[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen issued a stinging rebuke to the Obama Regime on Tuesday night, refusing to lift the hold placed on Obama’s illegal amnesty royal edict, while asserting that regime lawyers lied to him.
The case to stop Obama’s illegal amnesty, which bypassed Congress using his magic “pen and phone,” was brought against the regime by over half (26) of the nation’s states.[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”5517620b381df”][vc_column_text]The request to lift the hold on implementing Obama’s unilateral amnesty scheme, taken against the overwhelming will of the American people, was requested by Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, the first sitting attorney general in U.S. history to be held in contempt of Congress.
The Holder DOJ argued that keeping the temporary hold harms “the interests of the public and of third parties who will be deprived of significant law enforcement and humanitarian benefits of prompt implementation” of Obama’s dictatorial amnesty for illegal aliens.
In February, Obama Regime lawyers told Judge Hanen that Obama’s illegal amnesty was not being implemented until the court case was settled. However, the regime attorney’s filed a “Defendant’s Advisory” stating that the expansion of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) had begun taking effect in November of 2014, and that the regime had already begun issuing work permits to “approximately 100,000 people.”
As Byron York of the Washington Examiner pointed out, Judge Hanen angrily slammed the regime (emphasis added) in his decision:
In the order, Hanen quotes extensively from the January hearing in which administration lawyers told him the Department of Homeland Security had not yet begun to implement DACA — only to file a “clarification” with the court weeks later. Hanen’s unhappiness is obvious:
Clearly, if a “clarification” on any ongoing actions taken by the DHS was ever necessary, which of course it was, [the January hearing] was the time. Silence here, and then later during the scheduling discussion, was misleading. Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they were misled by their clients, the attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts. The Court, relying on counsels’ representations, not only gave the Government extra time for its briefing, but it also took February 18, 2015, as the agreed-upon date by which to rule on the motion for a temporary injunction.
Hanen’s anger is apparent throughout the order. One government assertion “is belied by the facts.” A government explanation is “troublesome.” Omissions from the government’s filings are “mysterious.” And then this:
Section 3.3 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Section 3.03 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct…require a lawyer to act with complete candor in his or her dealings with the Court. Under these rules of conduct, a lawyer must be completely truthful and forthright in making representations to the Court. Fabrications, misstatements, half-truths, artful omissions, and the failure to correct misstatements may be acceptable, albeit lamentable, in other aspects of life; but in the courtroom, when an attorney knows that both the Court and the other side are relying on complete frankness, such conduct is unacceptable.
Judge Hanen wrote Tuesday that even though the government had been “misleading,” he would not immediately issue sanctions against the federal government, that doing so would not be “in the interests of justice or in the best interest of this country.”