nofan.bsky.social
LightNews LightNews
nofan.bsky.social
@nofan.bsky.social
79 followers 72 following 85 posts
Not a sock puppet, not a troll, not a bot, not an ant. Following accounts that post interesting stuff. Sometimes reposting.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by nofan.bsky.social
mikeblack114.bsky.social
So there was a $2.9B appropriation in the reconciliation bill that was supposed to be sent to the BAH account as a supplement to (I assume) allow for BAH increases in line with higher costs of living etc etc

I think they're just gonna disburse most of that in one (taxable) lump sum lmfao
December 18, 2025 at 7:06 AM
as if I weren’t already earwormed!
December 17, 2025 at 11:34 PM
…or perhaps dinner…

great alt text
December 17, 2025 at 7:29 PM
And where is the (as far as I understand it) required list of parties consulted in the EA? And where is the list of the people/firms/agencies who prepared the EA?

Hoping some NEPA experts will weigh in on this over the next few days.
December 16, 2025 at 3:38 AM
There is also something strange about the EA that NPS prepared in August. parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm...

Compare to RFK Stadium demo EA from 2023 that has a section on Consultation and Coordination and a list of preparers parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm...

Who prepared the ballroom EA?
parkplanning.nps.gov
December 16, 2025 at 3:26 AM
See pages 65-66 of NPS NEPA Handbook, which seem to suggest the EA should have been advertised to the public and been open to public comment:

www.nps.gov/subjects/nep...

“…unless there is a specific situation that precludes it, public review and comment should be sought for every EA.”
www.nps.gov
December 16, 2025 at 3:12 AM
Reposted by nofan.bsky.social
tamslick.bsky.social
December 14, 2025 at 11:29 PM
Reposted by nofan.bsky.social
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
Correcting myself on this thread: DHS did in fact submit a filing to the judge claiming that there was a "scrivener's error," so there was a filing at the immigration court.

That still does not make the issuance of a removal order six years after the fact "correcting a scrivener's error."
ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE Immigration Court's Sua Sponte Order Correcting Scrivener's Error Order: On December 11, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filed a District Court Order with the Immigration Court. That District Court Order ordered the Respondent released from DHS custody based on a belief the Respondent had not been previously ordered removed by the Immigration Court. The DHS filing with the Immigration Court noted a scrivener's error in the Immigration Judge's original final written decision in this case. That scrivener's error was that while the Respondent was granted the benefit of withholding of removal to El Salvador, the Immigration Judge had not expressly stated in the written order that the Respondent was ordered removed to El Salvador. Although the parties have not raised this issue with the Immigration Court throughout the past five years of litigation in this matter, the Immigration Court will take this opportunity now to correct that scrivener's error. Procedurally, the Respondent admitted the factual allegations contained in the Notice to Appear and conceded removability as charged at a master calendar hearing on May 29, 2019. Based on the Respondent’s admissions and concessions, the Court found his removability was established by clear and convincing evidence. The Court further designated El Salvador as the country of removal. The Respondent agreed with that country designation. On July 25, 2019, the Respondent filed a form I-589 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and for protection under the Convention Against Torture. A full evidentiary individual merits hearing was held on September 27, 2019, and the Immigration Court issued a written decision on October 10, 2019. That decision is incorporated by reference herein (See Immigration Judge's written decision of October 10, 2019). In the written decision, the Immigration Judge found that the Respondent's removability was established by clear and convincing evidence (Immigration Judge's October 10, 2019, decision, p. 2.) Following the full evidentiary trial, the Immigration Judge denied the Respondent's request for asylum and for protection under the Convention Against Torture. (This order does not amend or change those determinations.) The Immigration Judge, however, granted the Respondent the benefit of withholding of removal to El Salvador. While the Respondent was previously found to be removable and El Salvador was designated as the country of removal, the Immigration Judge's final written order stated that "the Respondent’s application for withholding of removal pursuant to INA § 241(b)(3) is GRANTED," but the order of removal to El Salvador, which should have preceded the order granting him withholding of removal to El Salvador, was erroneously omitted. Matter of I-S- & C-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 432, 434 (BIA 2008) clarified that “when an Immigration Judge decides to grant withholding of removal, an explicit order of removal must be included in the decision.” The Immigration Court now corrects that scrivener's error and amends the written decision in this case by adding the following: The Respondent is ordered removed to El Salvador based on the charge contained in the Notice to Appear, but the Respondent’s application for withholding of removal to El Salvador pursuant to INA § 241(b)(3) is granted. The Court also corrects the reference to Guatemala to read El Salvador at page 13 of the written decision. These corrections are hereby issued nunc pro tunc to the Immigration Court's written decision and order of October 10, 2019. (The Judge issuing this correction states that he has familiarized himself with the record in this matter as required pursuant to 8 CFR 1240.1(b)).
December 12, 2025 at 2:56 PM
Reposted by nofan.bsky.social
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
FN12. Yikes.
12 Cantú is the sixth witness whom the Court directed Respondents to prepare for either deposition or in-court testimony concerning this case. See, e.g., Abrego I, ECF Nos. 117 & 146 (collecting testimony of three deponents); ECF No. 234 at 36:23–39:9 (Giles testimony); see also ECF No. 52 at 108:3–17 (Schultz testimony); ECF No. 107 at 42:2–25 (Cantú testimony). Each witness was either unprepared or defiant in their refusal to answer questions. The Court will consider the entire course of conduct when it reaches the motions pending in Abrego I.
December 11, 2025 at 4:06 PM