Category Archives: Citizens Duty

United Nations New Order of the Globe Influenced by BRICS

Posted on by

BRICS is a group of nations that include Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. BRICS is taking control of global insecurity and the charge is actually led by Russia.

BRICS has their own financial security system and at all costs will protect and enhance their money power worldwide. The president of Brazil was in the White House this past week where several discussions took place and more than likely Barack Obama was opening the pathway for the United States to cooperate with BRICS and abdicating power to BRICS and the United Nations.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has met with the leaders of emerging powers in the Russian city of Ufa for a summit widely seen as an attempt by Moscow to show it is not isolated despite its standoff with the West over the conflict in Ukraine.
The leaders of the BRICS countries — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — adopted a declaration expressing “deep concern” about the deadly conflict in eastern Ukraine pitting government forces against pro-Russian separatists. 
The document called on both sides to abide by a cease-fire signed in February by Ukraine, Russia, the rebels, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
Ukraine and the West, however, have accused Moscow of continued support for the separatist fighters.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (right) meets with his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Rohani, during a meeting on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit in Ufa, Russia, on July 9.
The Iranian nuclear issue was also on the agenda of the summit, which takes place as negotiators from Iran, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States are working in Vienna to strike a deal to curb Tehran’s controversial nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
BRICS nations voiced confidence that the Vienna talks will result in a deal.

Enter the United Nations Security Council and Ban Ki-moon

UN Security Council

Ban Ki-moon to Welcome BRICS’ Intention to Reform UN Security Council

UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman said that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon himself talked about the need for reform of the Security Council and he supports strong intention of BRICS countries to reform the UN Security Council.

UFA (Sputnik), Anastasia Levchenko — The UN chief will support the BRICS initiative to reform the UN Security Council, UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman told Sputnik on Thursday, adding the BRICS format could prove effective when addressing international issues.

He said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will welcome the strong intention of BRICS countries to reform the UN Security Council in order to make it more representative for states with growing political and economic influence.

“The Secretary-General himself has talked about the need for reform of the Security Council, the need for the institutions to evolve and reflect the world as it is today. I know that Secretary-General will be very supportive of member states addressing seriously the question of the Security Council reform,” Feltman said, commenting on the BRICS states’ intention to reform the UNSC.

However, it “will be up to the member states themselves to decide what is the best approach for reforming Security Council,” he emphasized.

The UN Security Council consists of five permanent members with veto power – China, Russia, France, Russia, Britain, and the United States – and ten non-permanent members, elected by the General Assembly for a two-year term.

Russia and China are also part of the BRICS club of developing countries, along with Brazil, India, and South Africa. The nations are meeting in the Russian city of Ufa to step up integration and arrange financial assistance to projects in member countries, as well as in other emerging markets.

Feltman admitted that BRICS countries have great political weight, but they or any other group of countries cannot be considered as an alternative to the UN Security Council.

“BRICS represent a very important set of countries, and there are many examples where BRICS format can be useful for international developments, peace and security etc. I think we all recognize the strength of the BRICS format, strength of BRICS grouping. But I think it is hard for any other organization or group of states to replicate the Security Council,” Feltman told Sputnik.

Earlier in the day, BRICS said in its declaration that it had a flexible format, allowing it to address a much wider range of international issues than the UN Security Council. The document also addressed a range of issues that undermine global stability, including dealing with the root cause of recent hike in illegal migration and preventing foreign military interventions.

 

 

 

When Ignoring the Enforcement of Law Becomes a Wider Threat

Posted on by

There are an estimated 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States and some you would never imagine existed. For a sampling click here.

Further, click here for the evidence of organizations, missions and the functional manuals all justice and enforcement components.

If you would like to understand justice and enforcement statistics, click here. Indeed, there is a great argument that should happen that there are too many laws to be enforced much less those that are not prosecuted. All the while, when those that are omitted or discretion is used, the damage which speaks to the psyche of the criminal has yet to be fully understood as a threat to security and lawlessness.

Enter Victor Davis Hanson, where he authored a cogent piece on the threat of more lawlessness and anarchy.

Why disregard of law is America’s greatest threat

Citizens may ask why they should obey the rules when illegals go scot-free

Barbarians at the gate usually don’t bring down once-successful civilizations. Nor does climate change. Even mass epidemics like the plague that decimated sixth-century Byzantium do not necessarily destroy a culture.

Far more dangerous are institutionalized corruption, a lack of transparency and creeping neglect of existing laws. All the German euros in the world will not save Greece if Greeks continue to dodge taxes, featherbed government and see corruption as a business model.

Even obeying so-called minor laws counts. It is no coincidence that a country where drivers routinely flout traffic laws and throw trash out the window is also a country that cooks its books and lies to its creditors. Everything from littering to speeding seems negotiable in Athens in a way not true of Munich, Zurich or London.

Mexico is a naturally richer country than Greece. It is blessed with oil, precious minerals, fertile soils, long coastlines and warm weather. Hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens should not be voting with their feet to reject their homeland for the United States.

But Mexico also continues to be a mess because police expect bribes, property rights are iffy, and government works only for those who pay kickbacks. The result is that only north, not south, of the U.S.-Mexico border can people expect upward mobility, clean water, adequate public safety and reliable power.

In much of the Middle East and Africa, tribalism and bribery, not meritocracy, determine who gets hired and fired, wins or loses a contract, or receives or goes without public services.

Americans, too, should worry about these age-old symptoms of internal decay.

The frightening thing about disgraced Internal Revenue Service bureaucrat Lois Lerner’s knowledge of selective audits of groups on the basis of their politics is not just that she seemed to ignore it, but that she seemingly assumed no one would find out, or perhaps even mind. And she may well have been right. So far, no one at the IRS has shown much remorse for corrupting an honor-based system of tax compliance.

Illegal immigration has been a prominent subject in the news lately, between Donald Trump’s politically incorrect, imprecise and crass stereotyping of illegal immigrants and the shocking murder of a young San Francisco woman gratuitously gunned down in public by a Mexican citizen who had been convicted of seven felonies in the United States and had been deported five times. But the subject of illegal immigration is, above all, a matter of law enforcement.

Ultimately, no nation can continue to thrive if its government refuses to enforce its own laws. Liberal “sanctuary cities” such as San Francisco choose to ignore immigration laws. Imagine the outcry if a town in Utah or Montana arbitrarily declared that federal affirmative action or gay marriage laws were null and void within its municipal borders.

Once an immigrant has successfully broken the law by entering and residing in the United States illegally, there is little incentive for him to obey other laws. Increasing percentages of unnaturalized immigrants are not showing up for their immigration hearings — and those percentages are higher still for foreign nationals who have been charged with crimes.

The general public wonders why some are selectively exempt from following the law, but others are not. If federal immigration law does not apply to foreign nationals, why should building codes, zoning laws or traffic statutes apply to U.S. citizens?

Consider the immigration activists’ argument that immigration authorities should focus only on known felons and not those who only broke immigration law. This is akin to arguing that the IRS shouldn’t worry about whether everyday Americans pay their income taxes and should enforce the tax laws only against those with past instances of tax avoidance.

But why single out the poor and foreign-born? Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton once pocketed a $100,000 cattle-futures profit from a $1,000 investment, with help from an insider crony. A group of economists calculated the odds of such an unlikely return at one in 31 trillion. Mrs. Clinton then trumped that windfall by failing to fully pay taxes on her commodities profits, only addressing that oversight years later.

Why did Mrs. Clinton, during her tenure as secretary of state, snub government protocols by using a private email account and a private server, and then permanently deleting any emails she felt were not government-related? Mrs. Clinton long ago concluded that laws in her case were to be negotiated, not obeyed.

President Obama called for higher taxes on the wealthy. But before doing so, could he at least have asked his frequent adviser on racial matters, Al Sharpton, to pay millions in back taxes and penalties?

Might the government ask that its own employees pay the more than $3 billion in collective federal back taxes they owe, since they expect other taxpayers to keep paying their salaries?

Civilizations unwind insidiously not with a loud, explosive bang, but with a lawless whimper.

 

 

Sequester Destroying Military Readiness

Posted on by

A hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday revealed that a2 year program funded with $500 million to train local forces to fight against Islamic State has only reached a achievement of 60 troops when the goal is 5000 by the end of the year 2015.

The Syrian recruits must meet several criteria in order to be trained by the United States, including taking a pledge to fight ISIS rather than the regime of Assad. The trainees must also agree to abide by the laws of war.

The requirement to not fight Assad is a particularly high hurdle; most of the Syrian rebels have been fighting the government in a long-running civil war.

The meager training figure gave new ammunition to critics who say the administration’s ISIS strategy is flailing.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a member of the committee, said his constituents were confused about the rebel-training program, which cost $500 million in 2015 and will cost $600 million next year. 

“They’re confused about in Syria, trying to spend the money to find people to train when you acknowledged that we only had 60 of them successful right now and the amount of effort we’re spending there,” he said.

It gets worse….

The Russians are taking over the Arctic.

From the Washington Times: Coast Guard Commandant Paul F. Zukunft says that the U.S. is essentially ceding the Arctic’s emerging trade routes and natural resources to Russia.
Warming temperatures have opened up the trade routes and access to natural resources, which Russia is taking advantage of with its increased military presences and 27 icebreakers. The U.S. has two icebreakers.
“We’re not even in the same league as Russia right now,” said Adm. Zukunft, who oversees 88,000 personnel, Newsweek reported. “We’re not playing in this game at all.”

Fran Ulmer, chair of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, told Newsweek that if the U.S. wants to devote resources to the region this late in the game, then it will be difficult to catch up. Mr. Ulmer said “it takes years,” to build a single icebreaker, with each one costing roughly $1 billion.
The magazine reported that in addition to the resources Russia is sending to the Arctic, it also has filed claims with the U.N. to claim an additional 200 miles of land extending off its continental shelf. The claims will then be examined by U.N. scientists operating under a treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Still gets worse….

From the Army Times:

The Army plans to cut 40,000 soldiers from its ranks over the next two years, a reduction that will affect virtually all its domestic and foreign posts, the service asserts in a document obtained by USA Today.

The potential troop cut comes as the Obama administration is pondering its next moves against the Islamic State militant group in Iraq and Syria. President Obama said Monday he and military leaders had not discussed sending additional troops to Iraq to fight the Islamic State. There are about 3,500 troops in Iraq.

“This will not be quick — this is a long-term campaign,” Obama said at the Pentagon after meeting top military brass in the wake of setbacks that have prompted critics to call for a more robust U.S. response against the Islamic State.
[12:33:48 PM] The Denise Simon Experience: An additional 17,000 Army civilian employees would also be laid off under the plan officials intend to announce this week. Under the plan, the Army would have 450,000 soldiers by the end of the 2017 budget year. The reduction in troops and civilians is due to budget constraints, the document says.

The Army declined to comment on the proposed reductions in its forces.

Meanwhile, all NYSE trading stopped early Wednesday due to a ‘technical glitch’ when the Chinese markets are tanking, cyber attacks continue and United Airlines went offline as well.

Danger lurks and the threat matrix expands.

 

SCOTUS in the Blame for the Death of Kate Steinle

Posted on by

The Supreme Court in July of 2001 rendered a decision that is a ghost haunting the halls of the Department of Justice today when it comes to immigration. When it comes to words, they matter and ‘may’ versus ‘shall’ has been exploited by the Obama administration.

God rest the souls of all those with Kate Steinle

There was a case titled Zadvydas v. Davis where the court ruled that forced the release of criminal aliens after 90 days under the guise of ‘indefinite detention’.

The Supreme Court did not agree with the government’s interpretation of the statute and felt that, as applied, the statute violated aliens’ constitutional rights to due process. The Court took issue with what it believed to be the “indefinite detention” of Zadvydas and Ma (despite the fact that the government continued to search for a place to deport the aliens during the post-90-day period). In a close 5-4 decision, the Court held that it could not find “any clear indication of congressional intent to grant the Attorney General the power to hold indefinitely in confinement an alien ordered removed.”8 The Court then decided to “construe the statute to contain an implicit ‘reasonable time’ limitation.”9 Clearly, on its face, the statute requires no such limitations. The Court explained their construction:

“The government points to the statute’s word, ‘may.’ But while ‘may’ suggests discretion, it does not necessarily suggest unlimited discretion. In that respect the word ‘may’ is ambiguous. Indeed, if Congress had meant to authorize long-term detention of unremovable aliens, it certainly could have spoken in clearer terms.”

