@complexanalytic.bsky.social
And now Abrego Garcia has noticed the court about the WP article:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.589189/gov.uscourts.mdd.589189.108.0.pdf although I'm not sure J. Xinis will accept further evidence. I think she's leaning toward requiring Gov't to seek order of removal anyway
November 22, 2025 at 1:34 PM
And now Abrego Garcia has noticed the court about the WP article:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.589189/gov.uscourts.mdd.589189.108.0.pdf although I'm not sure J. Xinis will accept further evidence. I think she's leaning toward requiring Gov't to seek order of removal anyway
Did the magistrate judge issue any decisions about the filter protocol?
November 5, 2025 at 4:12 PM
Did the magistrate judge issue any decisions about the filter protocol?
I hear Bondi is retroactively appointing him to the FBI for those dates.
November 3, 2025 at 11:41 PM
I hear Bondi is retroactively appointing him to the FBI for those dates.
We'll get to see the vindictive prosecution response on Monday. We'll most likely have to wait until November 13 to see the responses to the most recent defense motions including the demand for a bill of particulars, and the ambiguity/literal truth defense.
October 31, 2025 at 3:49 PM
We'll get to see the vindictive prosecution response on Monday. We'll most likely have to wait until November 13 to see the responses to the most recent defense motions including the demand for a bill of particulars, and the ambiguity/literal truth defense.
Nope. Government has agreed not to remove him while habeas case is pending in Maryland. They haven't even been able to show that court ANY final order of removal.
October 3, 2025 at 9:05 PM
Nope. Government has agreed not to remove him while habeas case is pending in Maryland. They haven't even been able to show that court ANY final order of removal.
Huge! In the conclusion J Crenshaw notes that the Government now bears the burden to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness with objective evidence.
October 3, 2025 at 8:56 PM
Huge! In the conclusion J Crenshaw notes that the Government now bears the burden to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness with objective evidence.
A great (and short) opinion. Furthermore it makes it clear that the burden is now on the Government to provide evidence that the Maryland suit and the embarrassment it caused the Government had nothing to do with the decision to prosecute.
October 3, 2025 at 8:50 PM
A great (and short) opinion. Furthermore it makes it clear that the burden is now on the Government to provide evidence that the Maryland suit and the embarrassment it caused the Government had nothing to do with the decision to prosecute.
Would all of that circumstantial evidence which supports Comey's version of events be Brady material that is required to be turned over?
September 26, 2025 at 1:52 AM
Would all of that circumstantial evidence which supports Comey's version of events be Brady material that is required to be turned over?
She noted she would be inclined to do so, but have not seen any sort of response from the court on the docket since the status report and emergency motion for interim relief.
September 13, 2025 at 4:28 PM
She noted she would be inclined to do so, but have not seen any sort of response from the court on the docket since the status report and emergency motion for interim relief.
I'm not understanding how X isn't 0. Under what situation is knowing ONLY that someone looks Latino and speaks with an accent while working at a car-wash BY ITSELF sufficient. If you add more context the injunction didn't prohibit it.
September 9, 2025 at 9:23 PM
I'm not understanding how X isn't 0. Under what situation is knowing ONLY that someone looks Latino and speaks with an accent while working at a car-wash BY ITSELF sufficient. If you add more context the injunction didn't prohibit it.
Good luck enforcing that one
August 27, 2025 at 2:04 PM
Good luck enforcing that one
This means that it's more than likely his motion to dismiss for selective and vindictive prosecution in the criminal case will be resolved before there is any sort of deportation (unless the Government tries to switch to Costa Rica and then successfully argues the habeas proceeding is moot).
August 27, 2025 at 1:46 PM
This means that it's more than likely his motion to dismiss for selective and vindictive prosecution in the criminal case will be resolved before there is any sort of deportation (unless the Government tries to switch to Costa Rica and then successfully argues the habeas proceeding is moot).
