Thursday, March 05, 2015

Did Obama Regime Lie To A Fed Judge? Texas AG Files Discovery Motion Against Regime Regarding Executive Amnesty

Did the Obama Regime, when it argued in defense of the unconstitutional, executive amnesty to illegal aliens, misrepresent (lie) about the implementation dates to a Federal Judge?
"Out of an abundance of caution," the Obama Justice Department on Tuesday informed a federal court in Texas that it started issuing three-year work permits to thousands of illegal aliens right after President Obama announced his executive amnesty on November 20 -- and before a federal court issued a preliminary injuction blocking the expanded amnesty on Feb. 16.   
The injunction barred the Obama administration from implementing "any and all aspects or phases" of Obama's expanded DACA (deferred action for childhood arrivals) program. That program allows certain illegal aliens to live and work in the U.S. for three years instead of two.
But the injunction did not apply to Obama's original 2012 DACA program, so when those people renewed their enrollment, they got the new three-year work permits.
This from Erick Erickson, the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a motion for early discovery against the Regime.
A few days before the start of implementation, a federal judge in Texas issued an injunction against the implementation based on the Obama Administration’s claims on when implementation would begin. It is clear now that the Obama Administration misrepresented the start date and had already begun implementing his plans before the court’s injunction.
This morning, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a “Motion for Early Discovery.” The motion requests the court grant Texas permission to start delving into the implementation of Expanded DACA to date.”
From the Attorney General’s motion:
"This newly disclosed conduct is difficult to square with Defendants’ prior representation to the Court that “nothing is going to happen” until weeks after the preliminary- injunction hearing. Likewise, Plaintiffs do not understand why Defendants do not consider their implementation of Expanded DACA to be “granting” or “entertaining requests” for deferred action under the challenged DHS Directive. After all, Original DACA provided only for two year relief; it is only Expanded DACA that provided for the three-year relief that Defendants granted to 100,000 aliens. Moreover, Defendants’ advisory contains no details about how many of the aliens who received Expanded DACA relief applied for some form of DACA during the time period at issue, or the extent to which those applicants formally or informally requested or were told they would receive Expanded DACA relief."
Given the representations made by the Obama Administration to the District Court, they are probably going to be in a world of hurt. In fact, Texas makes sure to quote the exchange between the Obama Administration’s lawyer and the judge:
THE COURT: But as far as you know, nothing is going to happen in the next three weeks? 
MS. HARTNETT: No, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: Okay. On either.
MS. HARTNETT: In terms of accepting applications or granting any up or down applications.
MS. HARTNETT: For revised DACA, just to be totally clear.
And also:
MS. HARTNETT: In that document [Defendants’ January 14 motion for extension of time] we reiterated that no applications for the revised DACA — this is not even DAPA — revised DACA would be accepted until the 18th of February, and that no action would be taken on any of those applications until March the 4th.
This is going to become a bigger story given the Obama Administration’s representations in court.
Texas Attorney General Paxton also sent out the following press release, which says in part:
“In an apparent attempt to quickly execute President Obama’s unlawful, unconstitutional amnesty plan, the Obama Administration appears to have already been issuing expanded work permits, in direct contradiction to what they told a federal judge previously in this litigation,” said General Paxton. “The circumstances behind this must be investigated, and the motion we seek would help us determine to what extent the Administration might have misrepresented the facts in this case.”

No comments: