Tag: Suing

Kate Steinle’s Parents Suing San Francisco Sheriff, ICE, And Bureau Of Land Management Over Deadly Immigration Policy

Kate Steinle’s Parents Suing Over ‘Sanctuary Cities’ – WorldNetDaily

.

.
The family of Kate Steinle slapped federal officials and San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi with a lawsuit on Tuesday.

They say that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the sheriff must take responsibility for their daughter’s July 1 death, after the man charged with her murder along a popular waterfront had been deported five times.

“We’re here to make sure that a change is made so nobody has to endure the pain that my mom and dad and I go through on a daily basis,” Brad Steinle, Kate’s brother, said Tuesday, ABC News reported. “The system failed our sister, and at this point nobody has taken responsibility, accountability. And nothing has changed.”

Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, 45, has pleaded not guilty to Steinle’s killing. His criminal record also includes multiple felony convictions for narcotics charges.

“It’s too late for us, that ship has sailed. But we want it for future, possible victims,” Liz Sullivan, Kate’s mother, told a local ABC affiliate.

ICE had turned Sanchez over to San Francisco authorities earlier in the year due to an outstanding drug warrant, but he was not returned upon his release from custody. The gun used to kill Steinle was stolen from a BLM agent’s car on June 27.

San Francisco is one of a number of “sanctuary cities” across the U.S. that does not pressure its local officials to abide by federal immigration laws. Sarah Saldana, director of ICE, said in July that U.S. officials released more than 66,000 criminal immigrants between 2013-2014, CNN reported.

.

.

‘Veterans For A Strong America’ Suing State Department Over Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Records (Video)

This Veterans Group Is Suing The State Department Over Clinton’s Benghazi Records – Daily Caller

.

.
The group Veterans for a Strong America plans to sue the State Department over a Freedom of Information Action request it filed for Hillary Clinton’s emails and phone logs from the days before and after the attack at Benghazi.

Joel Arends, the group’s chairman and founder, has brought on Mark Zaid, an attorney who specializes in national security and FOIA litigation cases, to handle the lawsuit.

Arends filed a FOIA request in July 2014 for Clinton’s emails and phone logs for around the time of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

“We didn’t embark on a fishing expedition,” Arends told The Daily Caller. “All that we want are the records from the night before and the day after [Benghazi].”

Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed during that attack.

Arends said his group filed the FOIA request to obtain information to use in a book “What Difference Does It Make?” The title is borrowed from a question Clinton asked during a January 2013 Senate hearing on Benghazi.

Arends set out to write the book for veterans to find out “what it would mean to them if they knew their government or their chain of command was not going to come to their aid or assistance when there’s resources or assets available, similar to what happened in Benghazi.”

“We want to know who she was talking to, what kind of command and control she had, what kind of situational awareness she had,” Arends told TheDC.

Finding out how Clinton immediately reacted to news of the Benghazi is crucial given Clinton’s likely presidential bid, Arends asserted.

“It’s fair game to know what kind of commander-in-chief she’s going to be.”

“Was she talking to President Clinton? Was she talking to a PR crisis team? Because if she making those kind of phone calls it means that that was time wasted or time that she could have been talking to the State Department crisis communications team.”

Clinton turned over 55,000 emails from her personal email account to the State Department in December. Around 300 of those were given to a House committee investigating the Benghazi attack.

That committee, headed by South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, has subpoenaed Clinton’s emails.

Arends said that like everyone at the time, when he filed his FOIA request he had no idea Clinton exclusively sent private emails that were routed through a private server she had set up in her Chappaqua, N.Y. home.

In light of that revelation, “the most prudent thing to do is to seize that server so that we can make sure that we’re getting all of the documents,” Arends said.

Getting control of that server is crucial because the emails Clinton has turned over to State so far were selected by her and her staff.

“It shouldn’t be up to her staff, given the lack of credibility that they have, to determine what gets turned over and what doesn’t,” Arends said.

