May 17, 2018

I retained an attorney to read this statement into the record of the IERB at their meeting this week – but the Chairman refused to allow that to happen – no public comment allowed

Posted by D.A. King at 10:26 am - Email the author   Print This Post Print This Post  



My statement that was not allowed. Yes, I know it is long. It should be longer. #AbolishIERB  I also note that- contrary to Shawn Hanley’s remark to the media

“Hanley says “Casey Cagle’s complaint had to wait in line like everyone else’s.” 

the Lt. Governor’s *October complaint was heard ahead of complaints that I have filed more then a year ago (*corrected from “November”).

And this. And this.   And this.

“Short of a subpoena, I will not again be participating in the ignorant, arrogant and illegal, extrajudicial mockery of enforcement this board practices. I will instead devote some effort to expose the board and its antics to the public and the General Assembly in an effort to see a traditional system of enforcement of state laws aimed at protecting jobs, benefits and public safety from the crime of illegal immigration and the illegal administration of taxpayer dollars.

An abbreviated list of examples I will be sharing.

*An arrogant IERB Chairman Shawn Hanley warned me over the phone on a call he initiated on Wednesday, November 8, 2017 that “I am the man who is going to decide how your complaints work out.” – twice.

He had called to pressure me to not make any public comments or complaints about the fact that he had arranged to hear the compliant from the Lt. Governor which had been filed just nine days before the hearing he set up and only two days before he called me. He was openly pushing for my silence on the fact that I had valid complaints pending for more than year with one dated 2015 that were being put behind the Lt. Governor’s October November 2017 complaint.

I told him ‘no way would I remain silent.’

Hanley finally made a deal that he would begin the initial hearing on one complaint I had pending, the City of Marietta Schools, which had hired a vendor to teach English to adults without collecting the required information on a required affidavit. I relented thinking Hanley would honor his word and that I may finally see progress on at least one complaint. When the Nov. 15 hearing came up, he did nothing on the agreed Marietta initial hearing as he promised. To be clear: Hanley was clearly pressuring me in his official position as Chairman – and he did not keep his word.

In what I believe is a violation of the state’s open records law, under direction of the Vice Chairman, I have been forced to pay $259.95 for transcripts of the February 28 hearing on several complaints I filed with the IERB. I note for the record that I have requested and received transcripts of meetings before the installation of the current Chairman and Vice Chair without any payment for public records.

* The board has hired an “investigator” to do the work they are charged with. This investigator, John Herbert, has never contacted me for any reason, including for information and background on the valid complaints the board dismissed without allowing me to speak or present evidence. I note that from reading the stipulations, I see that he apparently did contact the Respondents to my complaints. I also note that either he did not understand that there were admissions of violations in the responses from the various agencies he contacted or the board chose to ignore those admissions. I do not believe most members of the board understand the laws they are charged with enforcing or that they pay attention to the documented information I have sent them.

*Despite the unsolicited assurance in the ‘Notice of Hearing’ letters sent to me on behalf of Chairman Shawn Hanley, at the February 28 hearing I was not allowed present evidence supporting my complaints. Hanley’s promise on multiple letters titled “Notice of Hearing” went like this: “Each party will be afforded a short opening statement comprising of what the party expects the evidence in the Initial Hearing will show. The Complainant will then have the opportunity to present evidence and testimony via witnesses …” I repeat: I was not allowed to speak before the complaints were dismissed.

Suggestion to the board if anyone else is ever again allowed to make it all the way to an initial hearing: If you tell a Complainant that he will be allowed to speak and provide evidence, you may want to actually allow him to speak before you dismiss the valid complaints you do not fully understand.

From experience, it is my opinion that the Shawn Hanley lacks the ability and integrity to serve as Chairman or member of the Immigration Enforcement Review Board. I call for the resignation of the Chairman and Vice Chairman and for the remaining members to signal to the legislature that the IERB is an intentionally failed concept that will never be successful in enforcement of the immigration related laws it is charged with overseeing.

I also note that this was the goal when the IERB was conceived by the ACCG and GMA in 2011.

* Another example of the board’s lack of due diligence: From reading their response to one of my complaints, it appears the City of Atlanta is un-wittingly admitting a violation of state law in the collection of SAVE affidavits. The board has the power to investigate. But I doubt it recognizes the admission or the likely violation and I do not expect to see an investigation.

A demonstrably erroneous claim made by the City of Atlanta in response to complaint 2017-14, which was one of many the board dismissed without allowing me to see the response or even address to before the dismissal:

The City of Atlanta told the board that “a secure and verifiable document, such as a SAVE affidavit, need only be collected once, not every single year as complainant attempts to argue here.” — The City of Atlanta then cites OCGA 50-36-1 (f) (4).”

This is rather amusing, as I was closely involved in creating that code section in 2006 and personally drafted each change to it in 2009 and 2011 and 2013 – including the paragraph the City of Atlanta cites. In reality, a SAVE affidavit is clearly not a Secure and Verifiable ID document. Secure and Verifiable ID documents are exactly that: Identification that confirms the applicant’s identity and eligibility sworn to on the separate SAVE affidavit. The law lists the ID documents such as driver’s licenses and passports that are designated Secure and Verifiable ID. I challenge the board and the City of Atlanta to find the SAVE affidavit on that list which is contained in OCGA 50-36-2.

To be clear: The fact that the City of Atlanta’s assertion that an affidavit is somehow a Secure and Verifiable ID document went unchallenged under the legal guidance of the newly hired investigator, John Herbert, the board Chairman, the Vice Chair and the representative of the AG’s office speaks volumes as to the professionalism and level of knowledge of the board as a whole.

Further, the law cited by the Atlanta attorney claims the Secure and Verifiable ID need only be collected once a year – which is true if, and only if, the applicant has previously demonstrated he is a U.S. citizen in the same agency or political subdivision.This is no way applies to the collection of the actual SAVE affidavit. I will repeat so as to increase the chances of being understood: A SAVE affidavit is not a Secure and Verifiable ID document and under the law, must be collected each time an agency administers an application to issue or renew a public benefit.

## End of statement ##

OCGA 50-36-1 (f) (4) “The requirements of this subsection shall not apply to any applicant applying for or renewing an application for a public benefit within the same agency or political subdivision if the applicant has previously complied with the requirements of this subsection by submission of a secure and verifiable document, as defined in Code Section 50-36-2, and a signed and sworn affidavit affirming that such applicant is a United States citizen.””