Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

2nd World Nation wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

They won't find out.

quote]

I agree with your prediction. However, there is another angle that Trumpsters have taken for granted. With these trade wars and other draconian policies he is in fact isolating the US from global affairs and can only stand to lose support from all sides. Lets not forget that he couldn't have won without at least some support from the GOP and indifference from world leaders. People want to think he did it all by himself but he had the political machine behind him in the end and a cluster of tactical people like Bannon working directly for him. Those people are mostly gone and the GOP has been hoping from court to bench more than before. These recent landslide Democrat victories are going to force Republicans to distance themselves publicly from the Orange One if they want to retain their positions. The pendulum must swing back, and it appears to be happening sooner than many may have expected. Whereas Trump was once associated with strength, patriotism and decisiveness he will be associated with recklessness, incompetence and lack of knowledge. It happens to all Presidents, it is always only downhill from day 1 at the office.

Trump is taking the US on a path to second world nation status. China is the new #1 power in the world. That has been slowly coming for some time now. Trump is accelerating it.

I expect Trumpsters to chime in and tell us how the US is still #1 and always remain #1. That have zero knowledge of the history of #1 powers in the world. No country has ever maintained that level forever.

Q. Recognizing that your memory of those three is fuzzy, do you recall any discussion in any of them about whether judges should handle cases involving children differently and, if so, how?

A. So in the representation of children and their interests, this one was designed to identify what pro bono resources were available and what representation resources were available. It was designed to cover what child advocate resources were available to cover bests interests. It was also designed to basically give an idea, for lack of a better word, a cafeteria approach of what is out there and who is out there in the community that focuses their work on children's cases.

Q. So what about what judges should do differently, was there any discussion of that on these panels that you can recall?

A. The reason I put this one together was I wanted the judges to know what is in their toolbox.

Q. I'm not just talking about that one. I'm talking about decidedly different. It may be confusing. Even if you include the two decidedly different ones -- let's talk about those. Was there any discussion in there, in those panels, about what judges should do differently?

A. I mean, in the sense that I see child advocates is in there, so obviously that's something judges are going to do differently.

Q. What else?

A. I think Frank Travieso spoke largely about best practices in handling the cases, many of the recommendations that were in the OPPM 07-01, things that he was doing in his court to ensure the fairness, probably kind of a practical experience.

Q. Do you recall if the OPPM 07-01 was discussed?

A. I believe it was, but I can't say with absolute certainty.

Q. So they're still training on the

contents of 07-01 in April 2015; is that right?

A. Yeah. 07-01 is still in place, and I think what's being trained on is the techniques. And really the idea is to pull together all of the tools and resources and information that a judge can use to assess in an individual case what is available to me. So Steve would talk, for example, about justice AmeriCorps so that judges knew do I have a respondent that that does cover or would know if they want to consider whether a child advocate is appropriate, what is a child advocate, how do I get a child advocate, what is a difference between child advocate and a legal advocate. That's really what the discussions were, what is available that you can use. In addition to 07-01 is some things, and you can reach out to them to make sure the hearing is fair.

Q. The one from the morning on Friday Proceed or Not To Proceed: In Absentia, Continuances and Administrative Closure. You were listed as one of the presenters on that.

A. Um-hum.

Q. Do you remember what that panel was about?

A. Yeah. It looked at whether to -- if a child doesn't show up, whether to proceed in the child's absence if DHS made a request to proceed in absentia. Q. Can you tell me what the content of the training was in that regard?

A. Yes. That one I do remember. We covered the requirements for proceeding in absentia. We covered verifying the notice to appear was served on the child, verifying that the notice of the hearing was correct and accurate, whether there were circumstances to explain why the child did not show up. We looked at the requirement of that even if the child did not show up and the judge did proceed to go in the case, the DHS had the burden of proving the allegations and charges. It's not just don't show up and go forward.

Q. You mean by that that the DHS has to that before the absentia order is entered?

A. Right. There's no default judgment, right. There's still a burden of proof that needs to be established in the case.

Q. The audience of this would have been judges?

A. With juvenile dockets.

Q. Did you also discuss service issues?

A. Yes.

Q. What was discussed about that?

A. We talked about the requirements, the recent case regarding -- it's not so recent anymore -- regarding proper service on a child.

