NY judge to NFL, Brady lawyers: Tone it down, figure it out

Photo by: 

John Wilcox

Tom Brady acknowledges the crowd as he runs onto the field for the beginning of Patriots training camp at Gillette, Thursday, July 30, 2015. Staff photo by John Wilcox.

A New York federal judge has told lawyers for Tom Brady and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to “tone down the rhetoric” and "pursue a mutually acceptable resolution” in the ongoing Deflategate controversy that has already been in two courthouses in two time zones.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Berman laid down the admonishment just hours after a Minnesota judge ordered the NFL Players Association’s case to be moved to New York — the jurisdiction where the NFL first filed its case to have Goodell’s decision to suspend Brady for four games upheld.

“While this litigation is ongoing, it is appropriate (and helpful) for all counsel and all parties in this case to tone down their rhetoric,” Berman wrote. He added later, “If they have not already done so, the parties and counsel are directed forthwith actively to begin to pursue a mutually acceptable resolution of this case.”

The NFLPA filed its suit in Minnesota yesterday in hopes to reverse Goodell decision in a court that has been player friendly. A day earlier, the NFL had beaten the union to the punch, filing in New York shortly after the decision came down, hoping to take advantage of the "first-to-file" rule.

This morning, Richard Kyle, a federal court judge in Minnesota, wrote that "the court sees little reason for this action to have been commenced in Minnesota at all. Brady plays for a team in Massachusetts; the Union is headquartered in Washington D.C.; the NFL is headquartered in New York; the arbitration proceedings took place in New York; and the award was issued in New York.

"In the undersigned's view, therefore, it makes eminent sense the NFL would have commenced its action seeking confirmation of the award in the Southern District of New York. Why the instant action was filed here, however, is far less clear."

The union was hoping the case would land in front of U.S. District Court Judge David Doty, who recently vacated the indefinite suspension of Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson.

Today's ruling does not assure success for the NFL, but it is definitely an initial victory in a process that could consume at least the rest of the summer. Berman — the New York judge — made it very clear that he “is fully prepared to devote the time and attention necessary to help the parties resolve this case via litigation and/or by mutual consent.”

Via: Boston Herald

Continue Reading....

ANOTHER COURT LOSS FOR OBAMA’S AMNESTY… NOT THAT IT MATTERS

If the rule of law still meant anything in Obama’s America, the President’s agenda of amnesty for illegal aliens would be in big trouble. It doesn’t, so the Administration just keeps pumping out amnesty documents, no matter how often federal courts order them to stop.

Team Obama even stooped to flat-out lying to a federal judge about the need for a temporary injunction to stop the amnesty printing press. Later they made a “surprise filing” to the judge disclosing that their previous statements were false, and – whoopsie! – they had already tossed 100,000 amnesty packages out.

So the news from Politico that “President Barack Obama appears likely to lose – again – in the protracted legal fight over his executive actions on immigration” doesn’t really mean much.

This all has nothing to do with laws, courts, elections, or the will of the American people. It’s a pure exercise in absolute tyranny. The Ruling Class has decided to import a new electorate, a perfect combination of cheap labor for Big Business and reliable Big Government votes for Democrats. No court, no vote, no crime wave, and no outcry from legitimate American citizens is going to stop them.

It’s all about using executive fiat to change the facts on the ground quickly. By the time courts and voters catch up, riding upon the relatively slow rails of legal and electoral process, hundreds of thousands of people will have been given citizenship and welfare benefits that cannot be taken away from them.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, here’s the latest rusty shriek of outrage from the obsolete legal system:

Two of the three appeals court judges who heard oral arguments Friday on the Obama administration’s immigration programs were skeptical about the legal merits of the directive, which could halt deportations for more than 4 million immigrants here illegally who have family ties in the United States.

The chilly reception from the three-judge panel in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on whether Obama had legal authority to take such action seems to indicate that a lower court decision blocking the new programs would stay in place.

The Obama administration has argued that the executive actions were a standard use of prosecutorial discretion, since the federal government does not have the resources to deport the estimated 11 million immigrants here illegally. But Judge Jerry Smith disputed that contention.

“It puts them one step ahead in terms of being eligible for lots of potential benefits, whether those are Social Security and Medicare, work authorization, earned income tax credits, and on the state level, drivers’ licenses,” Smith said of immigrants who would benefit from Obama’s actions. “Just seems to me that … it really is a lot more than prosecutorial discretion.”

As for the judge who was deceived and defied by the Administration, District Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas, he still seems to be operating under the impression that some sort of “law” applies to King Barack I and his imported supplicants. He ordered the Administration to rescind 2,000 work permits for illegals issued in defiance of his orders, and they simply ignored him. In fact, they issued another 500 three-year work permits after his block orders were handed down.

When last U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services was heard from on the matter, they said they had been reduced to “pleading with the illegal immigrants to return the three-year cards,” but “they are having trouble getting some of the lucky recipients to send them back,” according to the Washington Times.

