obama judge micro manages trump to return illegal abrego garcia

90,283 Views | 1081 Replies | Last: 10 hrs ago by aggiehawg
Who?mikejones!
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ETFan • 6:20p, 4/18/25
ETFan said:
samurai_science said:
ETFan said:
Dunno if the board is refusing to read or what, but clown world was in response to the the covid link where they created a propaganda, chain mail, web page about the origins of covid in the most unscientific, disinformative way, possible. I won't derail further than my response to the link and this clarification.


The rest is what I said. Trash tweet by a trash admin. It'll be used in the court of law against them too. If you want to extrapolate that out as me supporting gang members, I guess that's your lazy prerogative. You boys have fun passing that ball around.
So we have two Article II immigration courts say this guy is:
1. An El Salvadoran national
2. In the US illegally
3. And MS-13 member (now a designated terrorist org.)
4. Issued Deportation Orders in 2019

We now have Article III courts say:
1. Same person is a "resident" of the US (not sure what documents that status)
2. He is to be returned to the US (in contradiction to the Article II courts deportation order) from El Salvador.
3. Wish washy as to weather he is a MS-13 gang member (discounting the Article II court findings)
4. And this "resident" has been denied due process (ignoring existence of immigration court proceedings).

9-0 SCOTUS ruling ignored, that's my only concern. Should be everyone's concern. That it's not says everything.


Lol.
Reply Quote
Equinox
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:38p, 4/18/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:41p, 4/18/25
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
Prosperdick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:07p, 4/18/25
Reply Quote
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Equinox • 11:25p, 4/18/25
Time to disbar this corrupt son of a *****.
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to samurai_science • 11:27p, 4/18/25
samurai_science said:
ETFan said:
Dunno if the board is refusing to read or what, but clown world was in response to the the covid link where they created a propaganda, chain mail, web page about the origins of covid in the most unscientific, disinformative way, possible. I won't derail further than my response to the link and this clarification.


The rest is what I said. Trash tweet by a trash admin. It'll be used in the court of law against them too. If you want to extrapolate that out as me supporting gang members, I guess that's your lazy perogative. You boys have fun passing that ball around.
So we have two Article II immigration courts say this guy is:
1. An El Salvadoran national
2. In the US illegally
3. And MS-13 member (now a designated terrorist org.)
4. Issued Deportation Orders in 2019

We now have Article III courts say:
1. Same person is a "resident" of the US (not sure what documents that status)
2. He is to be returned to the US (in contradiction to the Article II courts deportation order) from El Salvador.
3. Wish washy as to weather he is a MS-13 gang member (discounting the Article II court findings)
4. And this "resident" has been denied due process (ignoring existence of immigration court proceedings).
whether...
Reply Quote
HoustonAg9999
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:37p, 4/18/25
Do liberals understand he is not coming back this is really demented behavior yall are showing
Reply Quote
Prosperdick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoustonAg9999 • 11:46p, 4/18/25
HoustonAg9999 said:
Do liberals understand he is not coming back this is really demented behavior yall are showing

They somehow have convinced themselves this is a winning issue for them. It's actually quite fascinating.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:36p, 4/21/25
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
rgvag11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:34a, 4/23/25
Reply Quote
Jack Boyette
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgvag11 • 9:47a, 4/23/25
rgvag11 said:


This happens in every case. Litigants don't just roll over, genius.
Reply Quote
1 edit
rgvag11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:57a, 4/23/25
Filing documents "under seal" happens in every case? LOL
Reply Quote
Fat Bottom Squirrels
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgvag11 • 9:59a, 4/23/25
Why don't you just tell us what you believe is happening rather than make ridiculously vague posts pretending that you have some sort of "inside baseball" understanding of what is going on.
Reply Quote
nukeaggie2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:16a, 4/23/25
Wouldn't it be nice if the executive was setting a trap for these legislators - executive is in talks with another country for a treaty or something but then it falls through based on these legislators visiting him and making their own deals; then executive comes back and brings charges of treason or insurrection
Reply Quote
rgvag11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:33a, 4/23/25
Judge laid into the Defense.



"False Premise" Objections. Defendants object to certain discovery because they claim the requests are based on the "false premise that the United States can or has been ordered to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador." Defendants--and their counsel--well know that the falsehood lies not in any supposed "premise," but in their continued mischaracterization of the Supreme Court's Order. That Order made clear that this Court "properly required the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." Defendants' objection reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations. The objection is overruled. Defendants are therefore ordered to supplement their answers in full compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their answers must include facts responsive to the requests, not oblique and incomplete, non-specific characterizations.

Reply Quote
El Gallo Blanco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:59a, 4/23/25
This is the kind of feminazi white liberal "males" rally around. Every. Damn. Time.



Liberal men are not really men.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Fat Bottom Squirrels
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgvag11 • 12:00p, 4/23/25
It brings me great joy to see the Trump administration willfully tell these idiot activists to go f themselves. Causing them to become more and more unhinged. She can issue all of the "scathing" orders she wants, but at some point, she'll have to realize that there is literally nothing she can do to enforce any of it.
Reply Quote
Jack Boyette
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgvag11 • 12:07p, 4/23/25
rgvag11 said:
Judge laid into the Defense.



"False Premise" Objections. Defendants object to certain discovery because they claim the requests are based on the "false premise that the United States can or has been ordered to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador." Defendants--and their counsel--well know that the falsehood lies not in any supposed "premise," but in their continued mischaracterization of the Supreme Court's Order. That Order made clear that this Court "properly required the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." Defendants' objection reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations. The objection is overruled. Defendants are therefore ordered to supplement their answers in full compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their answers must include facts responsive to the requests, not oblique and incomplete, non-specific characterizations.

Hey buddy. This judge is an idiot. Custody CAN be joint? Sure. It isn't here. We released jurisdiction of someone TO THE COUNTRY THEY'RE A F'N CITIZEN OF.

Please define "facilitate." We asked. They said no. What else is required? The judge can't say. You can't say, because you don't even know what you're reading the first place.

I love you acting like this judge SCATHING the administration means jack ***** Of course she did. She's a lesbian Democrat-appointed idiot.

What's your goal here? Bring him back..and then deport him to a different country he has no connections to? How about Venezuela?

You're defending a criminal, pal.
Reply Quote
Jack Boyette
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgvag11 • 12:08p, 4/23/25
rgvag11 said:
Filing documents "under seal" happens in every case? LOL
No, the other side contesting it's position happens in every case.

Are you alleging that filing documents "under seal" means something shady is being filed?

Thanks for further confirming that you don't know what the F you're talking about.
Reply Quote
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:18p, 4/23/25
My thinking is that these yahoos are going down to see how his laser tattoo removal going and when he can be brought out to the public.

Or MS13 is being changed to M818 which is the date he and his loving wife got "married" on May 8, 2018.

Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
Reply Quote
Prosperdick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jack Boyette • 1:00p, 4/23/25
Jack Boyette said:
rgvag11 said:
Judge laid into the Defense.



"False Premise" Objections. Defendants object to certain discovery because they claim the requests are based on the "false premise that the United States can or has been ordered to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador." Defendants--and their counsel--well know that the falsehood lies not in any supposed "premise," but in their continued mischaracterization of the Supreme Court's Order. That Order made clear that this Court "properly required the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." Defendants' objection reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations. The objection is overruled. Defendants are therefore ordered to supplement their answers in full compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their answers must include facts responsive to the requests, not oblique and incomplete, non-specific characterizations.

Hey buddy. This judge is an idiot. Custody CAN be joint? Sure. It isn't here. We released jurisdiction of someone TO THE COUNTRY THEY'RE A F'N CITIZEN OF.

Please define "facilitate." We asked. They said no. What else is required? The judge can't say. You can't say, because you don't even know what you're reading the first place.

I love you acting like this judge SCATHING the administration means jack ***** Of course she did. She's a lesbian Democrat-appointed idiot.

What's your goal here? Bring him back..and then deport him to a different country he has no connections to? How about Venezuela?

You're defending a criminal, pal.
Shhhh...let them keep beating this drum. It's a complete loser of an issue for them and they STILL don't realize it.
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jack Boyette • 1:06p, 4/23/25
Jack Boyette said:
rgvag11 said:
Judge laid into the Defense.



"False Premise" Objections. Defendants object to certain discovery because they claim the requests are based on the "false premise that the United States can or has been ordered to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador." Defendants--and their counsel--well know that the falsehood lies not in any supposed "premise," but in their continued mischaracterization of the Supreme Court's Order. That Order made clear that this Court "properly required the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." Defendants' objection reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations. The objection is overruled. Defendants are therefore ordered to supplement their answers in full compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their answers must include facts responsive to the requests, not oblique and incomplete, non-specific characterizations.

Hey buddy. This judge is an idiot. Custody CAN be joint? Sure. It isn't here. We released jurisdiction of someone TO THE COUNTRY THEY'RE A F'N CITIZEN OF.

Please define "facilitate." We asked. They said no. What else is required? The judge can't say. You can't say, because you don't even know what you're reading the first place.

I love you acting like this judge SCATHING the administration means jack ***** Of course she did. She's a lesbian Democrat-appointed idiot.

What's your goal here? Bring him back..and then deport him to a different country he has no connections to? How about Venezuela?

