DOJ policy changes leave unaccompanied minors at risk of deportation, some lawmakers say

 

Police: Woman shot attorneys outside Raleigh courthouse

 

I'm gonna bury you!

"I'm Gonna' Bury You!" is a fast moving, hard hitting, true life, story of a Miami Vice jet setter, fast lane, high roller organized crime lawyer, caught up in the exhilarating wealth and power of the international organized crime cartels. No names are changed to protect the innocent; there weren't any innocents in Neill's world. A former top professional race car driver, combat trained United States Marine, honor law school graduate, Gene Neill's only goal in life, his only god, was to claw his way right to the very top of organized crime, no matter what the cost along the way. And he made it. In spades. If you were involved in organized crime in America, and if you got caught big-time, Gene could get you off - for enough cash, machineguns, drugs, jewels or whatever.

Higher and higher his successes spiraled him, until in the dizzying heights of ultimate fortune and fame, some of his lifetime friends betrayed him, and he came crashing down. Crashing clear down under the ground.

"Maximum Maximum Security" is a term coined by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to describe the closest existence where a man can still stay alive in prison just this side of death. Convicts across America only whispered the words "double max" with tears in their eyes. It is not something of which they speak openly. And Cellblock 10D in the federal penitentiary in Springfield, Missouri, was the tightest of all double max facilities. Neill's cell was underground in 10D. He had been convicted of 24 federal felonies, and was sentenced to 50 years on only one of them. Judge C. Clyde Adkins said he'd sentence Neill later on the other convictions. No exercise privileges, no visiting privileges, you were never allowed out of your cell - until your 50 years was over. No eating utensils, you tie with your fingers, the tasteless gruel the guards slid under your steel door. There were no bars on your door. Solid steel. No windows, you couldn't see out. You were not allowed! any reading materials, no watch, no toothbrush, no soap. There was a narrow steel shelf you slept on, a dirty little toilet, a greasy old pillow, a greasy old army blanket, a roll of toilet paper were your only possessions. You were not allowed any shoes, socks or belt; only a prison shirt and prison trousers.

Georgetown Law Students Face National Security Crises in Simulation Exercise

‘The Sim’ Returns: Georgetown Law Students Face National Security Crises in Simulation Exercise

During the simulation, students navigated fast-moving national security crises and honed their legal reasoning and leadership skills.


For the students who took part in this year’s National Security Crisis Law: Edge Technologies Simulation (“Sim”), time was of the essence. A foreign actor had attacked a U.S. satellite fleet — with potentially dire consequences. Gathered for a National Security Council meeting, the group had to weigh options such as diplomatic protest, trade sanctions and cyberattacks in deciding how to respond.

Eighteen Georgetown Law students took part in this year’s Sim, the most in-depth offering of its kind among law schools and the capstone experience for those studying national security law at Georgetown.

Part of a semester-long course taught by Center on National Security (CNS) Director and Professor Laura K. Donohue, the Sim last took place in 2020. After campus closures during the COVID-19 pandemic forced a pause, Donohue took the opportunity to revamp her playbook and incorporate many of the tech advances — including satellite weaponry, virtual reality, blockchain and artificial intelligence — that preoccupy today’s national security experts.

In their assigned roles as agency heads and other federal and intelligence officials, students worked long hours over March 13 and 14 and honed their legal judgment, decision-making and communication skills under conditions that replicated real-world structures and limitations — an experience not otherwise found in a law classroom or textbook.

Legal Analyst: Trump threatens insurrection act after Minn. shooting

Carter Ledyard’s Latin America Practice Will Present To ITESO, Universidad Jesuita De Guadalajara

PRESS RELEASE
20 February 2025

Carter Ledyard’s Latin America Practice Will Present To ITESO, Universidad Jesuita De Guadalajara

CL
Carter Ledyard & MilburnMore
Bryan J. Hall, Alexander G. Malyshev, and Edmundo Elias-Loyola of Carter Ledyard’s Latin America Cross-Border practice will speak...

United States


Bryan J. Hall, Alexander G. Malyshev, and Edmundo Elias-Loyola of Carter Ledyard's Latin America Cross-Border practice will speak at ITESO, with a presentation entitled "Balance of Power in the U.S. Government: The U.S. Constitution, Federalism and Executive Orders" on February 25th, 2025.

For more information, please contact Jennifer Topper (topper@clm.com)




Source

----

P.S.

AI Overview

In February 2025, Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP's Latin America practice presented at the Universidad Jesuita de Guadalajara (ITESO). The presentation was titled "Balance of Power in the U.S. Government: The U.S. Constitution, Federalism and Executive Orders".

Explanation
Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP is a law firm that offers a variety of legal services, including trusts and estates, litigation, and Native American law. The firm's partners provide legal and business advice to clients.


Carter Ledyard's Latin America practice

Carter Ledyard's Latin America practice presented at ITESO as part of its Cross-Border practice.
The presentation was given by Bryan J. Hall, Alexander G. Malyshev, and Edmundo Elias-Loyola.

Carter Ledyard's practice areas
Trusts and estates
The firm helps clients develop estate plans to ensure their assets benefit their intended beneficiaries.

Litigation
The firm handles a variety of litigations, including those involving trusts and estates, unfair competition, and antitrust.

Native American law
The firm's Native American Law practice focuses on corporate finance for Native American tribes.

Northeastern Conference Immigration Forum

Meet USA Second Lady, USHA VANCE's Family, Net Worth & Luxurious Lifesty...

Watch Savannah Guthrie’s full 2023 Georgetown commencement address

Students who oppose free speech and contracts should lose professional prospects

by Washington Examiner
| April 11, 2022 12:00 AM

São Paulo, Brazil, January, 12, 2016: Woman with a megaphone shouting slogans during act by reducing public transport fares organized by social organizations of the city
(iStock)


Law students who oppose the twin constitutional pillars of free speech and the sanctity of contracts should never work as lawyers. Journalism students who oppose free speech should also never work in a professional newsroom.

Colleges that encourage their students to embrace illiberal positions against two of the things that make America great are depriving the nation of a new generation of competent professionals. They are doing the nation a grave disservice, to say nothing of the students they are misleading. And they should not be permitted to get away with it.





Recent developments at Yale Law, Georgetown Law School, the University of Virginia, and elsewhere point to a frightening trend that could render these and other institutions unfit to teach or proffer degrees that employers will want to honor.

This fall, Georgetown Law School will require all first-year students to take a contracts course that is really an anti-contracts course. It does not teach basic principles of contract law so that students can become competent lawyers — rather, it propagates an ideology that all American property law is rooted in “the history of dispossession and appropriation” and that “intellectual property has a cultural appropriation problem.” Georgetown students will also be forced to waste time that should be used to learn the law taking an elective course “certified” to “focus on the importance of questioning the law's neutrality.”

This is a truly noxious trend that undermines this nation's greatest treasure — the rule of law. Indeed, it is the law of contracts that hinders powerful people from dispossessing the weak. Property rights, as Peruvian scholar Hernando de Soto has shown through a career of research, are the surest safeguard against a situation like that in Russia today, where only those who latch on to the powerful can be safe in their possessions and everyone else can be dispossessed. The superwealthy and the oligarchs always have special privileges, but only contracts and strong property rights can protect ordinary people.

Georgetown's anti-contract nonsense might not seem unusual coming from a law school that already beclowned itself by suspending incoming legal scholar Ilya Shapiro for an innocuous tweet. This school provided student protesters catered food and a “space to cry” about their hurt feelings. It's not just that Georgetown is obviously not preparing people to serve competently in the hard-nosed legal profession. It is also that Georgetown’s dean lacks the spine to protect free speech and free thought, the entire purpose of his institution.

Shapiro, who has patiently endured thuggish mobs that shut down debate, is just one of many being subjected to a “heckler’s veto” by little, narcissistic tyrants who despise the First Amendment. On March 10, attorney Kristen Waggoner was similarly shouted down and threatened at Yale Law. In reply, some 1,400 Yale alumni, activists, elected officials, and distinguished lawyers wrote an April 7 letter blasting the Yale administration’s mealy-mouthed response to the incident. They rightly demanded disciplinary actions against the students who took it upon themselves not to make counterarguments but to trample free speech.

The alumni letter is on target. “Our nation desperately needs the next generation of attorneys, legislators, judges, and Supreme Court justices to be marked by the character and values that undergird the American legal profession and a free society,” the alumni wrote. “These include, at the very least, respect for the right to freedom of speech.”

Students who join mobs to shut down free speech show themselves as proto-totalitarians. Such people are unfit to practice in courts of law. That’s why veteran judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was fully justified in suggesting such students “be disqualified from potential clerkships” with “all federal judges.”

But that's not really enough — further repercussions are warranted, especially in the area of law, which has its own code of ethics. Law firms should think twice about hiring anyone who, as a law student, violates the free speech rights of others, and particularly grievous offenders should risk banishment from the bar itself. Their denial of others' rights should be viewed as an ethical breach, disqualifying them from even taking the bar exam.

Likewise, if Georgetown Law School continues down its anti-contract path, it will be preparing graduates to fail their clients. Law firms should think twice before hiring law school graduates so poorly trained, whose view of contracts is deformed by woke silliness.

Of course, the journalistic profession is in even worse shape already. But to see how much worse it could get, consider the truly worrisome development at the University of Virginia. An official editorial of the Cavalier Daily argued against allowing former Vice President Mike Pence to speak on campus about "taking a stand for America's founding." That would-be journalists would thus advocate a denial of First Amendment rights is a real shock to the conscience and a worrying sign about the professionalism of the next generation of journalists.

No would-be journalist who rejects the founding First Amendment principles — the rights to free speech, free religious exercise, and, of course, a free press — should ever be rewarded with a job in the media of a free society. And in general, society will be better off when those seeking to exercise tyranny and corrupt the integrity of the legal and journalistic professions graduate only to find that many doors are closed to them.

Source

Pelosi announces former DOJ official as new House general counsel

December 28, 2018 - 04:40 PM EST

BY JULIEGRACE BRUFKE

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), who is slated to take over as Speaker next month, announced Friday that former Justice Department official Douglas Letter will succeed Thomas Hungar as general counsel of the House of Representatives come January.

The House general counsel is responsible for providing nonpartisan legal advice and assistance to lawmakers, committees and staffers. They also provide legal representation for the lower chamber in the case of litigation.

"Douglas Letter has an outstanding and highly decorated record of achievement in service of America," Pelosi said in a statement. "He will bring deep experience and legal expertise to the House, as he counsels and represents our institution, Members and staff as House General Counsel."

Letter - who graduated from the University of California, Berkeley Law School - currently serves as a senior litigator at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he also teaches law. Prior to that, he served as the director of the Civil Division appellate staff at the Department of Justice.

"I look forward to serving the interests of the House of Representatives and its Members," Letter said in a statement Friday. "I am eager to apply my litigation experience as I take on the challenges and opportunities that come with the important position of House General Counsel."

Source

Trump Hires Lawyer Who Has Pushed Theory That Justice Dept. Framed the President

By MAGGIE HABERMAN and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

MARCH 19, 2018

 

Joseph E. diGenova during a television interview in March 2016. Credit C-Span

MANCHESTER, N.H. — President Trump hired the longtime Washington lawyer Joseph E. diGenova on Monday, adding an aggressive voice to his legal team who has pushed the theory on television that the F.B.I. and Justice Department framed Mr. Trump.

Mr. diGenova, a former United States attorney, is not expected to take a lead role. But he will serve as an outspoken player for the president as Mr. Trump has increased his attacks on the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Trump broke over the weekend from the longstanding advice of some of his lawyers that he refrain from directly criticizing Mr. Mueller, a sign of his growing unease with the investigation.

“Former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Joe DiGenova will be joining our legal team later this week,” said Jay Sekulow, one of the president’s personal lawyers. “I have worked with Joe for many years and have full confidence that he will be a great asset in our representation of the President.”

Mr. diGenova has endorsed the notion that a secretive group of F.B.I. agents concocted the Russia investigation as a way to keep Mr. Trump from becoming president. “There was a brazen plot to illegally exonerate Hillary Clinton and, if she didn’t win the election, to then frame Donald Trump with a falsely created crime,” he said on Fox News in January. He added, “Make no mistake about it: A group of F.B.I. and D.O.J. people were trying to frame Donald Trump of a falsely created crime.”

Little evidence has emerged to support that theory.

Mr. Trump’s legal team has been in tumult in recent weeks. On Saturday, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, John Dowd, called on the Justice Department to end the special counsel investigation. Mr. Dowd said at the time that he was speaking for the president but later backtracked. According to two people briefed on the matter, he was in fact acting at the president’s urging to call for an end to the inquiry.

Earlier this month, Mr. Trump did not tell his lawyers that he was in discussions with another Washington lawyer, Emmet T. Flood, about representing him. Mr. Flood represented former President Bill Clinton during his impeachment proceedings.

