Main Menu

Archive | Immigration

Taitz tries for some of the credit for Walmart pay increase

A lawsuit by several states filed in Brownsville, Texas, to stop the President’s executive action to delay deportation of certain undocumented workers, resulted in a temporary injunction from Judge Andrew S. Hanen to stop implementation of the policy.

Orly Taitz almost certainly lacks standing to bring the immigration lawsuit she has pending before the same judge, and Judge Hanen has not granted the many motions from Taitz. Nevertheless, her lawsuit was first, and it deals with immigration and she wants some recognition. So let’s connect suppositions: Taitz filed a lawsuit on a topic. Someone else also did too. An injunction was issued in the second case. Fewer undocumented workers reduces the labor pool, and supposedly drives up labor costs. Walmart increased pay for workers. Therefore, Taitz filing the suit resulted in increased pay for Walmart associates.

To start with, let me insert the quote of the day for today:

“[v]ital facts . . . may not be established by piling inference upon inference. Some suspicion linked to other suspicion produces only more suspicion, which is not the same as some evidence.” Davis-Lynch, Inc., 667 F.3d at 553 (internal quotations omitted).

But let’s look at the details:

  1. The states’ lawsuit would have been filed whether Taitz was in the picture or not.
  2. It is true that Walmart announced the pay increase a mere 3 days after the Hanen injunction; however. it would be difficult to believe that Walmart would take such an action so quickly, nor is there any reason to think that it would react so strongly to a temporary injunction that may well be overturned. There is no reason for Walmart to act hastily.
  3. We might as well attribute the Walmart pay increase to Obama’s economic policies. It might also be related to protests in over 5,000 Walmart stores by associates demanding better pay and working conditions.

Fun Walmart fact:

The Waltons, owners of Walmart, are worth $150 billion, which is more than the wealth of the entire bottom 40% of Americans.

Personally, I switched from Sam’s Club to Costco a couple of years ago because they pay their workers better.

Taitz: New lawsuit–new judge–old claims

California dentist and attorney Orly Taitz has filed a third lawsuit in federal court in Brownsville to stop what she says is the granting of bogus asylum and refugee status to undocumented immigrants and to stop the government from, as she alleges, helping people engaged in identify theft.

— EMMA PEREZ-TREVIÑO
— More at the Valley Morning Star

Classic Taitz stolen social-security number claims make an appearance in Taitz v. Koskinen et al., as Taitz not only sues the Department of Homeland Security, but returns to the Social Security Administration and throws in the IRS. Judge Hilda G. Tagle ordered a joint Discovery/Case Management Plan due by 7/31/2015.

Taitz, not satisfied at the assignment of judge, moved today to have the case transferred to Judge Andrew S. Hanen. She argues that this case is related to the previous two she has filed. Well, duh.

Read the complaint. The court called it a complaint, although it is titled a petition for stay/emergency injunction. It provides good coverage for the conspiracy theories Taitz believes. Some of her facts are wrong. Her document “experts” are not qualified. Much is complete speculation. The response will likely be a motion to dismiss because Taitz lacks standing (and lacks an emergency).

So I am not a lawyer, but I had this notion that “stay” meant the court would stop something from happening, and that emergency injunctions were actions to prevent some irreparable harm. What Taitz is asking for is not some interim action, but that she be given the relief she wants. Specifically, here is the emergency measures Taitz wants:

  1. Give Taitz a copy of a fraudulent tax return filed using her social-security number.
  2. Give Taitz copies of all fraudulent tax refund requests filed by people “believed to be illegal aliens.”
  3. Give Taitz paper copies of all social security applications of persons born over 120 years ago.
  4. Give the court a particular social security application that SSA has already told her in a prior lawsuit doesn’t exist.
  5. Same as 4, but released to the public.
  6. Order President Obama to explain his social-security number having a Connecticut geographic code
  7. Order President Obama to explain to the court why his Selective Service registration form has an incomplete postal cancellation stamp.

