For the second day in a row, a federal judge has ordered the IRS to explain under oath how the agency lost Lerner's emails

Will the IRS files a false affidavit? I almost hope so. Someone needs to go to jail. Update: The judge gave them 7 days to respond.

Via Fox News:

A second federal judge has now ordered the IRS to explain under oath how the agency lost emails from former division director Lois Lerner, the woman at the heart of the Tea Party targeting scandal.
U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton told Obama administration lawyers on Friday he wants to see an affidavit explaining what happened with Lerner’s hard drive. The IRS claims her computer suffered a crash in 2011 that wiped her email records at the time clean.
But at a hearing examining a lawsuit against the IRS by conservative group True the Vote, Walton said he wants to know what happened to Lerner’s hard drive, which allegedly was recycled. He asked for an affidavit from those involved in handling the crashed drive.
The order is another boost for those questioning the agency’s claims that many Lerner emails from that time period are not recoverable.
A day earlier, in a separate case brought by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan gave the tax agency 30 days to file a declaration by an “appropriate official” to address the computer issues involving Lerner.
Keep on reading…

Interesting: Federal Judge says DHS can not refuse to deport illegal immigrants

Look for Barack Obama and  Janet Napolitano to continue to ignore the law...

Via Washington Examiner:

Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano does not have the authority to refuse to enforce laws that require illegal immigrants to face deportation, according to the federal judge hearing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement union’s lawsuit against DHS.

“The court finds that DHS does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings [when the law requires it],” U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor said today, per Business Week. O’Connor asked DHS and the ICE union to offer additional arguments before he makes a final ruling on the legality of President Obama’s “deferred action on childhood arrivals” (DACA) program, which invoked prosecutorial discretion as a means of allowing people to stay in the country if they would have qualified for amnesty under the DREAM Act, which never passed through Congress.

Insanity: Federal Judge Upholds School Ban on Wearing American Flag on Cinco de Mayo

Somebody remind me. What country do we live in?

(Fox News/Todd Starnes) — A federal court has ruled that a California public school had the authority to prevent students from wearing clothing emblazoned with pro-American messages on the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo.

U. S. District Court Judge James Ware was ruling in a case involving students at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, CA, who were banned from wearing American flag t-shirts on the Mexican holiday in 2010.

The judge determined that the Morgan Hill Unified School District did not violate the First Amendment and said that concerns by school officials over possible violence justified censoring the pro-American message.

“The school officials reasonable forecast that Plaintiff’s clothing could cause a substantial disruption with school activities, and therefore did not violate the standard set forth — by requiring that Plaintiff’s change,” the judge wrote. Read more here...

U. S. District Court Judge James Ware was reprimanded in 1998 for being a liar.

(WIKIPEDIA)- On June 27, 1997, President Bill Clinton nominated Ware to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to replace J. Clifford Wallace, who had taken senior status.^[1] Ware had a hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in October 1997.^[4]

However, Ware's nomination unraveled amid an embarrassing scandal that ultimately resulted in a judicial reprimand, and Clinton withdrew his nomination of Ware on November 27, 1997.^[5] In 1998, Judge Ware was reprimanded by the Judicial Council of the Northern District Court of California for fabricating the story of being the brother of Virgil Ware,^[6] a 13 year old black boy shot by white teenagers in Alabama in 1963 on the same day as the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. According to a story Judge Ware had told many audiences, he was riding his bike with his brother Virgil on the handlebars when Virgil was shot and killed by white racists.^[7] The incident was a real one, however it happened to a different James Ware, as was discovered when Judge Ware's claim was published in the Alabama papers after he was nominated to the Ninth Circuit by President Bill Clinton. The father of the long-ago slain boy contacted the Alabama courts to report that the California judge was impersonating his own son James Ware who was an employee in a Birmingham power plant. The Alabama courts contacted the California courts, who convened the ethics hearing. Judge Ware was reprimanded but allowed to retain his lifetime appointment as district judge.^[8]

The California Judge who struck down Prop 8 admits he is gay

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker claims his sexual orientation had nothing to do with his decision to strike down California's gay marriage ban. Sure it didn't.

(The Examiner)- The federal judge who struck down California's gay marriage ban has confirmed longtime rumors that he's gay, but said his sexuality was irrelevant in deciding the landmark case.

Speaking for the first time about the case since retiring from the bench in February, former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said he never considered recusing himself from deciding the constitutionality of Proposition 8 because of his sexual orientation, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Will U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson Halt Obamacare Implementation?

According to this report, the smart money says U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson will stop Obamacare implementation in the26 states that brought the suit.

