Thread: Lawyer calls for probe of Judge Bolton's ruling

Lawyer calls for probe of Judge Bolton's ruling

Suspects 'influences' on decision to block Arizona immigration law

Posted: July 31, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A legal gadfly who launched Judicial Watch and brought numerous court complaints against the White House antics of Bill and Hillary Clinton is calling for an investigation into whether there were inappropriate influences in the decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton to strike down much of Arizona's immigration enforcement law.

Klayman, who now is at Freedom Watch, said he was not expecting Bolton's decision to "gut" the Arizona law. http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/

Klayman, representing the Arizona Latino Republican Association in support of the state's S.B. 1070 law, had appeared in Bolton's court just a week earlier. At the hearing, the judge told an Obama Justice Department lawyer "her belief that the major provision of the law – whereby law enforcement officials can question a suspect stopped for 'probable cause' as to his or her 'legal status' in Arizona – was likely constitutional."

Her ruling, however, was the opposite, Klayman noted.

That led Klayman to question whether there were any inappropriate influences in the court.

"Freedom Watch will file document requests with the administrator of the courts to try to obtain the judge's phone records and undertake other means to investigate," he said in a prepared statement to WND.

"The stakes are too high, and our court system too inherently corrupt to overlook what has occurred," he said.

He previously said that as an appointee of a Democrat president, under the administration of a Democrat president, there already would be pressure on the judge to take the government's side merely as a good career move.

"There is such a stench to this decision by Judge Bolton, which puts the livelihood and safety of Arizonans at risk, that an investigation is warranted here," he said.

Klayman also suggested Arizona authorities carry out the "principle provisions" of the law to protect "the interests of Arizonans."

In the case, already appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Bolton suspended key parts of the law. Both the U.S. government and Mexican governments applauded her decision.

Klayman cited several other incidents of questionable "influence" from the White House that investigators already have been asked to review. In two incidents, the administration offered a candidate a job in return for dropping out of a Senate race in apparent violation of the law.

Judicial Watch, http://www.judicialwatch.org/ a government-watchdog organization, recently filed a congressional ethics complaint against Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak, a Democrat who has confirmed he was offered a post. Sestak has said publicly he was offered the job if he would agree to withdraw from a Senate primary campaign against Obama favorite Sen. Arlen Specter, another Pennsylvania Democrat. Sestak stated he declined the offer and subsequently won the nomination.

Judicial Watch's complaint targets Sestak for ethics violations, stating his story changed after he consulted the White House. Judicial Watch charged Sestak was communicating with the White House to "cover up criminal conduct regarding job offers made to Congressman Sestak in exchange for leaving a political campaign."

Sign the petition today to demand an independent-counsel appointment in the Sestak affair.

The ethics complaint says, "The record of statements made to the media suggests that Congressman Sestak and Obama White House officials conspired to cover up the facts of a job offer made to Congressman Sestak in an effort to avoid criminal sanctions for violation of the Hatch Act and other federal laws. And by so doing they may have engaged in a criminal conspiracy."

Judicial Watch said that in February Sestak went on the record stating he had been offered a "federal job" to keep him from challenging Specter. He maintained that account until the end of May, when he suggested he hadn't been offered a federal job but an unpaid position on a White House "advisory board."

Federal law bans government workers from offering anything of value, including compensation of any kind, jobs or gifts in exchange for a partisan political action, which would include withdrawing from a campaign. There also are bans on members of Congress from being on some presidential boards.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, "It sure looks as though Congressman Sestak and the Obama White House conspired to get their stories straight. They knew they were on the wrong side of the law and seem to have engaged in a coverup. Why else would Congressman Sestak change his story so drastically? We hope the Office of Congressional Ethics will respond to our complaint and conduct a thorough and independent investigation so the record may be clear."

Judicial Watch previously asked for an investigation into alleged violations of the Hatch Act by Emanuel and Obama's deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, for allegedly offering positions to both Sestak and Andrew Romanoff in exchange for their withdrawal from key Senate races.

Romanoff, a Democrat, is a former Colorado state house speaker who was challenging another Obama favorite, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=185873

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 6:34 am Post subject: Impeachment

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn50 wrote:
How do you start the impeachment process? I'm all for it. Do we start a petition? How many signatures does it take to draw some serious attention?
-------------------

I will be seriously looking Into not only a possible Impeachment of this judge,but to also find out If there was tampering by the Obama administration. In one of her statements she said that "legal hispanics might be arrested (racial profiling) which WAS NOT a part of the suit brought by the justice department. They brought the suit forward on PREEMPTION,NOT ON RACIAL PROFILING,which makes this statement very troubling...... According to Judge Susan Bolton: "There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)." This is in spite of many safeguards to protect legal residents and against racial profiling in the law.

Obama and his cronies know that if the law were enacted, none of these "potential" violations will occur, so they decided to block the democratic will of the people of Arizona before the public sees that the law will work TS
_________________

Originally Posted by topsecret10

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 6:34 am Post subject: Impeachment

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn50 wrote:
How do you start the impeachment process? I'm all for it. Do we start a petition? How many signatures does it take to draw some serious attention?
I will be seriously looking Into not only a possible Impeachment of this judge,but to also find out If there was tampering by the Obama administration. In one of her statements she said that "legal hispanics might be arrested (racial profiling) which WAS NOT a part of the suit brought by the justice department. They brought the suit forward on PREEMPTION,NOT ON RACIAL PROFILING,which makes this statement very troubling...... According to Judge Susan Bolton: "There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)." This is in spite of many safeguards to protect legal residents and against racial profiling in the law.

Obama and his cronies know that if the law were enacted, none of these "potential" violations will occur, so they decided to block the democratic will of the people of Arizona before the public sees that the law will work TS
_________________

Absolutely there was Tampering. Her entire feedback was scripted by someone. Is there still doubt that our system is corrupted and no longer works properly? lol