In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey
Butane in my veins and I'm out to cut the junkie
With the plastic eyeballs, spray-paint the vegetables
Dog food stalls with the beefcake pantyhose

Kill the headlights and put it in neutral
Stock car flamin' with a loser and the cruise control
Baby's in Reno with the vitamin D
Got a couple of couches, sleep on the love-seat

Someone came in sayin' I'm insane to complain
About a shotgun wedding and a stain on my shirt
Don't believe everything that you breathe
You get a parking violation and a maggot on your sleeve
So shave your face with some mace in the dark
Savin' all your food stamps and burnin' down the trailer park
Yo, cut it

Soy un perdedor

Why is this guy protected like Epstein?

(07-24-2025 11:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 08:24 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  You're still losing and you still didn't answer the question.

I guess you didn’t understand, my friend. In *this* cause of action re: Abrego, they have not. As opposed to at least them doing so in three other causes of action *just* regarding Abrego.

Capiche?

Quote:Your attempts to project and attribute positions or statements to me that I have not declared are weak and morally bankrupt and roll off me like beads of water.

I guess you failed to note your attempts to project inaccurate positions to me. Imagine that.

The rest of my post simply stands as a stark counterpoint to your thin complaints about judges ripping the Constitution. I’m sorry they *apply* the Constitution to your employer. Bummer for your employer.

Your support for activist judges who rule on the basis of their personal advocacy and not the law or Constitution is duly noted. And your losses continue to stack up.

(07-24-2025 11:31 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 08:24 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  You're still losing and you still didn't answer the question.

I guess you didn’t understand, my friend. In *this* cause of action re: Abrego, they have not. As opposed to at least them doing so in three other causes of action *just* regarding Abrego.

Capiche?

Quote:Your attempts to project and attribute positions or statements to me that I have not declared are weak and morally bankrupt and roll off me like beads of water.

I guess you failed to note your attempts to project inaccurate positions to me. Imagine that.

The rest of my post simply stands as a stark counterpoint to your thin complaints about judges ripping the Constitution. I’m sorry they *apply* the Constitution to your employer. Bummer for your employer.

Your support for activist judges who rule on the basis of their personal advocacy and not the law or Constitution is duly noted. And your losses continue to stack up.

I imagine he decries activist SCOTUS justices. Funny how that works...

SCOTUS needs to be marginalized because of their decisions, but MY judges -- they're GREAT and should continue their fight!


lol

(07-24-2025 11:31 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 08:24 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  You're still losing and you still didn't answer the question.

I guess you didn’t understand, my friend. In *this* cause of action re: Abrego, they have not. As opposed to at least them doing so in three other causes of action *just* regarding Abrego.

Capiche?

Quote:Your attempts to project and attribute positions or statements to me that I have not declared are weak and morally bankrupt and roll off me like beads of water.

I guess you failed to note your attempts to project inaccurate positions to me. Imagine that.

The rest of my post simply stands as a stark counterpoint to your thin complaints about judges ripping the Constitution. I’m sorry they *apply* the Constitution to your employer. Bummer for your employer.

Your support for activist judges who rule on the basis of their personal advocacy and not the law or Constitution is duly noted. And your losses continue to stack up.

Coming from the guy who railed that an order simply detailing the basic prohibitions of the 4th amendment was such a 'rogue judge shredding the Constitution' (twice now, in fact), Ill take your statement of them 'rul[ing] on the basis of their personal advocacy' as just more of your thin rhetoric.

My support os for judges who apply the rule of law. End of story. As opposed to your continuous railing on any decision going against your employer's means of law enforcement as just more of that typical broad (and thin) rhetoric you employ. As much as you even do right above.

Yeah, terrible that one has to actually articulate a specific rationale on an individualized basis for a detention. As opposed 'he was a brown dude walking along'. The sheer horror. Its a miracle how such horrendous viewpoints could ever emanate from the bench.

(07-24-2025 11:53 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:31 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 08:24 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  You're still losing and you still didn't answer the question.

I guess you didn’t understand, my friend. In *this* cause of action re: Abrego, they have not. As opposed to at least them doing so in three other causes of action *just* regarding Abrego.

Capiche?

Quote:Your attempts to project and attribute positions or statements to me that I have not declared are weak and morally bankrupt and roll off me like beads of water.

I guess you failed to note your attempts to project inaccurate positions to me. Imagine that.

The rest of my post simply stands as a stark counterpoint to your thin complaints about judges ripping the Constitution. I’m sorry they *apply* the Constitution to your employer. Bummer for your employer.

Your support for activist judges who rule on the basis of their personal advocacy and not the law or Constitution is duly noted. And your losses continue to stack up.

I imagine he decries activist SCOTUS justices. Funny how that works...

SCOTUS needs to be marginalized because of their decisions, but MY judges -- they're GREAT and should continue their fight!


lol

As for your first comment -- yes, I do. I absolutely was an opponent of the Roe v Wade decision -- because it was made up out of whole cloth with no basis in the Constitution. So yes, I absolutely do do that when judges make a ruling wholly outside the words and precedents of the Constitution.

Im humored that standing for the traditional outlines of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments is now to be decried.

Im for any judge that supports those in the law bounds, and puts their foot down on activities by LE (any LE) that operates outside those bounds.

As opposed to your complaint above.

Ill bite -- please provide an example of my doing anything like the bolded above. Please be specific. Or is this just a generalized rant about what you *think* my position is (and if so, pretty much wholly incorrect, I might add....)

(07-24-2025 12:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:31 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 08:24 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  You're still losing and you still didn't answer the question.

I guess you didn’t understand, my friend. In *this* cause of action re: Abrego, they have not. As opposed to at least them doing so in three other causes of action *just* regarding Abrego.

Capiche?

Quote:Your attempts to project and attribute positions or statements to me that I have not declared are weak and morally bankrupt and roll off me like beads of water.

I guess you failed to note your attempts to project inaccurate positions to me. Imagine that.

The rest of my post simply stands as a stark counterpoint to your thin complaints about judges ripping the Constitution. I’m sorry they *apply* the Constitution to your employer. Bummer for your employer.

Your support for activist judges who rule on the basis of their personal advocacy and not the law or Constitution is duly noted. And your losses continue to stack up.

Coming from the guy who railed that an order simply detailing the basic prohibitions of the 4th amendment was such a 'rogue judge shredding the Constitution' (twice now, in fact), Ill take your statement of them 'rul[ing] on the basis of their personal advocacy' as just more of your thin rhetoric.

My support os for judges who apply the rule of law. End of story. As opposed to your continuous railing on any decision going against your employer's means of law enforcement as just more of that typical broad (and thin) rhetoric you employ. As much as you even do right above.

Yeah, terrible that one has to actually articulate a specific rationale on an individualized basis for a detention. As opposed 'he was a brown dude walking along'. The sheer horror. Its a miracle how such horrendous viewpoints could ever emanate from the bench.

You say the same lies, accusations, and innuendo that's already been fried into oblivion. Seems like one would get bored and tired.

Activism behind the bench is the exact 180 degree opposite of rule of law. LMAO. You would think you would know that. You say one thing out of one side of your mouth and advocate for the opposite on the other side. No one is fooled. Your shtick is lame and old and withering.

In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey
Butane in my veins and I'm out to cut the junkie
With the plastic eyeballs, spray-paint the vegetables
Dog food stalls with the beefcake pantyhose

Kill the headlights and put it in neutral
Stock car flamin' with a loser and the cruise control
Baby's in Reno with the vitamin D
Got a couple of couches, sleep on the love-seat

Someone came in sayin' I'm insane to complain
About a shotgun wedding and a stain on my shirt
Don't believe everything that you breathe
You get a parking violation and a maggot on your sleeve
So shave your face with some mace in the dark
Savin' all your food stamps and burnin' down the trailer park
Yo, cut it

Soy un perdedor
Tanq's a loser baby, so why don't you kill me?

159-0.

(07-24-2025 01:15 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 12:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:31 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 11:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2025 08:24 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  You're still losing and you still didn't answer the question.

I guess you didn’t understand, my friend. In *this* cause of action re: Abrego, they have not. As opposed to at least them doing so in three other causes of action *just* regarding Abrego.