How Zadvydas Puts Foreign Powers in Control of U.S. Immigration Policy. One of the arguments for the political branches’ plenary power over immigration involves a focus on foreign affairs. That issue was a factor in the Zadvydas decision. Under the Constitution, it is the executive and legislative branches that direct foreign policy matters. This ensures that the U.S. relations with other countries are consistent and reliable. As explained by the dissenting justices in Zadvydas: “judicial orders requiring release of removable aliens, even on a temporary basis, have the potential to undermine the obvious necessity that the Nation speak with one voice on immigration and foreign affairs matters.”23 The problem is that the majority effectively empowered foreign governments to control U.S. immigration policy. The dissenting justices in Zadvydas explained:

“The result of the Court’s rule is that, by refusing to accept repatriation of their own nationals, other countries can effect the release of these individuals back into the American community. If their own nationals are now at large in the United States, the nation of origin may ignore or disclaim responsibility to accept their return. The interference with sensitive foreign relations becomes even more acute where hostility or tension characterizes the relationship, for other countries can use the fact of judicially mandated release to their strategic advantage, refusing the return of their nationals to force dangerous aliens upon us.”

The Congress responded to the decision immediately after the attacks of 9/11 with 3 laws: The USA Patriot Act, The Real ID Act and Keep Our Communities Safe Act.

Released July 8, 2015 by the Senate Judiciary

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, was joined by Republican colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee in sending a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson regarding the dangerous new “Priority Enforcement Program,” which goes even further than the administrative amnesty memos in defining categories of illegal aliens that are immune from immigration enforcement. Upon releasing the letter, Sessions issued the following statement:

“Rather than working with state and local law enforcement to identify, detain, and deport dangerous criminal aliens, DHS officials have enabled ‘sanctuary cities’; dismantled effective cooperative-enforcement programs like 287g, Secure Communities, and Operation Streamline; and allowed repeat criminal offenders to be released onto American streets by the tens of thousands. Right now, there are nearly 170,000 convicted criminal aliens who have been ordered deported, but who remain at large in our country. This is a direct result of non-enforcement policies.

Now, the Administration has proposed a new ‘Priority Enforcement Program’ that actually directs officers not to enforce federal law. By defining its ‘priorities’ to exclude large categories of illegal immigrants, including those who have already been ordered deported or those who illegally reenter after having been deported, PEP ensures that countless more dangerous aliens will be released into U.S. communities—allowing otherwise entirely preventable crimes, including some of the most violent and egregious, to occur.  Immigration enforcement is not supposed to be a game of Russian roulette where we release habitual immigration violators into U.S. communities and hope and pray they don’t go on to commit additional criminal offenses.”

The letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson:

“Dear Secretary Johnson:

We write regarding the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), which requires immigration law officers and agents to ignore plain law and public safety, solely to the benefit of criminal aliens in the United States. This program, along with the so-called “enforcement priorities” outlined in your November 20, 2014, memorandum titled “Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants,” are contrary to law and pose direct threats to public safety.

Your Department has refused to confront so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions, endangering the public safety and leading to tragedies such as the recent killings of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco, California, and Angelica Martinez in Laredo, Texas. These deaths are the result of such sanctuary jurisdictions’ dangerous policies, and this Administration’s refusal to do anything to stop them. Yet, rather than enhance the successful Secure Communities program, confront sanctuary jurisdictions, defend federal law enforcement’s legitimate use of detainers, request additional resources, or ask Congress for a legislative solution, your Department has unilaterally designed a program that will endanger the American people.

As a preliminary matter, the “enforcement priorities” established in the aforementioned memorandum fail to include significant categories of criminal aliens defined by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), including, but not limited to:

  • Aliens convicted of nearly all offenses that constitute crimes involving moral turpitude,[1] which includes not only crimes such as theft, but all offenses that are “inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or society in general”[2] ;and,
  • Aliens convicted of drug possession offenses,[3] including those who were initially charged with trafficking offenses but who were permitted to plead down to simple possession.

Your enforcement priorities also fail to include other criminal aliens, such as those who have been convicted of two or more misdemeanors that you deem not to be “significant.” They similarly fail to include aliens convicted of any misdemeanor offense who do not serve 90 days or more in prison—regardless of whether they received a suspended sentence that exceeded 90 days. Rather than take the common sense approach of defining as “enforcement priorities” all classes of criminal and dangerous aliens as defined by Congress in the INA, and adding others as a matter of policy, your Department has elected to acquiesce willfully to the presence of criminal aliens in the United States and ordered law enforcement officers and agents to look the other way except in extremely limited circumstances.

