Just published Brownsville, Texas – U.S. District Court Taitz’ immigration case in Texas advances; Few answers, plentiful attorneys...

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Pinterest
• Linkedin
• Google Plus

U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, has allowed the immigration case, Taitz vs. Johnson et al, 14-cv-00119, to advance, setting an injunction hearing on October 29, 2014.

Judge Hanen stressed the importance of proceeding cautiously with the case, mentioning the consideration of “consequences” resulting from the outcome. He denied Dr. Taitz’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, but set a deadline of Oct. 3, 2014, for Dr. Taitz, Attorney and Plaintiff, to file an amended complaint. He set a deadline of Oct. 17, 2014, for the government’s attorneys, Colin A. Kisor, U.S. Department of Justice, and Daniel D. Hu, U.S. Department of Justice, to respond to the complaint.

Dr. Taitz’ lawsuit requests an order to temporarily restrain the U.S. government from transporting illegal immigrants to other states from the U.S.-Mexico border invasion, and it requests that the immigrants be either immediately deported or quarantined for two months due to reported cases of scabies, tuberculosis, bacterial pneumonia, measles, whooping cough, H1N1 swine flu, dengue fever, Ebola virus, and lice.

Taitz specifies in her complaint that she is requesting an order from the court “to either turn around and deport illegal aliens caught by the border patrol” or “a written medical release, criminal record from the countries of origin and an order by the immigration/deportation judge finding legal basis for U.S. residency, prior to release of such illegal aliens into the general population.”

Defendants in the case, Taitz v. Johnson, are Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services; Barack Obama, U.S. President; and U.S. Border Patrol, Rio Grande Valley Section, Brownsville Station.

Although recent polls show that the majority of U.S. citizens want the border closed, do not want the burden of supporting illegal immigrants and do not want the various problems which result from allowing the invasion of illegal immigrants into the country, the U.S. government continues to boldly defend the invasion of illegals at the U.S.-Mexico border and the costly transportation of the aliens. The defendants from the U.S. government now have three attorneys on the case, Taitz v. Johnson, giving the appearance that they are disturbingly aggressive in representing ‘illegal immigrants’ and that the case could possibly be titled, “Illegal Aliens vs. U.S. Citizens.”

The most impressive aspect of the Taitz vs. Johnson hearing at Brownsville, Texas, U. S. District Court on August 27, 2014, were the responses from the U.S. government witnesses. The answers indicated a lack of knowledge and ambivalence regarding infectious diseases and the spread of the diseases, lack of concern for the movement, tracking and location of illegal immigrants after the U.S. government has flown them to various locations throughout the country, a danger to national security by allowing a vague ID process and allowing the illegal immigrants to travel essentially with a ‘piece of paper,’ a disregard for U.S. citizens by jetting illegal immigrants around the country at taxpayers’ expense — including travel expenses for Homeland Security and INS employees to supervise the children on planes, and an obvious disregard for U.S. law.

Dr. Taitz has recently issued a statement, PRESS RELEASE: Judge Hanen schedules injunction hearing for October 29, 2014, right before the election, tells Enforcement and Removal INS agent: you don’t do either enforcement or removal, describing the court proceedings and her perspective on the August 27th Brownsville, Texas, hearing.

Many answers from U.S. government witnesses were perplexing. At times, responses seemed to conclude, “I don’t know why we don’t follow U.S. law and don’t care; I just do my job.”

The witness from Health and Human Services was Teresa M. Brooks, Supervisory Field Program Specialist – South Texas, Division of Children’s Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration of Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Attorney Taitz asked Teresa Brooks whether illegal immigrant children “could be flown to an area and handed to an illegal immigrant who has a criminal record.” Brooks appeared defensive and protective of illegal immigrants when the question was asked. When the judge intervened, asking if the situation was possible, Brooks stated, “It could happen.”

When asked about the current availability of doctors for ‘illegal immigrant children,’ Brooks, a government witness, admitted that only 2 doctors were available for referrals which could possibly include 5000 children.

Answers from the government witnesses continued to be scarce and vague; that is, government officials from the United States of America lacked knowledge or were unable to explain why they are not following U.S. laws.

It appeared that illegal immigrants are casually and deliberately released into the U.S. by the government with little or no concern for tracking them. Dr. Taitz asked, “Is there was any reason not to ask for bail?” and “Is there any way to track those children after they are released? Judge Hanen added the question, “Why do we assume that someone who is in the country illegally will show up for a hearing?