Capiche?

Quote:Your attempts to project and attribute positions or statements to me that I have not declared are weak and morally bankrupt and roll off me like beads of water.

I guess you failed to note your attempts to project inaccurate positions to me. Imagine that.

The rest of my post simply stands as a stark counterpoint to your thin complaints about judges ripping the Constitution. I’m sorry they *apply* the Constitution to your employer. Bummer for your employer.

Your support for activist judges who rule on the basis of their personal advocacy and not the law or Constitution is duly noted. And your losses continue to stack up.

Coming from the guy who railed that an order simply detailing the basic prohibitions of the 4th amendment was such a 'rogue judge shredding the Constitution' (twice now, in fact), Ill take your statement of them 'rul[ing] on the basis of their personal advocacy' as just more of your thin rhetoric.

My support os for judges who apply the rule of law. End of story. As opposed to your continuous railing on any decision going against your employer's means of law enforcement as just more of that typical broad (and thin) rhetoric you employ. As much as you even do right above.

Yeah, terrible that one has to actually articulate a specific rationale on an individualized basis for a detention. As opposed 'he was a brown dude walking along'. The sheer horror. Its a miracle how such horrendous viewpoints could ever emanate from the bench.

You say the same lies, accusations, and innuendo that's already been fried into oblivion. Seems like one would get bored and tired.

Activism behind the bench is the exact 180 degree opposite of rule of law. LMAO. You would think you would know that. You say one thing out of one side of your mouth and advocate for the opposite on the other side. No one is fooled. Your shtick is lame and old and withering.

And you rely on the same old schtick of 'rawk -- judicial activism -- rawrk --- rogue judges --- rawrk -- pollyt want a cracker'. All the while studiously avoiding the decisions that simply outline the basic tenets of the 4th and 14th Amendment. And clamor about how anyone who disagrees with your 'judicial activism' is simply 'against the Trump agenda'.

I mean seriously, in the last one you acted even prior to the decision like it was the most unwarranted egregious decision ever, and respond to the very basic outline of what is in the ambit of the 4th amendment like it is kryptonite.

At every single step saying how the something that is the very basic outline of the 4th Amendment is such a horrendous piece of Constitution shredding, and deriding anyone who notes that is 'anti- agenda'.

Sounds fun there, my friend.

Honest question -- is there *any* portion of the Bill of Rights that you think is applicable? I mean, generalized stopping and detention obviously is not, so what other very basic precepts do *you* throw out the window in order to 'meet the agenda'?

And yeah, that very basic mismatch between what you say and what the basic precepts of the 4th are on display every single day on our streets -- with a bunch of folks in GI Joe commando gear with no fing idea what the BOR actually mandates doing what is being reported on pretty much every single day.

More lies. This is how I know your true colors and side. And you really suck at this.

I've never abdicated anyone dismissing the 4th amendment, so stop your little temper tantrum lies. I strongly challenge the premise that when a LE officer who just sat in a meeting with other LE partners, received an intelligence briefing about a specific location, and then the plan is to locate, identify, and apprehend a criminally convicted individual inside the United States at a xyz place a business is considered unconstitutional based on activism based rulings simply because one ideologically motivated judge says picking up said someone at xyz business constitutes racial profiling. It's a judge taking what is otherwise a legitimate and lawful operation and saying if you do it x location or against y race its automatically a violation of the Constitution because "I the judge said so" completely and unilaterally dismissing the tenets of the Constitution and rule of law.

So, you have an opportunity here again that if you believe immigration enforcement are not already beholden to the 4th Amendment and that it is ok to say if you have brown skin or if you're picked up at a specific place of business then an officer is automatically violating the Constitution then back it up. Make the friendly bet with me that whoever loses goes away for the remainder of the year. Put your fat false accusatory mouth where you money is.

Forget the bet. Let's have a vote.

I vote to keep TIBL! lol

170-0

(07-24-2025 03:19 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Forget the bet. Let's have a vote.

I vote to keep TIBL! lol

Aye

(07-24-2025 02:01 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  More lies. This is how I know your true colors and side. And you really suck at this.

I've never abdicated anyone dismissing the 4th amendment, so stop your little temper tantrum lies. I strongly challenge the premise that when a LE officer who just sat in a meeting with other LE partners, received an intelligence briefing about a specific location, and then the plan is to locate, identify, and apprehend a criminally convicted individual inside the United States at a xyz place a business is considered unconstitutional based on activism based rulings simply because one ideologically motivated judge says picking up said someone at xyz business constitutes racial profiling.

First, you might notice then that the orders rendered dont affect the above.

Second, you also might notice that the US government never bothers to include those facts in either their briefings, or in response to direct questions from the judges.

If that is the case, then I suggest y'all actually inform the judges of those efforts.

But somehow you all dont bother with the step of actually telling the judges that background. Which then seemingly engenders yo to go go on a tirade about shredding the Constitution.

If the above are the facts present, heres a hint: when you use those those facts you dont get your alls asses singed with the rulings that happen.

Quote:It's a judge taking what is otherwise a legitimate and lawful operation and saying if you do it x location or against y race its automatically a violation of the Constitution because "I the judge said so" completely and unilaterally dismissing the tenets of the Constitution and rule of law.

Nope. See above.

Quote:So, you have an opportunity here again that if you believe immigration enforcement are not already beholden to the 4th Amendment and that it is ok to say if you have brown skin or if you're picked up at a specific place of business then an officer is automatically violating the Constitution then back it up.

Your attorneys are arguing that it is proper to generalize that. And the judges notice that.

Your attorneys are *not* making the case you note above. Far from it.

You say oodles and oodles of intelligence. Then flipping show the judge some of that work -- and when you do your employer *wont* get excoriated.

The case being made *to* the judges is literally 'it is okay to generalize based on skin color, location, and job.'

Id suggest there is one humongous gap between the issues in front of the judges, and the facially proper case you make above. The judge cant, and wont, magically infer that other mound of information. Bummer on that. But leave it to you to expect the judge to include a mound of other information that isnt presented by your legal folks, and leave it to you to rail about 'rogue judges' when that happens.

Quote:Make the friendly bet with me that whoever loses goes away for the remainder of the year. Put your fat false accusatory mouth where you money is.

Read the paragraph above, my friend.

Again, hate to to tell you the issues you put into the post above are *not* the pictures that are being presented in court.

In fact, when asked specifically about 'what other measures went into detaining *this* particular person, the ICE attorneys sit around mumbling vague generalities that dont even approach your depiction above.

If you do have that particularized intelligence, my suggestion is to denote that to the federal judge when asked. It helps immensely.

I’m sorry but you’re still side stepping the issue. No not sorry and you’re still not willing to back up your stance. Just more gibberish. And that issue is a judge is declaring regardless of this specific case that in all cases ICE can’t conduct operations at certain business or against certain colors of skin and proclaiming basically that any arrest in LA no matter how much evidence exists is a Constitutional violation. And that’s why this will lose on the merits eventually through the appeal process.

Moreover. a district judge is not entitled to classified intelligence nor should a decision be rendered because attorneys are unwilling to reveal sources and methods. If these were US citizens then maybe that becomes an issue but they are not where a decision has to be made on whether to use. or not to use in a case. That does happen with immigration judges who are cleared but it is not a within the purview of this judge. They are illegal aliens in the country illegally with other criminal records.

Put up or shut up.

(07-24-2025 05:29 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I’m sorry but you’re still side stepping the issue. No not sorry and you’re still not willing to back up your stance. Just more gibberish. And that issue is a judge is declaring regardless of this specific case that in all cases ICE can’t conduct operations at certain business or against certain colors of skin and proclaiming basically that any arrest in LA no matter how much evidence exists is a Constitutional violation. And that’s why this will lose on the merits eventually through the appeal process.

Bolded is a wholly incorrect comment on what the order details.

The order says, you *must* have *some* particularized knowledge of illegality of someone on an *individual* basis.

And if you *only* have a) 'brown skin', b) generalized location, c) generalized type of work --- none of them alone give rise to a valid 4th amendment detention. And
none of them by themselves in combination with one another do it.

That is, if the reason is 'a latin is at car wash, and working at the car wash' -- that is not sufficient for either a true detention *or* a Terry-style stop.

If you add other stuff in, then depending on the that other stuff, that might work.

Quote:Moreover. a district judge is not entitled to classified intelligence nor should a decision be rendered because attorneys are unwilling to reveal sources and methods.

And when your attorneys simply generally mumble the generalized term 'intelligence' -- no that isnt anywhere near enough to get over the 4th amendment hurdle.

And when your attorneys say vague generalities, I wouldnt scream 'thrashing the Constitution'. Sorry, this is a 'show your work' style of justice system. Always has been.

Quote: If these were US citizens then maybe that becomes an issue but they are not where a decision has to be made on whether to use. or not to use in a case. That does happen with immigration judges who are cleared but it is not a within the purview of this judge. They are illegal aliens in the country illegally with other criminal records.

See above. I dont subscribe to the world of 'say the secret passcode and get a freebie pass'.

Quote:Put up or shut up.

Im not the one saying 'we have intelligence, but we never have to show it, and that allows us an insto-presto pass around the 4th Amendment.' You are.

When the government doesnt show proof of a substantial basis of specific articulable suspicion of an event -- they dont get the keyhole past the the 4th amendment as a freebie.

If they have it, and dont show it -- same result.

The end result is the same -- the judge asks them what specific issue led to an individualized articulable suspicion to detain the dude, and when the attonrney simply blathers vage generalities -- you get judges issuing rulings like you just saw.

And when your side doesnt bother to put up any facts of a substantial basis for a specific articulable suspicion of an event, it looks pretty stupid to argue that judge is thrashing the Constitution.

Im not making a comment whether whether the jackasses in the masks and sunglasses have that information to support a specific articulable suspicion -- my suggestion is if they have it as you broadly claim, then when pressed they need to tell the judge. And if they dont -- they are going to get a raft of rulings just like the SD ruling. Bummer.


Again -- show your work. Kind of 4th amendment basics when the rubber meets the road. And no, there is no 'extra special golden ICE rule where all ICE has to do is shown up and not give a judge anything' rule.

And I dont think that will pan out for the more and more US citizens that are now being detained by these yahoos as an extension of the subject, which is yet *another* indication of something really lacking in the process.

^ dude loves a beatdown. I dont even read that drivel

(07-24-2025 05:29 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I’m sorry but you’re still side stepping the issue. No not sorry and you’re still not willing to back up your stance. Just more gibberish. And that issue is a judge is declaring regardless of this specific case that in all cases ICE can’t conduct operations at certain business or against certain colors of skin and proclaiming basically that any arrest in LA no matter how much evidence exists is a Constitutional violation. And that’s why this will lose on the merits eventually through the appeal process.

Moreover. a district judge is not entitled to classified intelligence nor should a decision be rendered because attorneys are unwilling to reveal sources and methods. If these were US citizens then maybe that becomes an issue but they are not where a decision has to be made on whether to use. or not to use in a case. That does happen with immigration judges who are cleared but it is not a within the purview of this judge. They are illegal aliens in the country illegally with other criminal records.

Put up or shut up.

"I’m sorry but you’re still side stepping the issue"

I call it Tap Dancing and he's not very good at it either.

He's still applying the same precedents for trial cases for U.S. citizens in cases for illegal aliens. When an alien goes before an immigration judge sometimes classified information is required. A single district judge has no authority to determine what factors immigration enforcement agents can use to determine whether someone is in the U.S. illegally or compel DOJ or DHS to provide this information. This is why this ruling will be eviscerated on appeal. The ruling which prohibits agents from stopping and detaining individuals solely based on factors like race, ethnicity, language, accent, location, or occupation is already law. But the enactment of this specific injunction allows ACLU to claim every single arrest in this area that is 90% latino is automatically a violation of the judges ruling.

Want the proof this is f'n stupidity on steroids? If what tanq and this judge is saying is happening hundreds even thousands of American citizens would be getting arrested every day. But shockingly it's not happening. How can than be if agents are just riding around indiscriminate rolling up people they think "looks like an illegal."? Obvious answer is obvious. Except for tanq