As though the disparity between these “enforcement priorities” and existing law were not bad enough, your Department has designed PEP in a manner that creates disparities between PEP and the “enforcement priorities” listed in your November 20, 2014, memo. Significantly, this includes priorities 1(b) (recent border crossers); 2(c) (aliens who enter the United States unlawfully or reenter after a previous removal or return); 2(d) (aliens who significantly abuse the terms of their visas); and 3 (aliens who have a final order of removal on or after January 1, 2014). 

It is also our understanding that, under PEP, your Department will only seek the transfer of an alien in the custody of state or local law enforcement if the criminal alien has a conviction for a limited number of criminal offenses, engaged intentionally in organized gang activities, or poses a danger to national security. However, even in many of these cases, DHS will simply request “notification” of the release date from state and local law enforcement, rather than issue a detainer. Additionally, the mere fact that an alien has been charged with or arrested for an offense is no longer acceptable, as your Department will only seek to assume custody of any criminal alien once that alien has an actual conviction.

In recent briefings to congressional staff, your Department has described PEP as though it is somehow necessary to reengage with sanctuary jurisdictions that failed to work with DHS under the Secure Communities program. At the same time, however, DHS representatives have confirmed at these briefings that PEP does not guarantee the cooperation of any sanctuary jurisdictions, and that such jurisdictions will have the ability to determine which parts of PEP they will comply with, if any. Thus, even here, the Administration has once again acquiesced to sanctuary jurisdictions.

Under PEP, countless criminal aliens who have managed to evade conviction will be released, endangering our communities. More crimes will be committed, and precious resources will be spent to re-apprehend these individuals, a process that significantly endangers the safety of your officers and agents. It would be much more effective and efficient to issue detainers and simply transfer these criminal aliens directly into your Department’s custody. We note that as recently as 2012, then-Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John Morton, offered to pay localities any additional expenses of holding inmates until they can be picked up,[4] yet your Department has apparently abandoned even this reasonable proposal.

Accordingly, please respond to the following questions by July 21, 2015:

1. How many aliens present in the United States today have ever been arrested for a criminal offense?

2. How many aliens present in the United States today have ever been convicted of a criminal offense?

3. How many aliens with final orders of removal remain in the United States today?

A. Of those, please specify how many have ever been arrested for any criminal offense.
B. Of those, please specify how many have ever been convicted of any criminal offense.

4. From fiscal year 2009 through the present, how many detainers has your Department issued? Of those, how many were honored?

5. Does DHS have any projections as to how PEP will affect the number of detainers it issues each year? If so, please provide them.

6. Does DHS have any projections as to how the new enforcement priorities will affect the number of removals it can effectuate each year? If so, please provide them.

7. Does DHS have any projections as to how PEP will affect the number of removals it can effectuate each year? If so, please provide them.

8. Does DHS have any projections as to how many criminal aliens with any record of a criminal arrest or conviction will be permitted to stay in the United States after full implementation of PEP? If so, please provide them.

9. Does DHS have any projections as to how many sanctuary jurisdictions will comply with PEP? If so, please provide them.

10. DHS has publicly touted its engagement with Los Angeles County regarding PEP.[5] However, DHS has not actually secured any commitments from Los Angeles County as to how it will cooperate with PEP. Do you have any guarantees that Los Angeles County, or any other sanctuary jurisdiction, will fully comply with PEP?

11. How many jurisdictions that had previously refused to honor detainers or otherwise cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement have committed to comply with PEP in its entirety?

12. Under PEP, will DHS issue a request for a notification of release or a detainer for all aliens who are subject to mandatory custody under section 236(c) of the INA? If not, please explain why not.

13. In light of the tragic murders of Kathryn Steinle and Angelica Martinez last week, is it still the Administration’s position that federal immigration detainers should not be mandatory?

­­Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jeff Sessions, Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest

David Vitter, Deputy Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest

Chuck Grassley, U.S. Senator

David Perdue, U.S. Senator

John Cornyn, U.S. Senator

Mike Lee, U.S. Senator

Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator

Thom Tillis, U.S. Senator

Orrin Hatch, U.S. Senator”

 

 

Judge Hanen Orders Top DHS Brass to Texas

Posted on by

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen is NOT pleased with the Department of Homeland Security over lies, non-compliance and obstruction.