So what, exactly, is being stayed, and what is the emergency? Taitz has already filed and lost these lawsuits. (I’m not sure if she has sued over points 1 and 2.) And exactly how does a judge in Texas order Obama to explain something. Obama is not personally under Texas jurisdiction.

There is a second part of the “motion” relating to immigration issues. It’s the stuff Taitz already filed in Taitz v. Jeh Johnson. Why another lawsuit?


Note: The third Brownsville lawsuit is Taitz v. Burwell, a FOIA suit against the Department of Health and Human Services Case 1:14-cv-00264.

Taitz judge issues injunction against Obama immigration policy

In a lawsuit filed by 26 states against the Obama administration’s immigration reform initiative, federal district judge Andrew S. Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the program.

The Obama Administration announced that it would comply with the injunction, and appeal.

This is the same judge hearing a case by Orly Taitz, also about immigration. She’s having problems with standing. The states do not (maybe).

Read more:

Arpaio loses immigration lawsuit against Obama

imageIt was pretty clear that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is not the chosen representative of the American people, as his lawsuit to overturn the Obama Administration’s immigration policy of deferred deportations met with a prompt dismissal by a federal judge in the District of Columbia for lack of standing.

In a 33-page decision issued yesterday, federal judge and Obama appointee Beryl A. Howell dismissed the lawsuit following a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Howell rejected Arpaio’s plea to take an activist judicial stance, rather citing the doctrine of “the proper—and properly limited—rule of the courts in a democratic society.” Judge Howell was not interesting in making “policy properly left to elected representatives.”

Judge Howell cited heavily from the Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. United States 132 S. Ct. (2012) overturning much of an Arizona immigration law, SB 1070.

I note that Judge Howell had the same problem with Arpaio’s complaint that I did:

At the outset, the plaintiff’s Complaint and motion for preliminary injunction fail to identify whether the plaintiff is bringing suit in his individual capacity or in his official capacity as the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County.

During oral arguments, this was clarified—the answer is “both.” Still Arpaio was unable to show a particularized injury in either case sufficient to grant him standing to sue. Arpaio claimed death threats were an injury, threats that occurred before the Administration policies were made.

Read more:

Judge rules against Obama; Taitz can’t find case

Orly Taitz has an article up titled “I need help in finding this Pennsylvania case of Juarez Escobar (sic), where fed, judge stated that Obama’s amnesty is unconstitutional. Do not see anything in PACER under Juarez Escobar in PA recently.” I like to think of my self as a good person and a helpful one. Taitz, as far as I can tell, auto-deletes my comments, so my attempt to give her the case number and a link to the decision didn’t work. (Awwww.)

This brings me to a point about looking up federal lawsuits online. There is a web site, Justia.com, where one can lookup federal lawsuits, and this web site is a very useful free public resource for finding cases, one that I use frequently; however, it is not the actual federal court system, PACER, and it does not always have everything in the PACER system. I couldn’t find this case at Justia either, even when putting in the hyphen that Orly dropped (actual name is Elionardo Juarez-Escobar). However, the real PACER Case Locator has the case (2:14-cr-00180-AJS). Use of the PACER Case Locator requires a PACER account. I actually went to PACER first in this instance because I knew Taitz was having trouble.

The case itself is interesting and District Judge Arthur J. Schwab said in his order that President Obama’s Executive Action (not Executive Order) was beyond the Administration’s power of prosecutorial discretion, and therefore unconstitutional. His reasoning, as I read it, was based on the principle that prosecutorial discretion is something applied on a case-by-base basis, and not to classes of people as Obama outlined.

Other legal experts have written that Obama’s action is of the same kind exercised by other presidents for decades.

Taitz writes:

He will be deciding on the aspects of Obama’s immigration dictates being unconstitutional, in the actual case brought by Orly Taitz. Judge Hanen is the SAME ..

Actually, the Taitz case involves transportation of undocumented children and is based on her claim of getting sick through treating one of them. That morphed into a case about Ebola, and that transmogrified into a generalized opposition to Obama’s Executive Action, something that happened after she filed her case.

