Tag Archives: government

The DoJ Strikes Again

Posted on by
Reply

This case involves a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ex-agent who sued the BATF over its slander of him and its lack of adequate protection of him and his family after he’d done undercover work for the BATF in the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang.

United States Court of Federal Claims Judge Francis M. Allegra opened his latest ruling in blunt terms:

On October 29, 2014, the court…issued an order voiding the prior judgment based upon indications that defendant [the United States; the BATF agent was the plaintiff], through its counsel, had committed fraud on the court.

Fraud on the court is an extremely serious bit of…miscreancy. As Allegra explained it,

Fraud on the court “is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.”

It’s a direct attack on the ability of our judicial system to function at all; it’s not one litigant lying to the other in order to gain an advantage in a particular case.

The underlying case is an indication of the integrity of Attorney General Eric Holder’s DoJ, but I want to focus on the fraud on the court allegation. Allegra focused on two examples he found indicative of a pattern of fraud on the court perpetrated by Holder’s representatives in the case. The first is this:

Testimony at trial indicated that Valerie Bacon, an attorney in ATF’s Office of General Counsel, attempted to convince SAC Atteberry not to reopen the arson investigation [regarding the destruction of the BATF agent’s home, the blame for which was central to the agent’s slander beef]. In this regard, SAC Atteberry testified:

Q. . . . Did you get any kind of discouragement in any respect from anyone at ATF with respect to reopening this arson investigation?

A. Yes.

Q. Please explain.
…
A. I had a phone conversation, and I also believe I talked to her [Bacon] in person one time when she was in Phoenix, and I believe during the telephone conversation she made a comment to me that if you, meaning myself, reopen the investigation that would damage our civil case.

The existence of this illegal conversation was never passed to the court until Atteberry’s testimony. Indeed,

Defendant’s filings regarding this situation demonstrated not only that its counsel—including supervisors in the Civil Division, who received email communications on this topic from plaintiff’s counsel in March of 2013—were aware of Ms Bacon’s actions prior to the trial in this case, but did nothing to apprise the court of her actions or of the potential that the integrity of these proceedings were at risk.

And this instance:

…a taped conversation (a copy of which is part of the appellate record in this case), revealed that defendant’s [the United States, recall] attorneys may have committed other violations of the duty of candor, including a potential failure to advise the court that an ATF agent who testified in this case may have been threatened by another witness during the trial. The taped communication states that defendant’s counsel ordered the agent in question not to communicate the threat to the court and stated that there would be repercussions if the agent did not follow counsel’s instructions. This matter has since been referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) at the Justice Department.

Notice that. However,

legal filings show that the agency soon suspended its investigation, saying it would wait to hear what Judge Allegra finds.

This is Eric Holder’s OPR, recall. It suspended the investigation which the judge had explicitly requested be carried out, not a file folder created and then…HIAed.

Unfortunately, the judge has no recourse other than the one he took: to address the matter to…Eric Holder. He did, though, bar the seven defense attorneys from appearing further in his court in connection with this case.

Fox News also asked Attorney General Eric Holder if the lawyers involved had been disciplined. The Department of Justice declined to comment.

Of course not.

The judge’s ruling can be seen here.

Immigration and Elections

Posted on by
Reply

Elections have consequences, a man said. Among those consequences is the shape of subsequent elections, I say.

Republicans in the new Congress are preparing their own immigration legislation, with the first batch centered on better border security and easing immigration requirements in technology, agriculture, and some other areas of interest to employers.

A question in too many minds, though, is whether President Barack Obama would veto such legislation, either because the bills might restrict his “executive actions” involving refusing to enforce existing immigration law or because, Republican.

The question is in too many minds because it might impact whether Republicans pass the legislation at all.

If the bills are good in their own right, pass them. Let Obama veto them. Shape the 2016 elections with those vetoes. Bring on the consequences of the 2014 mid-terms.

Cutting Federal Spending

Posted on by
1

Retired Federal judge and ex-US Senator (D, NY) James Buckley has an idea on this.

dismantle[] the more than 1,100 grants-in-aid programs that spend one-sixth of the federal budget on matters that are the exclusive business of state and local governments.
…
Those programs, which provide funding for Medicaid as well as everything from road and bridge construction to rural housing, job training and fighting childhood obesity—now touch virtually every activity in which state and local governments are engaged. Their direct cost has grown, according to the federal budget, to an estimated $640.8 billion in 2015 from $24.1 billion in 1970.