Q. What case was that?

A. I don't remember the name. It's a Board

of Immigration Appeals. Let me go back. That's not correct. I'm confusing with the case on service of mental competence.

Q. Is it Cougar Cruz?

A. I'm really bad. As long as I've been doing immigration cases, I'm not good at remembering the names. I can get the law right which is important. We talked about making sure the child was served with the notice to appear because it's important the child be aware of the allegations and the charges.

Q. Do you also train on a requirement that the EOIR custodian receive service?

A. A requirement? Am I training that ORR must receive service of the notice?

Q. In any cases, yes.

A. No. I don't train that ORR must receive service.

Q. I take it the ORR custodian is required to receive service?

MR. SILVIS: Is this a training issue? I want clarification on the question. Are we still talking about training or just talking about DOJ broader?

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. You can answer the question if you understand it.

MR. SILVIS: We'll just object, outside of the topic. So answer for yourself.

A. I am aware that DHS does serve in some cases the notice to appear on ORR.

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. But you don't train that that's ever a requirement; is that right?

A. No. I don't train that you must serve a child's notice to appear on ORR.

Q. That's because it is your understanding that there is no such requirement; is that correct?

MR. SILVIS: Same objection.

A. My training is that you have to have real service notice, that a person must be aware of the allegations and charges against them. And so if ORR, for example, was served with a notice to appear and the child does not recall receiving it or the child did not recall getting it, that's what our training would be concerned. So I would not teach that you must serve ORR. What I'm concerned is that the child is getting proper service, do they really know what is going on, what the proceeding is about.

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. Do you train that's the rule regardless of the age of the child?

A. All respondents, yes. I think all respondents for a fundamentally fair hearing need to be advised of the allegations and the charges that are pending against them. The way we do that is by serving a notice to appear, but then there's also the legal requirement in the regulations that the judge must explain the allegations in plain language that the respondent can understand.

Q. It must be true that there's some children that are so young that even if they receive the notice and even if they're given an explanation by the judge, they're still not going to understand what's going on; right?

A. I have to do a case-by-case basis determination. I've taught immigration law literally to three year olds and four year olds. takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of patience. They get it. It's not the most efficient, but it can be done.

Q. I understand that you think it can be done. Are you aware of any experts in child psychology or comparable experts who agree with the assessment that three and fou year olds can be taught immigration law?

A. I haven't read any studies one way or another.

Q. What about like a one year old?

A. I mean, I think there's a point that there has to be communication. There has to be communication at some point.

Q. So what do you train judges as to cases in which communication is impossible because the child is too young?

A. What we train is if a respondent, child or adult, cannot perform functions necessary for the hearing to be fair, the judge should not proceed.

Q. That's true regardless of whether there's some other individual who may be able to understand the proceeding?

A. What is required at that point is safeguards and protections. So if the respondent is not able to perform a function required in the proceeding, if the judge cannot find a safeguard or protection that's available to make sure the hearing is fair, then the judge -- we tell them not to proceed. We don't tell them how not to proceed. In other words, I don't say continue the case or admin close the case or terminate the case. What we teach them to do is basically state that due to these issues, I do not believe that the respondent can perform functions needed for the hearing to be fair. I've evaluated safeguards and protections. And either state that the safeguard and protection is adequate, or if the judge feels it's not adequate, just state so and explain what safeguards and protections were considered and why they believe that even with that safeguard or protection, the proceeding is not fair. The reason partly we did it this way is because when the judges were administratively closing or terminating the cases for these reasons and the case went back went up to the Board of Immigration Appeals, it came back on a remand saying the judge failed to explain what safeguards and protections were considered and why the judge concluded they were inadequate. It's kind of a multiple step analysis.

Q. Do you know what case you're talking about, the name or date, that went up to the Board and came back on a remand? You're talking about a case involving a child; right?

A. No. I'm talking about the mental competency context that when the judges failed to articulate the safeguards and protections, it came back. In the case of a child, I'm sure the same thing is going to happen. You can't just make a statement I'm terminating because I don't think it can be fair. The Board is going to require you to go through that extra step of considering safeguards and protections.

Q. I want to come back to this issue of proceeding with safeguards. I was originally asking in the context of service. I wanted to tie the issue up on that. Imagine a case where a child, even though they received service, they still are not capable of understanding or recalling sufficiently for the service to be effective. In a case like that, can service on the ORR or ORR custodian satisfy the service rules?

MR. SILVIS: I'll object to the scope. It's outside the topics.

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. I'm asking that question in the context of how you train.

A. Will service on ORR --

Q. They're the custodian.

A. Can you repeat it again.

(The record was read back.)

MR. SILVIS: Same objection.

A. There's two parts of the question, service on ORR or the ORR custodian. So I think there's custodians and there's custodians. I'm not sure that service on all custodians in my mind or for training purposes as an immigration judge -- I think it would depend on the custodian and who the custodian is, whether that was an effective safeguard, protection or proper service deemed legally sufficient for the hearing to be fair. With regard to ORR --

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. I was talking about while the child was in ORR custody obviously.

A. You said custodian. You mean ORR is the custodian?

Q. Right, if ORR is the custodian, which is often the case, where the child is in ORR custody or if the child is released to a custodian that is somebody who ORR has designated.

A. I think there's custodians and there's custodians. There's custodians that are going to -- that you're going to speak to the custodian and find out whether that's an effective safeguard and protection. Is it a parent? What is the capabilities of that person? Is that sufficient? With regard to ORR, just serving the notice on ORR without any indication as to whether the child has received it or is aware of it, that would not be my training that would be sufficient service.

Q. Earlier when we were talking about a case --

A. Let me say one thing, and I specifically recall having trained on that --

Q. On that being?

A. Service on ORR. If the notice to appear is served on ORR and then the child is in proceedings, then I think you need actual service, meaningful service, and I know that that -- because I specifically recall training on that and making that statement.

Q. Earlier when we were talking, you had referred to a case about mental health cases in the context of describing the Board reversing an immigration judge's decision that failed to describe certain safeguards. Do you recall that testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you think that analogy between children's cases and mental health cases is relevant when assessing what safeguards should be required to ensure that there's a fairing hearing?

MR. SILVIS: Object to the topic. Outside the scope.

A. No. I think what is relevant is functionalities and factors that impairs one's ability to function in a manner that is required for the hearing to be fair. But I don't think there's an analogy between a person with a mental disorder and a child as far as a correlation between the functionalities. We're talking about, about two different types of impairments. I don't think that's accurate to say impairments. I think it's two different -- what we're talking about really is different factors that may affect the person's ability to function.

Q. When you do training, because I know you do training on both sets of topics --

A. Right, right.

Q. -- do you use mental health procedures and practices that you have implemented in that context to describe what immigration judges should do in cases involving children?

A. No. We use that same functionality analysis that I talked about. Really the trainings are separate. So you will see we don't do training on children and mental health because I think they're very different. There are different reasons. And the mental health requires a predicate mental disorder. There's no evidence these children have a mental disorder. That's why I say I think we matured in our assessment of these cases and why I think 07-01 would be written differently because I think what we learned is we take the respondent and you look at the respondent and you look at the respondent's ability to function and see what they can perform and what they cannot perform and the impact of their inability to perform on fairness. And we look at the impairment. And some impairments -- some people can proceed with impairment if the impairment doesn't affect the fundamental fairness of the proceeding. So I think that general analysis in that if you find that the impairment does not affect the fairness, then you proceed. If the impairment does affect the fairness, then you look for safeguards and protections. That's really the overarching analysis that I encourage with vulnerable populations. That's why I say I think we have a better framework now to be able to assess how an impairment, regardless of the cause. Even language ability or the fact that we can't find the exact interpreter, it's the same thing. If we don't have a good interpreter and that impairs the respondent's ability to function, if we can't get that exact dialect -- sometimes having a different dialect may not impair, other times it does. That's why I say that we'd kind of redo the way we do things sometimes based upon the knowledge and experience.

Q. So in some cases within that framework, the safeguard needed to ensure that the proceeding is fair is counsel; correct?

MR. SILVIS: Objection.

A. It's one that can be considered. That's why 07-01 and all these other things, the child advocate, I think together -- in the training we try to give a tool kit so that you can find the resource that you believe is necessary and that is the appropriate safeguard and protection in that case.

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. So you would train that then sometimes judges should take steps to ensure representation for a child because that safeguard is needed to ensure the child has a fair hearing?

MR. SILVIS: Objection. Outside the topics.

A. So we start with the supposition that judges should always encourage where possible pro bono representatives. We always want -- in all cases to the extent possible, we would like the respondents to be represented.

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. Why is that?

A. It's much more effective. It makes a much more efficient, effective proceeding. Using the example that I mentioned, could I explain immigration concepts to a preschool class of three year olds and four year olds? Yes, but it took me a long, long time to do it. And so having a representative that can do a lot of work -- it's my obligation to make sure the hearing is fair, but if there's somebody that can do part of that work for me, it makes my life a whole lot easier. That doesn't mean --

Q. You were saying that you encourage pro bono representation as a general matter.

A. Um-hum.

Q. But do you also then train that in the context of children's cases that sometimes the safeguard needed to ensure that the hearing is fair is counsel?

A. In all cases we say that a safeguard and protection should be considered is representation, and we work hard to try to make as many pro bono resources available. We will ask the judge if they believe that in a particular child's case, if there is no pro bono representative available, to reach out to the Office of Legal Access Programs to see if we can get help for the child in that circumstance.

Q. Would you train that there may be some cases where the only appropriate safeguards in order to ensure there's a fair hearing is either representation or stopping the hearing?

A. We've never trained on that one way or another. My goal is to really get a match. What is the ability to function and then you pick. I would never dictate to judges in a particular case you must use this safeguard or protection in every case. I have to be mindful. I want them to be trained. I want them to understand. I want them to have that analysis and to do that analysis and articulate it so the case doesn't come back. I want them to know what resources are available. But I can't cross the line into telling them how to handle particular cases or order particular safeguards and protections in every case.

Q. And I take it that's true of EOIR as a general matter, you can't dictate how the judges actually implement safeguards in any particular case; is that right?

MR. SILVIS: Same objection.

A. Correct, I believe.

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. Let me put one more set of exhibits into the record and ask you quickly about them. This is 13, I believe. It's a document that at the top it says "2015 EOIR Legal Training Program Course Descriptions." Do you see that?

A. Yes.

(Exhibit 13 was marked.)

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. Do you recognize this course description?

A. I do.

Q. What is it?

A. It is a list of course descriptions of courses that were done in the 2015 EOIR legal training program for judges. And just so you're not misled, I should explain the purpose of this document because it's probably not what you're thinking the purpose was. This was prepared as part of the an application to get continuing legal education for these courses. It is meant to provide enough information so that the Office of Legal Education when they went to the various state bars could assess whether CLE credit was justified, whether there was enough legal content. It's not meant to be an actual description beyond CLE purposes of what was covered or what was needed. There could be variance because this was prepared in advance of the conference because we have CLE deadlines. So as far as its accuracy as actually saying this is what's described so that's exactly what was covered, I can't say that. It was a supporting documentation for CLE documentation.

Q. This conference that this was submitted in advance for happened in August; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. On the second page, which is EOIR260,

down at the bottom there's "Child Development and Eliciting Accurate Information from Child Witnesses." Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. You presented on the panel on that subject with Dr. Mack; is that correct?

A. No. I was the moderator.

Q. Do you remember the content of that?

A. I was a moderator. To get CLE you have to have an attorney on the panel to ask legal questions. He presented. And it was basically identical to his presentation. The presentation at the other one we looked at from Dr. Mack was so effective that we invited him back again.

Q. How did you measure its effectiveness?

A. By comments of the attendees and people ask for copies of his slides, which unfortunately -- I shouldn't say unfortunately. Actually, it was included as part of the training CD from this program.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Here's context. I've highlighted this person's claims on teaching immigration law to Pre-K children so you can see the "context" of his comments. He states this twice, by the way.

Q. Recognizing that your memory of those three is fuzzy, do you recall any discussion in any of them about whether judges should handle cases involving children differently and, if so, how?

A. So in the representation of children and their interests, this one was designed to identify what pro bono resources were available and what representation resources were available. It was designed to cover what child advocate resources were available to cover bests interests. It was also designed to basically give an idea, for lack of a better word, a cafeteria approach of what is out there and who is out there in the community that focuses their work on children's cases.

Q. So what about what judges should do differently, was there any discussion of that on these panels that you can recall?

A. The reason I put this one together was I wanted the judges to know what is in their toolbox.

Q. I'm not just talking about that one. I'm talking about decidedly different. It may be confusing. Even if you include the two decidedly different ones -- let's talk about those. Was there any discussion in there, in those panels, about what judges should do differently?

A. I mean, in the sense that I see child advocates is in there, so obviously that's something judges are going to do differently.

Q. What else?

A. I think Frank Travieso spoke largely about best practices in handling the cases, many of the recommendations that were in the OPPM 07-01, things that he was doing in his court to ensure the fairness, probably kind of a practical experience.

Q. Do you recall if the OPPM 07-01 was discussed?

A. I believe it was, but I can't say with absolute certainty.

Q. So they're still training on the

contents of 07-01 in April 2015; is that right?

A. Yeah. 07-01 is still in place, and I think what's being trained on is the techniques. And really the idea is to pull together all of the tools and resources and information that a judge can use to assess in an individual case what is available to me. So Steve would talk, for example, about justice AmeriCorps so that judges knew do I have a respondent that that does cover or would know if they want to consider whether a child advocate is appropriate, what is a child advocate, how do I get a child advocate, what is a difference between child advocate and a legal advocate. That's really what the discussions were, what is available that you can use. In addition to 07-01 is some things, and you can reach out to them to make sure the hearing is fair.

Q. The one from the morning on Friday Proceed or Not To Proceed: In Absentia, Continuances and Administrative Closure. You were listed as one of the presenters on that.

A. Um-hum.

Q. Do you remember what that panel was about?

A. Yeah. It looked at whether to -- if a child doesn't show up, whether to proceed in the child's absence if DHS made a request to proceed in absentia. Q. Can you tell me what the content of the training was in that regard?

A. Yes. That one I do remember. We covered the requirements for proceeding in absentia. We covered verifying the notice to appear was served on the child, verifying that the notice of the hearing was correct and accurate, whether there were circumstances to explain why the child did not show up. We looked at the requirement of that even if the child did not show up and the judge did proceed to go in the case, the DHS had the burden of proving the allegations and charges. It's not just don't show up and go forward.

Q. You mean by that that the DHS has to that before the absentia order is entered?

A. Right. There's no default judgment, right. There's still a burden of proof that needs to be established in the case.

Q. The audience of this would have been judges?

A. With juvenile dockets.

Q. Did you also discuss service issues?

A. Yes.

Q. What was discussed about that?

A. We talked about the requirements, the recent case regarding -- it's not so recent anymore -- regarding proper service on a child.

Q. What case was that?

A. I don't remember the name. It's a Board

of Immigration Appeals. Let me go back. That's not correct. I'm confusing with the case on service of mental competence.

Q. Is it Cougar Cruz?

A. I'm really bad. As long as I've been doing immigration cases, I'm not good at remembering the names. I can get the law right which is important. We talked about making sure the child was served with the notice to appear because it's important the child be aware of the allegations and the charges.

Q. Do you also train on a requirement that the EOIR custodian receive service?

A. A requirement? Am I training that ORR must receive service of the notice?

Q. In any cases, yes.

A. No. I don't train that ORR must receive service.

Q. I take it the ORR custodian is required to receive service?

MR. SILVIS: Is this a training issue? I want clarification on the question. Are we still talking about training or just talking about DOJ broader?

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. You can answer the question if you understand it.

MR. SILVIS: We'll just object, outside of the topic. So answer for yourself.

A. I am aware that DHS does serve in some cases the notice to appear on ORR.

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. But you don't train that that's ever a requirement; is that right?

