Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Count Chocula wrote:

Here is another story wrote:

Here is another story regarding severe government abuse. I is so bad that even a conservative like George Will was offended by the level of abuse by law enforcement.

WASHINGTON POST by George Will -- After two years of stonewalling about its theft of Gerardo Serrano's 2014 Ford F-250 pickup, the government suddenly returned it. It sparkled from having been washed and detailed, bumper to bumper, and it had four new tires and a new battery. The government probably hoped that, mollified by the truck's sprucing-up, Serrano would let bygones be bygones and go back to Kentucky. This was another mistake by our mistake-prone government.

Assisted by litigators from the Institute for Justice, whose appearance on the West Texas horizon probably panicked the government into pretending to be law-abiding, Serrano wants to make the government less larcenous and more constitutional when it is enriching itself through civil forfeiture.

On Sept. 21, 2015, Serrano drove up to the Eagle Pass, Texas, border crossing, intending to try to interest a Mexican cousin in expanding his solar panel installation business in the United States. To have mementos of his trip, he took some pictures of the border with his cellphone camera, which annoyed two U.S. Custom and Border Protection agents, who demanded the password to his phone. Serrano, who is what an American ought to be regarding his rights, prickly, refused to submit to such an unwarranted invasion of his privacy. One agent said he was "sick of hearing about your rights" and "you have no rights here." So, they searched his truck -- this was unusual for a vehicle leaving the country -- and one agent exclaimed, "We got him!"

Having found five .380-caliber bullets in the truck's center console -- he has a concealed-carry permit but had no weapon with him -- they handcuffed him and seized his truck under civil forfeiture, saying it had been used to transport "munitions of war." The next time someone warns about the potential for domestic abuse of supposed national security measures, do not dismiss him or her as a neurotic libertarian.

Civil forfeiture is the power to seize property suspected of being produced by, or involved in, crime. In this "Through the Looking-Glass," guilty-until-proven-innocent inversion, the property's owners bear the burden of proving that they were not involved in such activity, which can be a costly and protracted process as they must hire lawyers and do battle with a government wielding unlimited resources. Law enforcement agencies get to keep the profits from forfeited property, which gives them an incentive to do what too many of them do -- abuse the process. But, then, the process -- punishment before a crime is proven -- is inherently abusive.

The government seems mystified that Serrano will not leave bad enough alone, and drive away. It says he got his truck back after a mere 25 months, so "there is no longer any case or controversy." Serrano says, let me count the ways I have been injured by "thugs with badges."

Before the government would deign to promise (falsely, it turned out) to give him due process -- to allow him to request a judicial hearing -- it extorted from Serrano a bond of 10 percent of the truck's value ($3,804.99). The government quickly cashed his check (not until the IJ cavalry rode in did he get his money back). The hearing never happened. During the two years Serrano was without the truck, he had to continue making $672.97 monthly payments on it, and he had to pay more than $700 to insure it, $1,004.61 to register it in Kentucky and thousands more for rental cars.

Serrano is suing for restitution, but also seeking a class-action judgment on behalf of others who have been similarly mistreated. Just at Eagle Pass, one of 73 crossing points on the U.S.-Mexico border, the CBP seizes, on average, well more than 100 Americans' vehicles a year. Serrano seeks to establish a right to prompt post-seizure judicial hearings. These would be improvements, but of a process that requires radical revision, if not abolition.

Robert Everett Johnson is one of the IJ lawyers whose interest in the case galvanized the CBP's hitherto dormant interest in Serrano's rights. Johnson says: "Imagine being detained at an airport checkpoint because you innocently forgot to take a tube of toothpaste out of your luggage. But rather than asking you to throw it out or put it in a plastic bag, the TSA agents told you they were seizing all of your luggage, including the toothpaste tube." That happened to Serrano at the hands of a government -- the one north of the border -- that felt free to say, "You have no rights here."

Indeed, another interesting article. Thanks for posting. On the one hand, border security is an important issue and law enforcement agents probably feel that their ability to do their job is restricted in comparison to those who break the law. On the other hand, Americans have rights that must be respected, and I would like to see law enforcement work without violating civil liberties, even if that means being less effective at their job.

Right On wrote:

qwerty squared wrote:

WRONG. Manafort's original indictment was for earlier alleged crimes, but the additional charges (and those against Gates) included the election and 2017.

Mueller is here.