What an amazing spectacle!

People who broke the law and occupied the United States illegally are refusing to give back the work permits they were issued in error… and the almighty Leviathan State, the same government that will bring its boot down on your neck if you dream of defying ObamaCare or gay marriage orders, just shrugs and whines about how tough it is to persuade those who didn’t surrender their illegitimate permits immediately.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

JUDGE OUTRAGED: ORDERS JEH JOHNSON, TOP OFFICIALS TO ANSWER FOR VIOLATIONS OF EXEC. AMNESTY INJUNCTION

The federal judge who halted President Obama’s executive amnesty programs is demanding top immigration officials appear in his court to answer for the administration’s violations of his injunction.

In a court order, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen expressed frustration at the administration’s failure to correct the violations of his order in a timely manner.

“This Court has expressed its willingness to believe that these actions were accidental and not done purposefully to violate this Court’s order. Nevertheless, it is shocked and surprised at the cavalier attitude the Government has taken with regard to its ‘efforts’ to rectify this situation,” Hanen wrote in his order, obtained by Politico.

The problem is the issuance of more than 2,000 three-year work permits issued to illegal immigrants under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals under Obama’s expansion of the program, as opposed to current two-year permits. The administration admitted to issuing the three-year permits after Hanen issued his February injunction.

The violation came on the heels of another administration admission that it had issued three-year work permits to some 108,800 illegal immigrants before the injunction and before the official start date of executive amnesty.

Hanen has expressed outraged in past orders about the administration’s violations and lack of transparency about the missteps. In recent weeks the administration has further admitted that it has not recouped all of the three-year work permits that it erroneously issued, in violation of Hanen’s order.

“The Government promised this Court on May 7, 2015, that ‘immediate steps’ were being taken to remedy the violations of the injunction… Yet, as of June 23, 2015—some six weeks after making that representation—the situation had not been rectified,” Hanen wrote in his Tuesday order.

He also demanded the administration come into full compliance with his prior order, noting that even the government conceded that it directly violated his order, allowing two months to pass without fully remedying the violation.

“That is unacceptable and, as far as the Government’s attorneys are concerned, completely unprofessional. To be clear, this Court expects the Government to be in full compliance with this Court’s injunction. Compliance as to just those aliens living in the Plaintiff States is not full compliance,” Hanen added.

He noted that if the government comes in compliance with his order by July 31 he will cancel the August hearing at which he is expecting the named defendants in the case: Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, Customs and Border Patrol Director Gil Kerlikowske, Deputy Border Patrol Chief Ronald Vitiello, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Sarah Saldana, and Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Leon Rodriguez.

DHS spokeswoman Marsha Catron confirmed to Politico that it has received the order and “is currently reviewing it with the Department of Justice.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

NY Teacher Exam Thrown Out For Being Discriminatory

A federal judge in New York has struck down a test used by New York City to vet potential teachers, finding the test of knowledge illegally discriminated against racial minorities due to their lower scores.

At first glance, the city’s second Liberal Arts and Science Test (LAST-2) seems fairly innocuous. Unlike the unfair literacy tests of Jim Crow, LAST-2 was given to every teaching candidate in New York, and it was simply a test to make sure that teachers had a basic high school-level understanding of both the liberal arts and the sciences.

One sample question from the test asked prospective educators to identify the mathematical principle of a linear relationship when given four examples; another asked them to read four passages from the Constitution and identify which illustrated checks and balances. Besides factual knowledge, the test also checks basic academic skills, such as reading comprehension and the ability to read basic charts and graphs.

Nevertheless, this apparently neutral subject matter contained an insidious kernel of racism, because Hispanic and black applicants had a passage rate only 54 to 75 percent of the passage rate for whites.

 Once their higher failure rate was established, the burden shifted to New York to prove that LAST-2 measured skills that were essential for teachers and therefore was justified in having a racially unequal outcome. While it might seem obvious that possessing basic subject knowledge is a key skill for a teacher, District Judge Kimba Wood said the state hadn’t met that burden.

“Instead of beginning with ascertaining the job tasks of New York teachers, the two LAST examinations began with the premise that all New York teachers should be required to demonstrate an understanding of the liberal arts,” Wood wrote in her opinion, according to The New York Times.

Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

NY judge rules NSA phone surveillance is legal

NEW YORK — A federal judge on Friday found that the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of millions of Americans’ telephone records is legal and a valuable part of the nation’s arsenal to counter the threat of terrorism.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley said in a written opinion that the program “represents the government’s counter-punch” to eliminate al-Qaida’s terror network by connecting fragmented and fleeting communications.

In ruling, the judge noted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred.

“The government learned from its mistake and adapted to confront a new enemy: a terror network capable of orchestrating attacks across the world. It launched a number of counter-measures, including a bulk telephony metadata collection program — a wide net that could find and isolate gossamer contacts among suspected terrorists in an ocean of seemingly disconnected data,” he said.

