Quote:THESE cases by and large have not reached their final disposition.
The issues are quite clear Ham. Either illegals are 'persons' -- or not.
And either some rat ass fked up gang is a 'state or government' -- or not.
Im sorry you dont like my position, nor my opinion. Bummer.
Im tired of the bull**** contortions by the right on these to get an immediate, and to me clear, **** on the Constitution. Most of the time they are accompanied either by falsehoods, or notable redactions in the record.
Quote:That doesn't mean your opinion might not win out.... I have never once claimed that you will lose and Trump will win. Not once. It just means that despite an overwhelming majority of case law being upheld... there is also a long history of them finding ways to 'fix' things that Congress has been unwilling to fix.
And funnily not so long ago you were on warpath against a 'living Constitution' approach. Now not so much. Interesting turn there Ham.
Quote:Congress has their powers. The Court has theirs. The President has his. I am GLAD to see a President (as I said I would have been glad to see Bernie do the same, though in different areas) not defer to the parties that 'own' Congress and prevent solutions to these issues.
And I would if he had an ounce of respect for the operation of law, the rule of law, and or what is Constitutional. Are you obviously willing to ditch that for the above? Given the non-shrift to that angle above, the answer looks to be yes, in a heartbeat. Correct me if not the case. Be glad to hear you supplement the above if so.
Not my set of priorities Ham.
Quote:Quote:The issues with the first planeload under the AEA are in the public record. Not an opinion, and not my interpretation.
Be more specific. I've read the public record and I see lots of opinions. I don't see a Supreme Court case requiring that all of them need to be returned.... which is what would be the case if he had ZERO power to do what he did. Don't point me to Obrego-Garcia. He is ONE person.
The record is clear in Boasberg court and the Xini court, both dealing with the first planeloads -- that for purposes of AEA (the basis for their removal that night) the hapless now current occupants of CETCO were afforded NO due process.
Not your immigration 'lowered due process' that you bring up fairly regularly (and fing non-starter in terms of the AEA, mind you) -- literally nothing.
Quote:Quote:There was *zero* due process afforded to that initial set that was put in front of Boasberg. No notice, no hearing (not even administrative), no ability for any to counter to the decision, no ability to make their own case.
Due process for SOME illegal immigrants does not include the ability to counter the decision, nor the ability to 'make their own case'. In the simplest example... most people caught on US soil crossing the border by ICE are turned around without the ability to counter the decision or make their own case.
You are mixing and matching concepts, Ham.
In one bucket, you have INA cases (immigration statute).
In another you have AEA. The Boasberg and Xini cases. Completely different regime. I dont understand your requirement to mix and match two entirely different statutes.
As to the quiote above (dealing with INA), you are simply incorrect. The lowest level for INA (immigration cases) is the Expedited Removal Hearing. 8 CFR 253 governs that issue. The ERH has within it the very basic notions of due process -- albeit done on a slapdash basis. Notice, the ability to challenge, the ability to put forward their own case is all required there, Ham. So your statement is simply false in the first sentence above. Further, if a detainee in that situation has immediate access to an attorney, that representation at that very quick, very localized hearing may not be refused.
Quote:Be very specific. Give me the name and situation of ONE of them and let's look at them.
None of the 253 in the record in the AEA deportations were accorded any due process for the deportation under the AEA, per the record in the case. End of story.
Quote:For Obrego-Garcia whom you have not mentioned by most Democrats have... he obviously DID receive some due process... and he was one of them. He alone proves your claim false. As I said... you may think he deserved more or different, but he did NOT receive 'zero'.
Again, he did receive previous due process under the INA -- and *that* due process afforded him: a) a stay from deportation; b) an appeal; and c) a standing order for non-deportation to El Salvador.
After that, he was rounded up, detained, and carted off -- with no due process as to any of the above that had been decided. Nor with any process under the AEA. Again -- end of story.
And no, you try and say 'hey his last stuff was enough due process'. Which is false for the deportation *after* the 3 issues above. And it is false because he wasnt even fing deported under that last set -- he was fing deported over some new **** that they pulled out of the hat. AEA. Which is not INA.
Its not that tough.
