Kilmar coming back
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
If there's a fair election.
Abrego Garcia has suffered enough. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and his life and that of his family has been turned into a hellish nightmare. Leave the man alone. |
Anonymous
|
On Oct. 6, Judge Paula Xinis held a status conference in the habeas case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. She had planned to focus on Abrego’s motion for leave to serve certain discovery requests relating to how the government had decided to try to remove him first to Uganda and, later, to Eswatini (the former Swaziland). As the hearing approached, the government filed a brief opposing the discovery, and, on Oct. 1, also filed a separate motion seeking to stay all proceedings in light of the government shutdown.
At the hearing, Judge Xinis orally denied the shutdown stay motion. Then the hearing changed course in light of the government’s unexpected answers to questions about Abrego’s discovery requests. Its lawyers appeared to acknowledge that any attempt to remove Abrego to Eswatini was extremely inchoate. In response to Xinis’s questions, the Justice Department attorneys were unable to state whether the government had even contacted Eswatini about its proposal. At that point, Judge Xinis began to focus on Abrego’s earlier demand, as part of his habeas petition, that he was entitled to release under the principles of the Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling in Dadvydas v. Davis. Ultimately, Xinis gave the government until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 8 to file more evidence, if it had any, of the steps it had taken to seek Abrego’s removal to Eswatini. She also scheduled a hearing on the Dadvydas issues—and whether Abrego is entitled to release—for 11 a.m. on Friday, Oct. 10. found on lawfaremedia.org |
Anonymous
For a little more context, that case says the government cannot detain an immigrant under the guise of removal proceedings unless it's actually actively working toward removal. The hearing suggested the government wasn't actually doing anything to remove Abrego and instead was using immigration detention as an illegal substitute for pretrial detention that he was released from. |
Anonymous
A sucker born every minute |
Anonymous
He took them down to Tennessee to get their drivers' license. Tennessee has been known to give license out to anyone at that time. |
Anonymous
| I thought I saw Kilmar collecting money on the road I was traveling. |
Anonymous
|
Breaking…
[twitter]https://apple.news/AUhJU-vZETseLEEJFPEsT_g[/twitter] |
Anonymous
|
Read the opinion. The government looks like the group of the most incompetent people ever.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.589189/gov.uscourts.mdd.589189.110.0_2.pdf |
Anonymous
So the regime lied for months and months that there was a final order of removal when, in fact, there never was one? Wow. |
Anonymous
Can you just give us the gist of it? Most of us aren’t lawyers. |
Anonymous
Unbelievable. Vindictive? Incompetent? Dumb? Deceitful? I never know which is greater. People should go to jail over the treatment of this man: kidnapping, assault, attempted murder. |
Anonymous
This is AI and it skips the fun parts like the court finding that the government didn't stonewall, bu tAFFIRMATIVELY MISLED the court. There is a lot there. "The Court's decision was based on two primary arguments: Lack of Lawful Removal Order: The Court found that Abrego Garcia's detention was without lawful authority because Respondents (DHS, ICE officials, and the Attorney General) were holding him to effectuate third-country removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, but no explicit, final order of removal exists. The Court determined that the prior 2019 decision granting him statutory withholding of removal was legally distinct and did not constitute an order of removal, which is required for detention under that statute. Due Process Violation (Zadvydas): The Court also found that the continued detention violated due process. The government's conduct—repeatedly notifying Abrego Garcia of removal to countries that were not viable (Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana) while actively refusing to process his removal to Costa Rica, which had consistently offered him residency—indicated that the detention was not for the "basic purpose" of timely effectuating removal. The Court noted that Respondents appeared to have "affirmatively misled the tribunal" regarding Costa Rica's willingness to accept him. The Court ordered Abrego Garcia's immediate release, after which he would be subject to the previously imposed release conditions, including home detention with electronic monitoring, from his separate criminal case." |
Anonymous
The guy in charge of removals didn’t even know what a removal order was… |
Anonymous
| Should we take bets that at some point today there will miraculously be a removal order? And they’ll think that it’s valid? That whole order just shows what lying sacks of shit these people are and they are not going to go quietly. |