Mr. Mirengoff Seems Confused — About What — And Whether, States Have Any Say In How They Handle Their Own Populations…

June 12, 2025June 12, 2025 ~ condor ~ Leave a comment

He departs — as ever — from a false premise.

He simply assumes Trump’s acts (trampling the Fourteenth Amendment) are LAWFUL.

They are not. Not at all. And thus, the states have a right (and perhaps even a duty) to oppose them. States after all are the primary police forces inside their state borders.

But suddenly, Paul loves federal interventions in local matters — after opposing them for a half century minimum. Never mind that these troops, rolling into cities… completely uninvited… violates the Posse Comitatus Act of 1787. Damn. Here’s his — and the most errant bit of it:

…Governor Newsom… argues that the “root cause” of the rioting in Los Angeles is the Trump administration’s decision to round up members of the illegal immigrant community at large — not just the criminal element and recent arrivals who have skipped their immigration hearings. They claim that the administration is doing this to boost the number of deportations. [That is certainly true. Ask Stephen Miller.]

The administration’s policy is controversial. My feelings about it are mixed. But the policy is entirely consistent with the law. [It is absolutely abhorrent to the 14^th Amendment — which speaks of “persons”, not just “citizens“. Stephen Miller and Paul are both liars here. All PERSONS on US soil are accorded due process rights. Full stop.]

To me, the root cause of the present difficulties is the decision of Los Angeles to become a sanctuary city and, relatedly, of California to enact its “Values Act….”

Well — that’s… preposterous. States absolutely may welcome people with or without papers, inside their borders. It will be hilarious when Mirengoff and Hinderaker complain that there is no one left, willing to pick their oranges, or their avocados — and get them to the Minnesota and DC and Maryland markets. Damn.

I think Paul might want to rethink his sweeping supremacy of federal forces arguments, if it ever turns out that there is a Democratic Commander in Chief.

This flip flop is precious. But Trump’s actions are… lawless.

Out.

Mr. Abrego Garcia (In Federal Court In Maryland) Has Moved For Fines And Sanctions — Against Noem / Rubio / Tangerine 2.0 — Based On Flouting Court Orders.

June 12, 2025June 12, 2025 ~ condor ~ Leave a comment

In a few years, when historians write of this dark moment in US immigration (and First Amendment) history, this set of papers, and this morning will be labeled as the moment that Kristi Noem was finally “brought to heel“.

The able USDC Judge Xinis will very likely both fine and sanction (the exact contours of which will be left to the able judge’s discretion, under applicable federal law) her lawyers for this nearly 70 day miscarriage of justice. Here’s the motion just filed overnight — and a bit:

. . .For nine weeks, the Government defied this Court’s order, affirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court, to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States following his illegal removal to El Salvador. For nearly eight of those weeks, the Government likewise flouted this Court’s order to produce expedited discovery concerning what, if anything, it was doing to comply. This motion addresses the latter, seeking sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for the Government’s repeated violations of its discovery obligations. . . .

Nearly sixty days, ten orders, three depositions, three discovery disputes, three motions for stay, two hearings, a week-long stay, and a failed appeal later, the Plaintiffs still have seen no evidence to suggest that the Defendants took any steps, much less “all available steps,” to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States “as soon as possible” so that his case could be handled as it would have been had he not been unlawfully deported. ECF No. 51 at 1 (emphasis added).

Rather, the record reflects a “pattern of deliberate delay and bad faith refusal to comply with court orders.” ECF No. 169 at 2. . . .

Onward — grinning — will check in on Nashville, on this case, next! Out — be excellent to one another!

नमस्ते

Ghana Has Reported 34 New Mpox Clade 1b Cases; 79 Overall, In This 2025 Outbreak…

June 12, 2025 ~ condor ~ Leave a comment

Not remotely unexpected — that the totals are still rising, in the middle of Africa. This is what would be predicted, by all the modeling, if one were to greatly curtail international public health funding — and safe population practices / hand-washing education efforts.

What were smallish outbreaks of difficult communicable viral diseases… will go… and stay… viral.