Mr. diGenova did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Mr. diGenova is law partners with his wife, Victoria Toensing. Ms. Toensing has also represented Sam Clovis, the former Trump campaign co-chairman, and Erik Prince, the founder of the security contractor Blackwater and an informal adviser to Mr. Trump. Mr. Prince attended a meeting in January 2017 with a Russian investor in the Seychelles that the special counsel is investigating.

Ms. Toensing also represents Mark Corallo, the former spokesman for the Trump legal team who has accused one of the president’s advisers of potentially planning to obstruct justice with a statement related to a 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer who supposedly had damaging information Hillary Clinton.

Mr. diGenova has worked in Washington legal circles for decades. He is a former Republican-appointed United States attorney for the District of Columbia. And he has served as an independent counsel in government waste, fraud and abuse investigations, notably a three-year criminal inquiry into whether officials in the George H.W. Bush administration broke any laws in their search for damaging information about then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton.

In 1995, Mr. diGenova declared the investigation he led was “unnecessary.” And, he said, “a Kafkaesque journey for a group of innocent Americans comes to an end.”808Comments

Mr. diGenova was one of several former independent counsels who, in the late 1990s, argued that the role of the independent counsel — as defined in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal — ought to be narrowed.

Drawing on his own experience, Mr. diGenova said in 1998 that the law, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, should not be renewed. He argued that once the independent counsel law was invoked, the prosecutors were forced into bringing “an unnatural degree of targeted attention” to the case. In 1999, the United States Congress let the independent counsel portions of the law expire.


Maggie Haberman reported from Manchester, N.H., and Michael S. Schmidt from Washington. Matt Apuzzo and Eileen Sullivan contributed reporting from Washington. 

Source

Guantanamo Detainees’ Lawyers Cite Hobby Lobby Ruling In Prayer Motion

Lawyers who represent two detainees held at Guantanamo bay have filed motions asserting that their clients should be allowed to pray communally during the month of Ramadan, citing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the case of Hobby Lobby.

According to Aljazeera America, the lawyers are arguing that their clients’ rights are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). They assert that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case changes the fact that courts have previously failed to find Guantanamo detainees “persons within the scope of the RFRA,” who enjoy “religious free exercise rights.”

In court papers, the lawyers argue that “Hobby Lobby makes clear that all persons — human and corporate, citizen and foreigner, resident and alien — enjoy the special religious free exercise protections of the RFRA.” The motions were filed earlier this week in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Emad Hassan of Yemen and Ahmed Rabbani of Pakistan.

“If, under our law, Hobby Lobby is a ‘person’ with a right to religious freedom, surely Gitmo detainees are people too,” attorney Cori Crider argued.

According to Axis of Logic, attorneys have asserted that the two men are being prevented from taking part in communal prayers due to the fact that they are participating in a hunger stroke. Cori Crider, an attorney who represents the detainees, questioned the circumstances:

“Why are the authorities at Guantanamo Bay seeking to punish detainees for hunger striking by curtailing their right to pray? If, under our law, Hobby Lobby is a ‘person’ with a right to religious freedom, surely Gitmo detainees are people too.”

U.S. Army Lt. Col. and Department of Defense spokesman Myles B. Caggins III acknowledged that the department was aware of the filing, and said that the government would respond to it through the proper legal channels. “We are committed to religious freedoms and practices for the detainees,” Caggins stated, “keeping in mind the overall goal of security and safety for detainees and staff.”

As The Inquisitr previously reported, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this week in favor of craft store Hobby Lobby, a case that sharply divided public opinion along partisan lines. The owners of Hobby Lobby claimed that their religious freedom was violated by a contraceptive mandate found in the Affordable Care Act. In a widely circulated, scathing dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg criticized the “startling breadth” of the court’s ruling, asserting that “What the Court must decide is not ‘the plausibility of a religious claim…’ but whether accommodating that claim risks depriving others of rights accorded them by the laws of the United States.”

The ruling is already being cited by religious groups who wish to claim exemption from federal laws, though it remains to be seen if the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision will be applied to the detainees at Guantanamo.

[Images via Raw Story and Huffington Post]

Source

.