(Politico) — U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson has already dealt the Obama administration a staggering blow on health reform, and this week the administration may get another one from the fiery Florida judge.
Obamacare
The Justice Department asked Vinson to clarify his ruling that struck down the law as unconstitutional. Justice must file its brief on the motion by Monday, and Vinson has said he would rule quickly after that. At issue is whether Vinson meant to stop reform implementation in the 26 states that brought the suit.

The smart money says Vinson will halt implementation, and legal observers are wondering why Justice would take that risk.

Confirmed: Obamacare is Un-Constitutional

A Federal Judge in Florida has struck down the individual mandate. He also declares the bill was "not severable." This voids the entire Obamacare health reform bill. Look for the Obama administration to fast-track this bill to the Supreme Court. President Obama slammed the Supreme Court in last year's SOTU. Now, the people he publicly berated one year ago will decide the fate of his signature legislation. Ironic, isn't it?

(Reuters) - A federal judge in Florida struck down President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul as unconstitutional on Monday in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the reform law's so-called individual mandate went too far in requiring that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void," he wrote, "This has been a difficult decision to reach and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications."

Shocker: "Gay" Federal Judge Rules California Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

U. S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker has ruled California's Prop 8 banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Walker is one of only two known gay federal judges. Ironically, his appointment by former President George H. W. Bush was opposed by some Democrats on the grounds he was anti-gay. The Constitution has been in effect for over 200 years and the Fourteenth Amendment, cited by Judge Walker, has been in effect for over 140 years. Some things, such as new technology, may not have been envisioned by our founding fathers and could need interpretation by the courts. Gay marriage isn't one of them. Being gay isn't a new invention. If states want to allow gay marriage, I believe that is their right. However, reinterpreting the Federal Constitution to mean anything judges want it to mean isn't acceptable. In order to believe there is a constitutional right to gay marriage, one would have to believe that the people who wrote the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment were so stupid they accidentally wrote this alleged right into law and this federal judge is the first judge smart enough to find it. That scenario is completely unbelievable.

The LA Times reported:

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice.. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Walker stacked the deck against Prop 8 proponents from the beginning.

Judge Walker’s decisions have been surprising because they differ from those of other judges who have previously scrutinized marriage laws...

...Judge Walker has ruled that things like TV advertisements, press releases and campaign workers’ statements are also relevant evidence of what the voters intended. The judge went so far as to order the Proposition 8 campaign to disclose private internal communications about messages that were considered for public use but never actually used. He has even ordered the campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages relating to campaign strategy.

California Judge Agrees to Hear Obama Eligibility Case

In a small victory for those who claim Barack Obama has not proven his constitutional eligibility to be President, a judge in California has agreed to hear the case after the paperwork is in order. Of course, he could dismiss it at a later date.

LA Now reported:

Supporters of a case that disputes the legitimacy of Barack Obama's presidency claimed a small victory today when U.S. District Judge David O. Carter told them to fix their paperwork and that he would listen to "the merits" of their case. But others present for the hearing Monday at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana stressed that the case remains a long way from ever getting a full airing in court and may never get to that point.

The case, Alan Keyes, et al. v Barack H. Obama, et al. was filed on Inauguration Day and is one of a raft of suits alleging Obama is ineligible to be president because he is not a "natural born citizen.” Such claims have fared badly in court to date. In December, for example, the Supreme Court dismissed without comment a case challenging Obama’s right to take the oath of office.

Perhaps because of that history, Orly Taitz, the lawyer who filed the current suit, was greatly cheered by Monday’s hearing. "He's very determined to hear the case on the merits," Taitz said, referring to the judge. "He stated, the country needs to know if Mr. Obama is legitimate, if he can legitimately stay in the White House."

Obama administration attempts to pervert U.S. bankruptcy law to help UAW

President Obama announced today that Chrysler LLC would enter chapter 11 bankruptcy. After throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at Chrysler on the pretext that bankruptcy would be a horrible thing, Obama has now decided bankruptcy is a good thing. President Obama severely criticized the secured debt holders who would not agree to his terms. The four institutions that hold 70% of the secured debt were coerced into accepting a deal that is not in their best interest. They took TARP money and ,figuratively, "sold their soul to the devil." Now, they have to pay the price for that decision. If their sacrifice was for the taxpayers who bailed them out, this would be fair. Instead, the UAW is the recipient of their coerced largess. The other 30% of debt is held by small investors and hedge funds who received no government bailout. They balked at being asked to write off 70% of their money while the UAW is only taking a 50% "haircut." Under U.S. bankruptcy law, secured debtors should be in line in front of the UAW. These creditors rightly object to being asked to give away their money to the UAW. The hedge funds and pension funds involved have a fiduciary responsibility to get the best deal possible for their investors. Federal Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez has been assigned to the case. He was first appointed in 1995 and is up for reappointment later this year.

Here is the administration's just issued statement on Chrysler:
Chrysler

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Brochures & Catalogs hobby Chrysler