And you include some random smattering of a provably false statement about the presence of due process in even the lowest setting to boot.
Two buckets of law Ham. Dont mix and match.
Two timeframes Ham. Dont mix and match.
On top of it you have a judge's *order* to stay deportation out of the previous round of due process -- which I guess is magically vitiated by that due process that got him that stay and that do not deport order. Amazing stuff when the facts are in place.
Quote:Quote:Another one that was non AEA was the Tufts girl.
An example of your hyperbole and lack of intellectual honesty.
She was arrested and taken to a detention center in Louisiana after the SOS revoked her student visa.... which he has the authority to do.
And every court in the land going back 40 years says she needs notice, a hearing, an opportunity to defend, and an opportunity to present. In order. She, even now, ahs not been afforded *any* of the above on the matter of deportation.
The only thing that happened was that the attorney, after tracking her down after the shell game ICE played with her and jurisdiction -- got a writ of habeas corpus. Where a judge said that as to the merits, to the detention, and to everything about the conduct -- she was not afforded due process at the time necessary.
Where you have to have an attorney track you down, and have a judge force the government to bring her to the court --- in order to simply start the due process isnt due process, dude.
Quote: She was not immediately deported and is in fact, still in the country. She has an attorney and has been afforded an appeal.
read the above. Think of this --- it will help. You dont sentence, then convict. To convict you need due process. The 'appeal' (it isnt an appeal as another problems) is happening *after* the issue was 'decided'. In your worldview, is it fine to sentence a person for theft, before they have been convicted? And is the appeal of that sentence due process?
Its not that hard. It is when you decide to mix and match.
Quote:Again, you may think she deserves more or different due process, but the claim that she has received 'zero' is false on its face.
Nope. And the VT judge agrees with my viewpoint. There was no notice, no opportunity to challenge, no opportunity to present her side, no hearing with an impartial arbiter, no right to counsel, yada yada yada. Somehow the attorney stopping the fing whack a mole game ICE was playing is now magically sufficient? Really?
Quote:Quote:The issue isnt 'well gee golly their attorneys are in court NOW' - those are in habeas issues. The due process has to be afforded *before* they are sent out. Timing is important. And, further, you cant mix and match **** like you do above.
The Tufts girl is still here and has been represented in court and before judges. I'm still waiting for a name of someone who had ZERO due process.
Ham, put your thinking cap on. No due process means no records for the most part.
And generally speaking, the Boasberg court found that no due process was afforded any of the first planelaod, the Xini court, the Wilkerson 4th circuit panel, another 4th Circ panel, and two SCOTUS shadow docket opinions. But here is Ham, all by his lonesome, yelling that SOME WAS SERVED. Interesting.
Those shipped out under the AEA have zero record of any due process concerns, and when questioned under oath in front a Fed judge, the ICE officials cannot oblige that either.
But please jump up and down and scream that some was served.
Quote:Quote:He had a removal order that was STAYED, mind you.
So you agree that he has had due process. Your argument now is that his due process was violated.
There was no due process in the AEA action, Ham.
In fact, there is a double problem with Abrego, the result of the previous round of due process (under another basis) was magically tossed out the window.
Quote:Quote:For a simple example -- if you were convicted of say, macing someone with criminal intent, and to be nearer the facts -- the judge stayed your having to serve sentence, and the judge stayed the sentence due to an ongoing appeal, and there was an additional magic order that says 'dont incarcerate Ham for this offense until I say so.'
If the DA decides to haul your ass to jail to serve that sentence, and they simply picked you up and jailed you -- there would be no due process afforded to you based on those orders in place.
If this is an example of legal double-speak... I will stand corrected... but I don't think so. To anyone fluent in English, they would say some version of... I was afforded due process... got convicted... had the sentence stayed and a 'magic' order... and that magic order was violated. It makes ZERO sense in the english language that someone could argue that I was afforded ZERO due process, given the facts of your statement. Again, if this is some quirk of legal double-speak... then MOST people in this country are being mislead/lied to. The nuance of legalese is being used to create a false impression.
Ham, with respect to the sheriff incarcerating you under a previous conviction with stays in place -- you were afforded no due process for that incarceration.
