@florean.bsky.social
If anyone is interested, I've uploaded the complaint and memorandum of law to CourtListener: www.courtlistener.com/docket/72079...
Ahmed v. Rubio, 1:25-cv-10705 - CourtListener.com
Docket for Ahmed v. Rubio, 1:25-cv-10705 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
www.courtlistener.com
December 26, 2025 at 2:39 AM
If anyone is interested, I've uploaded the complaint and memorandum of law to CourtListener: www.courtlistener.com/docket/72079...
Seems like this isn't getting enough attention. Is she going to restart discovery and rule on ECF No. 195 in Abrego I?
December 11, 2025 at 7:31 PM
Seems like this isn't getting enough attention. Is she going to restart discovery and rule on ECF No. 195 in Abrego I?
I think that's what she's referring to in this footnote. Lest we all forget, there are still pending motions related to April's "expedited discovery", including ECF No. 195, a motion for discovery sanctions. She is going to use this to help justify her discovery rulings.
December 11, 2025 at 7:05 PM
I think that's what she's referring to in this footnote. Lest we all forget, there are still pending motions related to April's "expedited discovery", including ECF No. 195, a motion for discovery sanctions. She is going to use this to help justify her discovery rulings.
I was very confused by Guynn's ?s of Cantu. I had to double check it wasn't the plaintiffs, because they seemed to be destroying their witness' credibility. Am I reading this correctly that it was the government rubbing it in Xinis' face that "once again, Respondents defied this Court’s orders"!?
![Then at the hearing, Respondents showcased Cantú’s ignorance about the content of his
Declaration pertaining to Costa Rica. As the pointed questions of Respondents’ counsel made
clear, Cantú’s lack of knowledge was planned and purposeful.
Counsel: So paragraph 4, final sentence [of the Cantú Declaration], do
you see where it says the word—the words “certain
understandings”?
Cantú: I found it. Yes, I do. I see it.
Counsel: What are the certain understandings referenced in the last
sentence?
Cantú: I don’t know . . .](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:rg74sv2fpk72d4e672hkazqx/bafkreihn4eslkrfwfophp62qjgu3evvwn53tpfccnzsndyzom4jb5vzibi@jpeg)
December 11, 2025 at 6:40 PM
I was very confused by Guynn's ?s of Cantu. I had to double check it wasn't the plaintiffs, because they seemed to be destroying their witness' credibility. Am I reading this correctly that it was the government rubbing it in Xinis' face that "once again, Respondents defied this Court’s orders"!?
Do you or @annabower.bsky.social know who's on the motions panel that would hear that appeal? Seems important…
December 11, 2025 at 6:19 PM
Do you or @annabower.bsky.social know who's on the motions panel that would hear that appeal? Seems important…
Yes, but Halligan has proven that not only can you indict a ham sandwich, but you can be a ham sandwich while doing so. DOJ will claim Halligan's ultra vires indictment tolled SOL (the judge's opinion cogently explained why it did not) and force Comey to file a motion to dismiss, which will succeed.
December 2, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Yes, but Halligan has proven that not only can you indict a ham sandwich, but you can be a ham sandwich while doing so. DOJ will claim Halligan's ultra vires indictment tolled SOL (the judge's opinion cogently explained why it did not) and force Comey to file a motion to dismiss, which will succeed.
"I'd love someone to make a logical argument that 2+2=5."
"OMG you guys, I know 2+2=4 and you can only get to 5 by adding 1 somewhere, I was simply making a good faith request for someone to make a LOGICAL argument that is logically impossible. Why is that so hard for people to understand!?"
"OMG you guys, I know 2+2=4 and you can only get to 5 by adding 1 somewhere, I was simply making a good faith request for someone to make a LOGICAL argument that is logically impossible. Why is that so hard for people to understand!?"
November 29, 2025 at 2:28 AM
"I'd love someone to make a logical argument that 2+2=5."
"OMG you guys, I know 2+2=4 and you can only get to 5 by adding 1 somewhere, I was simply making a good faith request for someone to make a LOGICAL argument that is logically impossible. Why is that so hard for people to understand!?"
"OMG you guys, I know 2+2=4 and you can only get to 5 by adding 1 somewhere, I was simply making a good faith request for someone to make a LOGICAL argument that is logically impossible. Why is that so hard for people to understand!?"
Right. Really wanted to see those rulings. Also, Ken mentioned re-indicting, but since the indictment was ultra vires the statute of limitations wouldn’t have tolled, so that isn’t an option in Comey’s case, right? Seems like appeal is their only option.
November 24, 2025 at 9:37 PM
Right. Really wanted to see those rulings. Also, Ken mentioned re-indicting, but since the indictment was ultra vires the statute of limitations wouldn’t have tolled, so that isn’t an option in Comey’s case, right? Seems like appeal is their only option.
Will Comey's other motions be dismissed w/o prejudice as moot? Can't they argue the ruling dismissing the indictment isn't final (being appealed) and they want it dismissed w/ prejudice?
November 24, 2025 at 9:06 PM
Will Comey's other motions be dismissed w/o prejudice as moot? Can't they argue the ruling dismissing the indictment isn't final (being appealed) and they want it dismissed w/ prejudice?
It's not just me that knows this is something that not only doesn't happen "all the time", but is in fact so unusual lawyers in a different case are pointing to it as evidence of the government's ill intent. It is so out of the ordinary that it is going to hurt them in multiple cases.
November 23, 2025 at 10:36 PM
It's not just me that knows this is something that not only doesn't happen "all the time", but is in fact so unusual lawyers in a different case are pointing to it as evidence of the government's ill intent. It is so out of the ordinary that it is going to hurt them in multiple cases.