NO, you are WRONG. I posted Manafort's indictments below to this point. Please explain how they are related to the 2016 election (they aren't- see below, from Wikipedia- NOTHING is related to the election).

October 27, 2017- 5 counts: conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading FARA statements, and false statements. Pleaded not guilty on February 28, 2018.

February 22, 2018- 23 counts: assisting in the preparation of false tax returns (×5), subscribing to false tax returns (×5), filing a false amended return, failure to report foreign bank and financial accounts (×3), bank fraud conspiracy (×5), and bank fraud (×4). Pleaded not guilty on March 8, 2018.

"On October 30, 2017, Manafort surrendered to the FBI after being indicted by a federal grand jury as part of Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign. The indictment against Manafort and business associate Rick Gates was issued on October 27, 2017. The charges are: engaging in a conspiracy against the United States, engaging in a conspiracy to launder money, failing to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts, acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, making false and misleading statements in documents filed and submitted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and making false statements. According to the prosecutors, Manafort laundered more than $18 million. The charges are related to his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and do not cover any activities related to the 2016 Trump campaign.

Manafort and Gates pleaded not guilty to these charges at their court appearance on October 30, 2017. The US government asked the court to set Manafort’s bail at $10 million and Gates at $5 million. The court placed Manafort and Gates under house arrest after prosecutors described them as flight risks. If convicted on all charges Manafort could face decades in prison.

Following the hearing Manafort's attorney Kevin M. Downing made a public statement to the press proclaiming his client's innocence while describing the federal charges stemming from the indictment as “ridiculous”. Downing defended Manafort's decade-long lobbying effort for pro-Russian, former Ukrainian prime minister Viktor Yanukovych, describing their lucrative partnership as attempts to spread democracy and strengthen the relationship between the United States and Ukraine.[120] Judge Stewart responded by threatening to impose a gag order, saying "I expect counsel to do their talking in this courtroom and in their pleadings and not on the courthouse steps."

On November 30, 2017, Manafort's attorneys said that Manafort has reached a bail agreement with prosecutors that will free him from the house arrest he has been under since his indictment. He offered bail in the form of $11.65 million worth of real estate. The agreement still needs to be approved by the judge in the case. While out on bond, Paul Manafort worked on an op-ed with a "Russian who has ties to the Russian intelligence service", prosecutors said in a court filing requesting that the judge in the case revoke Manafort's bond agreement.

On January 3, 2018, Manafort filed a lawsuit challenging Mueller‘s broad authority and alleging the Justice Department violated the law in appointing Mueller. A spokesperson for the department replied that "The lawsuit is frivolous but the defendant is entitled to file whatever he wants". On January 12, Mueller asked U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson to set Manafort‘s trial date for May 14, 2018. On January 16, 2018, Jackson denied the government's date for trial indicating that the criminal trial appears likely to start in September at the earliest. Jackson revealed that a letter from Manafort's physician was submitted to the court, asking for changes in the conditions of Manafort's confinement. "While he's subject to home confinement, he's not confined to his couch, and I believe he has plenty of opportunity to exercise," Jackson said.

On February 2, 2018, the Department of Justice filed a motion seeking to dismiss the civil suit Manafort brought against Mueller.

On February 22, 2018, both Manafort and Gates were further charged with additional crimes involving a tax avoidance scheme and bank fraud in Virginia. The charges were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, rather than in the District of Columbia, as the alleged tax fraud overt actions had occurred in Virginia and not in the District. The new indictment alleges that Manafort, with assistance from Gates, laundered over $30 million through offshore bank accounts between approximately 2006 and 2015. Manafort allegedly used funds in these offshore accounts to purchase real estate in the United States, in addition to personal goods and services.

On February 23, 2018, Gates pleaded guilty in federal court to lying to investigators and engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the United States. Through a spokesman, Manafort expressed disappointment in Gates’ decision to plead guilty and said he has no similar plans. “I continue to maintain my innocence,” he said.

On February 28, 2018, Manafort entered a not guilty plea in the District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Jackson subsequently set a trial date of September 17, 2018, and reprimanded Manafort and his attorney for violating her gag order by issuing a statement the previous week after former co-defendant Gates pleaded guilty.[53] On March 8, 2018 Manafort also pleaded not guilty to bank fraud and tax charges in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Judge T. S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia set his trial on those charges to begin on July 10, 2018."

qwerty squared wrote:

Right On wrote:

NO, you are WRONG. I posted Manafort's indictments below to this point. Please explain how they are related to the 2016 election (they aren't- see below, from Wikipedia- NOTHING is related to the election).

October 27, 2017- 5 counts: conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading FARA statements, and false statements. Pleaded not guilty on February 28, 2018.

February 22, 2018- 23 counts: assisting in the preparation of false tax returns (×5), subscribing to false tax returns (×5), filing a false amended return, failure to report foreign bank and financial accounts (×3), bank fraud conspiracy (×5), and bank fraud (×4). Pleaded not guilty on March 8, 2018.

"On October 30, 2017, Manafort surrendered to the FBI after being indicted by a federal grand jury as part of Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign. The indictment against Manafort and business associate Rick Gates was issued on October 27, 2017. The charges are: engaging in a conspiracy against the United States, engaging in a conspiracy to launder money, failing to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts, acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, making false and misleading statements in documents filed and submitted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and making false statements. According to the prosecutors, Manafort laundered more than $18 million. The charges are related to his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and do not cover any activities related to the 2016 Trump campaign.

Manafort and Gates pleaded not guilty to these charges at their court appearance on October 30, 2017. The US government asked the court to set Manafort’s bail at $10 million and Gates at $5 million. The court placed Manafort and Gates under house arrest after prosecutors described them as flight risks. If convicted on all charges Manafort could face decades in prison.

Following the hearing Manafort's attorney Kevin M. Downing made a public statement to the press proclaiming his client's innocence while describing the federal charges stemming from the indictment as “ridiculous”. Downing defended Manafort's decade-long lobbying effort for pro-Russian, former Ukrainian prime minister Viktor Yanukovych, describing their lucrative partnership as attempts to spread democracy and strengthen the relationship between the United States and Ukraine.[120] Judge Stewart responded by threatening to impose a gag order, saying "I expect counsel to do their talking in this courtroom and in their pleadings and not on the courthouse steps."

On November 30, 2017, Manafort's attorneys said that Manafort has reached a bail agreement with prosecutors that will free him from the house arrest he has been under since his indictment. He offered bail in the form of $11.65 million worth of real estate. The agreement still needs to be approved by the judge in the case. While out on bond, Paul Manafort worked on an op-ed with a "Russian who has ties to the Russian intelligence service", prosecutors said in a court filing requesting that the judge in the case revoke Manafort's bond agreement.

On January 3, 2018, Manafort filed a lawsuit challenging Mueller‘s broad authority and alleging the Justice Department violated the law in appointing Mueller. A spokesperson for the department replied that "The lawsuit is frivolous but the defendant is entitled to file whatever he wants". On January 12, Mueller asked U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson to set Manafort‘s trial date for May 14, 2018. On January 16, 2018, Jackson denied the government's date for trial indicating that the criminal trial appears likely to start in September at the earliest. Jackson revealed that a letter from Manafort's physician was submitted to the court, asking for changes in the conditions of Manafort's confinement. "While he's subject to home confinement, he's not confined to his couch, and I believe he has plenty of opportunity to exercise," Jackson said.

On February 2, 2018, the Department of Justice filed a motion seeking to dismiss the civil suit Manafort brought against Mueller.

On February 22, 2018, both Manafort and Gates were further charged with additional crimes involving a tax avoidance scheme and bank fraud in Virginia. The charges were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, rather than in the District of Columbia, as the alleged tax fraud overt actions had occurred in Virginia and not in the District. The new indictment alleges that Manafort, with assistance from Gates, laundered over $30 million through offshore bank accounts between approximately 2006 and 2015. Manafort allegedly used funds in these offshore accounts to purchase real estate in the United States, in addition to personal goods and services.

On February 23, 2018, Gates pleaded guilty in federal court to lying to investigators and engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the United States. Through a spokesman, Manafort expressed disappointment in Gates’ decision to plead guilty and said he has no similar plans. “I continue to maintain my innocence,” he said.

On February 28, 2018, Manafort entered a not guilty plea in the District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Jackson subsequently set a trial date of September 17, 2018, and reprimanded Manafort and his attorney for violating her gag order by issuing a statement the previous week after former co-defendant Gates pleaded guilty.[53] On March 8, 2018 Manafort also pleaded not guilty to bank fraud and tax charges in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Judge T. S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia set his trial on those charges to begin on July 10, 2018."

OK fine, I read it all. Nothing related to the 2016 election. You were right. I'm not wrong though, because I was being disingenuous, as you suspected.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

I'm not Fat Hurts, but I can help with this. This has been in the news this week.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/can-a-3-year-old-represent-herself-in-immigration-court-this-judge-thinks-so/2016/03/03/5be59a32-db25-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html

Looks like an unhinged Judge. That being said, there's no evidence that a child of that age really had to argue their own case.

“I’ve taught immigration law literally to 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds,” Weil said. “It 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.”

He repeated his claim twice in the deposition, also saying, “I’ve told you I have trained 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in immigration law,” according to a transcript. “You can do a fair hearing. It’s going to take you a lot of time.”

qwerty squared wrote:

Right On wrote:

NO, you are WRONG. I posted Manafort's indictments below to this point. Please explain how they are related to the 2016 election (they aren't- see below, from Wikipedia- NOTHING is related to the election).

October 27, 2017- 5 counts: conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading FARA statements, and false statements. Pleaded not guilty on February 28, 2018.

February 22, 2018- 23 counts: assisting in the preparation of false tax returns (×5), subscribing to false tax returns (×5), filing a false amended return, failure to report foreign bank and financial accounts (×3), bank fraud conspiracy (×5), and bank fraud (×4). Pleaded not guilty on March 8, 2018.

"On October 30, 2017, Manafort surrendered to the FBI after being indicted by a federal grand jury as part of Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign. The indictment against Manafort and business associate Rick Gates was issued on October 27, 2017. The charges are: engaging in a conspiracy against the United States, engaging in a conspiracy to launder money, failing to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts, acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, making false and misleading statements in documents filed and submitted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and making false statements. According to the prosecutors, Manafort laundered more than $18 million. The charges are related to his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and do not cover any activities related to the 2016 Trump campaign.

Manafort and Gates pleaded not guilty to these charges at their court appearance on October 30, 2017. The US government asked the court to set Manafort’s bail at $10 million and Gates at $5 million. The court placed Manafort and Gates under house arrest after prosecutors described them as flight risks. If convicted on all charges Manafort could face decades in prison.

Following the hearing Manafort's attorney Kevin M. Downing made a public statement to the press proclaiming his client's innocence while describing the federal charges stemming from the indictment as “ridiculous”. Downing defended Manafort's decade-long lobbying effort for pro-Russian, former Ukrainian prime minister Viktor Yanukovych, describing their lucrative partnership as attempts to spread democracy and strengthen the relationship between the United States and Ukraine.[120] Judge Stewart responded by threatening to impose a gag order, saying "I expect counsel to do their talking in this courtroom and in their pleadings and not on the courthouse steps."

On November 30, 2017, Manafort's attorneys said that Manafort has reached a bail agreement with prosecutors that will free him from the house arrest he has been under since his indictment. He offered bail in the form of $11.65 million worth of real estate. The agreement still needs to be approved by the judge in the case. While out on bond, Paul Manafort worked on an op-ed with a "Russian who has ties to the Russian intelligence service", prosecutors said in a court filing requesting that the judge in the case revoke Manafort's bond agreement.

On January 3, 2018, Manafort filed a lawsuit challenging Mueller‘s broad authority and alleging the Justice Department violated the law in appointing Mueller. A spokesperson for the department replied that "The lawsuit is frivolous but the defendant is entitled to file whatever he wants". On January 12, Mueller asked U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson to set Manafort‘s trial date for May 14, 2018. On January 16, 2018, Jackson denied the government's date for trial indicating that the criminal trial appears likely to start in September at the earliest. Jackson revealed that a letter from Manafort's physician was submitted to the court, asking for changes in the conditions of Manafort's confinement. "While he's subject to home confinement, he's not confined to his couch, and I believe he has plenty of opportunity to exercise," Jackson said.

On February 2, 2018, the Department of Justice filed a motion seeking to dismiss the civil suit Manafort brought against Mueller.

On February 22, 2018, both Manafort and Gates were further charged with additional crimes involving a tax avoidance scheme and bank fraud in Virginia. The charges were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, rather than in the District of Columbia, as the alleged tax fraud overt actions had occurred in Virginia and not in the District. The new indictment alleges that Manafort, with assistance from Gates, laundered over $30 million through offshore bank accounts between approximately 2006 and 2015. Manafort allegedly used funds in these offshore accounts to purchase real estate in the United States, in addition to personal goods and services.