You're defending a criminal, pal.
This judge willfully evaded the SCOTUS directive for her to define "effectuate". Most probably because she knows that what she meant is actually out of scope of her powers.
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 1:24p, 4/23/25
Unlike the Executive, this lower level judge actually has to follow the orders. directives. decisions of the higher courts or they can actually have consequences.

Its funny as others have pointed out that these judgers sure are giving the Trump admin legal tongue lashings... and they have all been based on emotions and not at all on the law.

J: I hereby order you to bring him back!

DOJ: We don't have do.

J: I hereby order you to anyways and to give me an update hourly and to say you are really sorry for not obeying me sooner.

DOJ: That's nice. We will see if there is something else we should look into.

J: I mean it, I here by strenuously order you to bring him back.

DOJ: Well, then by all means, we will act now that you have strenuously ordered.
Reply Quote
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgvag11 • 1:26p, 4/23/25
rgvag11 said:
Judge laid into the Defense.


"False Premise" Objections.
Judge Xinis is making it up as she goes. Completely out of line. She is a liar and a fool.

She deserves no respect. She is an intemperate partisan without the ability to separate her emotions from her job.
Reply Quote
2 edits
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:12p, 4/23/25
Uh oh....

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 2:17p, 4/23/25
So once the DOJ removed the initial clown attorney from the case who said the government had made a mistake, they have handled it correctly. They have maintained that they did NOT make a mistake by sending him to his home country. They were right.

Time for the judges to shut the **** up and get back in their own lanes.
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:29p, 4/23/25
Does this mean no one even at SCOTUS noticed this little detail?

Maybe SCOTUS should start looking at the facts of the case and every now and again think in regards to the US Constitution and what is right for OUR CITIZENS versus they constant falling on the sword of "procedure".

Congress should reduce the size of SCOTUS to one and eliminate all lower level courts. Time to start over.
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 3:27p, 4/23/25
will25u said:
Uh oh....

Wow...

I looked on the innerwebz to see if I could find the original, to make sure that wasn't a photocopy...

It IS real...

It states THREE times in the document that the country was Guatamala.

BTW, the link I posted came straight from the SCOTUS docket...
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to flown-the-coop • 3:34p, 4/23/25
flown-the-coop said:
Does this mean no one even at SCOTUS noticed this little detail?

Maybe SCOTUS should start looking at the facts of the case and every now and again think in regards to the US Constitution and what is right for OUR CITIZENS versus they constant falling on the sword of "procedure".

Congress should reduce the size of SCOTUS to one and eliminate all lower level courts. Time to start over.
Not sure SCOTUS even had a partial record in that case.
Reply Quote
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 3:35p, 4/23/25
aggiehawg said:
flown-the-coop said:
Does this mean no one even at SCOTUS noticed this little detail?

Maybe SCOTUS should start looking at the facts of the case and every now and again think in regards to the US Constitution and what is right for OUR CITIZENS versus they constant falling on the sword of "procedure".

Congress should reduce the size of SCOTUS to one and eliminate all lower level courts. Time to start over.
Not sure SCOTUS even had a partial record in that case.
And they didn't even hear from DOJ, which makes their actions complete bull***** ACLU played them.
Reply Quote
Jack Boyette
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:47p, 4/23/25
Did the ACLU represent to the Court that the Non-Removal order said El Salvador?

It's actually strange because the factual background in the order talks about harassment and threats to his family while he lived in El Salvador. It later says his sisters and parents are still being harassed in Guatemala, but doesn't say anything about how they got there from Guatemala. He makes another claim re: torture (CAT), and the court concluded that he hadn't shown enough to prevail on that claim, which he claimed would happen if he were removed to El Salvador.

So while the order is a little unclear how Guatemala fits in here, I presume his family was now there at this time, and so that's why it's mentioned. His application for asylum was time-barred.

So he asked for asylum, failed.

He asked for non-removal to Guatemala and El Salvador. He prevailed on this request re: Guatemala, but failed on his request to disallow removal to El Salvador.

Thus, HE CAN BE REMOVED TO EL SALVADOR. Case closed.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jack Boyette • 5:18p, 4/23/25
NM
“ How you fellas doin? We about to have us a little screw party in this red Prius over here if you wanna join us.”
Reply Quote
1 edit
bobbranco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgvag11 • 5:25p, 4/23/25
rgvag11 said:
Judge laid into the Defense.

Is the DOJ shaking in their boots? Try again Bozos.
Reply Quote
1 edit
bobbranco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Equinox • 5:26p, 4/23/25
Equinox said:


A new FJB!
Reply Quote
Fat Bottom Squirrels
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:02p, 4/23/25
Someone better call in a wellness check on Rgvag after this latest revelation. He is NOT going to take this well.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.