Zaid, whose most famous case was a successful lawsuit against the Libyan government on behalf of the families killed in the Pan Am 103 flight over Lockerbie, said that the FOIA lawsuit could force a court to confront “grey areas” regarding how federal agencies manage officials’ records.

“The State Department, if they decline to search for telephone records that might reveal what the Secretary did on certain days because she was on her home phone, that explanation may set off a chain reaction elsewhere to Trey Gowdy’s special committee where he subpoenas the phone records,” Zaid told TheDC.

“If we go to court we can certainly dispute what constitutes an agency record,” he added.

With the lawsuit, Veterans for a Strong America joins the government watchdog Judicial Watch and The Associated Press in challenging the State Department over its handling of FOIA request for Clinton documents.

.

.

.

Nevada And Tennessee Join 24 Other States Suing To Stop Obama’s Executive Amnesty

Nevada And Tennessee Make It 26 States Suing To Stop Obama’s Amnesty – Townhall

.

.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Monday that both Nevada and Tennessee have joined the Lone Star state’s challenge of President Obama’s executive amnesty, bringing the total number of states fighting Obama’s unilateral immigration policies to 26.

“Texas is proud to lead a coalition that now includes a majority of the United States standing up against the President’s rogue actions,” Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. “The momentum against the President’s lawlessness continues to build with Tennessee and Nevada joining the effort to protect our states from the economic and public safety implications of illegal amnesty. As President Obama himself has said numerous times, he lacks the authority to impose amnesty. His actions represent a blatant case of overreach and clear abuse of power.”

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen already heard oral arguments in the case January 15th, where Texas argued that Obama’s amnesty would create a new wave of illegal immigration that would burden state governments. “This is the second time they’ve done it in two years,” Texas attorney Andrew Oldham told Hanen. “People think: They’ve done it twice in two years. Maybe they’ll do it again in 2016.”

Obama lawyer Kathleen Hartnett disputed that claim, insisting that new arrivals will not come “on the expectation of receiving deferred action because they will be turned away.” “His policy only applies to people who have been here since 2012,” she said.

Judge Hanen is not likely to buy that administration argument. In a 2013 case, Hanen predicted that Obama’s lax border enforcement policies would lead to a wave of illegal immigration. And that is exactly what happened in 2014.

Texas and the other 25 states are asking Judge Hanen to issue an injunction that would stop Obama from giving out any work permits before the program gets up and running in May.

If Obama’s amnesty does stand it will cost taxpayers billions in tax credits every year.

With Tennessee and Nevada, the full list of 26 states suing Obama over his executive amnesty are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

.

.

Coalition Of States Suing Over Obama’s Executive Amnesty Scheme Swells To 24

Coalition Of States Suing Over Immigration Swells To 24 – Conservative Intelligence Briefing

Last week we reported that the tip of the Republican spear aimed at President Obama’s Executive-Order-turned-proclamation on immigration was the coalition of states that have joined the suit filed and led by TX Attorney General Greg Abbott.

.

.
At the time of reporting, the coalition of states in the suit stood at a healthy 17, but that number has now swelled to 24. With the potential for more states to sign on in the coming weeks, more than half of the states in the union could be taking on the federal government for its overreach.

Abbott remarked in a statement Wednesday on the coalition’s suit, “The president’s proposed executive decree violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law, circumvents the will of the American people and is an affront to the families and individuals who follow our laws to legally immigrate to the United States.”

The suit now includes the following states, reports CNN: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

.

.

Government Watchdog Group Suing Chicago Transit Authority For ‘Systemic Fraud’

Chicago Transit Authority Sued For ‘Systemic Fraud’ – Washington Free Beacon

A government watchdog group is suing the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), alleging that the CTA may have improperly received between $30 million and $150 million in taxpayer funds by over-reporting mileage for grant funding dating as far back as 1982.

.

.
Cause of Action announced Wednesday it is pursuing a lawsuit against the CTA after the Department of Justice declined to investigate what the watchdog group calls “systemic fraud.”

The Federal Transit Administration determined in April 2012 that the CTA had misreported data in 2010.

