(04-22-2025 08:24 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Judge in Texas is signaling to the USSC that code of conduct violations, specifically ex parte, are being attempted by ACLU attorneys in his court, and likely in other courts, regarding these matters. Alito alluded to this is his scathing rant. This Tx judge is saying its happening and it needs to stop, signaling to the SC that its likely happening with Boasberg as well, but Boasberg is allowing it.

Below is the voice mail the ACLU attorney sent to the judge after hours and after the aclu had already been denied an emergency order in this case. What is likely happening is that the ACLU is using after hours to do this in order for it to be ex parte, and get some sort of middle of the night ruling by a judge based upon just the one-sided list of details, which of course is not allowed and totally unethical. This Tx judge called them out on it, but Boasberg probably is using it to justify his orders.

Maybe he should file a complaint with the Texas State Bar or jail them a few days for contempt.

People need to act and create consequences, not just whine.

(04-22-2025 10:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  Maybe he should file a complaint with the Texas State Bar or jail them a few days for contempt.

People need to act and create consequences, not just whine.

Correct, but this judge is doing more. He's revealing what these ACLU lawyers are doing, likely in Boasbergs court. Julie Kelly is on top of this, but Boasberg is likely getting ex parte info from the ACLU and acting on it.

The question is: is it proper to notify a judge that their order is being ignored?

The papers that his clients were being passed were waivers to removal, mind you. In English only. With no access to counsel. Sounds like an enormously chickenshit move by the Government.

It may very well be an improper ex parte communication. And the calculus is whether to risk contempt to get the chickenshit move in front of the court.

(04-22-2025 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The question is: is it proper to notify a judge that their order is being ignored?

The papers that his clients were being passed were waivers to removal, mind you. In English only. With no access to counsel. Sounds like an enormously chickenshit move by the Government.

yea yea.....backpeddle really fast there buddy.

maybe brush up on whats allowed in ex parte and look at what Boasberg did. That asshat is being really shifty about when and how he came about some info he ruled on. (Because it was ex parte and he knows he's not allowed to rule or make motions on it.)

(04-22-2025 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The question is: is it proper to notify a judge that their order is being ignored?

The papers that his clients were being passed were waivers to removal, mind you. In English only. With no access to counsel. Sounds like an enormously chickenshit move by the Government.

yea yea.....backpeddle really fast there buddy.

maybe brush up on whats allowed in ex parte and look at what Boasberg did. That asshat is being really shifty about when and how he came about some info he ruled on. (Because it was ex parte and he knows he's not allowed to rule or make motions on it.)

Im always impressed by your 'when there is nothing in the record, no evidence, no nothing -- allege nefarious shenanigans' schtick. Quite the good look there.

I know precisely what is allowed and not allowed in ex parte, chuckles.

When a counsel learns of cheap ass chickenshit maneuvers that are intentionally done to short circuit or done in contravention of a ruling -- the option of personal risk of ex parte is a real one.

When the government, having a ruling from SCOTUS of: a) you must provide notice; b) you must afford a hearing if wanted -- proceeds to pass out "Waivers of Removal" to the folks, in a language they dont read, to occur in under 18 hours, yeah, I might inform a judge of those chickenshit maneuvers even if it risked an ex parte sanction.

The mistake the ACLU guy did was he should have, immediately after the call, emailed the DOJ stating what his request was after learning about that chickenshit manuever that was being pulled.

Let the DOJ dude lie to the judge again at that point.

(04-22-2025 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The question is: is it proper to notify a judge that their order is being ignored?

The papers that his clients were being passed were waivers to removal, mind you. In English only. With no access to counsel. Sounds like an enormously chickenshit move by the Government.

yea yea.....backpeddle really fast there buddy.

maybe brush up on whats allowed in ex parte and look at what Boasberg did. That asshat is being really shifty about when and how he came about some info he ruled on. (Because it was ex parte and he knows he's not allowed to rule or make motions on it.)

Filth always take a victory lap before the race is over.

