New: Second Petition for Restraining Order Against Deported MS-13 Gang Member Surfaces

Quote:More disturbing information is coming forward about Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the deported MS-13 gang member Democrats are desperate to have returned to the United States - and it's looking like the Trump administration did his wife a huge favor by getting the violent thug out of the country.

As RedState's Teri Christoph reported on April 16, Abrego Garcia's wife applied for a protective order against him in August 2020 - this is in addition to the 2021 filing that's been reported on extensively. Now, Fox News' Cameron Arcand (who previously wrote at RedState) has obtained the documents in that case:

A 2020 protective order case filed against deported "Maryland man" Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the suspected MS-13 gang member being held in El Salvador, sheds even more light on his violent past, a Fox News Digital review of the documents found.

The document, reviewed by Fox News Digital, alleges that his wife accused him of verbal and physical abuse against her and mental abuse against her children. The petition for protection form filed in Maryland by Jennifer Vasquez Sura has boxes checked for "acts of abuse," including kicking, slapping, shoving, mental injury of a child and detaining against will.

So, he took her hostage and kicked, slapped, and shoved her, and was cruel to the child. Sounds like a wonderful example of fatherhood.

He also threatened to kill her, telling her mother that he'd get away with it, too.

It says on Aug. 3, 2020, that her "husband took [her] phone around 1:00 a.m., and in the morning he wanted to take my car, but I told him I was going to go out with my kids. He then got angry. I went upstairs to make food for my kids but he turned off the stove."

In addition, the form said Abrego Garcia had threatened her and wrote that she has a recording in which he "told [her] ex-mother-in-law that even if he kills me no one can do anything to him."

In the petition, Vasquez Sura described additional incidents in November and December 2019:

The form also describes an incident in November 2019 when he grabbed her "by the hair in the car." In December 2019, he allegedly grabbed her hair in the car and "dragged" her "out of car leaving [her] in the street." She wrote that he also "broke" her son’s tablet, "broke doors" in the house, pushed her against a wall, broke a phone and a television and damaged the walls that spring.

Sadly, like many abuse victims, Vasquez Sura backed down when her abuser played nice.

On Aug. 11, 2020, Vasquez Sura asked for the petition to be rescinded, saying her family wanted to take part in their son's birthday, and Abrego Garcia "also agreed to continue counseling and if not [he's] willing to sign divorce papers."

And yet Democrats and the Fake News media continue to harp on the Trump administration over Abrego Garcia's deportation. Incredible.

(04-30-2025 01:18 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

This line will come back to haunt Trump in court :

“The power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, ‘Send him back,’ right now,” said Moran.

Trump answered: “And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that.”

The Supreme Court ordered them to facilitate his return, Trump is now telling the press he could get him back but won’t because he isn’t a gentleman.

(04-30-2025 04:00 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-30-2025 01:18 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

This line will come back to haunt Trump in court :

“The power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, ‘Send him back,’ right now,” said Moran.

Trump answered: “And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that.”

The Supreme Court ordered them to facilitate his return, Trump is now telling the press he could get him back but won’t because he isn’t a gentleman.

(04-30-2025 04:00 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-30-2025 01:18 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

This line will come back to haunt Trump in court :

“The power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, ‘Send him back,’ right now,” said Moran.

Trump answered: “And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that.”

The Supreme Court ordered them to facilitate his return, Trump is now telling the press he could get him back but won’t because he isn’t a gentleman.

dear diary............

Back to due process. David Schoen, a former Trump impeachment attorney, just said on Ingraham that "We are on the verge of turning the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Which is what those of us questioning "due process no matter the circumstances" have been saying.

(04-30-2025 06:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Back to due process. David Schoen, a former Trump impeachment attorney, just said on Ingraham that "We are on the verge of turning the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Which is what those of us questioning "due process no matter the circumstances" have been saying.

What other fundamental rights do you wish to **** on?

Fundamental precepts of the Constitution are just that. Not a matter of expediency.

Im enthralled by the constant metronome of 'Levin (on Fox) said' and 'on Ingraham' that appear to form the base of your belief system.

And..... I looked at the Levin bit. Since you buy into that segment lock, stock, and two smoking shotguns as the height of educated knowledge, I guess you also agree with Levin that SCOTUS is a 'Politburo'. Not once, but at least 4 times.

Im glad that network is now the champion of suspending parts of the Constitution simply because, an that you buy into the expediency of simply suspending it (as you openly now support a position that advocates that backing due process is a suicide pact'.)

Given that -- what other fundamental rights do you think we should simply ignore simply because? Should be a simple question for you to answer given your soapbox above. I look forward to a semblance of an answer.

Too many lines, Clarence. Sorry that everybody on earth doesn't agree with you. And some of them are even smarter than you, with better credentials.

(04-30-2025 06:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Back to due process. David Schoen, a former Trump impeachment attorney, just said on Ingraham that "We are on the verge of turning the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Which is what those of us questioning "due process no matter the circumstances" have been saying.

Its just common sense.

(04-30-2025 06:56 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-30-2025 06:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Back to due process. David Schoen, a former Trump impeachment attorney, just said on Ingraham that "We are on the verge of turning the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Which is what those of us questioning "due process no matter the circumstances" have been saying.

Its just common sense.

Not many lawyers have much of that. Clarence wants to due process us into South America.

(04-30-2025 06:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-30-2025 06:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Back to due process. David Schoen, a former Trump impeachment attorney, just said on Ingraham that "We are on the verge of turning the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Which is what those of us questioning "due process no matter the circumstances" have been saying.

What other fundamental rights do you wish to **** on?

Fundamental precepts of the Constitution are just that. Not a matter of expediency.

Im enthralled by the constant metronome of 'Levin (on Fox) said' and 'on Ingraham' that appear to form the base of your belief system.

And..... I looked at the Levin bit. Since you buy into that segment lock, stock, and two smoking shotguns as the height of educated knowledge, I guess you also agree with Levin that SCOTUS is a 'Politburo'. Not once, but at least 4 times.

Im glad that network is now the champion of suspending parts of the Constitution simply because, an that you buy into the expediency of simply suspending it (as you openly now support a position that advocates that backing due process is a suicide pact'.)

Given that -- what other fundamental rights do you think we should simply ignore simply because? Should be a simple question for you to answer given your soapbox above. I look forward to a semblance of an answer.

Can you answer the questions in Post #1223 in this Thread?

(04-30-2025 06:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-30-2025 06:56 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-30-2025 06:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Back to due process. David Schoen, a former Trump impeachment attorney, just said on Ingraham that "We are on the verge of turning the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Which is what those of us questioning "due process no matter the circumstances" have been saying.

Its just common sense.

Not many lawyers have much of that. Clarence wants to due process us into South America.

Ill dumb down the questions at your direct request, chuckles.

1. What other fundamental rights do you want to 'shitcan' because you dont want the overhead?

2. Since you love slobber over the words of Mark Levin in that video, do you love slobber over his repeated characterization of the SCOTUS as a "Politburo" in that video?

3. Does the characterization of SCOTUS as a "politburo" affect in any manner how you weigh the strength of his issues there?

Dumb enough for you, champ?

(04-30-2025 06:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-30-2025 06:56 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-30-2025 06:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Back to due process. David Schoen, a former Trump impeachment attorney, just said on Ingraham that "We are on the verge of turning the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Which is what those of us questioning "due process no matter the circumstances" have been saying.

Its just common sense.

Not many lawyers have much of that. Clarence wants to due process us into South America.

On the contrary champ. I dont want idiots to dumb down the Constitution *to* the level of some in South America. Im impressed that you think retrograding rights in a Constitution is somehow progress. Cool cool. Kind of amazing what folks say around here.... lolz.

So Tanq says he's smarter than Mark Levin about the Constitution and due process for illegal aliens. Cool cool.

(04-30-2025 07:07 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-30-2025 06:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-30-2025 06:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Back to due process. David Schoen, a former Trump impeachment attorney, just said on Ingraham that "We are on the verge of turning the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Which is what those of us questioning "due process no matter the circumstances" have been saying.

What other fundamental rights do you wish to **** on?

Fundamental precepts of the Constitution are just that. Not a matter of expediency.

Im enthralled by the constant metronome of 'Levin (on Fox) said' and 'on Ingraham' that appear to form the base of your belief system.

And..... I looked at the Levin bit. Since you buy into that segment lock, stock, and two smoking shotguns as the height of educated knowledge, I guess you also agree with Levin that SCOTUS is a 'Politburo'. Not once, but at least 4 times.

Im glad that network is now the champion of suspending parts of the Constitution simply because, an that you buy into the expediency of simply suspending it (as you openly now support a position that advocates that backing due process is a suicide pact'.)

Given that -- what other fundamental rights do you think we should simply ignore simply because? Should be a simple question for you to answer given your soapbox above. I look forward to a semblance of an answer.

Can you answer the questions in Post #1223 in this Thread?

My arent you the insistent one tonite.

Sure thing.

Slaves -- SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property. Can no more afford due process to a slave than afford due process to a '83 Trans Am in their view.

Most find that all of: repugnant, misguided, and racist.

I hope that angle isnt the saving grace for a rationale for 'others' not being "persons" under the 5th and 14th in your view.

American Indians -- same story, slightly different tune. Consistent rulings that touched upon 'their own nation' were a cover for rulings denying due process. Even though due process was afforded Italians, Irish, Brits, French, various Germanic nationalities, Russsians blah blah blah blah.

Apparently non-naturalized Irish were afforded due process even though being of 'another nation', and American Indians were not while being of another nation.

Kind of obvious in the discrepancies that the rulings were permeated with rank discrimination based on 'red skin' or not.

Again, if you want to use either as a great counter-example for denying 'others' due process, that might be treading on some thin ice.

I see you havent explicitly made that argument. Just insistently asked for an answer twice in rapid succession tonite, which indicates some wish to use those as a grand counter example.

The argument that blacks, Indians, and whole host of others today arent 'persons' can be quite the balancing act to pull off without going full blown racist garbage. Id tread pretty lightly around that issue -- especially so given the explicit history of the groups and the rulings about them in a much, much, much earlier time.

(04-30-2025 09:33 PM)TripleA Wrote:  So Tanq says he's smarter than Mark Levin about the Constitution and due process for illegal aliens. Cool cool.

Im looking for your answer about Levins explicit words. I dont see one there. But please run away.

yeah, Ill stack my answers against Levins excuse of "SCOTUS is simply a politburo" pretty much every day of the week, champ. You?

(04-30-2025 09:33 PM)TripleA Wrote:  So Tanq says he's smarter than Mark Levin about the Constitution and due process for illegal aliens. Cool cool.

My gosh…some people are beyond any form of help

(04-30-2025 09:49 PM)450bench Wrote:  My gosh…some people are beyond any form of help

I wholly agree after reading pretty much any of your posts.

Tanq, I think you should give up law and start a finishing school for cultural morons.