A subsequent Cause of Action investigation uncovered a 2007 report showing the CTA had over-reported its Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM), and as a result received $1 million to $5 million more in federal grants than it was entitled to receive.

The report noted that miles were over-reported by “similar or slightly smaller amounts,” potentially going back as far as 1982. By Cause of Action’s estimate, that could add up to between $30 million and $150 million in improper federal grants.

Cause of Action sent its findings to the Department of Transportation, DOT Inspector General, and Department and Justice, but it says there has been no federal investigation. DOJ declined to investigate the matter in December.

“We are pursuing this fraud lawsuit against the CTA because American taxpayers deserve accountability,” said Cause of Action’s Executive Director, Dan Epstein. “The reputations of political insiders cannot be more important than the integrity of federal programs and the protection of taxpayer funds. When the federal government, including Department Inspectors General, cannot be counted on to discourage fraud, citizen watchdog groups like ours must intervene.”

The CTA is well connected politically, thanks to President Barack Obama’s Chicago roots. Robert Rivkin, the current General Counsel at the Department of Transportation, formerly served as the CTA’s General Counsel from 2001 to 2004.

Valerie Jarrett, one of President Obama’s closest advisers, was a chair of the CTA from 1995 to 2003.

The CTA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Senator Ron Johnson: I’m Suing Over ObamaCare Exemptions For Congress (Video)

I’m Suing Over ObamaCare Exemptions For Congress – Senator Ron Johnson

On Monday, Jan. 6, I am filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to make Congress live by the letter of the health-care law it imposed on the rest of America. By arranging for me and other members of Congress and their staffs to receive benefits intentionally ruled out by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the administration has exceeded its legal authority.

The president and his congressional supporters have also broken their promise to the American people that ObamaCare was going to be so good that they would participate in it just like everyone else. In truth, many members of Congress feel entitled to an exemption from the harsh realities of the law they helped jam down Americans’ throats in 2010. Unlike millions of their countrymen who have lost coverage and must now purchase insurance through an exchange, members and their staffs will receive an employer contribution to help pay for their new plans.

It is clear that this special treatment, via a ruling by the president’s Office of Personnel Management, was deliberately excluded in the law. During the drafting, debate and passage of ObamaCare, the issue of how the law should affect members of Congress and their staffs was repeatedly addressed. Even a cursory reading of the legislative history clearly shows the intent of Congress was to ensure that members and staff would no longer be eligible for their current coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan.

The law states that as of Jan. 1, 2014, the only health-insurance plans that members of Congress and their staffs can be offered by the federal government are plans “created under” ObamaCare or “offered through an Exchange” established under ObamaCare.

Furthermore, allowing the federal government to make an employer contribution to help pay for insurance coverage was explicitly considered, debated and rejected. In doing so, Congress established that the only subsidy available to them would be the same income-based subsidy available to every other eligible American accessing insurance through an exchange. This was the confidence-building covenant supporters of the law made to reassure skeptics that ObamaCare would live up to its billing. They wanted to appear eager to avail themselves of the law’s benefits and be more than willing to subject themselves to the exact same rules, regulations and requirements as their constituents.

Eager, that is, until they began to understand what they had actually done to themselves. For instance, by agreeing to go through an exchange they cut themselves off from the option of paying for health care with pretax dollars, the way many Americans will continue to do through employer-supplied plans. That’s when they went running to President Obama for relief. The president supplied it via the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which issued a convoluted ruling in October 2013 that ignores the clear intent and language of the law. After groping for a pretext, OPM essentially declared the federal government a small employer – magically qualifying members of Congress for coverage through a Small Business Health Options Program, exchanges where employers can buy insurance for their employees.

Neat trick, huh? Except that in issuing the ruling, OPM exceeded its statutory jurisdiction and legal authority. In directing OPM to do so, President Obama once again chose political expediency instead of faithfully executing the law – even one of his own making. If the president wants to change the law, he needs to come to Congress to have them change it with legislation, not by presidential fiat or decree.