(04-22-2025 10:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The question is: is it proper to notify a judge that their order is being ignored?

The papers that his clients were being passed were waivers to removal, mind you. In English only. With no access to counsel. Sounds like an enormously chickenshit move by the Government.

yea yea.....backpeddle really fast there buddy.

maybe brush up on whats allowed in ex parte and look at what Boasberg did. That asshat is being really shifty about when and how he came about some info he ruled on. (Because it was ex parte and he knows he's not allowed to rule or make motions on it.)

Im always impressed by your 'when there is nothing in the record, no evidence, no nothing -- allege nefarious shenanigans' schtick. Quite the good look there.

I know precisely what is allowed and not allowed in ex parte, chuckles.

When a counsel learns of cheap ass chickenshit maneuvers that are intentionally done to short circuit or done in contravention of a ruling -- the option of personal risk of ex parte is a real one.

When the government, having a ruling from SCOTUS of: a) you must provide notice; b) you must afford a hearing if wanted -- proceeds to pass out "Waivers of Removal" to the folks, in a language they dont read, to occur in under 18 hours, yeah, I might inform a judge of those chickenshit maneuvers even if it risked an ex parte sanction.

The mistake the ACLU guy did was he should have, immediately after the call, emailed the DOJ stating what his request was after learning about that chickenshit manuever that was being pulled.

Let the DOJ dude lie to the judge again at that point.

Incorrect. He should have immediately emailed/called the DOJ, and said they needed to approach the judge on this matter.

0-149

Why this hill to die on? I just don't get it

(04-22-2025 10:59 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Why this hill to die on? I just don't get it

Which hill? The legal hill Tanq is dying on, or the MS-13 illegal who got due process and deported back to his own country hill?

(04-22-2025 10:57 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The question is: is it proper to notify a judge that their order is being ignored?

The papers that his clients were being passed were waivers to removal, mind you. In English only. With no access to counsel. Sounds like an enormously chickenshit move by the Government.

yea yea.....backpeddle really fast there buddy.

maybe brush up on whats allowed in ex parte and look at what Boasberg did. That asshat is being really shifty about when and how he came about some info he ruled on. (Because it was ex parte and he knows he's not allowed to rule or make motions on it.)

Im always impressed by your 'when there is nothing in the record, no evidence, no nothing -- allege nefarious shenanigans' schtick. Quite the good look there.

I know precisely what is allowed and not allowed in ex parte, chuckles.

When a counsel learns of cheap ass chickenshit maneuvers that are intentionally done to short circuit or done in contravention of a ruling -- the option of personal risk of ex parte is a real one.

When the government, having a ruling from SCOTUS of: a) you must provide notice; b) you must afford a hearing if wanted -- proceeds to pass out "Waivers of Removal" to the folks, in a language they dont read, to occur in under 18 hours, yeah, I might inform a judge of those chickenshit maneuvers even if it risked an ex parte sanction.

The mistake the ACLU guy did was he should have, immediately after the call, emailed the DOJ stating what his request was after learning about that chickenshit manuever that was being pulled.

Let the DOJ dude lie to the judge again at that point.

Incorrect. He should have immediately emailed/called the DOJ, and said they needed to approach the judge on this matter.

0-149

Either one can work, hoss.

When an attorney is working to stop an imminent violation of an order, there is a large amount of latitude afforded. Looks like not in this case.

When the counterparty is *already* on the hot seat for contempt for violating court orders, typically the trust issue in the counterparty is zero. Or as near zero as it can get.

Given the on the record evidence of previous lies ('the planes have already left US airspace'), and the tangible evidence of an existing order being circumvented in chickenshit fashion -- the respect accorded to the counterparty is, and should be, close to zero.

Given the record, I would seriously consider calling the judge. And then I would call the DOJ telling them that I had left a message and what the message was.

In a world where the DOJ isnt lying through its teeth, and where it isnt under a show cause for contempt for lying about judicial orders, and where it actually gives notice, and doesnt do the rest of the chickenshit moves described -- you would have a point.