CIA Lawyer Kept Sept. 11 In Mind When Debating Waterboarding

January 08, 2014 4:19 AM


Listen to the Story
Morning Edition

7 min 51 sec



Hear The First Part Of This Interview\


CIA Lawyer: Waterboarding Wasn't Torture Then And Isn't Torture Now





In the second part of our interview with the CIA's former top lawyer, John Rizzo says he felt he had the power to stop the agency's waterboarding program before it began. Rizzo explains to Renee Montagne why he decided to let the program continue. Rizzo's new book is Company Man: 30 Years of Controversy and Crisis in the CIA.

.
.

Review: John Rizzo gets candid in CIA memoir Company Man

By Matt Apuzzo, The Associated Press January 6, 2014




Company Man: Thirty Years of Controversy and Crisis in the CIA (Scribner), by John Rizzo

This book cover image provided by Scribner shows "Company Man:Thirty Years of Controversy and Crisis in the CIA," by John Rizzo. This CIA memoir reveals what nobody stopped to ask during the interrogation debate. (AP Photo/Scribner)




WASHINGTON - There is a moment in John Rizzo's new memoir when the longtime CIA lawyer has the chance to change history. It is March 2002, and Rizzo has just been briefed on the agency's proposals for interrogating suspected terrorists.

Rizzo walks the grounds of the CIA, smoking a cigar, thinking about waterboarding and other unprecedented tactics that seem "sadistic and terrifying."

Rizzo realizes that, on his own say-so, he can end the discussion right there. With the stroke of a pen, Rizzo, the CIA's acting general counsel, could kill the program before it starts.

"It would have been a relatively easy thing to do, actually," he writes.

Then he thinks about what would happen if terrorists struck again. People would blame the CIA. Rizzo would blame himself. And he couldn't deal with that.

So despite his reservations, Rizzo sends the interrogation proposal to the Justice Department, beginning a process that gave the green light to tactics the United States once considered and prosecuted as torture.

Moments like this occur again and again in the roughly six chapters Rizzo dedicates to the CIA's post-9-11 response: People set aside nagging questions about morality (should we?) and focused instead on the legalistic question (can we?).

Rizzo's portrayal of key meetings offers an unprecedented and sometimes startling look at how uncomfortable the enhanced-interrogation techniques made people.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "didn't want to get his fingerprints anywhere near the EITs." Secretary of State Colin Powell seemed "intensely uncomfortable." National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was disturbed that the detainees were forced to be nude.

Yet there were no discussions about whether this path would damage U.S. relationships with allies, harm U.S. long-term interests or weaken its moral standing.

Even though the interrogation program is more than a decade in the past, the topic remains timely. Since leaked documents showed the U.S. vacuuming up millions of domestic phone records, tracking cellphone locations and eavesdropping on calls, officials have defended the tactics as legal.

Once again, the question of whether the government should do something is getting less attention than the question of whether it can.

Many insiders have written memoirs about the post-9-11 CIA. Often, those who approved the interrogation program are portrayed as two-dimensional heroes willing to make unpopular decisions to help the country.

Rizzo paints a less flattering but more revealing picture, one in which fear hung over important decisions. Fear of another attack, fear of blame, fear of political liability.

Depending on your politics and your views on waterboarding, that may make these figures more relatable and human, their decisions that much more wrenching.

Or it may make them seem cowardly.

Whatever conclusion you draw, Rizzo's book makes an important contribution to history and the debate over interrogation. And it serves as a reminder of how much fear drives decision-making in Washington.

For instance, Rizzo regrets not presenting the interrogation program to more people in Congress. Not because the legislative branch should have been fully aware of this unprecedented step, but because it would have headed off criticism of the CIA years later.

In a few key places, Rizzo skips the opportunity for what would have been important reflection. There is no analysis, for example, of the two psychologists who became the architects of the interrogation program despite limited background and expertise.

"Company Man" is tailor-made for CIA buffs. Rizzo's career as an agency lawyer spanned the decades from Iran-Contra to drones, with Russian turncoat Aldrich Ames, the rise of al-Qaida and some interrogation videos destroyed in between.

Though Rizzo never sheds his role as the company man, his book manages to strike notes that are both earnest and candid. That alone sets "Company Man" apart in the genre.


Source
.

Lawyers: Private parks should sue Obama administration for forcing them to close

4:22 PM 10/03/2013


Michael Bastasch

During the government shutdown, the Obama administration has forced the closure of privately owned parks, stoking calls from lawyers for park owners to take legal action against the federal government.