Sadly, this one also (like so, so many other debacles) falls at the feet of Tangerine 2.0’s misguided “policies“. Here’s that story — from local African outlets:

…Ghana has reported 34 new cases of Mpox, raising the total number of confirmed infections to 79. Four patients are currently hospitalised, and contact tracing is ongoing.

The Ghana Health Service says more than ten regions have been affected, prompting nationwide surveillance. Authorities are urging the public to seek medical attention if they show symptoms such as rash, fever, swollen lymph nodes, or muscle pain….

And once again — where is USAID? Sidelined — that’s where. Onward, just the same.

नमस्ते

Alina Habba Has Egregiously Overcharged A Congresswoman — For Doing Her Oversight Job. Damn.

June 11, 2025 ~ condor ~ Leave a comment

A three count indictment has been returned. This is an ugly farce.

Here’s the silly indictment. I won’t quote it.

You cannot charge her for conducting oversight of a non-compliant private prison that is taking ICE federal contract money (Trumpian approved).

The prison was refusing the Mayor’s attempts to serve it — as a business — with notices that its business facilities lacked the proper permits and licenses to be operating in Newark. Damn. This too will backfire on Habba / Tangerine. Out.

नमस्ते

Kristi Noem Has Sealed Her Motions In Nashville — But Mr. Abrego Garcia Is Letting The World Read His Answers, Now. Check It Out.

June 11, 2025June 12, 2025 ~ condor ~ Leave a comment

Welp. This will be a banger. Count on it Friday — even if I don’t hop a jet to go watch it, live — Men in Black style… I will post one (at least) on it.

And honestly, I don’t give a hoot that Noem / Tangerine 2.0 is trying to hide the things they’ve done (with at least five sealed filings today). The truth will out on Friday — for certain. And like Mr. Khalil just did — Mr. Abrego Garcia is likely to make bail — and be headed home to Maryland, shortly. [The charges may even be wholesale dismissed, by the able judge — on “fruit of the poisonous tree” grounds — in a few weeks, summarily.] Here’s the latest, unsealed portion:

…With no legal process whatsoever, the United States government illegally detained and deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia and shipped him to the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT) in El Salvador, one of the most violent, inhumane prisons in the world. The government now asks this Court to detain him further. As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has held, the government’s treatment of Mr. Abrego Garcia “should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.” Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-1404, 2025 WL 1135112, *1 (4th Cir. Apr. 17, 2025). Mr. Abrego Garcia asks the Court for what he has been denied the past several months — due process. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142, as well as basic principles of fairness, this Court should deny the government’s motion….

As the Supreme Court recognized nearly four decades ago, “liberty is the norm” in “our society,” and “detention prior to trial” – “or without a trial” – “is the carefully limited exception.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987). Consistent with that understanding, the Bail Reform Act of 1984 (BRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq., permits pretrial detention only when the government proves: (1) that the defendant’s “case… involves” one or more of the circumstances listed at § 3142(f); and (2) that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance (and, in some cases, “the safety of any other person and the community”). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), (g); United States v. White, No. 3:21-MJ-04070, 2021 WL 2155441, at *4-5 (M.D. Tenn. May 27, 2021)….

This means that, if the defendant’s case does not involve one of § 3142(f)’s enumerated circumstances, the government is not entitled to a detention hearing, and the Court cannot detain the defendant. Id. (noting that, if none of the § 3142(f) “circumstances are… present, a detention hearing (and, thus, detention) is simply unauthorized”); United States v. Hardon, 149 F.3d 1185 (6th Cir. 1998) (vacating detention order because none of the circumstances described at § 3142(f) existed); United States v. Mendoza-Balleza, 420 F. Supp. 3d 716, 718 (E.D. Tenn. 2019) (same). Here, perhaps recognizing that it failed to address § 3142(f)’s threshold inquiry in its opening motion (DE 8), the government filed a supplemental brief (DE 14) arguing that it’s entitled to a detention hearing for three reasons. None have merit….

Onward, to Friday’s bail hearing — in downtown Nashville (very near the Gulch). Grin.