If you want to mix and match selected events -- you be you.
In order to jail you, they would be required to give notice, give an opportunity to challenge, give an opportunity to bring up your issues, allow for an impartial hearing, and allow you representation -- FOR THE LAST ACT OF TAKING YOU TO JAIL. Its not that hard.
Its stupid to say that the due process in your trial applies retroactively to give the sheriff a free shot to jail you anyway.
That is what you are doing. Its incorrect. And its an empty argument. its not a smart drum to continue to bang .
Quote:Quote:First, the AEA requires 'by a national state or national government.' Not 'a gang'.
The government is obviously challenging that INTERPRETATION. Doing this through the courts is 'how such things are done'. You are convinced they will lose and you may well be right... but again... I am in support of the government using every LEGAL avenue they can think of to deport these tens of millions of people here illegally... ESPECIALLY if there is even a 'probable' chance that they are OR HAVE BEEN part of MS13, TDA or others.
Cool, my words are not an interpretation -- they are the actual words of the statute.
If you want to jump up and down and tell us the Hells Angels are a state or a government -- you go right ahead.
Quote:Quote:Quote:They have not been denied life, liberty nor the pursuit of happiness. They have only been denied 'work' for the US government....
Lolz. Uhh..... no.
Ham, when the government takes a fundamental right -- they must *first* do so within a framework of process *prior* to abridgement. Again -- timing.
Name the 'fundamental right'? That's precisely what I was referring to above. Life etc are fundamental rights... and they have not been denied those.
Last I saw the restriction on speaking with anyone in the government is fundamental right addressed by two different provisions of the 1st amendment.
Quote:Quote:I guess in Ham world, one can Executive Order directly 'guns are banned to Ham."
See, this is where you lie. I clearly spoke about life liberty etc... and guns would be another fundamental right. Obviously in Ham world, these things cannot be taken away without due process.
First amendment isnt a right?
Piss off with the lie ****. Or is the 1st amendment rights not an included fundamental right? Oops -- Ham just told me I was lying, he didnt even known about the restriction on speaking to the government, and knee reflexively labeled me a 'liar'. On his lack of facts, and lack of understanding. Neat stuff.
There are also violations of three or four other portions of the Bill of Rights, and a violation of the bill of attainder clause to boot. i guess none of them are fundamental rights, and I am still "lying" about that.
Quote:Quote:And the orders went well beyond 'jsut work' as you say. Facts are your friend.
Each of the EOs sought to bar access to any firm employees to any Federal property. And read on barring government personnel from having any discussion with members or employees of the firm.
Barring government personnel from speaking to them does not deny anything to the firms. It MAY deny a right to the personnel, but that wasn't your claim.
Hmmm... I guess you overlook the full First Amendment in that analysis above. Not to mention the 4th, 6th, 5th, and 14th amendment issues with the order.
Quote:I'm laughing though at the rest of your claim... given your 'claim' about facts.
Here is what the order specifically says about 'barring access'... I've highlighted the meaningful parts.
Sec. 5. Personnel. (a) The heads of all agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide guidance limiting official access from Federal Government buildings to employees of Perkins Coie when such access would threaten the national security of or otherwise be inconsistent with the interests of the United States.
Is it your claim here that people have a fundamental right to access federal buildings where such access threatens our national security??
It is possible that the 'inconsistent with the interests of the US' is debatable... but 1) that sounds a bit like treason or similar to me... and even if it IS a right, that is covered by the 'to the extent permitted by law' clause.
To the extent that references to “national security” and “national interest” guide the exercise of agency heads’ discretion, Perkins pointed out that that section finding that “these agencies are already told what the outcome of their analysis is, because they have been told in Section 1 that working with Perkins Coie is not consistent with the national interest and not consistent with the administration and policies of this administration".
And the government attorney, when pressed, was silent.
Quote:In other words... you're again engaing in bombastic hyperbole and misleading summaries.
Nope. In other words you are not on top of what the findings are in the opinions, and what the parties said in court. And cherry picking to boot. Id call *that* bombastic and misleading, Ham.
Quote:But if the law is as clear as you claim then why not challenge it and win?? If they're going to win, they won't be barred and clients will return.
