Federal judge orders hearing in illegal immigration case

Sonoran News ^ | August 20,2014 | Linda Bently

[Elderberry]

BROWNSVILLE, Texas – Last week, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen ordered a hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Aug. 27 to address all pending motions in a complaint brought by California Attorney Orly Taitz (r) against President Barack Obama, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Jeh Johnson; Director of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell and the U.S. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Station.

In July, Taitz filed an emergency application for a stay of the transportation of illegal aliens from the Southern District of Texas to California and other areas throughout the country due to a serious threat to public health, spread of infectious diseases, national security threat, crime threat and economic damages.

Her action seeks either to immediately order the turnaround and deportation of all illegal aliens or require them to be placed in quarantine for two months in an enclosed temporary or permanent FEMA facility in order to contain the spread of infectious diseases.

She is also seeking an emergency stay of the release of illegal aliens into the general public that did not complete two months of quarantine, did not undergo proper medical screening, do not have a written medical release, do not have a clean criminal record from their country of origin and do not have a signed order from a federal judge stating such aliens are legally entitled to live in the United States.

Taitz states the nation is being flooded by hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens as a direct result of Obama and his codefendant’s unlawful and unconstitutional actions.

Noting this flood of illegal aliens have brought with them multiple infectious diseases, including tuberculosis, measles, scabies, pertussis (whooping cough), lice, swine flu, bacterial pneumonia and more, Taitz also states defendants are transporting these illegal aliens, which include gang members, drug cartel members and suspected members of terrorist organizations, all over the country allowing them, without any identification, to travel wherever they wish on commercial carriers.

Taitz, who is also a dentist, says, as a healthcare provider who comes in contact with individuals who are affected by multiple infectious diseases and, absent quarantine and proper treatment, she is in imminent danger of contracting such diseases.

While defendants are transferring thousands of illegal aliens from the Southern District of Texas to California and elsewhere across the country and dumping them on unsuspecting communities, legal immigrants, particularly those from countries known for outbreaks of infectious diseases, must undergo health checks, chest X-rays for tuberculosis and obtain a medical release.

She stated legal immigrants must also provide a criminal record from their country of origin.

Taitz calls the current practice of dumping of illegal aliens into communities a sham process, with health screenings performed by border patrol agents, who do not have medical training, while carrying out only cursory criminal background checks to determine if they previously committed crimes in the United States.

Border patrol agents have admitted they are releasing illegal aliens who were self-professed murderers in their home countries. However, since they had no criminal record in this country, they were ordered to let them go.

The illegal aliens are then released and allowed to travel to wherever they want to go with just a letter advising them to appear in court before an immigration judge.

According to Taitz, over 90 percent never show up for their deportation hearings. She said the defendants are acting as de facto human traffickers, with the federal government actually completing the smuggling cycle.

On Aug. 1, Hanen ordered the defendants to show cause why the emergency relief requested by Taitz should not be granted and ordered the government to comply by Aug. 11.

Last year, Hanen issued a scathing order chastising DHS following a child smuggling case, in which the human trafficker who brought the 10-year-old illegal alien child from El Salvador to Texas was apprehended. The smuggler was paid $6,000 by the child’s illegal alien mother to bring the child into the country and deliver her to Virginia, where the mother resides illegally.

However, after the smuggler was apprehended by the border patrol, the U.S. government took over and delivered the child to her mother in Virginia.

The mother was turned down for a tourist visa in 2000 so she decided to enter the United States illegally and has lived here ever since.

In that case, Hanan stated even if the mother’s decision to smuggle her child across the border was motivated by the best of interests, it was not an excuse for the U.S. government to further the criminal conspiracy, and by doing so, encourage others to break the law and endanger additional children.

He wrote, “To put this in another context, the DHS policy is as logical as taking illegal drugs or weapons that it has seized from smugglers and delivering them to the criminals who initially solicited their illegal importation/exportation. Legally, this situation is no different. This court is not blind to the needs of a minor child, nor is it suggesting that a child should be punished for the crimes of her parent. Nevertheless, neither the Flores settlement nor a concern for common decency compels the government to not only aid, but also reward an individual for initiating a scheme to break the laws governing the border security of this country. Further, neither compels the government to aid the drug cartels who control this human trafficking.”

Hanan stated his court is aware prosecutors and law enforcement officers frequently exercise discretion to defer prosecution or arrest of individuals and it is not opposed to the concept of prosecutorial discretion, if exercised with a sense of justice and common sense.

He concluded by stating, “Nevertheless, it is not aware of any accepted legal principle, including prosecutorial discretion that not only allows the government to decline prosecution, but further allows it to actually complete the intended criminal mission. The DHS should enforce the laws of the United States – not break them.”

In ordering the Aug. 27 hearing, Hanan stated the topics that will be discussed include: 1) the standing of the plaintiff (either individually or as a class representative); 2) the ability of an individual citizen, even with standing, to question executive authority over immigration matters; 3) the defendants’ past and current efforts to secure the southern border of the United States (including the efforts to stop the influx of illegal aliens, minors and adults in 2014); 4) all aspects of the apprehension, processing and subsequent placement of the illegal minors in 2014 including specifically the recent influx from Mexico and Central America; 5) the defendants’ efforts to comply with the Flores settlement in conjunction with the recent influx of minors; 6) the application, if any, of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to this case; 7) the examination, diagnosis and treatment of any illegal alien minors with any medical conditions in 2014; and 8) the detention and/or all other means to house illegal alien minors who have entered the country in 2014.

Hanan stated, “The court will rule as quickly as it can after the hearing given the emergency nature of the motion.”

[GregNH]

I thought there was a later thread but couldn’t put my mouse on it right away so I went with the original.

[GregNH]

Is this not the same case?

[Elderberry]

From Orly’s site:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
DR. ORLY TAITZ, §
Plaintiff
, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-cv-119
§
JEH JOHNSON,
et al.
, §
Defendants
. §
_______________________________________ §
ORDER
In a separate Order, this Court dismissed all of the claims of Dr. Orly Taitz (for the reasons discussed in that Order)
except for those requesting equitable relief that relate to injuries she allegedly suffers and those that she allegedly will suffer in the future due to the conduct of Defendants.

As a preliminary matter, it is this Court’s understanding that Dr. Taitz has previously requested information regarding the medical conditions suffered by the illegal immigrants to whom Dr. Taitz was exposed during the relevant time period leading up to and including when she suffered her alleged illness.

The Government has refused to provide her with that information. The parties are to follow the following procedure to resolve this stalemate. Dr. Taitz shall provide to the Government a list of the illegal immigrant children she treated from June 6, 2014, to August 22, 2014.

She shall include the name (or other identifier) of the patient, date of each treatment, and the reason for each visit. She shall do that by August 7, 2015.
Failure to comply with this deadline will relieve the Government of any duty to comply with the following obligations spelled out in this Order.

The Government is hereby ordered to provide Dr. Taitz with all medical records (including any document that in any way describes the illegal immigrant’s physical condition) that it has in its possession concerning each immigrant that Dr. Taitz has treated during the time period specified above.

The records for each immigrant should include all medical records for three months preceding the date of Dr. Taitz’s treatment through three months after treatment.
These shall be produced to Dr. Taitz by September 11, 2015.

Both the Government and Dr. Taitz are ordered to keep these medical records confidential. They are not to be disclosed to anyone other than the lawyers,their support staff, and their experts, if any, involved in this case.

All of those individuals are also ordered not to disclose any medical information they receive to anyone. Each expert, lawyer, and staff member must be provided with a copy of this Order so that they are aware that any disclosure of medical information will result in the possibility of being held in contempt of court.

Any court filings containing a record or information gleaned from those records shall be filed under seal. At the conclusion of the case, all medical records and copies thereof, except any records concerning Dr. Taitz’s health or any of the dental records of her patients, shall be returned to counsel for the Government. Those concerning the health of Dr. Taitz or any treatment rendered by Dr. Taitz shall be returned to her.

If Dr. Taitz complies with her responsibilities under this Order, the Government may not file any further dispositive motions until October 23, 2015. If it files a motion on that or any later date, Dr. Taitz has thirty (30) days to respond. The Government may file any reply to the response within ten (10) days of Dr. Taitz’s response.

The Court will at that point consider the merits of whatever motion that the Government chooses to file. If the Government has not filed a dispositive motion by December 31, 2015, or if the Court eventually denies such motion, the Court will then enter a scheduling order to bring the case to an appropriate conclusion.

It will hold a conference call with counsel for both sides before issuing that scheduling order.

Any other discovery requests made by either side shall be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the local rules of the Southern District of Texas, and prevailing case law.
Signed this 7th day of July, 2015.