नमस्ते

Mr. Khalil Will Very Likely Be Freed, By Friday Night, Now: USDC Judge In Newark, NJ…

June 11, 2025June 12, 2025 ~ condor ~ Leave a comment

Okay, “ole-pancake-makeup wearin’ cowgirl Kristi Noem — your lawless wranglin’ days atop the ICE/DHS pony — supressing peaceful dissenters’ speech… are at an end (finally!).” Mr. Khalil will post his $1 cash bond and be released from Jena, Louisiana shortly.

I’ll try to source that now-viral 2014 clip of Mr. Obama (on free-space) saying “the easy way to do things [as a leader] is to break the law. The hard way… is to pass legislation — and use the democratic process, to make ones’ immigration policy changes.” Noem / Trump chose the former way — and it worked for a minute or two — by brute force… but no longer. Here’s the 14 page court opinion, tonight.

…[T]he evidence is that lawful permanent residents are virtually never detained pending removal for the sort of alleged omissions in a lawful-permanent-resident application that the Petitioner is charged with here. And that strongly suggests that it is the Secretary of State’s determination that drives the Petitioner’s ongoing detention — not the other charge against him.

On this point, there are [various]… relevant pieces of evidence. (Again, none of this is contested by the Respondents. See Respondents’ Letter (June 9, 2025).)

First, Kerry Doyle states in a declaration that “[l]awful permanent residents… are… certainly not detained… based solely on the types of allegedly missing information described [here][.]” Declaration of Veronica Salama, Exhibit P (ECF 281-16) ¶ 18.

Second, per Stacy Tolchin: “it is incredibly rare to see a lawful permanent resident detained . . . for[, as in this case,] having failed to disclose a past membership or association on the application for adjustment of status.” Declaration of Veronica Salama, Exhibit L (ECF 281-12) ¶ 13 (emphasis added). Tolchin, whose experience is extensive, see id. ¶¶ 1, 4–5, says this: I have represented at least ten permanent residents who have been placed into removal proceedings after they were denied naturalization. The only ones who were detained were those who had criminal convictions that DHS believed made them removable, in addition to being ineligible for naturalization. . . .

Based on the declarations, the Court finds as a matter of fact that it is overwhelmingly likely that the Petitioner would not be detained based solely on the lawful-permanent-resident application charge. Rather, the Court finds, the Petitioner’s detention almost surely flows from the charge that is based on the Secretary of State’s determination. . . .

The Petitioner has no criminal record. See Khalil Declaration ¶ 5. The Secretary of State’s determination does not say that he has been involved in criminal activity or violence. See Determination at 1–2. And the Respondents have not put forward any evidence as to involvement by the Petitioner in violence, destruction of property, or any other sort of criminal activity….

The Petitioner also states that even “[b]eyond [his] immediate detention,” Khalil Declaration at ¶ 14, the Secretary of State’s determination chills his speech. The Court credits this, and finds as a factual matter that even if the Petitioner were not detained, or even if he were detained on another basis, the Secretary’s determination would deter him from speaking….

The Court hereby stays its preliminary injunction for around 40 hours, until 9:30AM on June 13. This is to allow the Respondents to seek appellate review should they wish to. In addition, the preliminary injunction shall not go into effect unless and until the Petitioner posts a nominal bond in the amount of $1, consistent with the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c)….

Sure, Tangerine / Noem / Rubio will appeal — but there is little argument that the Second Circuit will say he is no flight risk. He has a new-born baby to look after, and a wife awaiting him, in New York. Onward. Sanity is making a comeback.

नमस्ते

In A Few Weeks, Tangerine, Bush/Cheney, Poppy Bush and Ronnie Reagan Will Have Let This Fester — For Four Decades, Now. Filed In The Time Of Edwin Meese. Deplorable.

June 11, 2025 ~ condor ~ Leave a comment

This is deplorable, in a nation that claims to be one of ordered liberty — and of laws — not just venal little men.