Pauley’s decision contrasts with a ruling earlier this month by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, who granted a preliminary injunction against the collecting of phone records of two men who had challenged the program. The Washington jurist said the program likely violates the U.S. Constitution’s ban on unreasonable search.

Pauley dismissed a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU did not immediately respond to a message for comment.

Via: Chicago Sun-Times

Continue Reading....

Bombshell: Federal judge suddenly green-lights lawsuit that could stop Obamacare in its tracks

Small-business plaintiffs say the government is treating all 50 states the same even though Congress allowed them to opt out – and 36 did.

The IRS is granting insurance subsidies to taxpayers in the 'refusenik' states, even though the text of the Obamacare law doesn't allow it.

A federal judge denied the government's motion to dismiss the case on Tuesday.

He also refused, however, to issue an injunction barring the Obama administration from implementing the law while the case moves forward.

A federal judge on Tuesday refused to dismiss a case that could fatally cripple the Obamacare health insurance law.

The Affordable Care Act forbids the federal government from enforcing the law in any state that opted out of setting up its own health care exchange, according to a group of small businesses whose lawsuit got a key hearing Monday in federal court.

The Obama administration, according to their lawsuit, has ignored that language in the law, enforcing all of its provisions even in states where the federal government is operating the insurance marketplaces on the error-plagued Healthcare.gov website.

Thirty-six states chose not to set up their exchanges, a move that effectively froze Washington, D.C. out of the authority to pay subsidies and other pot-sweeteners to convince citizens in those states to buy medical insurance.

But the IRS overstepped its authority by paying subsidies in those states anyway, say the businesses and their lawyers

The subsidies serve as a trigger that determines who has to comply with the now-famous individual and employer mandates. So, the lawsuit claims, the Obama administration illegally enforced the Affordable Care Act – suddenly making millions of taxpayers and small employers subject to paying fines if they don't play ball.

The Affordable Care Act authorizes subsidies only for policies purchased 'through an Exchange established by the State.' 

A different section of the law empowers the federal government to set up its own exchanges for each state that chose not establish one.

Via: Mail Online

Continue Reading.....

DOCS: JUDGE ALMOST SHUT DOWN NSA DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM BECAUSE OF MISUSE BY GOV’T OFFICIALS

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge who oversaw a secret U.S. spy court almost shut down the government’s domestic surveillance program designed to fight terrorism after he “lost confidence” in officials’ ability to operate it, documents released Tuesday show.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton issued a blistering opinion in March 2009 after discovering government officials had been accessing domestic phone records for nearly three years without “reasonable, articulate suspicion” that they were connected to terrorism.

Walton said the government’s excuse that the program was complicated “strained credulity,” and he ordered the National Security Agency to conduct an “end-to-end” review of its processes and policies while also ordering closer monitoring of its activities.

Later in 2009, a Justice Department lawyer reported to the spy court a “likely violation” of NSA surveillance rules. The lawyer said that in some cases, it appeared the NSA was distributing the sensitive phone records by email to as many as 189 analysts, but only 53 were approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to see them.

Judge Walton wrote that he was “deeply troubled by the incidents,” which he said occurred just weeks after the NSA had performed a major review of its internal practices because of the initial problems reported earlier in the year.

Via: The Blaze

Continue Reading....

Obama Judge: Hijab Ban Violates Muslim Civil Rights

An Obama-appointed federal judge has handed the administration a major victory, ruling that a Muslim woman’s civil rights were violated by an American clothing retailer that didn’t allow her to wear a head scarf as required by her religion.

The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws. In 2011 the agency sued the retail giant, Abercrombie & Fitch, accusing it of religious discrimination for firing 19-year-old Umme-Hani Khan for wearing a hijab at a northern California store. The company, which focuses on hip casual wear for consumers aged 18 to 22, has a policy against head covers of any kind for its employees.

In the case of this Muslim woman it amounts to discrimination based on religion, according to the EEOC, and that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers are required to accommodate the sincere religious beliefs or practices of employees, the agency says, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on business.

This month Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, agreed, ruling that Abercrombie & Fitch is liable for failing to accommodate the Muslim woman’s religious beliefs and may owe punitive damages. “Reasonable jurors could determine that by offering Khan one option—to remove her hijab despite her religious beliefs—Abercrombie acted with malice, reckless indifference or in the face of a perceived risk that its actions violated federal law,” the judge writes in her 27-page opinion.

Gonzalez Rogers was appointed to the federal bench by President Obama in mid-2011. Her husband, Matthew Rogers, has served in various positions in the Obama administration, including the president’s transition team and as a top advisor in the Department of Energy (DOE). In fact, Rogers served as the DOE official overseeing Obama’s scandal-plagued green loan program that’s fleeced American taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Remember Solyndra?

Via: Judicial Watch

Continue Reading....