Not only did they misrepresent key facts. but they used that misrepresentation to achieve a favorable schedule. which often in litigation is important. The judge goes on to say: The explanation by Defendants counsel for their conduct after the fact is even more troublesome for the Court. Counsel told the Court during its latest hearing that she was unaware that these 2014 DACA amendments were at issue until she read the Courts February 16. 2015 Order of Temporary Injunction and Memorandum Opinion and Order. Counsel then claimed that the Government took "prompt" remedial action. This assertion is belied by the facts. Even if one were to assume that counsel was unaware that the 2014 DACA amendments in their entirety were at issue until reading this Courts February Opinion. the factual scenario still does not suggest candor on the part of the Government. Government counsel have an absolute duty of candor to the court. That is a serious charge by the Federal judge. It goes on: The February Opinion was issued late in the evening on February 16. 2015 (based on the representation that "nothing" would happen on DAPA or revised DACA until at least February 18. 2015). As the February Opinion was finalized and filed at night. counsel could not have been expected to review it until the next day. yet. for the next two weeks. the Government did nothing to inform the Court of the 108.081 revised DACA approvals. Instead. less than a week later. on February 23. 2015. the Government filed a Motion to Stay and a Notice of Appeal. Despite having had almost a week to disclose the truth or correct any omission. misunderstanding. confusion. or misrepresentationthe Government did not act promptly. instead it again did nothing.