“As a lawyer who once worked for the government, I assume there is no legal authority for this because these private tourist attractions were not shut down in prior ‘government shutdowns,’ even under Bill Clinton, who understood how to play political hardball,” Hans Bader, senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote in an email.

A lawyer with the conservative Heritage Foundation said that the Obama administration’s actions were likely illegal and that business owners forced to close shop should sue.

“They should immediately file a lawsuit and seek a temporary injunction against the government,” said Former Justice Department lawyer Hans Von Spakovsky.

Terry Pell, of the Center for Individual Rights and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, said that the government had only “a sliver of a justification in each case,” but that a judge could rule against the government under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Pell added that newspaper could sue under the Freedom of Information Act to get “WH [White House] emails to [the] park agency.”

It was reported that the parking lot of the privately-owned Mount Vernon, the home of George Washington, was blocked off by National Park Service officials, but the barricades were removed after numerous complaints.

Also, Virginia’s historic Claude Moore Colonial Farm was also closed by the National Park Service, despite not being financially supported by the Service or using any agency personnel. And despite the fact that the park remained open during the Clinton era government shutdown.

“For the first time in 40 years, the National Park Service (NPS) has finally succeeded in closing the Farm down to the public. In previous budget dramas, the Farm has always been exempted since the NPS provides no staff or resources to operate the Farm,” the farm’s managing director Anna Eberly said in an email to the park’s mailing list.

“The first casualty of this arbitrary action was the McLean Chamber of Commerce who were having a large annual event at the Pavilion on Tuesday evening,” Eberly added. “The NPS sent the Park Police over to remove the Pavilion’s staff and Chamber volunteers from the property while they were trying to set up for their event. Fortunately, the Chamber has friends and they were able to move to another location and salvage what was left of their party. You do have to wonder about the wisdom of an organization that would use staff they don’t have the money to pay to evict visitors from a park site that operates without costing them any money.”

The Washington Times reports that privately operated businesses on federal lands outside of the Washington, DC area have also been forced to close their doors.

Arizona businessman Warren Meyer wrote to his congressman that the campground he runs on federal lands was ordered to close despite receiving no federal funding.

“Yesterday, as in all past government shutdowns, the Department of Agriculture and US Forest Service confirmed we would stay open during the government shutdown… However, today, we have been told by senior member of the US Forest Service and Department of Agriculture that people ‘above the department’, which I presume means the White House, plan to order the Forest Service to needlessly and illegally close all private operations,” Meyer wrote on Wednesday.

“In the ‘government shutdown,’ the government is apparently shutting down many privately-run facilities that have never been shut down in any previous government shut-down, just to inflict political pain — privately-run tourist operations that cost the government nothing to allow open, but cost a lot to shut down,” Bader wrote.

“Private tourist attractions that do not need to be shut down in any government shutdown (and generate tax revenue for the federal government, as well as jobs for the public). This is grotesque political theater,” he added.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
.

.
Source: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/03/lawyers-private-parks-should-sue-obama-admin-for-forcing-them-to-close/#ixzz2glSsImhv
.

Lawyers question former Pope’s legal status

Pope Benedict XVI (shown) resigned on February 28, 2013.

Wed Mar 6, 2013 7:48AM GMT


Benedict XVI resigned on February 28, becoming the first pontiff in six centuries to do so.

The former pope stated that the reason for his decision was his deteriorating health due to old age.
International lawyers are looking into former Pope Benedict XVI’s legal status to see whether the former pontiff is liable to a legal action over failing to stop child sex abuse by church priests.

Advocates for the victims of abuse said they want to question Benedict XVI’s immunity status, especially if he travels outside of the Vatican.

Referring to the fact that courts have never tried an emeritus pope before, Attorney Pamela Spees said, "So much of this is unprecedented," adding, "There's nothing set in stone about it."
However, a US lawyer for the Vatican argues that Benedict XVI retains legal immunity regardless of whether he is in or out of office.

Benedict XVI resigned on February 28, becoming the first pontiff in six centuries to do so.

The former pope stated that the reason for his decision was his deteriorating health due to old age.

CAH/PKH/HJL

Source

.

Georgetown Law Alumnus Jacob "Jack" Lew (L'83) Nominated as Treasury Secretary

January 10, 2013 —

Jacob "Jack" Lew (L'83)

President Barack Obama has nominated White House Chief of Staff Jacob “Jack” Lew (L’83) to be the next Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury. The nomination is subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

“I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to Jack Lew,” said Georgetown Law Dean William M. Treanor. “Jack’s leadership and distinguished achievements exemplify Georgetown Law’s commitment to public service.”