A. No. I don't train that you must serve a child's notice to appear on ORR.

Q. That's because it is your understanding that there is no such requirement; is that correct?

MR. SILVIS: Same objection.

A. My training is that you have to have real service notice, that a person must be aware of the allegations and charges against them. And so if ORR, for example, was served with a notice to appear and the child does not recall receiving it or the child did not recall getting it, that's what our training would be concerned. So I would not teach that you must serve ORR. What I'm concerned is that the child is getting proper service, do they really know what is going on, what the proceeding is about.

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. Do you train that's the rule regardless of the age of the child?

A. All respondents, yes. I think all respondents for a fundamentally fair hearing need to be advised of the allegations and the charges that are pending against them. The way we do that is by serving a notice to appear, but then there's also the legal requirement in the regulations that the judge must explain the allegations in plain language that the respondent can understand.

Q. It must be true that there's some children that are so young that even if they receive the notice and even if they're given an explanation by the judge, they're still not going to understand what's going on; right?

A. I have to do a case-by-case basis determination. I've taught immigration law literally to three year olds and four year olds. takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of patience. They get it. It's not the most efficient, but it can be done.

Q. I understand that you think it can be done. Are you aware of any experts in child psychology or comparable experts who agree with the assessment that three and fou year olds can be taught immigration law?

A. I haven't read any studies one way or another.

Q. What about like a one year old?

A. I mean, I think there's a point that there has to be communication. There has to be communication at some point.

Q. So what do you train judges as to cases in which communication is impossible because the child is too young?

A. What we train is if a respondent, child or adult, cannot perform functions necessary for the hearing to be fair, the judge should not proceed.

Q. That's true regardless of whether there's some other individual who may be able to understand the proceeding?

A. What is required at that point is safeguards and protections. So if the respondent is not able to perform a function required in the proceeding, if the judge cannot find a safeguard or protection that's available to make sure the hearing is fair, then the judge -- we tell them not to proceed. We don't tell them how not to proceed. In other words, I don't say continue the case or admin close the case or terminate the case. What we teach them to do is basically state that due to these issues, I do not believe that the respondent can perform functions needed for the hearing to be fair. I've evaluated safeguards and protections. And either state that the safeguard and protection is adequate, or if the judge feels it's not adequate, just state so and explain what safeguards and protections were considered and why they believe that even with that safeguard or protection, the proceeding is not fair. The reason partly we did it this way is because when the judges were administratively closing or terminating the cases for these reasons and the case went back went up to the Board of Immigration Appeals, it came back on a remand saying the judge failed to explain what safeguards and protections were considered and why the judge concluded they were inadequate. It's kind of a multiple step analysis.

Q. Do you know what case you're talking about, the name or date, that went up to the Board and came back on a remand? You're talking about a case involving a child; right?

A. No. I'm talking about the mental competency context that when the judges failed to articulate the safeguards and protections, it came back. In the case of a child, I'm sure the same thing is going to happen. You can't just make a statement I'm terminating because I don't think it can be fair. The Board is going to require you to go through that extra step of considering safeguards and protections.

Q. I want to come back to this issue of proceeding with safeguards. I was originally asking in the context of service. I wanted to tie the issue up on that. Imagine a case where a child, even though they received service, they still are not capable of understanding or recalling sufficiently for the service to be effective. In a case like that, can service on the ORR or ORR custodian satisfy the service rules?

MR. SILVIS: I'll object to the scope. It's outside the topics.

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. I'm asking that question in the context of how you train.

A. Will service on ORR --

Q. They're the custodian.

A. Can you repeat it again.

(The record was read back.)

MR. SILVIS: Same objection.

A. There's two parts of the question, service on ORR or the ORR custodian. So I think there's custodians and there's custodians. I'm not sure that service on all custodians in my mind or for training purposes as an immigration judge -- I think it would depend on the custodian and who the custodian is, whether that was an effective safeguard, protection or proper service deemed legally sufficient for the hearing to be fair. With regard to ORR --

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. I was talking about while the child was in ORR custody obviously.

A. You said custodian. You mean ORR is the custodian?

Q. Right, if ORR is the custodian, which is often the case, where the child is in ORR custody or if the child is released to a custodian that is somebody who ORR has designated.