None of the obove is met. Bummer.

(04-22-2025 11:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:59 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Why this hill to die on? I just don't get it

Which hill? The legal hill Tanq is dying on, or the MS-13 illegal who got due process and deported back to his own country hill?

The hill the democrat prog fill are immolating themselves on

Stupid filth lawyers, keep it up.

(04-22-2025 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:57 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The question is: is it proper to notify a judge that their order is being ignored?

The papers that his clients were being passed were waivers to removal, mind you. In English only. With no access to counsel. Sounds like an enormously chickenshit move by the Government.

yea yea.....backpeddle really fast there buddy.

maybe brush up on whats allowed in ex parte and look at what Boasberg did. That asshat is being really shifty about when and how he came about some info he ruled on. (Because it was ex parte and he knows he's not allowed to rule or make motions on it.)

Im always impressed by your 'when there is nothing in the record, no evidence, no nothing -- allege nefarious shenanigans' schtick. Quite the good look there.

I know precisely what is allowed and not allowed in ex parte, chuckles.

When a counsel learns of cheap ass chickenshit maneuvers that are intentionally done to short circuit or done in contravention of a ruling -- the option of personal risk of ex parte is a real one.

When the government, having a ruling from SCOTUS of: a) you must provide notice; b) you must afford a hearing if wanted -- proceeds to pass out "Waivers of Removal" to the folks, in a language they dont read, to occur in under 18 hours, yeah, I might inform a judge of those chickenshit maneuvers even if it risked an ex parte sanction.

The mistake the ACLU guy did was he should have, immediately after the call, emailed the DOJ stating what his request was after learning about that chickenshit manuever that was being pulled.

Let the DOJ dude lie to the judge again at that point.

Incorrect. He should have immediately emailed/called the DOJ, and said they needed to approach the judge on this matter.

0-149

Either one can work, hoss.

When an attorney is working to stop an imminent violation of an order, there is a large amount of latitude afforded. Looks like not in this case.

When the counterparty is *already* on the hot seat for contempt for violating court orders, typically the trust issue in the counterparty is zero. Or as near zero as it can get.

Given the on the record evidence of previous lies ('the planes have already left US airspace'), and the tangible evidence of an existing order being circumvented in chickenshit fashion -- the respect accorded to the counterparty is, and should be, close to zero.

Given the record, I would seriously consider calling the judge. And then I would call the DOJ telling them that I had left a message and what the message was.

In a world where the DOJ isnt lying through its teeth, and where it isnt under a show cause for contempt for lying about judicial orders, and where it actually gives notice, and doesnt do the rest of the chickenshit moves described -- you would have a point.

None of the obove is met. Bummer.

They werent even in the correct court of jurisdiction, bozo. But muh due process!

0-150

(04-22-2025 11:12 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:57 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  yea yea.....backpeddle really fast there buddy.

maybe brush up on whats allowed in ex parte and look at what Boasberg did. That asshat is being really shifty about when and how he came about some info he ruled on. (Because it was ex parte and he knows he's not allowed to rule or make motions on it.)

Im always impressed by your 'when there is nothing in the record, no evidence, no nothing -- allege nefarious shenanigans' schtick. Quite the good look there.

I know precisely what is allowed and not allowed in ex parte, chuckles.

When a counsel learns of cheap ass chickenshit maneuvers that are intentionally done to short circuit or done in contravention of a ruling -- the option of personal risk of ex parte is a real one.

When the government, having a ruling from SCOTUS of: a) you must provide notice; b) you must afford a hearing if wanted -- proceeds to pass out "Waivers of Removal" to the folks, in a language they dont read, to occur in under 18 hours, yeah, I might inform a judge of those chickenshit maneuvers even if it risked an ex parte sanction.

The mistake the ACLU guy did was he should have, immediately after the call, emailed the DOJ stating what his request was after learning about that chickenshit manuever that was being pulled.