Not as easy as you lay it out with respect to clients, Ham
Quote:As I've said repeatedly... justices can and will disagree on lots of things.... the length of a single judge's decision really means little to the ultimate disposition....
I don't care much about this specific case... I'm just pointing out that until at least 5 of the 9 justices of the SCOTUS make a determination, you cannot make a claim of fact about 'this being right'. It is what it is, but that doesn't mean that it is unquestionably correct. Even SCOTUS rulings get challenged and overturned with some regularity. Even if Trump doesn't appeal this, it is STILL just an 'opinion' that a future court could find to be in error... if used as 'precedent'. You know very well that sometimes the time, energy and cost of cases aren't worth continuing.
Im glad you are defending this attacking piece of **** order. Cool cool.
Are you good with the government refusing to meet with any member of a firm, even for their representing a client, because 'they 'dont like' that firm? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Are you good with the government refusing access to a lawfirm to Federal facilities, including bureaucratic offices and courthouses, because they 'dont like' that firm?
In the day after the EO, "a federal official refused to allow Perkins Coie attorneys to attend a scheduled meeting to discuss a pending matter before that agency." In another pending case, an attorney in the Department of Justice’s Criminal Fraud
ection cancelled a previously scheduled meeting with Perkins Coie attorneys, citing the Order.
You good with that lawfare targeting lawfirms? Again, a simple yes or no will suffice.
Im just pointing out how offensive it is to the Constitution, to the equal protection concerns of the firms attorneys, and quite frankly to the right of their clients to have their attorney of choice represent them. Awesome cudgel for a vindictive government to mete out to firms who challenge it. I guess its good for your 'efficiency' state to limit the attorneys and firms who might challenge the government to the set of compliant attorneys. Sounds like boatloads of fun there.
Yeah, lets just EO to death those firms we dont like. All is good.
On its face it bars a firm from talking with Government personnel. And bars them from government property. Kind of fing sick.
Quote:TO paraphrase your BS... maybe you should try reading before you make such bold claims.
What bold claims did I make, My Friend? I in fact looked into your frenzied spiel about "So you don't think James claimed her father was her spouse... and her 5 unit apt was 4 and her 'primary residence' was hundreds of miles away (and a violation of her office) in order to enrich herself/lower her rates?"
I found much that differed from your query. Such the bold claim.....
[/quote]
Read more carefully. The letter was written to James' mortgage BROKER.... but this is all a farce. The point it makes is that 'paperwork' often contains incorrect or misleading documentation... and that it is up to lenders to do their own due diligence and get to the bottom of things. Recall that my argument at the time of Trump was that 'valuation' is a very fungible thing. James (I believe... it may have been the talking heads including iirc, you at the time) arguing in Trump where the 'value' for tax purposes and loan purposes differed was an attempt by Trump to defraud. I've repeatedly said that I simply find it hypocritical and that I fell the SOL on 90% of it has probably passed anyway. I didn't think Trump should have been prosecuted... [/quote]
And there were far more, and deeper instances of persistent fraud in the Trump tableaux. Which you omit above, and tended to omit at the time. Let alone the direct testimony from third parties indicating that Trump simply wanted to manufacture numbers. To put on loan applications. To put into statements sent to lenders. Persistently. Normal fraud by itself. Persistent fraud in the state civil sense. But that gets overlooked above.
No -- I dont see persistent fraud from James in that regard. Nor normal fraud.
For James -- yeah, investigate it. Have at it. If there is more evidence of fraud, go after her. No problems from this quarter.
And yes, you thought the SOL lapsed, but every loan renewal, and every resend of the false statements popped it back. Damn those details.
Quote:so there is NO WAY I would think that James should be.... That should be self-evident.... but facts are facts.
Yet your frenzied querying of "So you don't think James claimed her father was her spouse... and her 5 unit apt was 4 and her 'primary residence' was hundreds of miles away (and a violation of her office) in order to enrich herself/lower her rates?".
Glad to know that NO WAY you think your frenzied questions are even germane then.
Quote: The documentation claimed is not disputed or claimed to be fabricated. They do indeed exist and do indeed say what is claimed.