The witness from U.S. Customs was Kevin Oaks, Chief, Rio Grande Valley Sector, Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Lack of knowledge in the medical area for government officials who are in charge of controlling the current illegal immigration crisis in the U.S. seemed apparent. Dr. Taitz asked Chief of Border Patrol, Kevin Oaks, “Do you know the incubation period for Ebola and scabies?” Chief Oaks seemed unfamiliar with incubation periods and responded, “No.” When Taitz asked, “Do you have a manual for Ebola,” he again responded, “No.” Chief Oaks stated that doctors did not check ‘illegal immigrant children’ and indicated that they were routinely screened for health problems by border patrol agents.

When asked by Judge Hanen what the U.S. was doing to stop the surge of illegal immigrants at our border,U.S. Border Patrol Chief Kevin Oaks simply spoke of “messaging ” in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

The witness from U.S. Immigration was Alfredo Fierro, Deputy Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Referencing the possibility of Islamic terrorist groups invading the Southern border during the current crisis, Dr. Taitz asked Deputy Field Office Director, Alfredo Fierro, “Do you know if members of Islamic terrorists groups or people from Muslim countries who are known for supporting terrorism have entered the U.S. through the U.S.-Mexico border?” Deputy Fierro admitted that he knew people from Muslim countries, known for supporting terrorism, were crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

Judge Hanen asked U.S. government witnesses additional questions, stating that all of the questions were not relevant to the case at this point. Some of the questions were:

 We don’t stop anyone at the border, do we? If I am on the Mexico side, and I swim the river . . . . I swim right up to a border agent, you’re not going to stop me?

We didn’t actually try to prevent any of the people from coming into the U.S.?

We let people come in, and we arrest them?

Would you say that turning them over illegally to a person who is here illegally neither enforces the law or removes the individual?

We will do nothing to prevent them from crossing?

Do you know why you are transporting them?

What percentage of them actually show up for court appearances?

Since the August 27, 2014, hearing, Dr. Taitz announced a new ruling from Judge Hanen, Judge Hanen denied the government’s motion to quash subpoena for one of key witnesses. Several border patrol agents are willing to travel to TX and testify in court about the government trafficking illegals with infectious diseases and placing the gag order on officers, preventing them to speak out about it and about an armed incursion into the US from Mexico through tunnels dug under the border, attaching an order denying a government motion to quash a subpoena for one of Taitz’ key witnesses.

From listening to U.S. government witnesses in this case, viewers were likely to conclude that illegal immigration is now encouraged by the current policy of the U.S. government — never mind any U.S. law. Illegal immigrants, often with ‘questionable identity’ or ‘questionable health status due to possible exposure to contagious diseases,’ are systematically released by a planned policy of the Obama Administration and deliberately transported throughout the U.S. with no concern for tracking them and no concern for U.S. federal laws. In fact, illegal aliens may be flown across the country and handed to a person who says they are a parent or relative — even thought the person may be an illegal alien with a criminal record.

Answers from U.S. government witnesses in this illegal immigration case could be characterized as ‘astonishing.’ Viewers must have left the courtroom wondering why U.S. government officials could not provide adequate answers to such questions as, “What are we doing to secure the border?” or “Why are you not enforcing the law and removing them?” Or “Do you know why you are transporting them?”

A new report from Judicial Watch, available today, is relevant to the Taitz v. Johnson, and it provides an alert to all U.S. citizens. The report, which is described by Andrew C. McCarthy, is another validation of Dr. Taitz’ concern of an unsecured U.S. border and the failure of government officials to enforce immigration laws; it alerts of possible Islamic terrorist attacks and national-security vulnerability created by the Obama administration’s non-enforcement of the immigration laws.

McCarthy quotes a Judicial Watch report in Judicial Watch: Feds’ Bulletin Describes Threat of Imminent Terrorist Attack on Southern Border, stating, “Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.”

The Judical Watch report accuses the Obama Administration of covering up the disturbing information, “The administration has also covered up, or at the very least downplayed, a serious epidemic of crime along the Mexican border even as heavily armed drug cartels have taken over portions of the region. Judicial Watch has reported that the U.S. Border Patrol actually ordered officers to avoid the most crime-infested stretches because they’re ‘too dangerous’ and patrolling them could result in an ‘international incident’ of cross border shooting.”

McCarthy emphasizes the importance of the newly-reported and alarming Southern border information by stating, “These new revelations are bound to impact the current debate about the border crisis and immigration policy.”