hands are tied and it must release some information about those in its death file in response to open-records requests, leaving those erroneously listed open to even more fraud if an unscrupulous actor gets their number and realizes they are still alive.

Social Security insists it hasn’t found an instance where someone’s identity was compromised solely because of being wrongly listed.

Sean Brune, senior adviser to the deputy Social Security commissioner, said less than half a percent of the 2.8 million new death reports they get each year are inaccurate.

The agency gets its information from banks, post offices, and federal and state agencies that pay out benefits, such as the Veterans Affairs Department or Medicare.

Social Security paid out a little more than $8 billion in improper payments last year, according to GAO investigators. The supplemental security income program had a 9.2 percent error rate, while the retirement benefits program had a much smaller error rate of four-tenths of a percent.

The biggest problems, however, came at Medicare, whose basic fee-for-service program paid out $45.8 billion in improper payments, or nearly 13 percent of its outlays, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which botched 27.2 percent of its payments, for a total of $17.7 billion, the GAO said.

Medicaid, Medicare Advantage and unemployment insurance rounded out the top five worst programs in terms of dollars spent on potentially bogus payments.

.

.

Obama Regime Ordered Back To Federal Court To Explain Why It Lied About Executive Amnesty

WH Ordered Back To Court To Explain Alleged False Facts In Amnesty Case – Big Government

.

.
The judge who blocked President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration has ordered the Justice Department to answer allegations the government misled him about part of the plan.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen has ordered federal government lawyers to appear in his court March 19 in Brownsville. The hearing is in response to a filing last week in which the government acknowledged some deportation reprieves were granted before Hanen’s Feb. 16 injunction.

Government attorneys had previously said officials wouldn’t accept such requests under Obama’s action until Feb. 18.

The government said in its filing that the 100,000 immigrants who were granted three-year reprieves and work permits were already eligible under a previous immigration plan from 2012.

The 26 states suing over Obama’s plan requested more information.

.

.

Democrat Senator Menendez To Be Indicted On Federal Corruption Charges

Democrat Senator Bob Menendez To Be Indicted On Corruption – Townhall

.

.
According to an exclusive report published first by CNN, Democrat Senator Bob Menendez will be indicted by the Department of Justice on federal corruption charges.

The Justice Department is preparing to bring criminal corruption charges against New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, alleging he used his Senate office to push the business interests of a Democratic donor and friend in exchange for gifts.

People briefed on the case say Attorney General Eric Holder has signed off on prosecutors’ request to proceed with charges, CNN has learned exclusively. An announcement could come within weeks. Prosecutors are under pressure in part because of the statute of limitation on some of the allegations.

The government’s case centers on Menendez’s relationship with Salomon Melgen, a Florida ophthalmologist who the senator has called a friend and political supporter. Melgen and his family have been generous donors to the senator and various committees the senator is associated with.

Menendez has been under fire over the past three years for allegations of hiring underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic, for accepting suspicious campaign donations and much more. Yahoo has a rundown of the scandals surrounding Menendez here.

I should point out that the timing of the indictment is interesting. Menendez has been a harsh critic of President Obama’s policy and negotiations with Iran and has been a staunch supported of Israel.

.

.