We are approaching four full decades of active federal litigation, over whether putative asylees deserve clean bedding, clear water, toothbrushes and blankets and soap. And adequate food — fit for human consumption. And warm clothes. Dammit. [Here’s the latest, out of LA — and the frothy hard right wonders why there are. . . protests?!] The letter, then — just filed:

…[T]the CBP Settlement recognizes the exponentially greater harm that arises when violations of the Settlement occur throughout a child’s prolonged detention. Per Section VIII. of the CBP Settlement, “If a situation occurs in which a class member remains in CBP custody for longer than 72 hours, CBP shall take prompt additional steps to ensure conditions remain safe and sanitary.”

Further, the CBP Settlement recognizes that detention in CBP facilities, stations, and other unlicensed facilities is inherently harmful and therefore requires that children should be promptly removed from holding facilities not designed for children: “CBP shall transfer all juveniles who are not immediately returned to their country of origin to a Juvenile Priority Facility as expeditiously as possible, in general, within 24 hours of arrival at a non-priority facility, but no longer than 48 hours after arrival at a non-priority facility.” CBP Settlement Exh. 4(d) at 7. Three of the four families with accompanied children counsel interviewed at Ursula had been at the facility for six or more days. GBA Dec. ¶ 5 (9 days); FO Dec. ¶ 5 (10 days); MRL ¶ 4 (6 days).

Families at Dilley detention reported stays as long as a month at the El Paso CBP Station. See FY Dec. ¶ 6 (one month); MM Dec. ¶ 7 (three weeks). The harm caused by each of the violations described below is compounded by the egregious lengths of stay these children are forced to endure. . . .

The CBP Settlement Agreement also requires that class members be able to ask for (and receive) visits with separated family members in the same facility. CBP Settlement at 14, § VII (8)(B)(3). A Class Member at Dilley reported that at the El Paso CBP station they were held apart from family and “allowed only twenty minutes every five days in a freezing room to see each other.” MM Dec. ¶ 15.

Families at Ursula reported being separated and being granted family visitation, in a crowded and non-private area. This separation was extremely traumatic for the children….

The CBP Settlement explicitly requires that CBP provide toothbrushes and toothpaste daily. CBP Settlement at 13, § VII (7) (3)…. Families at Ursula reported there was no soap available at the handwashing stations. See FO Dec. ¶ 12; MRL Dec. ¶ 15. They also reported insufficient privacy in the restrooms. See MRL Dec. ¶ 14; FO Dec. ¶ 11; MH Dec. ¶ 15. Similarly, families at Dilley reported that there was insufficient privacy in the restrooms and they were denied showers and clean clothes for up to a week at the El Paso CBP station. See FY Dec. ¶12; MM Dec. ¶ 20….

Maintaining facilities at a consistently cold temperature is a violation the CBP Settlement, which requires adequate temperature control in facilities holding children. See also CBP Settlement § VII (5)(1). Under the CBP Settlement, class members must be provided additional clothing, blankets, and beanies for warmth. CBP Settlement § VII (5)(B). However, many children in several CBP facilities reported experiencing extreme cold. At Ursula, families were told that medical care for headaches was not available and that some medications could not be prescribed. See MH Dec. ¶¶ 7, 18. They also reported extremely cold temperatures and that they were not given adequately warm clothing. See MM Dec. ¶ 10; MRL Dec. ¶ 12. At Dilley, families reported freezing temperatures in El Paso, so cold that the children became sick. See MM Dec. ¶ 8; FY Dec. ¶ 7….

What is wrong with these ICE / contractor guards?! Damn them. Out.

नमस्ते

Noem Et Al., Must Produce All Govt. Witness Statements To Mr. Abrego Garcia’s Counsel By Noon Tomorrow, In Nashville…

June 11, 2025 ~ condor ~ Leave a comment

This would strongly suggest that the sealed papers contain some sensitive “mistakes” — or more likely, “prevarications“ — about the original genesis of the Noem moves which abducted Mr. Abrego Garcia — to an El Salvadoran hell hole. And then held him there, defying Supreme Court orders, for over two months. Indeed, we may now see the truth — all of it — come out, as early as Friday, in federal court in Music City.