Let the DOJ dude lie to the judge again at that point.

Incorrect. He should have immediately emailed/called the DOJ, and said they needed to approach the judge on this matter.

0-149

Either one can work, hoss.

When an attorney is working to stop an imminent violation of an order, there is a large amount of latitude afforded. Looks like not in this case.

When the counterparty is *already* on the hot seat for contempt for violating court orders, typically the trust issue in the counterparty is zero. Or as near zero as it can get.

Given the on the record evidence of previous lies ('the planes have already left US airspace'), and the tangible evidence of an existing order being circumvented in chickenshit fashion -- the respect accorded to the counterparty is, and should be, close to zero.

Given the record, I would seriously consider calling the judge. And then I would call the DOJ telling them that I had left a message and what the message was.

In a world where the DOJ isnt lying through its teeth, and where it isnt under a show cause for contempt for lying about judicial orders, and where it actually gives notice, and doesnt do the rest of the chickenshit moves described -- you would have a point.

None of the obove is met. Bummer.

They werent even in the correct court of jurisdiction, bozo. But muh due process!

0-150

Midterm Fuel

(04-22-2025 11:12 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:57 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  yea yea.....backpeddle really fast there buddy.

maybe brush up on whats allowed in ex parte and look at what Boasberg did. That asshat is being really shifty about when and how he came about some info he ruled on. (Because it was ex parte and he knows he's not allowed to rule or make motions on it.)

Im always impressed by your 'when there is nothing in the record, no evidence, no nothing -- allege nefarious shenanigans' schtick. Quite the good look there.

I know precisely what is allowed and not allowed in ex parte, chuckles.

When a counsel learns of cheap ass chickenshit maneuvers that are intentionally done to short circuit or done in contravention of a ruling -- the option of personal risk of ex parte is a real one.

When the government, having a ruling from SCOTUS of: a) you must provide notice; b) you must afford a hearing if wanted -- proceeds to pass out "Waivers of Removal" to the folks, in a language they dont read, to occur in under 18 hours, yeah, I might inform a judge of those chickenshit maneuvers even if it risked an ex parte sanction.

The mistake the ACLU guy did was he should have, immediately after the call, emailed the DOJ stating what his request was after learning about that chickenshit manuever that was being pulled.

Let the DOJ dude lie to the judge again at that point.

Incorrect. He should have immediately emailed/called the DOJ, and said they needed to approach the judge on this matter.

0-149

Either one can work, hoss.

When an attorney is working to stop an imminent violation of an order, there is a large amount of latitude afforded. Looks like not in this case.

When the counterparty is *already* on the hot seat for contempt for violating court orders, typically the trust issue in the counterparty is zero. Or as near zero as it can get.

Given the on the record evidence of previous lies ('the planes have already left US airspace'), and the tangible evidence of an existing order being circumvented in chickenshit fashion -- the respect accorded to the counterparty is, and should be, close to zero.

Given the record, I would seriously consider calling the judge. And then I would call the DOJ telling them that I had left a message and what the message was.

In a world where the DOJ isnt lying through its teeth, and where it isnt under a show cause for contempt for lying about judicial orders, and where it actually gives notice, and doesnt do the rest of the chickenshit moves described -- you would have a point.

None of the obove is met. Bummer.

They werent even in the correct court of jurisdiction, bozo. But muh due process!

0-150

Hendrix is the chief judge for the Northern District of Texas, and is in the Abilene Division -- where the Anson Bluebonnet facility is.

Ill let you guess where the reports of the Notice of Waiver and plans to deport came from, let alone where the deportees were located.

That is *after* the judge in the Southern District of Texas laid down a 'do not deport order', and *after* ICE moved the folks to Anson to avoid the local order. In short, ICE was playing procedural whack a mole. Imagine that.

Lolz. 'not in the correct jurisdiction'. Yep, the Northern District of Texas, Abilene Division is not the proper place when the folks are located in Abilene. Cool thought process there chuckles.