And much much more exists on the other side of that evidentiary and factual coin w/r to James. And if there is more evidence that comes out the other way -- no problem.
Unlike you -- the facts tell the tale. Not my want for one political side or a wish to get another.
Quote:Quote:And trump has said that he will use it after it is turned over. It does matter.
Lol....
So it is illegal for Trump to SAY that he will use it?? Lol... or does it only matter because it's Trump and 'you don't trust him'?
I would say what I said above for anyone saying that.
Quote:So it is illegal for Trump to SAY that he will use it?? Lol...
Nope. Never said that. You made that up. I guess I should scream 'you are lying'? Ill pass. But nope, your rhetorical question is well, just empty rhetoric.
I would question the transaction with anyone when that generic anyone says they will use it after their term. That shouldnt be a big fing surprise. Seems rather common sense. Maybe not to all.
Quote:Quote:And while the "government lets people use their assets every day", it certainly DOES NOT accept assets from a foreign state, then immediately allow exclusive use of those assets to the people that accepted them.
Then you have nothing to worry about.... but why would it matter if it were 'the people who accepted them'? If they accepted the plane and then gave it to say Clinton or Justice Thomas for their exclusive use, wouldn't that arguably be even worse? At least there seems to be SOME justification for allowing Trump or perhaps Biden to use it. I heard the plane plans were originally started under him, but I may be wrong.
Again -- WHEN TRUMP says they will use it after their term, it gives cause for concern. Actually, if ANYONE says that it should.
Quote:Quote:Im glad there is such an earth shattering difference between his 'personal property' and 'property held by his library for his use and only his use' in your mind.
Has that happened??
Im not the one jumping up and down trying to draw some stupid line between personal property' and 'property held by his library for his use and only his use' that you employed before as defending the transaction.
Ill type this to be clear, and its simple. No farcical differentiation between 'personal property' and 'property held by his library for his use and only his use' that you need to employ.
If the transaction is to the government, and remains with the main body of the government -- go for it.
If the transaction is to the government, and is predicated to go to the Trump library solely for display purposes -- go for it.
If the transaction is to the government, and is predicated to go to the Trump library afterwards and Trump is the user of it after that time -- it is grotesque and highly indicative of graft. Not something I would like to see.
Clear enough?
Quote:Let's at least wait until it happens before putting him in jail, lol. Did he even say 'sole and exclusive'?? That sounds like you've been trolled, lol.
Who said 'put him in jail', Ham? Another strawman you throw out there? Neat.
I absolutely will wait to see what is at the bottom of it. I havent said anything to the contrary, big guy. And no, I dont give a **** if it would be for his use, or his sole and exclusive use if that is the case.
Quote:As an attorney with significant experience in property law, I'm AMAZED that you don't understand the difference between ownership and use.... even if exclusive. I note that you use 'his' library... ignoring that he doesn't own it... it just has his name on it. The government owns it.
As an attorney, a bribe may be paid with either ownership, or use. Im AMAZED you dont know that.
Quote:If it's illegal then it won't happen... OR you'll be able to prosecute the government official that allows it after he leaves office.
Im impressed how much you castigate Hunter for actions that are a piker to this, but seemingly defend this scenario to the utmost.
Quote:Quote:So if you disclose the influence peddling to the tune of billions of dollars, its not influence peddling,. Got it.
Once again with your lies. I clearly never said that and only a moron would... which you did.... so....
"The meme coin couldn't possibly be compared to 'influence peddling'.... it was completely disclosed, unlike Hunter." Got it -- you never said that. Gremlins?
Quote:Now, if on the left foot (since I'm out of hands) you're suddenly being paid millions and no good nor service are being delivered for those funds... THAT should raise some eyebrows.
It's funny to me that you are nonplussed about the last of these... but the first has caught your eye. TDS indeed.
I have an issue with Hunter, and with the Trump meme coin ****. Quite the TDS, amigo.
Im amused at all the whirling dervish stuff about the major difference between meme coins and 'no good nor service'. Hate to tell you -- selling crap at a premium when in the arena of public service is problematic. For good reason. But meme coins are perfectly okay in your book? if so, sounds fun there, My Friend.