One might want to tell Taitz to shut up, as she is not the representative of the American people and has no individual standing to bring such a lawsuit. Taitz claims “taxpayer standing,” something I have read many time did not apply to Obama eligibility cases. Taitz, however, cites to a case:

Further, Obama claims that Taitz lacks standing as a tax-payer, however this is patently false, as the Supreme Court in Flast v Cohen, via decision penned by the Chief Justice Earl Warren found that US tax payers have standing to challenge actions by the government, as long as those actions relate to spending allocated by the Congress based on it’s spending and taxing power and those actions  are illegal.

The Court’s decision in Flast v. Cohen does not grant general standing to all taxpayers. The Court set up this test for taxpayer standing:

To maintain an action challenging the constitutionality of a federal spending program, individuals must demonstrate the necessary stake as taxpayers in the outcome of the litigation to satisfy Art. III requirements. Pp. 392 U. S. 102-103.

(a) Taxpayers must establish a logical link between that status and the type of legislative enactment attacked, as it will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute. P. 392 U. S. 102.

(b) Taxpayers must also establish a nexus between that status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. They must show that the statute exceeds specific constitutional limitations on the exercise of the taxing and spending power, and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8. Pp. 1 392 U. S. 02-103.

Obama’s immigration initiative is no way a “spending program” or a “statute,” and Taitz has no individual stake in it (not being herself liable for deportation). In order to sue, the legislation challenged must exceed Constitutional limitations, not simply go beyond delegated powers. She fails both tests. The Flast case had to do with state spending to support religious schools in violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

Read more:

Arpaio v. Obama, and other legal stuff

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has not been lucky with attorneys lately.

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s office has been operating under a court-appointed monitor after it was determined that they were guilty of racial profiling. Judge Snow appointed Robert Warshaw as the monitor. According to the Greenfield Reporter,

Snow says he will have Robert Warshaw, who is monitoring the agency on the judge’s behalf, investigate any allegations that he feels the sheriff’s office isn’t examining in good faith.

Warshaw has said his team has never seen more unprofessional interviews than those conducted by Arpaio’s employees who are running the investigation.

Ouch! Judge Snow said in court yesterday (November 21) that Sheriff Joe could be held in contempt of court! Arpaio is appealing the decision by Snow, but he’s run into another snag: the attorney representing him wants out, citing ethics concerns, says the Associated Press:

A lawyer representing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a racial profiling case says legal ethics compel his firm to step aside.

As one might expect, no details of what the ethics concern is about were made public, although it was detailed in court filing earlier in the week.

The embattled sheriff is trying to take the offensive, by suing the President over his announced new immigration policy, reports Reuters:

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose force used racial profiling during a crackdown on illegal migrants last year according to a judge, said Obama has overstepped his powers by bypassing Congress and bringing in the changes himself.

I wonder who’s paying the legal bill, and who Arpaio could get to represent him in the case? The second question is easily answered from court filings: Larry E. Klayman. What is a little difficult for me as a layman to determine is whether Arpaio is suing as a private citizen, or as Sheriff of Maricopa County. Arpaio is described in the complaint caption as  “Elected SHERIFF of Maricopa County,” but the complaint does not use the phrase “in his official capacity,” nor does it suggest that the County is a party to the suit. It looks like Arpaio is suing as a private citizen, and that immediately raises the question of standing. In addressing the issue of standing, the complaint states:

27. Plaintiff Joe Arpaio is adversely affected and harmed in his office’s finances, workload, and interference with the conduct of his duties, but the failure of the executive branch to enforce existing immigration laws, but has been severely affected by increases in the influx of illegal aliens motivated by Defendant Obama’s policies of offering amnesty….

The other defendants are Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Leon Rodriquez, Director of Citizenship and Immigration Services and Eric Holder, Jr. Attorney General.

Read more:

KPHO Story on Klayman and the suit