Supplemental brief by Orly Taitz dealing with Obama allowing thousands of illegal aliens with deadly infectious diseases into US

03/16/2016 10:43

by Orly Taitz



During the 03.01.2015 hearing in the above captioned case, the court stated that the parties can submit additional information and argument by 03.11.2016. Accordingly, the plaintiff is providing the following information:


This case is seeking an injunctive relief whereby the defendants, Secretary of DHS and HHS, will have to obtain medical releases, showing no infectious diseases of public significance prior to release of illegal alien detainees from the DHS and HHS custody.

Defendants are currently engaged in a trick, where they are reclassifying diseases of public significance into diseases of no public significance. This would undermine and nullify the decision by this court, should the court issue an injunction as requested by the plaintiff.

As an example, Obama administration reclassified a deadly disease, AIDS/HIV, from a disease of public significance into a disease of no public significance, even though U.S. has the largest number of cases and millions of dollars are spent on treatments. Last month three more diseases were reclassified, with Obama administration arguing that only about $100 million is spent per year to treat those diseases and this amount according to Obama administration does not constitute public significance (Exhibit 1)

Plaintiff is greatly concerned that by the end of Obama administration all of the infectious diseases will be reclassified as diseases of no public significance, including TB and Ebola.

At first blush these policies are totally unfathomable. However, one can understand the reasoning behind these decisions by looking at a greater picture.

We are seeing Obama administration releasing into the general population over 60,000 criminals after incarceration instead of deporting them. Similarly, in order to avoid deportation of illegal aliens with infectious diseases of public significance as required by 8 USC 1182, Obama administration is engaged in trickery, in reclassifying diseases into diseases of no public significance. These concerted actions remove all impediments to flooding this nation with cheap foreign labor. This appears to be a repayment by Mr. Obama to his donors, who bought his presidency for him for a total of 2 billion dollars and are seeking a payback in the form of a massive supply of cheap foreign labor.  As a consequence, the plaintiff, who is a doctor working with immigrants is exposed to multiple infectious diseases. Exposure is an injury in itself.

In order to stop this trickery, the court should specify in its’ injunction order


  1.  The court will issue an injunction whereby the detainees prior to their release from DHS and HHS will need to be free of diseases of public significance and the list of diseases of public significance is the one that existed on January 20, 2009, when this administration took office. Or alternatively:
  2. The court will issue an injunction whereby the detainees prior to their release from DHS and HHS detention will need to be free of diseases of public significance and the list of diseases of public significance is the one that existed on July 14, 2014, when this case was filed.

This country is watching a medical disaster in Flint, MI. A number of people were exposed to water with high concentration of lead. In the case of Flint, MI, most residents are not sick; however they are exposed to possible sickness.

Similarly, in the case at hand it was proven that the plaintiff and her staff are exposed to infectious diseases. Report of the Inspector General of DHS, that was produced previously, shows that multiple detainees have infectious diseases, including TB. The letter from the spokesperson of the local border patrol union states that the detainees with the infectious diseases were transferred from Texas to California. These detainees were placed in MediCal (Division of Medicare/Medicaid) program, where plaintiff is a doctor-provider. The plaintiff was exposed to infectious diseases. She went through months of persistent cough and bronchitis and had to have repeated X-rays and other tests due to her exposure to aforementioned immigrants, many of whom have infectious diseases, including Tuberculosis. This is a classic Roe v Wade case, where the plaintiff cannot file a separate law suit every instance she gets sick. There is an ongoing exposure to infectious diseases due to actions by the defendants and immediate risk of infection can only be alleviated through the injunction, as requested.


During March 1 hearing Hon. Judge Hanen asked if the parties already submitted to him the latest ruling in Flores v Reno and if it was not submitted previously, to submit it now. Plaintiff submits the original agreement in Flores v Reno 85-cv-4544 RJK signed 01.13.97 (Exhibit 2) and the latest 07.24.2015 decision in the case by the new judge, Dolly Ge, recent Obama appointee.

The plaintiff submits that extensive application and current overbroad interpretation of Flores v Reno and the actions by the defendants and the federal court placed her in imminent danger of contracting infectious diseases and, as such, there is a need for an injunction, which would assert that Flores v Reno agreement has to comply with all immigration laws, including 8 USC 1182, and such injunction would provide a mechanism for compliance with both 8USC 1182 and Flores v Reno.


The original agreement in 1985 merely sought to allow immigration officials to release minor illegal aliens to the custody of other relatives, not parents, while they are awaiting their deportation hearings. The rationale behind it was the fact that a number of illegal alien minors stayed in detention for a long time because their illegal alien parents were afraid to appear at the detention center to pick them up, as they knew that the whole family was likely to be deported.