I explicitly did not "admit it." You don't "*all the time*" submit statements from a witness that was written by someone else about events they have no real knowledge of and who doesn't even understand what was written. Because judges *all the time* will strike that from the record or do this.
November 22, 2025 at 6:57 PM
I explicitly did not "admit it." You don't "*all the time*" submit statements from a witness that was written by someone else about events they have no real knowledge of and who doesn't even understand what was written. Because judges *all the time* will strike that from the record or do this.
No, were he a co-conspirator he wouldn't have named names. He is still someone who was willingly taken advantage of.
November 22, 2025 at 6:44 PM
No, were he a co-conspirator he wouldn't have named names. He is still someone who was willingly taken advantage of.
That's not what this was. This was a five minute conversation with "here is what we want you to say in a sworn statement" and then "I was told that…" He didn't even know what some of the terms in *his declaration* meant!
November 22, 2025 at 6:40 PM
That's not what this was. This was a five minute conversation with "here is what we want you to say in a sworn statement" and then "I was told that…" He didn't even know what some of the terms in *his declaration* meant!
"If all he did was testify to that, then he didn’t do anything wrong. *Unethical*?!? Absolutely."
Ah, there's the disconnect. I think acting unethically is wrong.
Ah, there's the disconnect. I think acting unethically is wrong.
November 22, 2025 at 6:28 PM
"If all he did was testify to that, then he didn’t do anything wrong. *Unethical*?!? Absolutely."
Ah, there's the disconnect. I think acting unethically is wrong.
Ah, there's the disconnect. I think acting unethically is wrong.
I agreed the court won't punish him, but he absolutely did something wrong. Don't make statements to a court that you didn't write. Don't make statements you don't know are true. Don't participate in retaliating against people for exercising their rights. Don't have no idea why you're testifying.
November 22, 2025 at 6:26 PM
I agreed the court won't punish him, but he absolutely did something wrong. Don't make statements to a court that you didn't write. Don't make statements you don't know are true. Don't participate in retaliating against people for exercising their rights. Don't have no idea why you're testifying.
To take it one step further, if we were to chill the voices of others who could be in similar situations, then what would happen? The US couldn't try to use hearsay to pass on lies and the people writing these false declarations, such as Anderson, would have to submit them themselves. Sign me up.
November 22, 2025 at 6:19 PM
To take it one step further, if we were to chill the voices of others who could be in similar situations, then what would happen? The US couldn't try to use hearsay to pass on lies and the people writing these false declarations, such as Anderson, would have to submit them themselves. Sign me up.
WHAT!? We want to chill the voices of people who try to pass lies to the court!! Yes, he won't face punishment, but he was a willing participant in lying to the court in an attempt to illegally punish someone for exercising their rights. He's a patsy, not a hero.
November 22, 2025 at 6:14 PM
WHAT!? We want to chill the voices of people who try to pass lies to the court!! Yes, he won't face punishment, but he was a willing participant in lying to the court in an attempt to illegally punish someone for exercising their rights. He's a patsy, not a hero.
If you're told to tell something to the court and then you repeat that to the court and it turns out that was a lie, you're still the one that passed it on to the court. The government was using his declaration as evidence that Costa Rica wasn't an option. He was a willing patsy.
November 22, 2025 at 6:09 PM
If you're told to tell something to the court and then you repeat that to the court and it turns out that was a lie, you're still the one that passed it on to the court. The government was using his declaration as evidence that Costa Rica wasn't an option. He was a willing patsy.
You're right, Cantú is probably fine. We haven't seen the declaration yet, but it sounds like a lot of "I have been told..." and "according to...". And he can't be held responsible for violating Xinis' 11/17 order. DSoS Landau is the other one in trouble. But "he did nothing wrong" is too far.
November 22, 2025 at 6:01 PM
You're right, Cantú is probably fine. We haven't seen the declaration yet, but it sounds like a lot of "I have been told..." and "according to...". And he can't be held responsible for violating Xinis' 11/17 order. DSoS Landau is the other one in trouble. But "he did nothing wrong" is too far.
It seems there should at minimum be consequences for Cantú for signing the false declaration and Anderson for writing it.
bsky.app/profile/rpar...
bsky.app/profile/rpar...
R: then he sent you email with draft declaration?
C: no. Anderson sent me email with message. shared with me during teams chat.
R: that included the verbiage he wanted you to put into the declaration
C: he gave me verbiage from dep secy.
R: is that the language set forth in your dec
/23
C: no. Anderson sent me email with message. shared with me during teams chat.
R: that included the verbiage he wanted you to put into the declaration
C: he gave me verbiage from dep secy.
R: is that the language set forth in your dec
/23
November 22, 2025 at 2:31 PM
It seems there should at minimum be consequences for Cantú for signing the false declaration and Anderson for writing it.
bsky.app/profile/rpar...
bsky.app/profile/rpar...
Can you provide me with some sample data? We can take this to DMs.
November 22, 2025 at 1:52 AM
Can you provide me with some sample data? We can take this to DMs.
At what point do they get testimony from the foreperson and one or more other jurors clarify?
November 21, 2025 at 1:28 AM
At what point do they get testimony from the foreperson and one or more other jurors clarify?
The bill should have included a $1m whistleblower reward for any substantiated evidence of records being altered or destroyed.
November 19, 2025 at 1:53 AM
The bill should have included a $1m whistleblower reward for any substantiated evidence of records being altered or destroyed.