A. I think there's custodians and there's custodians. There's custodians that are going to -- that you're going to speak to the custodian and find out whether that's an effective safeguard and protection. Is it a parent? What is the capabilities of that person? Is that sufficient? With regard to ORR, just serving the notice on ORR without any indication as to whether the child has received it or is aware of it, that would not be my training that would be sufficient service.

Q. Earlier when we were talking about a case --

A. Let me say one thing, and I specifically recall having trained on that --

Q. On that being?

A. Service on ORR. If the notice to appear is served on ORR and then the child is in proceedings, then I think you need actual service, meaningful service, and I know that that -- because I specifically recall training on that and making that statement.

Q. Earlier when we were talking, you had referred to a case about mental health cases in the context of describing the Board reversing an immigration judge's decision that failed to describe certain safeguards. Do you recall that testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you think that analogy between children's cases and mental health cases is relevant when assessing what safeguards should be required to ensure that there's a fairing hearing?

MR. SILVIS: Object to the topic. Outside the scope.

A. No. I think what is relevant is functionalities and factors that impairs one's ability to function in a manner that is required for the hearing to be fair. But I don't think there's an analogy between a person with a mental disorder and a child as far as a correlation between the functionalities. We're talking about, about two different types of impairments. I don't think that's accurate to say impairments. I think it's two different -- what we're talking about really is different factors that may affect the person's ability to function.

Q. When you do training, because I know you do training on both sets of topics --

A. Right, right.

Q. -- do you use mental health procedures and practices that you have implemented in that context to describe what immigration judges should do in cases involving children?

A. No. We use that same functionality analysis that I talked about. Really the trainings are separate. So you will see we don't do training on children and mental health because I think they're very different. There are different reasons. And the mental health requires a predicate mental disorder. There's no evidence these children have a mental disorder. That's why I say I think we matured in our assessment of these cases and why I think 07-01 would be written differently because I think what we learned is we take the respondent and you look at the respondent and you look at the respondent's ability to function and see what they can perform and what they cannot perform and the impact of their inability to perform on fairness. And we look at the impairment. And some impairments -- some people can proceed with impairment if the impairment doesn't affect the fundamental fairness of the proceeding. So I think that general analysis in that if you find that the impairment does not affect the fairness, then you proceed. If the impairment does affect the fairness, then you look for safeguards and protections. That's really the overarching analysis that I encourage with vulnerable populations. That's why I say I think we have a better framework now to be able to assess how an impairment, regardless of the cause. Even language ability or the fact that we can't find the exact interpreter, it's the same thing. If we don't have a good interpreter and that impairs the respondent's ability to function, if we can't get that exact dialect -- sometimes having a different dialect may not impair, other times it does. That's why I say that we'd kind of redo the way we do things sometimes based upon the knowledge and experience.

Q. So in some cases within that framework, the safeguard needed to ensure that the proceeding is fair is counsel; correct?

MR. SILVIS: Objection.

A. It's one that can be considered. That's why 07-01 and all these other things, the child advocate, I think together -- in the training we try to give a tool kit so that you can find the resource that you believe is necessary and that is the appropriate safeguard and protection in that case.

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. So you would train that then sometimes judges should take steps to ensure representation for a child because that safeguard is needed to ensure the child has a fair hearing?

MR. SILVIS: Objection. Outside the topics.

A. So we start with the supposition that judges should always encourage where possible pro bono representatives. We always want -- in all cases to the extent possible, we would like the respondents to be represented.

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. Why is that?

A. It's much more effective. It makes a much more efficient, effective proceeding. Using the example that I mentioned, could I explain immigration concepts to a preschool class of three year olds and four year olds? Yes, but it took me a long, long time to do it. And so having a representative that can do a lot of work -- it's my obligation to make sure the hearing is fair, but if there's somebody that can do part of that work for me, it makes my life a whole lot easier. That doesn't mean --

Q. You were saying that you encourage pro bono representation as a general matter.

A. Um-hum.

Q. But do you also then train that in the context of children's cases that sometimes the safeguard needed to ensure that the hearing is fair is counsel?