The legal basis for our lawsuit (which I will file with a staff member, Brooke Ericson, as the other plaintiff) includes the fact that the OPM ruling forces me, as a member of Congress, to engage in activity that I believe violates the law. It also potentially alienates members of Congress from their constituents, since those constituents are witnessing members of Congress blatantly giving themselves and their staff special treatment.

Republicans have tried to overturn this special treatment with legislation that was passed by the House on Sept. 29, but blocked in the Senate. Amendments have also been offered to Senate bills, but Majority Leader Harry Reid refuses to allow a vote on any of them.

I believe that I have not only legal standing but an obligation to go to court to overturn this unlawful executive overreach, end the injustice, and provide a long overdue check on an executive that recognizes fewer and fewer constitutional restraints.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Holder’s Injustice Department Suing North Carolina Over Voter Law

Justice Department To Sue North Carolina Over Voter Law – Fox News

The Justice Department will announce Monday that it is suing the state of North Carolina for alleged racial discrimination over tough new voting rules.

.

A person briefed on the department’s plans told Fox News that the suit would claim that the North Carolina statute violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and would seek to have the state subject to federal pre-clearance before making “future voting-related changes.” The person also said the suit would be filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Nashville, Tenn.

In asking for pre-clearance, the Justice Department will ask a federal judge to place the four provisions in North Carolina’s new law under federal scrutiny for an indeterminate period.

The suit is the latest effort by the Obama administration to fight back against a Supreme Court decision that struck down the most powerful part of the landmark Voting Rights Act and freed southern states from strict federal oversight of their elections.

North Carolina’s new law scales back the period for early voting and imposes stringent voter identification requirements. It is among at least five Southern states adopting stricter voter ID and other election laws. The Justice Department on Aug. 22 sued Texas over the state’s voter ID law and is seeking to intervene in a lawsuit over redistricting laws in Texas that minority groups consider to be discriminatory.

Republican lawmakers in southern states insist the new measures are needed to prevent voter fraud, though such crimes are infrequent. Democrats and civil rights groups argue the tough new laws are intended to make voting more difficult for minorities and students, voting groups that lean toward Democrats, in states with legacies of poll taxes and literacy tests.

Attorney General Eric Holder will be joined at a news conference Monday by the acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s civil rights division, Joceyln Samuels, and the three U.S. attorneys from North Carolina, the Associated Press reported.

In the North Carolina lawsuit, the person said, the government will challenge requirements in state law that eliminate the first seven days of early voting opportunities and eliminate same-day voter registration during the early voting period. Same-day registration allows voters to cast a ballot immediately after presenting elections officials with proof of their name and home address.

The Justice Department challenge also is aimed at a provision eliminating the counting of certain types of provisional ballots by voters who cast ballots in their home counties but do not vote in the correct precincts.

Finally, the federal government will challenge a provision in the new law that requires voters to present government-issued identification at the polls in order to cast ballots. In North Carolina, a recent state board of elections survey found that hundreds of thousands of registered voters did not have a state-issued ID. Many of those voters are young, black, poor or elderly.

In remarks Sept. 20 to the Congressional Black Caucus, Holder said the Justice Department will not allow the Supreme Court’s action to be interpreted as “open season” for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights.

However, the provision of the Voting Rights Act that the Justice Department is invoking may be a difficult tool for the Obama administration to use.

A handful of jurisdictions have been subjected to pre-clearance, or advance approval, of election changes through the Civil Rights Act provision it is relying on, but a court first must find that a state or local government engaged in intentional discrimination under the Constitution’s 14th or 15th amendments, or the jurisdiction has to admit to discrimination. Unlike other parts of the voting law, the discriminatory effect of an action is not enough to trigger court review.

Nowhere is the debate over voting rights is more heated than in Florida, where the chaotic recount in the disputed 2000 presidential race took place.

Florida election officials are set to resume an effort to remove noncitizens from the state’s voting rolls. A purge last year ended in embarrassment after hundreds of American citizens, most of whom were black or Hispanic, were asked to prove their citizenship or risk losing their right to vote.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.