Since they were already barred by a specific injunction in Maryland for removing him for 72 hours (not counting weekends) from the time of Friday's notice, it could be moot and certainly not the best case for them to raise their challenge.
August 25, 2025 at 2:26 PM
Since they were already barred by a specific injunction in Maryland for removing him for 72 hours (not counting weekends) from the time of Friday's notice, it could be moot and certainly not the best case for them to raise their challenge.
They've notified the MD Tennessee court as it is relevant to the motion to dismiss the criminal indictment there, but they must be still preparing a motion or motions for D Maryland whom I'm sure they'll ask to at the least enjoin his removal from the district.
August 24, 2025 at 2:15 AM
They've notified the MD Tennessee court as it is relevant to the motion to dismiss the criminal indictment there, but they must be still preparing a motion or motions for D Maryland whom I'm sure they'll ask to at the least enjoin his removal from the district.
But there is something the Court of Federal Claims could do?
July 7, 2025 at 10:33 PM
But there is something the Court of Federal Claims could do?
If a court can't prohibit the government from violating one's constitutional rights unless one is a plaintiff to a suit, but it can protect members of an organization when the organizations are plaintiffs, it seems to add yet another reason for us all to join organizations like the ACLU.
June 27, 2025 at 2:53 PM
If a court can't prohibit the government from violating one's constitutional rights unless one is a plaintiff to a suit, but it can protect members of an organization when the organizations are plaintiffs, it seems to add yet another reason for us all to join organizations like the ACLU.
As the original complaint in Casa v. Trump notes, "These include many babies whose parents are Members of ASAP or CASA. Indeed, thousands of Members will give birth to children in the United States in the coming months." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com
June 27, 2025 at 2:30 PM
As the original complaint in Casa v. Trump notes, "These include many babies whose parents are Members of ASAP or CASA. Indeed, thousands of Members will give birth to children in the United States in the coming months." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
But what if the Kentucky parents join one of the organization plaintiffs? Is it really the case that citizenship is now determined by the organizations to which your parents belong? I agree this is madness.
June 27, 2025 at 2:25 PM
But what if the Kentucky parents join one of the organization plaintiffs? Is it really the case that citizenship is now determined by the organizations to which your parents belong? I agree this is madness.
I love how they point to the Government (prosecutors) in Tennessee making the argument that it is in the public interest that Abrego not be deported until at least after his trial. They made that argument to try to keep him detained, but now it helps make Abrego’s case in Maryland.
June 26, 2025 at 2:36 PM
I love how they point to the Government (prosecutors) in Tennessee making the argument that it is in the public interest that Abrego not be deported until at least after his trial. They made that argument to try to keep him detained, but now it helps make Abrego’s case in Maryland.
Why not just seek a writ of mandamus at the 4th circuit court of appeals to begin with?
June 25, 2025 at 5:14 PM
Why not just seek a writ of mandamus at the 4th circuit court of appeals to begin with?
At the very least that means, "I guess it sounds like something I might say."
June 25, 2025 at 5:12 PM
At the very least that means, "I guess it sounds like something I might say."
"Given that the majority did not indicate otherwise, the district
court’s reliance on this statement was not made in defiance of this Court’s stay order. Instead, it was a reasonable interpretation of this Court’s order..." That's on you majority for your outrageous order without opinion.
court’s reliance on this statement was not made in defiance of this Court’s stay order. Instead, it was a reasonable interpretation of this Court’s order..." That's on you majority for your outrageous order without opinion.
June 24, 2025 at 11:42 PM
"Given that the majority did not indicate otherwise, the district
court’s reliance on this statement was not made in defiance of this Court’s stay order. Instead, it was a reasonable interpretation of this Court’s order..." That's on you majority for your outrageous order without opinion.
court’s reliance on this statement was not made in defiance of this Court’s stay order. Instead, it was a reasonable interpretation of this Court’s order..." That's on you majority for your outrageous order without opinion.