Quote:Quote:Lolz -- you are now saying 'hey its okay to provide **** stuff for influence peddling, jsut dont provide no service.' Ohhhhhhkkkayyyyyyyyy.
Ummm... yes. It's perfectly legal to pay $100,000 for a meal where a politician is speaking. I mean, there are tax implications and reporting requirements etc etc etc... but it happens all the time. It's also perfectly legal to buy a Trump watch. It's illegal to pay $100,000 for influence. TDS again.
Yep, quite the TDS when it comes the pure solid gold of meme coins. Kind of fun watching you devolve into the static comment of TDS to literally everything there, dude.
Substantively you hit the bullseye -- reporting requirements if for a political donation.
If the 100k goes to him personally, sorry, your rationale dont fly.
Quote:[quote]
NEVER did I say she should go to jail for it.
But you did present a frenzied series of questions that never bothered with any other facts that dont fall that way. Cool cool.
Quote: I merely said that you either prosecute neither (my preference) OR you prosecute both. Trump claiming a building is worth 400byn or has 10,000 sq ft is and should be independently verified by the lender. The loan documents themselves SAY that. James claimed that Trump was enriched by his claims... and she has ZERO evidence of that.
There was plenty of evidence of that enrichment at the trial Ham. Im sorry you didnt take note of it.
Quote:JUST like this case.
Not even close. You still dont seem to fathom the hows and whys of the NY law used. But hey, lets just jam everything into one box and loudly exclaim that they are THE EXACT SAME THING.
Sorry they are not.
My view is that *the evidence* and *the facts* in the NY case showed of violation of the NY Exec 163 -- persistent fraud, and three other violations of of various NY financial civil laws.
My view is with simply the facts propounded by Bondi -- it might cause the really stupid to say how equal things are. But there are significant amounts of other facts that cut against that. If the government shows more than what they have shown -- go for it. Go after her. With what is known to us right now? Pretty much a laugher.
Quote:What you're doing is presuming that Trump's misrepresentations lead to enrichment...
Based on *the evidence* and *the facts* in the NY case, yes. The horror of that.
Quote:hence I must show that James' did as well.
And you must consider the full body of evidence mind you.
And to be clear, if there is more that is added to the James issue -- zero issue with me in pursuing her. That is, in short, *the evidence* and *the facts* and *the law* that is applied is what is the most important aspect. Whether it be Trump, or Hunter, or L. James.
Back to the front of your such interesting post --
(05-18-2025 07:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: Tanq...
I'm really tired of you arguing with things I never said and you claiming knowledge you don't have... so I'll make my position clear and you can go back to being drunk. I may or may not address a few of your last comments... but most of this is your same old tired rants.
Back to your personal slams I see.
Be happy to share my CV on this subject. But I expect nothing more than the personal asides like above.
And to in the spirit *and* tone from your words above -- "you claiming knowledge you don't have" --rich coming from the guy that is pulling wrong and false concepts out of his own ass in these very pages -- and explicitly so.
Im sorry your facts, and your rhetoric are incorrect. But you be you with the ****** "you claiming knowledge you don't have". Sorry charlie, that is there, notwiothstanding your plaintive cry in the dark.
Quote: Until they do, you have a position and an opinion that isn't worth dick.
A much better opinion than your smorgasbord of rhetoric, lack of facts, and now personal whines.
So -- go jump in a lake Mr legal rhetoric expert. Far kinder than your 'not worth dick' issue above I might add. Im sorry the actual issues run deeper than your initial rhetoric (which was abjectly misplaced), and run contrary to your perception that some due process in a related manner, but not the current matter, suffices. That is your problem Ham. Not mine.
And based on recently past and ongoing pro bono work with a group, Ive gotten a decent background in it. Bummer. A lot better than the ****** thin biased claptrap you seem to throw into the mix here.
Quote: You're being intellectually dishonest and engaging in hyperbole.
Piss off with the "intellectually dishonest" stuff. the main problem is your lack of understanding.
But when you dont understand it -- you lash out at someone that does as 'intellectually dishonest'. Brilliant.
/
Antisemitism grades