On February 23, 2018, Gates pleaded guilty in federal court to lying to investigators and engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the United States. Through a spokesman, Manafort expressed disappointment in Gates’ decision to plead guilty and said he has no similar plans. “I continue to maintain my innocence,” he said.

On February 28, 2018, Manafort entered a not guilty plea in the District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Jackson subsequently set a trial date of September 17, 2018, and reprimanded Manafort and his attorney for violating her gag order by issuing a statement the previous week after former co-defendant Gates pleaded guilty.[53] On March 8, 2018 Manafort also pleaded not guilty to bank fraud and tax charges in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Judge T. S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia set his trial on those charges to begin on July 10, 2018."

OK fine, I read it all. Nothing related to the 2016 election. You were right. I'm not wrong though, because I was being disingenuous, as you suspected.

Fat hurts wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Looks like an unhinged Judge. That being said, there's no evidence that a child of that age really had to argue their own case.

You obviously didn't read the article. This judge says:

“I’ve taught immigration law literally to 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds,” Weil said. “It 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.”

He repeated his claim twice in the deposition, also saying, “I’ve told you I have trained 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in immigration law,” according to a transcript. “You can do a fair hearing. It’s going to take you a lot of time.”

He wouldn't be teaching immigration law to 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds just to pass the time. He did it because they were required to represent themselves in immigration court.

There is no arguing about this. Minors are forced to represent themselves in immigration court. It happens a lot. That is in addition to the fact the 2/3 of ALL defendants are required to represent themselves because they have no right to court-appointed council.

There is also no arguing about the fact that these are life and death situations. Many have gone through these sham trials, then deported, then murdered.

Donald Trump is godless, heartless, and sleazy. He needs to go. This is not what America stands for.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Whoever the "senior official" is, is an idiot.

Weil is not just any immigration official. As an assistant chief immigration judge in EOIR’s Office of the Chief Immigration Judge — which sets and oversees policies for the nation’s 58 immigration courts — he is responsible for coordinating the Justice Department’s training of immigration judges.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

So wheres it say that it actually happened?

Unlike in felony criminal cases in federal court, children charged with violating immigration laws have no right to appointed counsel, even though the government is represented by Department of Homeland Security attorneys.

Although a network of pro bono organizations and a Justice Department program try to help children find attorneys — some paid for by the government — many children are forced to fend for themselves. According to Justice Department figures, 42 percent of the more than 20,000 unaccompanied children involved in deportation proceedings completed between July 2014 and late December had no attorney. It is unclear how often children 5 or younger are forced to defend themselves, but attorneys and advocates for immigrants said it does happen.

In a Feb. 11 speech on the Senate floor, Reid said he was told about one case in which a 5-year-old girl was brought before an immigration judge. “This little girl was clutching a doll and was so short she could barely see over the table to the microphone,’’ Reid said. “She was unable to answer any questions that the judge asked her except for the name of her doll: ‘Baby Baby Doll.’ That was the name of her doll.”

At such hearings, children face the same types of immigration charges as adults, ranging from entering the country illegally to overstaying their visas. The children — most of whom cannot speak English and must use government-provided interpreters — are generally asked questions by judges such as when they arrived in the United States and whether they faced persecution in their home countries, according to court documents and immigration attorneys.

But the questions can easily trip up children with no lawyers, the attorneys said. A judge may ask, for example, if the child wants to leave the country voluntarily or would rather be ordered deported. If the child chooses either option, he or she cannot apply for other forms of immigration relief such as asylum in the United States.

…

The Justice Department, which was sued along with DHS and the Department of Health and Human Services, is disputing the idea that all children are entitled to an attorney. “Nothing in the Constitution requires the taxpayers to provide counsel to minors in immigration court,” Justice Department lawyers said in a 2014 motion. Doing so would cause “potentially enormous taxpayer expense,” they said.

Weil’s deposition, taken Oct. 15 in Washington, covered the training of judges and a variety of other topics, with the judge seeking to explain and defend Justice Department immigration court procedures. “In all of our policies, the overlying concern is due process,” Weil said.

He noted that all defendants, including children, are given an explanation of the charges against them, both in notices to appear in court and by the judge in the courtroom.

Arulanantham then asked Weil: “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?”

“I have to do a case-by-case basis determination,” Weil responded, before declaring that he has taught immigration law to 3- and 4-year-olds.