Posted on 08/01/2016 7:16:17 PM PDT by Elderberry
In an immigration case in a Brownsville, Texas, federal court pitting Texas and 25 other states against the Obama administration, U.S. Department of Justice lawyers this week filed under seal their response to presiding U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen's May 19 sanctions order calling for them to undergo ethics training.
In June, Hanen stayed that sanctions order until a scheduled Aug. 22 hearing. At the same time, Hanen had asked the DOJ lawyers to file by July 31 any points they wanted to make about "an appropriate sanction for the misrepresentations" and any other evidence "concerning the misrepresentations."
In a July 31 motion, asking to file their submissions under seal, the DOJ lawyers argued that their submitted material included attorney-client communications, attorney work-product and sensitive personal information. The DOJ lawyers said their submissions also identified the government lawyer whom Hanen previously identified in a sealed order he issued on May 19, the same day he issued an unsealed memorandum opinion and order calling for the sanctions requiring the ethics training.
In that May 19 memorandum opinion and order, Hanen concluded that DOJ lawyers had made intentional misrepresentations to his court in bad faith. As a result of those alleged misrepresentations, Hanen ordered that the DOJ lawyers in his courtroom, whom he did not identify in the unsealed ruling by name, and their departmental peers must undergo ethics training for a five-year period.
In addition, Hanen ordered the DOJ lawyers provide him, under seal, personally identifying data for immigrants who received work waivers.
On June 7, however, after the DOJ lawyers filed an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if the 26 states had standing to challenge the Obama administration's proposed immigration reforms, Hanen agreed to stay his sanctions order until the Aug. 22 hearing.
Texas and the other states are opposing two immigration reform programs, one existing and one proposed, both of which would allow previously undocumented immigrants waivers to work in this country.
On June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an equally divided decision, therefore letting stand Hanen's ruling that the states did have standing—clearing the way for a trial on the merits of the states' challenge to the immigration programs in the Brownsville federal courtroom.
On July 18, however, DOJ lawyers, based on the high court's deadlock, filed a petition for a rehearing. The justices have not yet ruled on that rehearing request.
He should add monetary fines.
Not enough. Disbarment.
I Agree, He should reconsider.
No Ethics Training, Instead 6 months in Jail for Contempt. Remanded, $10,000 Fine for sanctions. And a Formal Demand to the Bar Association for Immediate Disbarment as well as a Referral and Plea to CONGRESS to Appoint a Special Prosecutor in this Suspected CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE..
Ethics training? For a lawyer? I don’t think they can pass it, let alone be expected to use it. Kind of like Tom Hanks said, “There’s no ethics in being a lawyer!”
red
Department of Jesters liewyers don’t need no steenking “ethics”...
Sounds like they need a training session with Sergeant Donny Donowitz...
This is similar to the call for gun safety training for murderers. Criminals don't kill people because they don't know how to safely handle a firearm.
Similarly, government lawyers don't engage in corrupt behavior in our courts because they don't know what honesty is. They aren't going to be affected in any positive way by trying to explain to them what honesty is. They will continue to behave in their unethical manner until they are PUNISHED sufficiently to make them fear being caught.
$1,000 per day day, per immigrant. Fine cannot be paid by DOJ.
A little story:
One of my last jobs after I retired from the military and before went I disabled was I was security for the county courthouse. Being thee every day, I got to know a number of the trial lawyers and judges.
One morning I saw just outside the door, one of the lawyers hanging his head looking sad. I stepped out and ask him if he was okay, and he said yeah. It was just that the jury was out on his trial and he was concerned for the the release of his client. I wished him good luck.
A few hours later, he was outside smoking a cig and was really upset. I asked him how it came out. He said they found him guilty and remanded him for custody for sentencing. Trying to make him feel better, I said that sometimes they are guilty and there’s nothing he can do. His retort was that guilt had nothing to do with it. His job was to keep him out of jail and on the street.
I never talked to him again.
red
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.