I’ve advocated elsewhere weaning the States off their Federal Medicaid grant addiction. The remaining 1,109 handouts to the States certainly should be eliminated, also. Those $641 billion compare to 2014’s Federal deficit of $483 billion. That surplus could be used to pay down (a little) our enormous Federal debt and to reverse its skyrocketing increase—a real bending of the curve.

That’s just the pecuniary fiscal cost of those programs and of the States’ addiction to them.

Because the grants come with detailed federal directives, they deprive state and local officials of the flexibility to meet their own responsibilities in the most effective ways, and undermine their citizens’ ability to ensure that their taxes will be used to meet their priorities rather than those of distant federal regulators.

Getting rid of these programs also would be a giant step toward restoring the Federalism that was, and can be again, the bedrock of our nation’s exceptionalism and greatness.

At Last, Shovel Ready Jobs

Posted on by
Reply

And President Barack Obama only had to break the law (and the Constitution) to find them.

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency is looking to hire 1,000 new employees to process applications pertaining to President Barack Obama’s new executive action on immigration, the New York Times is reporting.

Never mind that existing immigration law makes his Executive “Action” mandating protection from deportation of illegal entrants into the US illegal. Never mind that his Constitutional mandate, and his oath of office to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, make his Executive “Action” illegal.

Because, jobs. And best of all,

The new positions have salaries that range up to $157,000 a year.

That’s better than road building—and they’re indoors, too. Can’t beat that with a…stick.

Technology, Oil, and Government

Posted on by
Reply

Falling oil prices are a good thing. Except when they’re not. Or….

The irony in the falling prices is that the success of US producers using hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies is partly responsible, along with slowing demand by struggling Asian and European markets. Now that success could come back to bite the so-called fracking industry and other drillers in America.

[Wyoming Governor Matt, R] Mead acknowledged that in the short term, lower gas prices will benefit businesses and residents in his sparsely populated state, where distances between towns are often calculated in hours instead of minutes.

But, he pointed out, “If we see low prices continue for some time, we’ll see rigs start to lay down. And it’s not just the direct revenue. It’s the hotels, restaurants and all that goes with that.”

Not to mention jobs.

This is normal in a free market economy, though. New technologies, or old technologies like fracking whose time has come, are always disruptive. Recall the stereotypical, but no less accurate for that, impact on horse-drawn buggy and whip manufacturers with the advent of the horseless carriage and then the assembly line for making those automobiles cheap.

So it is with fracking. Not only does it make hard-to-get oil and natural gas (much) easier and (much) cheaper to get, it drastically increases the supply of these commodities, each of which individually drastically lowers the price of these, and together they synergistically do.

But when supply overshoots demand, and the price obtainable for oil and gas cannot cover even the lowered cost of extraction, many of the suppliers, extractors, stop producing, stop extracting. This has negative effects on both fracking jobs and the ancillary jobs Mead mentioned.

However, in a free market, supply and demand quickly match each other, and prices—and jobs—stabilize. With the technological advances associated with this commodity, too, as with any technological advance, the new pricing equilibrium will be lower than the prior equilibrium. It’s uncertain whether oil and gas pricing in particular will stabilize at their current levels, continue a little lower, or go a little higher. But it’s virtually certain we’re done with $100 oil for the foreseeable future, which is to the good of utilities, manufacturers, consumers, and anyone and anything that uses energy.

And those jobs? They’ll recover with the stability and predictability of the new normal in oil and gas extraction. The widespread use of fracking and related technologies also will lead to a net increase in employment when all is said and done, just like in those early automobile days.

The kicker here is identified by Kathleen Sgamma, Western Energy Alliance Vice President of Government and Public Affairs [emphasis added]:

There is a point at which the lower commodity price combined with the increased regulatory cost will put new wells out of business—they just won’t be drilled[.]

And [emphasis added]

whether a well is on private, state, or federal land, “because the regulatory environment is such that it makes it more expensive to develop on those federal or tribal lands.”

Government’s intrusive regulation wasn’t a factor in Henry Ford’s disruption.