Tag Archives: freedom

Reassigned

Posted on by
Reply

But not terminated.  She’ll complete her 20 years and get her pension, just as if she’s done nothing wrong.

Irene Martin, who has been with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services for 16 years, was the CIS field supervisor in San Bernardino who delayed for an hour and a half DHS agents (assigned to Homeland Security Investigations, a DHS sister agency of the CIS) attempting to interview and arrest Enrique Marquez, one of the terrorists involved and who was in her custody; from getting access to related records held by her office, and then requiring they make only hand-written copies; and who disdained even meeting with the agents for a half hour.

DHS’ IG report had this about her performance:

We have also concluded that the Field Office Director was not candid with OIG investigators during her interview.

And

We concluded that the USCIS Field Office Director at the San Bernardino office improperly delayed HSI agents from conducting a lawful and routine law enforcement action….

She made conflicting statements to the IG personnel interviewing her:

According to the FPS [Federal Protective Service] contract guards, the Field Office Director did not answer her phone, so an FPS guard searched the building, subsequently found her, and advised her that HSI agents were looking to obtain information regarding a Russian female and Hispanic male who may have been connected to the shootings the previous day.  (When interviewed by OIG agents, the Field Office Director stated that she was notified via phone that HSI agents had arrived at USCIS San Bernardino and wanted to detain and interview someone.  She said in her interview that she was not told for whom they were looking, or why they were looking for the individual.)

And

When interviewed by OIG, the Field Office Director [Irene Martin] denied telling the agents they were not allowed to arrest, detain, or interview anyone in the building.  However, her account is contradicted by that of the other HSI agents present.  Moreover, the Field Office Director herself reiterated to OIG agents during her interview her belief that it was against USCIS “procedure” for law enforcement to detain or interview individuals on USCIS property.  She also gave inconsistent answers about when she discovered that the HSI agents were investigating the shootings from the day prior.  She told OIG in her interview that she discovered the connection between [Mariya, the other terrorist in the San Bernardino attack, and Marquez’ wife] Chernykh and the shootings while reviewing Chernykh’s file.  She also stated that she was only told by the agents that they were investigating the shootings after she gave them the photograph.  In her written statement, however, the Field Office Director stated that the agent told her that they were investigating the shootings when she initially met with him in the conference room.  Either version is contradicted by the building security officer, who said he told the Field Office Director of the purpose behind the agents’ arrival when he first notified her.

The IG report goes on in this vein.

It is not clear what disciplinary action Martin could face….

Under this administration?  Yes, it is.

Some Climate Thoughts

Posted on by
2

Here are the comments of a number of those pushing climate change/global warming/global cooling without regard to whether humans play any sort of significant role in…whatever it is.

Stephen Schneider:

On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts.  On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well.  …  So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

Ottmar Edenhofer:

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole….  We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy[.]

Christiana Figueres:

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution[.]

Timothy Wirth:

We’ve got to ride the global warming issue.  Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.…

In sum: lie, it’s for a good cause.

Voting Rights

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Ohio officials to reinstate a week of same-day registration and early voting before an election, finding a 2014 state law eliminating the practice violated the Constitution by depressing African-American voting.

Judge Michael Watson said this in his ruling:

They have greater time and resource limitations that may prevent them from waiting in line on Election Day and are less likely to vote absentee.

Never mind that there are no impediments to voting absentee.  Not economic, transportation, time, [or] child-care constraints that increase the cost of voting.

This is a bad ruling.  Not only has he misstated the impediments, he also has applied the wrong solution to his claimed wrong.  The second paragraph of the 14th Amendment prescribes the penalty to be applied to a State that has deprived some of its voting-eligible citizens of their right to vote.  Which, of course this judge knows, since he explicitly cited that paragraph in his ruling.

Judges like this are forcing an end to early voting altogether and requiring voting to go back exclusively to in-person on election day or by absentee ballot.

‘Course, that might not be a bad outcome in its own right.  Absentee ballot voting also is early voting.  And couch potatoes need go no farther than their mailbox to vote.

Watson’s ruling can be seen here.

The Obama/Lynch Justice Department

Posted on by
1

A federal judge in Texas has ordered hundreds of US Department of Justice lawyers to undergo ethics training, accusing the agency of a “calculated plan of unethical conduct.”

The extraordinary order by US District Judge Andrew S Hanen says Justice Department lawyers intentionally misled him in the course of a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other mostly conservative states challenging the Obama administration’s immigration policy.

Hanen wrote in his order

What remains before this Court is the question of whether the Government’s lawyers must play by the rules.
…
The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ” or “Justice Department”) has now admitted making statements that clearly did not match the facts.  It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements.

And this:

The decision of the lawyers who apparently determined that these three-year renewals…were not covered by the Plaintiff States’ pleadings was clearly unreasonable.  The conduct of the lawyers who then covered up this decision was even worse.

Such conduct is certainly not worthy of any department whose name includes the word “Justice.”

In fact, it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct.  There were over 100,000 instances of conduct contrary to counsel’s representations.

Nor has this been simply a “first offense.”

This Court in at least one prior order has detailed the multiple times attorneys for the Government misrepresented the actions being taken (or, according to their representations, not being taken) by their clients.

Hanen’s reference to 100,000 was to 100,000 deferrals under the Obama edict that had already been granted, contrary to the DoJ lawyers’ representations at trial.

Unfortunately, Hanen has no authority to disbar these despicable liars.  It’s interesting to note, however, that while Hansen assures us that he’s satisfied these misbehaviors did not occur after Attorney General Loretta Lynch ascended to her AG-ship, Lynch herself has chosen to remain silent on the matter—and by clear implication, to do absolutely nothing concerning these…lawyers…who now work for her.  In particular, these persons are still on the Government’s payroll.

Is there any way at all this DoJ can be trusted with any case before it or potentially before it?

Elections have consequences.

Not Only a Correct Ruling

Posted on by
Reply

…but a correct rationale, also.

US District Judge Henry Hudson upheld Virginia’s voter ID law that requires prospective voters to show a State-approved photo ID before they vote.  In response to the Democratic Party’s (it was the plaintiff, of course) claim that the law was politically motivated, Hudson held in part

The court’s mission is to judge not the wisdom of the Virginia voter ID law, but rather its constitutionality[.]

Hear, hear.  Hudson went on:

While the merits of this voter identification law, and indeed all aspects of Virginia’s voting regime, can be reasonably debated, it remains true that Virginia has created a scheme of laws to accommodate all people in their right to vote[.]

Indeed.  Such a debate is important to be held, in all of our States.  But the debate is a political one, to be held among the citizens of each State and their elected representatives in their legislatures and governor’s mansions.  It is outside the realm of our courts to conduct political debates.

Still, the cynicism persists.

Lawyers representing the state Democratic Party said in a filing that the Republican-dominated state legislature passed the photo ID law “to stall, if not reverse, the growing success of the Democratic Party in Virginia.”

Not at all.  The suit is nothing other than a disingenuous effort by the Democratic Party to wage lawfare in an attempt to stall, if not reverse, the growing success of protections for the sanctity of each citizen’s vote in Virginia, a sanctity at risk from voter fraud.