DOJ Attorneys lied on Court documents
Boynton, Hamdani, Swingle, & White
DOJ Attorneys that lied on Court documents at the 5th Circuit.
[Please share this on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc.]
Case: 23-20342
U.S. Department of Justice
BRIAN M. BOYNTON /Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
ALAMDAR HAMDANI /United States Attorney & former Law Professor at University of Houston
SHARON SWINGLE /Attorney, Appellate Staff
GRAHAM W. WHITE /Attorney, Appellate Staff
/
None of them would sign the certification.
They lied about the people that are the correct Defendants.
They lied about the Certificate of Interested Persons.
They did the same lie in the pending case Missouri v. Biden, where they also lied about the Certificate of Interested Persons.
/
Lying is becoming a bad habit for DOJ Attorneys.
/
Here is what our Attorney filed:
/
MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE’S REPLY BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
COMES NOW the Plaintiffs-Appellants, through the undersigned counsel,
and respectfully set forth and request:
1. On November 6th, 2023, Defendants-Appellees’ filed a reply brief that should be stricken from the record as it does not conform to the provisions of 5th Cir. R. 28.2.1, Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and infringes on the duty of candor to the Court.
/
2. 5th Cir. R. 28.2.1 demands that counsel certify a “complete list of all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, guarantors, insurers, affiliates, parent corporations, or other legal entities who or which are financially interested in the outcome of the litigation, specifying a list all persons known to counsel to be interested, on all sides of the case, whether or not represented by counsel furnishing the certificate.” (Emphasis ours).
/
3. Devoid of any signature as a certification to any court requires, the statement included in Defendants-Appellees’ Reply Brief reads as follows: “A certificate of interested persons is not required, as defendants-appellees are governmental parties. 5th Cir. R. 28.2.1.”
/
4. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants-Appellees’ certification is deficient and compels that their brief be stricken from the record.
/
5. First, the ‘Certificate of Interested Persons’ does not contain counsel’s electronic signature required in any certification that must be included in any certification made to the Court.
/
6. Second, the certification incorrectly asserts that none is required, “as defendants-appellees are governmental parties”. see Rb.ii. Both the official capacity and the individual capacity defendants are not considered “government” for 5th Cir. R. 28.2.1’s purposes. While it is correct that defendants FBI, DHS are deemed “governmental parties”, the official capacity defendants must be listed in the certification of interested parties to the case, as they have done in prior cases.
/
7. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has determined that officials sued for injunctive relief in their official capacities – such as in this case-- are “persons” subject to liability for civil rights violations under Section 1983. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 91 (1989).
/
8. Third, counsel for official capacity defendants in prior cases have correctly submitted 5th Cir. R. 28.2.1’s certification in prior similar cases before this Court. Appellants request that this Court take judicial notice of the “Certificate of Interested Persons” included in recent proceedings where some of the same defendants coincide with the ones in this case. To wit: Appeal number 20-10995, Ghedi v. Mayorkas and Appeal number 23-10284, Kovac v. Wray, (Examples Included as Exhibits 1 and 2 of this motion). Counsel in this case overlap with those who appeared on behalf of Defendants-Appellees in both examples set forth above, where they complied with 5th Cir. R. 28.2.1’s provisions, demonstrating familiarity with their legal obligation thereunder, and an intentional failure to comply with it.
/
9. The fourth reason why the ‘certification’ is deficient and warrants the striking of the brief stems from the fact that Defendants-Appellees also appear in their individual capacity. Individual capacity defendants are not deemed “governmental parties”. Inasmuch as they could be held personally liable should Plaintiffs- Appellants succeed on the merits of this case; their personal assets could be affected. “Personal-capacity suits, … seek to impose individual liability upon a government officer” for civil rights violations. Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21, 25 (1991).
Therefore, all individual capacity defendants and their respective spouses or partners, if applicable, had to be listed as “interested parties” in Defendants- Appellants’ certificate of interested persons.
/
10. Furthermore, not only do counsel for Defendants-Appellees have an obligation to include in the certification any other person such that has joint vested financial interests with any of the individual capacity defendants. The rule specifies this includes: “a complete list of all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, guarantors, insurers, affiliates, parent corporations, or other legal entities who or which are financially interested in the outcome of the litigation.”
/
11. Defendants-Appellees disregarded their obligation to set forth the private persons or entities with vested financial interests on this Appeal. Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Amended Complaint identified some private parties that may potentially have a vested financial interest if this Court declares illegal the inclusion of nonterrorists on a terrorist database such as the Leidos Corporation, InfraGard and Citizen Corps. ROA.589, ROA.600. Consequently, Defendants-Appellees must certify to this Court the names of all private persons and entities that financially benefit from placing non-terrorists on a terrorist database.
/
12. Given the national implications of this case, it is likely the list of persons and entities that meet these “interested persons” criteria are significant. If there are no additional private interested parties, counsel must certify this fact as well under their signature.
/
13. Another reason why Defendant-Appellees’ certification does not conform to 5th Cir. R. 28.2.1 because it excludes people the rule expressly directs to be listed, such as the Plaintiffs-Appellants and the attorneys for all parties.
/
14. Defendants-Appellees’ and their counsel’s failure to submit a legally compliant certification of interested persons pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 28.2.1 renders their reply brief unacceptable and warrants it be stricken from the record as it interferes with this Court’s responsibility to screen for any potential conflict of interest. Defendant-Appellant’s noncompliance with the rule thus interferes with Plaintiffs-Appellees right to due process by preventing the Court from detecting at an early stage of the case any potential conflict of interest.
/
15. There is yet another significant violation by Defendants-Appellees that warrants that the Court strike its Reply Brief. On October 28th, 2023, Plaintiffs-Appellants discovered that roughly two weeks after the filing of the complaint, on January 31, 2023, official capacity defendant Charles Kable retired as the Director of the Terrorist Screening Center. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and counsel’s duty of candor towards this Court required that they substitute the official capacity defendant that is no longer in office.
/
16. Consequently, counsel for Defendants-Appellees also infringed their obligations under 5th Cir. R. 28.2.1 by failing to include Mr. Michael Glasheen in the certificate of interested persons. Although it seems Mr. Glasheen became the TSC director on June 26, 2023, Defendants-Appellees did not inform the District Court either and continued to file motions without substitution of official capacity defendant Kable for Mr. Steven Glasheen who substituted him, in violation of F.R.Civ.Proc. Rules 11 and 25(d) and their duty of candor to the court.
/
17. In light of the above, Defendants-Appellees’ “Certification of Interested Persons” is intentionally deceptive and violates counsel’s duty to “ascertain and certify the true facts to the court.” 5th Cir. R. 28.2.1(a). Defendants-Appellees’ experienced counsel’s deviation from this precept is inexcusable and calls for the imposition of the sanctions the Court deems necessary to prevent any such conduct in the future.
/
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs-Appellants request that this Court be apprised of the facts set forth herein and consequently:
a) Order that Defendants-Appellees brief be stricken from the record for its numerous failures to conform to the rules set forth above.
b) Impose the sanctions it deems necessary to prevent future deviations from this Court’s rules and procedures.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Dated: November 8, 2023 /s/ Ana Luisa Toledo
Ana Luisa Toledo
PO Box 15990
Houston, TX 77220-1590
Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
/
/
Please consider signing the petition against 702 Renewal
https://www.change.org/p/end-targeted-individuals-suffering-prevent-fisa-section-702-renewal-end-fusion-centers
/
GOD'S will be done AMEN 🙌🙌🙌 God bless targetedjustice.com & every one on the righteous path AMEN 🙏
Liars! Traitors!! Let history record that you sold out your own family for thirty pieces of silver!!!