Admired by both parties for his budgetary prowess, Lew began his career in Washington in the 1970s. As a principal domestic policy adviser to Speaker of the House Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr., he served as assistant director and later executive director of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee.

Lew was special assistant to President Clinton in 1993 and 1994 before joining the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). He served as executive associate director, associate director for legislative affairs and deputy director before Clinton nominated him OMB director in 1998. He served in this capacity through the remainder of Clinton’s second term, and President Obama nominated him to this position again in 2010. Before returning to OMB, Lew was the chief operating officer at the State Department while serving as the first deputy secretary of state for management and resources.

In 2012, Obama named Lew White House Chief of Staff.

Source

.

Two Lawyers In The Presidential Office

Posted by Rose Colombo on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 12:00:00 AM

It's amazing that the American people would vote for two lawyers and if elected could socialize America by implementing big government programs and increasing taxes for people who earn $250,000 which isn't a lot of money today and doesn't even buy a house. Obama says he'll redistribute taxes to the poor and tax the rich, but $250,000 businesses can't hire more people. Good grief, he's redistributed money to himself by abusing his position when he bought his home according to Judicial Watch who filed a complaint with the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee. He also redistributed funds to his anti-American terrorist friend Ayres through a corrupt group who he advised. He also gave millions of tax dollars to his convicted felon friend that was meant for improvements of inner city housing projects in poor Black neighborhoods, but the Black people said that they never saw a dime and lived in apartments infested with mice and cockroaches. There's even a lawsuit pending because a three year old boy died due to the unsafe conditions according to the news. So, what happened to all those tax dollars?

Obama is telling you that he's a socialist by exposing his plan to redistribute the wealth through taxation. Hannity and other reliable news sources and Judeo-Christians are warning Americans that they could lose their freedoms forever if they vote for far left liberal lawyers. Good grief, this reminds me of the movie, "Devil's Advocate" when Al Pacino said that the attorneys would rule the world! Now I know why people say that fiction is scarier than the truth.

Our Constitution guarantees that our government must ensure that there will be three separate branches of government and that the people shall be protected by the inclusion of a system called Checks and Balances. The Trial Lawyers are probably the most well-funded lobbyists in Washington D.C. Lawyers protect themselves by lobbying for or against laws that affect their profession. It is a conflict of interest for lawyers to act as the President of the United States and slants the scales of justice in favor of those who work within the legal system. And, it's even more blatant if the Vice President is also a lawyer. Although, Clinton was a lawyer when elected as President of the United States, as well as, the First Lady, Hillary, and the Rose Law Firm was under investigation during his term of office, the American people didn't understand the fact that lawyers are slanting the scales of justice in favor of all those who work within the Justice Department. Perhaps, you will recall how clever President Clinton behaved like a lawyer when questioned under oath and stated that it all depends on what the word "is" means. Most legislatures are lawyers. Judges are lawyers. Supreme Court Justices are lawyers. District Attorneys and Public Defenders are lawyers. And now, the country could possibly be run by not one lawyer, but two lawyers! Good, grief, America, how can you expect to maintain the Scales of Justice if the lawyers are making the laws, interpreting the laws, and enforcing the laws and using Executive Orders to dictate the laws for you and me but holding themselves above those laws by protecting their own in secret. The allegations are staring American in the face and much evidence is present exposing Obama's connection to anti-American terrorists by reliable news reporters and his own admission. If that doesn't scare you then just the possibility of two lawyers controlling the oval office should frighten you to death. And, what about the conflict of interest when appointing U.S. Supreme Court Justices? The far left would definitely appoint more of their own for life time positions that make supreme laws of the land.

Lawyers have their own justice system. Lawyers believe that they are above the law and they shouldn't be subjected to the same court system as the rest of the people. They discipline their own through secretive State Bar hearings which is the same system that the judges use. The judges judge their own and rarely has a judge been removed from the bench no matter how egregious the public may have felt the wrongdoing in U.S. history without oversight committees.

Several years ago, a major newspaper published a survey and stated that lawyers were voted last even below used car salesmen according to the people. So, if the American people don't trust lawyers then why on earth would they want to vote two lawyers into the highest office in the nation and leave themselves vulnerable to abuse by eliminating the rule of Checks and Balances?