(04-22-2025 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 11:12 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:57 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im always impressed by your 'when there is nothing in the record, no evidence, no nothing -- allege nefarious shenanigans' schtick. Quite the good look there.

I know precisely what is allowed and not allowed in ex parte, chuckles.

When a counsel learns of cheap ass chickenshit maneuvers that are intentionally done to short circuit or done in contravention of a ruling -- the option of personal risk of ex parte is a real one.

When the government, having a ruling from SCOTUS of: a) you must provide notice; b) you must afford a hearing if wanted -- proceeds to pass out "Waivers of Removal" to the folks, in a language they dont read, to occur in under 18 hours, yeah, I might inform a judge of those chickenshit maneuvers even if it risked an ex parte sanction.

The mistake the ACLU guy did was he should have, immediately after the call, emailed the DOJ stating what his request was after learning about that chickenshit manuever that was being pulled.

Let the DOJ dude lie to the judge again at that point.

Incorrect. He should have immediately emailed/called the DOJ, and said they needed to approach the judge on this matter.

0-149

Either one can work, hoss.

When an attorney is working to stop an imminent violation of an order, there is a large amount of latitude afforded. Looks like not in this case.

When the counterparty is *already* on the hot seat for contempt for violating court orders, typically the trust issue in the counterparty is zero. Or as near zero as it can get.

Given the on the record evidence of previous lies ('the planes have already left US airspace'), and the tangible evidence of an existing order being circumvented in chickenshit fashion -- the respect accorded to the counterparty is, and should be, close to zero.

Given the record, I would seriously consider calling the judge. And then I would call the DOJ telling them that I had left a message and what the message was.

In a world where the DOJ isnt lying through its teeth, and where it isnt under a show cause for contempt for lying about judicial orders, and where it actually gives notice, and doesnt do the rest of the chickenshit moves described -- you would have a point.

None of the obove is met. Bummer.

They werent even in the correct court of jurisdiction, bozo. But muh due process!

0-150

Hendrix is the chief judge for the Northern District of Texas, and is in the Abilene Division -- where the Anson Bluebonnet facility is.

Ill let you guess where the reports of the Notice of Waiver and plans to deport came from, let alone where the deportees were located.

That is *after* the judge in the Southern District of Texas laid down a 'do not deport order', and *after* ICE moved the folks to Anson to avoid the local order. In short, ICE was playing procedural whack a mole. Imagine that.

Lolz. 'not in the correct jurisdiction'. Yep, the Northern District of Texas, Abilene Division is not the proper place when the folks are located in Abilene. Cool thought process there chuckles.

We're talking Boasberg here. Hendrix didnt allow this ex parte sh*t to fly.

(04-22-2025 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The question is: is it proper to notify a judge that their order is being ignored?

The papers that his clients were being passed were waivers to removal, mind you. In English only. With no access to counsel. Sounds like an enormously chickenshit move by the Government.

It may very well be an improper ex parte communication. And the calculus is whether to risk contempt to get the chickenshit move in front of the court.

The absolute lunacy of this statement is your whole legalese career in a microcosm.

Clearly lacks a moral compass. Twist and manipulate until common folks can no longer even comprehend what is happening.

Cool Cool

With all due respect to Stinky, I don't know who's harder to read, Stinky or Tanq. One speak in Martian and the other in Legalese which I think is spoken in a country in the South Pacific.

(04-22-2025 01:01 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-22-2025 10:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The question is: is it proper to notify a judge that their order is being ignored?

The papers that his clients were being passed were waivers to removal, mind you. In English only. With no access to counsel. Sounds like an enormously chickenshit move by the Government.

It may very well be an improper ex parte communication. And the calculus is whether to risk contempt to get the chickenshit move in front of the court.

The absolute lunacy of this statement is your whole legalese career in a microcosm.

Clearly lacks a moral compass. Try to Twist and manipulate until common folks can no longer even comprehend what is happening.

Cool Cool

Fify

I dont read that drivel