President Obama, who is one of the defendants in this case, vastly expanded his interpretation and application of this relatively minor dormant agreement from 30 years ago. He used the agreement to release tens of thousands of illegal alien minors or in many instances adults, who claimed to be minors, and he transported them all over the country, providing his donors with a massive supply of cheap labor.

Further, Federal Judge, Dolly Ge, in the Central District of California, expanded this agreement by ordering immediate release from detention of all illegal alien minors together with illegal alien adults, who traveled with those minors. This expansion was done as Judge Ge felt that is not good for minors to be in detention, as they may get depressed and, of course, it is not good to release them alone without adults, who travel with them. So, as a result of this agreement the whole families, whole clans, thousands of people were released from DHS and HHS detention immediately.

So, the plaintiff submits to the court that no agreement could be approved by the court, if it violates the existing laws, as it would be pari delicto and null and void.


As such, the original agreement had to comply with all existing immigration laws, including 8USC 1182,  and all illegal aliens with infectious diseases of public significance had to be removed (deported). However, there is a great shortage of doctors, defense admitted that the detainees are not checked by doctors while in DHS and Border Patrol facilities and there are only 2 doctors for 90 HHS facilities with thousands of detainees. Defense witnesses testified that minors were released within 48 hours according to Flores v Reno, they were not checked by doctors and ones with infectious diseases were released into the general population. Plaintiff, who is a doctor working with immigrants through government programs, MediCal (Ca division of Medicare/Medicaid) ended up being in the zone of danger and is a victim, who should have been protected under 8 USC 1182.

As such, the injunction is justified and justiciable. The court will not be changing any existing laws. The court will be merely asserting that Flores v Reno agreement has to comply with 8USC 1182 and, as such, illegal aliens in DHS and HHS custody need to be checked for infectious diseases of public significance prior to their release into general population. The ones, who have infectious diseases of public significance, have to be removed in accordance with 8 USC 1182, and the rest should receive, prior to their release, a medical clearance stating that they do not have infectious diseases of public significance.


    Lastly, defense claims that this court does not have any jurisdiction to issue an injunction and this is flagrantly wrong. The defense stated: “… But this Court’s July Opinion did not discuss the jurisdictional bars to injunctive relief, including 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e), which states: The [Secretary of DHS’s] discretionary judgment regarding the application of [Section 1226] shall not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision by the [Secretary of DHS] under this section regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole” ECF 74 p15 12.29.15.

The plaintiff respectfully directs attention of this court to the actual true wording of 8USC 1226 e:“ (e) Judicial review The Attorney General’s discretionary judgment regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole”.

So, none of the actions in this case related to the judgment of the Attorney General.

Defense attorneys defrauded this court by providing this court with the falsified statute, where they replaced the word “Attorney General” with the word :”Secretary of DHS”. Not only the court should rule in favor of the plaintiff, the court should sanction all four government attorneys who defrauded the court and submitted to the court pleadings with a falsified wording of the statute.

What is even more egregious is that during the March 1, 2016 hearing the court asked the government attorneys directly: are you telling me that nobody can sue for damages and no court can adjudicate? Let’s take a hypothetical, what if the government sets a home for Ebola patients and does not tell anybody that these are Ebola patients and let’s say the mayor of Brownsville comes to visit those people to greet them with cookies and pancakes and contracts Ebola. Are you telling me that he can’t sue and no judge can adjudicate? The response from the attorneys representing the government was: according to 8 USC 1226 they can’t and the only redress is to go to Congress to change the statute.

At all time while writing their MSJ and during the March 1, 2016 hearing the government attorneys knew that they falsified the quotation of the statute and replaced the word “Attorney General” with “Secretary of DHS”, that this statute does not relate to this case and Hon Judge Hanen actually has jurisdiction and can adjudicate the case. So, the actions by the attorneys for the government are really sanctionable. Moreover, the plaintiff was told by the court to provide information on her patients to the government and for the government to advise whether they have any matches in their records. Plaintiff was supposed to rely on the assertions by the government that they could not find any matches. If the government could change the wording of the statute, how can the government be believed in their assertions that they did not find any matching records? The assertions by the government are tainted. Wherefore, as stated previously, just as Judge Ge in Flores v Reno could issue an injunction ordering the government to release immediately the detainees, similarly, this court has jurisdiction to issue an injunction ordering defendants to comply with 8 USC 1182  and have those detainees checked for infectious diseases of public significance, remove ones who are infected and provide a medical release to ones who are released from detention into the general population.

Plaintiff respectfully submits that this brief is supplemental to all pleadings and exhibits previously submitted by her in this case.




Taitz is an attorney-Doctor and head of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688. engaged pro bono in affairs of public interest. The article first appeared here.