Of course, there are some excellent lawyers, but there are some very corrupt lawyers, too. So, how will the people know what to expect if they don't even know how to prevent themselves from being taxed to death through redistribution. The lawyers will exercise Executive Orders and create laws that will take away your freedoms because far left liberals don't like people who speak out. They don't like Judeo Christians who read the Bible, or preachers who discuss marriage according to the Bible; or kids who pray in school to God. In fact, they don't like God. How will the people be able to fight all three branches of government since the majority of legislatures are liberal lawyers who are deadset on promoting more government, more taxes, and more laws that reign in your civil rights? Obama claims to be a Christian, but he votes that it's okay to abort American babies for any reason by stabbing them in the head and sucking out their brains and if they live outside of the womb then it should be legal to kill them after birth. Obama's a lawyer who has failed to defend the life of living American babies, so how can he say he's a Christian or is that for convenience, too, like wearing the U.S. flag on his lapel?

And, Senator Biden wants to know why people don't think that the far left believes in God. God and the Far Left 101.

How will you stop liberal lawyers from passing laws since they make the laws and execute the laws? Obama wants to keep the borders open and continue to let Mexican illegals cross over, but opens the door for anti-American terrorists to get fake American ID Drivers Licenses. Since Obama favors giving driver's licenses to illegals then he's technically breaking the law. Illegal means that some thing's wrong and it ain't legal! Good grief, I had to hand over my Driver's License just to get into Disneyland and Sea World, but it's okay to drive around illegally with fake Driver's Licenses? What law school teaches this? Any politician who doesn't want to close our borders, especially during war time or after our citizens have been attacked and threatened doesn't have the safety of the American people at heart. Anti-American terrorists and suicide bombers can get drivers licenses with fake Spanish surnames and create chaos, It's possible that suicide bombers could enter the U.S. illegally with fake IDs and we would have to suffer the consequences just like on 911. I'm sure that Ayres would jump for joy unless he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when it occurred like other innocent victims who died on 911. But, we must remember that Ayres is a friend of Obama who he respects as a professor.

Obama doesn't mention that 3,000 Americans were tragically killed by radical Moslim suicide bombers, but he does mention that our solders killed civilians in Iraq. He doesn't sing praises about our military men and women who fought for our freedom so that blood would be shed on terrorist soil rather than American soil. Thank God, for President Bush who knew that the terrorists wanted to enter our country with fake ID's and create chaos and blood shed on our soil, so how much is saving American lives worth to the American people? Yet, I don't hear Obama praise President Bush and Senator McCain for protecting us and winning the surge nor do I hear him singing praises for U.S. military men and women, only praises for his scary friends. Far left liberals, especially lawyers know how to make laws that would eliminate our freedoms. The far left lawyers will continue to create more laws that undermine the U.S. Constitution and deny us our freedoms while pushing for socialism and marxism and the end of democracy through redistribution, open borders and fake licenses.

So, if you don't care that the far left liberals such as Obama, who don't want to place their hands on their hearts and recite the Pledge of Allegiance or wear their U.S. flag on their lapel which he stated with his own lips while his wife said this is the first time she's been proud of our country, and allegedly refused to place his hand on the Judeo Christian Bible when he took office as senator, then change is what you will get. America will be changed forever. Americans should be demanding that Obama produce an authentic birth certificate, not just take his word for it that he was born in Hawaii. If he was born in Hawaii then the U.S. would have a birth certificate, but he does have a Indonesian birth certificate. So, how can Obama become President without a legitimate birth certificate? Why not just hand over the Presidency to anyone if that's the case such as an illegal alien because we don't know who they are, either.

Obama is a typical lawyer. He doesn't answer the questions. He says what you want to hear. He says, "Trust me," and the sheep follow someone who says he's the one. Good grief, the American people need to wake up fast and read, research, and watch the videos that let you listen to Obama and his wife and his anti-American terrorists friends who hate Americans.

May America wake up and May God Keep His Hand on Our Country, our Military, and our Citizens. May the people reject a man who hasn't produced a U.S. birth certificate and refuses to publish his Thesis and respects anti-American terrorists who want to kill more Americans and bomb more buildings. Do your homework, America. Check out the videos and audios and listen to Obama and his wife and their anti-American friends produced by Hannity, My Space bloggers, and news reporters.....listen to the words that come directly out of their mouths before bad mouthing Palin and McCain. At least, they are true Americans, General Powell.

Source

.