A. In all cases we say that a safeguard and protection should be considered is representation, and we work hard to try to make as many pro bono resources available. We will ask the judge if they believe that in a particular child's case, if there is no pro bono representative available, to reach out to the Office of Legal Access Programs to see if we can get help for the child in that circumstance.

Q. Would you train that there may be some cases where the only appropriate safeguards in order to ensure there's a fair hearing is either representation or stopping the hearing?

A. We've never trained on that one way or another. My goal is to really get a match. What is the ability to function and then you pick. I would never dictate to judges in a particular case you must use this safeguard or protection in every case. I have to be mindful. I want them to be trained. I want them to understand. I want them to have that analysis and to do that analysis and articulate it so the case doesn't come back. I want them to know what resources are available. But I can't cross the line into telling them how to handle particular cases or order particular safeguards and protections in every case.

Q. And I take it that's true of EOIR as a general matter, you can't dictate how the judges actually implement safeguards in any particular case; is that right?

MR. SILVIS: Same objection.

A. Correct, I believe.

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. Let me put one more set of exhibits into the record and ask you quickly about them. This is 13, I believe. It's a document that at the top it says "2015 EOIR Legal Training Program Course Descriptions." Do you see that?

A. Yes.

(Exhibit 13 was marked.)

BY MR. ARULANANTHAM:

Q. Do you recognize this course description?

A. I do.

Q. What is it?

A. It is a list of course descriptions of courses that were done in the 2015 EOIR legal training program for judges. And just so you're not misled, I should explain the purpose of this document because it's probably not what you're thinking the purpose was. This was prepared as part of the an application to get continuing legal education for these courses. It is meant to provide enough information so that the Office of Legal Education when they went to the various state bars could assess whether CLE credit was justified, whether there was enough legal content. It's not meant to be an actual description beyond CLE purposes of what was covered or what was needed. There could be variance because this was prepared in advance of the conference because we have CLE deadlines. So as far as its accuracy as actually saying this is what's described so that's exactly what was covered, I can't say that. It was a supporting documentation for CLE documentation.

Q. This conference that this was submitted in advance for happened in August; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. On the second page, which is EOIR260,

down at the bottom there's "Child Development and Eliciting Accurate Information from Child Witnesses." Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. You presented on the panel on that subject with Dr. Mack; is that correct?

A. No. I was the moderator.

Q. Do you remember the content of that?

A. I was a moderator. To get CLE you have to have an attorney on the panel to ask legal questions. He presented. And it was basically identical to his presentation. The presentation at the other one we looked at from Dr. Mack was so effective that we invited him back again.

Q. How did you measure its effectiveness?

A. By comments of the attendees and people ask for copies of his slides, which unfortunately -- I shouldn't say unfortunately. Actually, it was included as part of the training CD from this program.

Noticer of dominance wrote:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/new-filing-indicates-robert-mueller-may-have-new-collusion-evidence.html

I honestly think this ends with Trump screaming on TV, whether it's an official address to the public or an interview or whatever the hell it is (maybe like the Nixon interviews with Frost) --- anyway, it ends with Trump angrily saying that "Yes I worked with the Russians, and I did it to save you from Crooked Hillary!!!" Right-wing's nut-bar media (Fox, Sinclair, Jones, Gingrich, namely) keeps pushing, this Clinton angle that she was so f**king bad for society, for the country, that it doesn't really matter what happened to get Trump elected, the only thing that matters is that Trump got elected and Clinton didn't.

It feels (felt) like they are preparing their supporters for this, their viewers and listeners. Prepping them for the day that Trump just says "f*ck it" and admits it. BTW, if you hate yourself, go talk to a Trump supporter right now and flat-out ask them what they think. I'd say there is a 90% chance that they are OK with it. I'd say 99% chance they'd say they're okay with it if you also frame it as "Instead of Clinton" or bring up Clinton in some way. Clinton is basically a trigger-word for them. They're going to eat this up. The whole point of this rant is that "I did it to save you from Hillary" will be the end all and be all for the Disco Garys and jaminlopers and SMTC Bobs. It's going to be an unmitigated disaster, just like everything else this administration is involved with.