• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Due process in the US

JayUtah said:
It's simply too puerile. The Onion humor is clever. The White House account is just grade-school playground taunts.

I think this can be noted for any criminal contempt proceedings that happen in Judge Boasberg's court, even though this is a different case. It goes toward showing that the administration intended and intends to violate court orders as they pertain to people renditioned to El Salvador. That would preclude any argument that they were acting in good faith notwithstanding the orders.
Click to expand...
Trump could tomorrow pardon anyone involved in this issue. Story over.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
I'm surprised no one has commented on Senator VanHollen's visit with Garcia.

( I apologize, I can't post a link right now )
Click to expand...
I for one didn't hear about it until late last night. I knew the senator was going to travel to El Salvador with the intent of meeting with Abrego Garcia, but last I had heard the Salvadoran government was not going to let the senator see him. I was pleasantly surprised to see evidence that Abrego Garcia was still alive and his whereabouts known. But I had planned to wait to comment until the senator returned home and made the more detailed report he promised while still in El Salvador.
 
Hercules56 said:
Trump could tomorrow pardon anyone involved in this issue. Story over.
Click to expand...
Probably, but not necessarily. There's certainly a point that this would be a performative exercise nonetheless, but it does get certain legal determinations in the record. That's important if you have a long-term perspective.

However, there's a "well technically..." legal argument noting that the President can pardon only offenses "against the United States," whereas contempt is arguably considered an offense against the court. When committed by the executive (as opposed to just some guy), the jurisdictional precedents are different.
 
JayUtah said:
Probably, but not necessarily. There's certainly a point that this would be a performative exercise nonetheless, but it does get certain legal determinations in the record. That's important if you have a long-term perspective.

However, there's a "well technically..." legal argument noting that the President can pardon only offenses "against the United States," whereas contempt is arguably considered an offense against the court. When committed by the executive (as opposed to just some guy), the jurisdictional precedents are different.
Click to expand...

Interesting.
 
I Am The Scum said:
This is very minor in the grand scheme of things, but if he ever gets back, he's gonna have quite the defamation suit to file.
Click to expand...
Wife should start the libel and slander suit immediately. If he does get back, his ability to get a job is seriously jeopardized. Neighbors will think he's a gang member. He's due at least $50 million.
 
Hercules56 said:
Wife should start the libel and slander suit immediately. If he does get back, his ability to get a job is seriously jeopardized. Neighbors will think he's a gang member. He's due at least $50 million.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree that he should file a civil suit but winning a civil suit against the federal government is pretty much impossible because of the way the law works. He can try, and try, and try but government officials are protected from almost every form of defamation suit if they're acting in their official capacity. Which, anything immigration related, would be considered under that umbrella.

That and he's an apprentice sheet metal worker. I doubt it would be tough for him to find a job and I'd even wager a paycheck of my own that his previous employer would welcome him back with open arms. It's a trade position and those are hard to come by and I'd bet a decent amount of people in that line of work have some kind of history.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Who could they sue that would likely get them a judgement in their favor?
Click to expand...

The Bureau\Agency that made the "administrative" mistake and the individuals that have gone out of their way to take no action at all to bring him home. If the Judge ends up holding someone in contempt for this latest ◊◊◊◊ show, them. His best bet, imo, would be to sue them as both individuals and the Bureau\Agency themselves.

Again, I don't know how well it would work but the administration has admitted their error. That's a good starting point.
 
I Am The Scum said:
This is very minor in the grand scheme of things, but if he ever gets back, he's gonna have quite the defamation suit to file.
Click to expand...
That would be an uphill climb against sovereign immunity. Intentional torts such as defamation are not allowed (generally) under the Tort Claims Act. There is a very narrow carve-out in some cases for law enforcement officers, so Attorney General Pam Bondi could be on the hook for civil liability.
 
Hercules56 said:
Now I definitely want Garcia brought back to the USA. Not cuz I like him or think he deserves it...
Click to expand...
I just want to make sure I understand you correctly: Are you taking the position that Garcia does not actually deserve to be brought back to America?
 
I Am The Scum said:
I just want to make sure I understand you correctly: Are you taking the position that Garcia does not actually deserve to be brought back to America?
Click to expand...
Judge put a hold on his deportation, if El Salvador sets him free he should indeed be brought back free of charge.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
If there was any potential for gold there , attorneys would be lining up...
Click to expand...
After Zeus waved his magic thunderbolt sharpie at a bunch of law firms he didn't like, and they caved in to the tune of hundreds of millions in pro-bono work, I'm not really expecting many attorneys to jump at the chance of taking him on. If you represent someone who opposes him he will use all the powers he has, or thinks he has, to intimidate and harm you.
 
What the living ◊◊◊◊ is this ◊◊◊◊?

As an attorney I’m deeply alarmed by an incident that occurred just this week and feel compelled to share it—to raise awareness of the legal and constitutional crossroads we are rapidly approaching.


A co-worker of mine (who is a judge), traveled by train from Montana to North Dakota for work this week. The train made a stop in Havre, MT, where ICE agents—armed and dressed in full military-style tactical gear—boarded the train.

They walked the full length of the train and questioned every single passenger about their citizenship status. According to the conductor, who has worked nearly 40 years on that route, this was a first. In all his decades of service, federal agents have never boarded his train like this.


This is not a hypothetical. This is not a scene from a dystopian film. This happened this week to my colleague, on U.S. soil, to U.S. citizens, legal residents, and foreign tourists here on holiday, without a warrant, without probable cause—based solely on geography.


Under current law ICE has expanded authority to operate within 100 miles of any border. But HOW that authority is being interpreted and exercised has chilling implications for civil liberties, freedom of movement, and equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...
Must have been a tip . . . wink-wink.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom