DOJ, RIP
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Anonymous
|
Zero
Same number as during election denial season of late 2020. |
Anonymous
Anonymous
| Todd Blanche's performance on Meet the Press this morning was pure fiction, camp, and evil. |
Anonymous
And I read that he has been perhaps the most moderate of DHS leadership. Bobino said the DHS agents are the "real victims". |
Anonymous
|
The feds used to have a 98% conviction rate.
Now, DOJ is filled with incompetents. All the real attorneys have left. |
Anonymous
|
Just a couple of snippets that shows how the Government is treating itself as the trier of fact. No evidence. No attempt to present evidence. The fact that an attorney has the cajones to show up in court like that is impressive insofar as it shows a complete disregard for everything that person knows about our legal system.
"This case does not arise in isolation. The court is aware that similar seizures and detentions are occurring increasingly across the country. Individuals are stopped during ordinary civilian activity, taken into custody for civil immigration purposes, and confined in local jails without prompt hearings, without individualized findings, and often far from counsel, family, or community. That broader context matters, especially when assessing constitutional risk. Of course, this court does not supervise immigration enforcement. It does not adjudicate removability. It does not weigh policy choices committed to the political branches. This court does, however, maintain a narrow, unavoidable duty to ensure that custody itself is lawful. It is not the vigilance of detainees or the speed of their lawyers that determines what is and what is not constitutional. Nor does the United States Constitution require habeas petitions to activate its protections. Liberty is not a prize for procedural persistence. It is the baseline. That is why the court’s duty to scrutinize custody is more acute than ever, as liberty is administratively restrained. Every day it happens—outside the criminal process, in facilities designed for punishment, and lacking the ordinary safeguards that must accompany arrest and prosecution. And while judicial restraint is often the right answer in a system of checks and balances, it does not mean that courts should subscribe to judicial passivity. Instead, courts must draw and hold clear lines in every case. Here that line is a simple proposition: the government may not confine a person in a jail without promptly justifying that confinement before a neutral decisionmaker in a manner the person can meaningfully access. The court began the January 27, 2026 hearing by informing the parties of the hearing’s sole purpose: to determine whether Petitioner’s arrest and continued detention complied with the Constitution of the United States. That, the court said, was the singular inquiry when a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenges an unlawful detention. The court further stated—without objection—that the burden of proof rested on the Government to justify custody. Because the Government is the custodian and controls the relevant information, it bears the burden to produce evidence and articulate lawful authority justifying continued detention once a credible due process challenge is raised. The Government, however, did not meet that burden. B. The Government’s Failure to Present Evidence The Government presented no witnesses. It offered no affidavits. It introduced no testimony. The Government put no one on the stand: not an arresting officer or an immigration officer or a custodian or a decisionmaker. It offered no warrant, of any kind, nor did it offer evidence that any warrant was sought or obtained. And despite the court’s inquiry, the Government could produce no evidence that the Petitioner presented circumstances of exigency, flight, or necessity. In fact, the Government could not show that the Petitioner had even been evaluated under that criteria or any other criteria. Basic questions about Petitioner’s detention were also left unanswered. When asked who ordered the stop, why the vehicle was stopped, what legal authority was invoked, what facts were known at the time, what statements were made, what notice was given, what process was available, and when any hearing would occur; the Government repeatedly answered: “I don’t know.”" https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wvsd.242900/gov.uscourts.wvsd.242900.23.0.pdf |
Anonymous
Anonymous
Who are the attorneys left at DOJ? Who would do this? Won't you lose your license if you show up in court completely unprepared? Or are judges not bothering to refer these people to the disciplinary boards? |