- Part I - showing that the essence of the fight is for the alleged constitutional right of immigration lawyers NOT to represent clients fully in the immigration proceedings, as disciplinary rules require, thus hurting their chances for a good outcome;
- Part II - showing the conflict of interest in the Board of Directors of the plaintiff non-profit and personal interest of some of the Directors in their private businesses in the outcome of this supposedly "public interest" lawsuit;
- Part III - discussing what kind of "constitutional right" it is for attorneys to engage in ghost-writing and partial representation of clients, instead of providing a representation throughout the case;
- Part IV - discussing what the heck (and that is put politely) is the state's interest in federal regulation of representatives in front of federal boards, which is what the lawsuit is frivolously asserting, while the same states are filibustering instead of enforcing federal immigration law; and
- Part V - how existing regulation of who represents people in front of immigration boards, in its entirety, makes no sense and hurts consumers.
I specifically wrote about the fact that California State Attorney General made the plaintiffs in the case his office's paid informants - by giving them a $125,000 grant and by putting an attorney into their office whose only job was to investigate "notario fraud" - in other words, to conduct investigations against NWIRP's own competitors, ordered by a State Attorney General to enforce what a State Attorney General has no right to enforce - federal disciplinary rules of representation in federal immigration courts.
That was disclosed in California State AG's amicus brief.
Of course, the inconsistency of the argument that the State Attorney General of the State of California is supporting, through an amicus brief in support of his own paid informant NWIRP, VIOLATIONS of the very same disciplinary rules that the State Attorney General is enforcing and financing such enforcement by giving NWIRP (violator of federal regulations) $125,000 in grant money to conduct investigations against its own competitors, other violators of the same disciplinary rules - is somehow completely overlooked by the plaintiffs in that lawsuit, the State of California Attorney General, by the federal judge who has so far imposed a stay without giving an explanation or legal reasoning, and by the media and members of the public who support the lawsuit simply because it is "against Trump".
But, one more thing needs to be clarified for the public, and especially in view of U.S. Attorney General's announcement that it is stopping the unconstitutional policy of directing settlement money from settlements with wrongdoers to finance special interest groups - something that the Obama administration introduced and widely practiced.
NWIRP is exactly such a special interest group, and the California State Attorney General did exactly what U.S. Attorney General just prohibited - gave it a "cy pres" grant of $125,000 to conduct investigations of alleged violators of the same disciplinary rules that NWIRP is suing U.S. Attorney General Sessions for its own "constitutional right" to violate (with support from the State of California Attorney General).
Let's go back to what the California State AG said in its amicus brief:
So, while fighting the Trump administration in court AGAINST enforcement of federal immigration law, the State of California gave $125,000 to a non-profit, NWIRP, to SUPPORT enforcement of the same federal immigration law - but only some of it, and only against NWIRP competitors.
And, the mysterious "cy pres" grant means "leftovers" from class lawsuits awarded BY JUDGES to non-profits designated by the government, and thus favored by the government.
Since NWIRP is taking a political stand against the federal government, the "cy pres grant" is used by the state government, the chief law enforcer of the State of California, to finance special interest group - which was just prohibited by U.S. Attorney Sessions.
U.S. Attorney sessions pointed out WHO should get the "cy pres leftovers":
- victims in a potential class action, or
- the taxpayers - whatever is unclaimed should go back to the government, not to the special interest groups.