It is going to likely be ruled a case of “the fruit of a poisonous tree“, down there. That is, he may yet win a dismissal, based solely on federal government misconduct, in abducting him. We shall see. The able Magistrate Judge entered the following overnight, in prep for the hearing coming up this Friday:

…In furtherance of efficiency, the United States (the “government”) must, by no later than noon on Thursday, June 12, 2025, provide to the defendant Kilmar Abrego Garcia the information required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2(a) through (d) and (f), as incorporated by reference in Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(j), for any witness who will testify at the detention hearing on June 13, 2025. The government is further encouraged to provide any other discovery materials and the disclosures required by LCrR 16.01(a)(3) that are relevant to the issues raised in the government’s motion for detention (Docket No. 8) and supplemental filing (Docket No. 14).

Additionally, to clarify the Court’s order of June 6, 2025 (Docket No. 13), the exchange of witness disclosures required by noon on Thursday, June 12, 2025, must include not only the number of witnesses but the witnesses’ names. Further, after the exchange of witness information and exhibits, counsel for the government and counsel for Mr. Abrego Garcia must confer and attempt to resolve any identifiable evidentiary issues prior to commencement of the detention hearing on June 13, 2025. During this conference, counsel must also discuss the likelihood of and possibilities for resolution of the government’s motion for detention….

Now you know. Onward resolutely. And… I will be in the sky over the Rockies at the time of the mass demonstrations planned for Chicago, NYC, SF and Denver, so I’ll have no video — but know that Mr. Newsom will see deep and wide support, into the millions nationwide, this Saturday. We are a civil society, not some backwater military junta, here. Out.

नमस्ते

BREAKING: California Seeks TRO By 1 PM Pacific Time Today, To Stop The US Marines — In Their Tracks, Under Posse Comitatus Act.

June 10, 2025June 10, 2025 ~ condor ~ Leave a comment

The briefing and hearing on this TRO will be as follows:

Set Deadlines/Hearings: [Govt.] Responses due by 6/11/2025.

Replies due by 6/12/2025.

Motion Hearing set for 6/12/2025 at 1:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 06, 17th Floor and by videoconference (Zoom) before Judge Charles R. Breyer….

End update.

This is going to put Tangerine 2.0 — and Kristi Noem, and Stephen Miller… in a real bind: they’ve plainly lied about what they are attempting to do. And they sent Pete Hegseth a letter, admitting the lie.

They are trying to militarize the US — and blue states, specifically. This won’t do. There is likely to be a TRO saying so, by 6 pm or so, Eastern today now. See this very well argued TRO motion, from Califronia Gov. Newsom, in full — and a bit:

…As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, a TRO is necessary by 1:00 p.m. on June 10, 2025, to prevent immediate and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs. Absent immediate injunctive relief, Defendants’ use of the military and the federalized National Guard to patrol communities or otherwise engage in general law enforcement activities creates imminent harm to State Sovereignty, deprives the State of vital resources, escalates tensions and promotes (rather than quells) civil unrest. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek a TRO and preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo….

In the United States, the police — and not the military — enforce the law. This bedrock principle flows from the Founding, finds expression in Acts of Congress, and lives at the core of our civil society. Ours is a Nation of laws, enforced through even-handed justice, and not ruled by military decree. But Defendants, including President Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth have sought to bring military personnel and a “warrior culture” to the streets of cities and towns where Americans work, go to school, and raise their families. Now, they have turned their sights on California with devastating consequences, setting a roadmap to follow across the country….

Through a June 7 Presidential Memorandum and subsequent implementing orders, Defendants have seized control of 4,000 members of the California National Guard over the express objection of California’s Governor and deployed them to Los Angeles, the largest county and second largest city in the country. Unsatisfied with this excessive and unnecessary show of force, Defendants have sent another 700 active-duty Marines into Los Angeles.

All of this was unlawful. The Marine Corps’ deployment for law enforcement purposes is [particularly] unlawful. For more than a century, the Posse Comitatus Act has expressly prohibited the use of the active duty armed forces and federalized national guard for civilian law enforcement. And the President and Secretary Hegseth have made clear — publicly and privately — that the Marines are not in Los Angeles to stand outside a federal building….