For some background:

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kathleen Hartnett could not explain why multiple DOJ lawyers — herself included — told the court multiple times over two and a half months that DHS would not be accepting requests for deferred action under the challenged order until mid February. She implausibly claimed that the legal team thought the injunction request did not apply to the expansion of DACA under the president’s November order — despite the clear words of the states’ initial filings and explicit statements made in court. It seems clear what Hanen thinks happened:

“When I asked you what would happen and you said nothing, I took it to heart. I was made to look like an idiot,” Hanen told Hartnett. “I believed your word that nothing would happen. . . . Like an idiot, I believed that.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415795/did-doj-lie-judge-hanen-editors

Dated July 7, 2015:

Judge Hanen has ordered Secretary Jeh Johnson; Gil Kerlikowske, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Kevin McAleenan, Deputy Chief of U.S. Border Patrol, Sarah Saldana, Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Leon Rodriguez, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to his courtroom to answer for their non-response to his order.

Reading the order issued by Judge Hanen, it proves his tolerance has been exploited by all the agencies above. Hat tip to Josh Blackman.

§

ORDER
This Court held a hearing on June 23, 2015, at which time both parties indicated that they are making progress toward a resolution of discovery requests made by the Plaintiffs with regard to the Government’s belated revelation that it had implemented portions of the November 20, 2014DHS Memorandum prior to the February 18, 2015 start date provided to Plaintiffs and the Court by defense counsel. Given the fact that counsel for both sides indicated that progress has been made and have requested more time to reach an agreement, this Court granted the parties additional timeto seek a resolution of these pending issues. The parties are to file a status report with the Courtdescribing any agreement reached on Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and any resolution with regard to the approximately 108,800 individuals who were granted benefits pursuant to the 2014 DHSMemorandum between the date of that Memorandum and this Court’s injunction. The parties haveuntil July 31, 2015, to file that status report. The Court will resolve any and all questions regardingfuture discovery and/or sanctions once it reviews the parties’ report.This, however, does not resolve the issue as to the approximately 2,000 individuals that weregiven various benefits in violation of this Court’s order after the injunction was issued. The Courtwas first apprised by the Government of the violations of its injunction on May 7, 2015. It admitted that it violated this Court’s injunction on at least 2,000 occasions—violations which have not yet been fixed. This Court has expressed its willingness to believe that these actions were accidentaland 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. The Government promised this Court on May 7, 2015, that “immediate steps” were being taken toremedy the violations of the injunction. [
See
Doc. No. 247]. Yet, as of June 23, 2015—some sixweeks after making that representation—the situation had not been rectified. With that in mind, theCourt hereby sets a hearing for August 19, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Each individual Defendant mustattend and be prepared to show why he or she should not be held in contempt of Court. In additionto the individual Defendants, the Government shall bring all relevant witnesses on this topic as theCourt will not continue this matter to a later date. The Government has conceded that it has directlyviolated this Court’s Order in its May 7, 2015 Advisory, yet, as of today, two months have passed since the Advisory and it has not remediated its own violative behavior. That is unacceptable and,as far as the Government’s attorneys are concerned, completely unprofessional. To be clear, thisCourt expects the Government to be in full compliance with this Court’s injunction. Complianceas to just those aliens living in the Plaintiff States is not full compliance.If the Government remedies this situation and comes into compliance with this Court’sinjunction by July 31, 2015, it shall include a summary of that situation in the July 31, 2015 reportto the Court. If the Court is satisfied with the Government’s representations, it will cancel theAugust 19, 2015 hearing. Otherwise, the Court intends to utilize all available powers to compel compliance.
2  
This Court began its last hearing by explaining its reluctance to sanction any party or attorney. If nothing else, sanctions bog both the parties and the Court down on side issues thatdetract their attention from the real focus: the merits and resolution of the case. Nevertheless, noreasonable person could possibly consider a direct violation of an injunction a side issue. Furthermore, at some point, when a non-compliant party refuses to bring its conduct intocompliance, one must conclude that the conduct is not accidental, but deliberate. If these violationshave not been corrected by the end of this month, absent very compelling evidence, which this Courtwill be glad to consider, the only logical conclusion is that the Government needs a stronger motivation to comply with lawful court orders. Neither side should interpret this Court’s personal preference to not sanction lawyers or parties as an indication that it will merely acquiesce to a party’s unlawful conduct.Signed this 7th  day of July, 2015. ________________________________ Andrew S. HanenUnited States District Judge
3