🛡⚔️👩🏽‍⚖️⚖️🗽MAKING A DIFFERENCE: AS GARLAND’S EOIR DEGRADES DUE PROCESS AND HIS DOJ ATTORNEYS BABBLE DISINGENUOUS NONSENSE IN DEFENSE OF THE INDEFENSIBLE, ARTICLE IIIs LOOK TO ROUND TABLE FOR PRACTICAL INPUT AND HONESTY REGARDING GARLAND’S INCREDIBLE MESS!

From our leader and spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

Round Table Brief cited today in Oral Argument

Hi all:To end the week on a positive note, in oral arguments today before the Second Circuit, one of the judges asked the OIL attorney the following:

“What are we to make of the amicus brief filed by so many former IJs who stress the importance of in person hearing in the special role of Immigration Judges in developing the facts before rendering an opinion, particularly in something as factually heavy as this, as undue hardship to the children?They emphasize the importance of hearing in person testimony and suggest that it is an abuse of discretion to not permit it when it is requested.How do you respond?”

The case is Martinez-Roman v. Garland.

. . . .

The IJ wouldn’t let two witnesses testify: the medical expert, and a 13-year-old child of the respondent.So when the judge asked that question, the OIL attorney claimed that the IJ was trying to protect the child from the psychological trauma of testifying.The judges pointed out that the IJ had actually said he wouldn’t allow the testimony only because it would be duplicative.In the child’s case, it was supposedly “duplicative” of a one-page handwritten statement written by the child.In the expert’s case, the IJ admitted that he hadn’t actually read the expert’s written statement, causing the circuit judges to ask how the IJ could have known the testimony would be duplicative of a statement he hadn’t read.

Wishing all a great, safe, and healthy weekend! – Jeff

*************

So, Merrick, it’s an “A-OK” judicial practice for your judges to deem live testimony “duplicative” of a statements they never read! That’s some feat of clairvoyance!  

“Clairvoyance” appears to be more of a qualification for your “judges” than actual expertise and experience vindicating due process in Immigration Court!

Also, when your attorneys are confronted with the defects in your judges’ performance by Article IIIs who have actually read the record and familiarized themselves with the evidence, (something you apparently deem “optional” for both your IJs and the attorneys defending them) it’s also “A-OK” for your attorneys to fabricate any bogus pretextual excuse, even one that is clearly refuted by the record.

Perhaps, SG Liz Prelogar should take a break from losing cases before the Supremes and pay attention to what nonsense DOJ attorneys are arguing before the lower Federal Courts. What, Liz, is the legality and the morality of defending a broken system, wholly owned and operated by your “boss,” that dishonestly denies due process to the most vulnerable among us? 

Is this what they taught you at Harvard law? Did you miss the required course on ethics and professional responsibility? Why is the Round Table doing the work YOU should be doing as a supposedly responsible Government official who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law?

Yeah, I know that Prelogar, like her other elitist political appointee colleagues, operates in the “legal stratosphere,” has clerked for two liberal Supremes, and otherwise “punched all the right tickets” in Dem politics. But, the problem here is that like it or not, Immigration Courts are the “retail level” of American justice that affects everything else! Right now, that effect is stunningly and unacceptably adverse!

The GOP White Nationalist nativists, like Sessions, Barr, and their hand-selected toadies, “got that.” That’s why they used their time in office to weaponize EOIR and degrade due process and humanity, while using “Dred Scottification” developed in immigration to diminish and degrade the rights of “the other” throughout our legal and political systems! The dots aren’t that hard to connect, unless, apparently, you’re a Dem Politico serving in the DOJ!

For whatever reason, perhaps because Dems keep appointing politicos who haven’t had to personally confront the mess in Immigration Court, folks like Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, and Prelogar entertain the elitist belief that standing up to the “nativist appeasers” in the Biden White House, getting rid of bad judges and incompetent administrators at EOIR, and bringing our dysfunctional (“killer”) Immigration Courts into conformity with Constitutional Due Process, international standards, and simple human dignity are “below their pay grade.” Not so!

Have to hope that the Chairman Lofgren and her staff are paying attention and will start throwing more light on Garland’s deficient handling of EOIR and the disgraceful, intellectually dishonest, arguments his attorneys are making before the Article IIIs! 

This system is BROKEN, and going into the second year of the Biden Administration, Garland has NOT taken the necessary bold, decisive, yet quite obvious and realistically achievable, steps to FIX it! What gives?

Since Liz has never been a judge, let me provide an insight.  No judge, life-tenured or “administrative,” liberal, conservative, or centrist, likes being played for a fool, misled, or “BS’ed” 💩 by counsel. (I actually remember “chewing out” attorneys in open court for failing to acknowledge controlling precedent in arguing before me.)

They particularly hate such conduct when it comes from lawyers representing the USG! Because Federal Judges often come from a bygone generation, many still retain the apparently now long outdated concept that DOJ attorneys should be held to a “higher standard.” Your predecessor, Trump shill Noel Francisco, certainly mocked that belief during his disgraceful tenure at the DOJ, particularly in his disingenuous and aggressive defense of the White Nationalist, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum agenda! Do you REALLY want to follow in HIS footsteps? Sadly, At this early  point in time, that answer appears to be “yes.”

So, that leads to another question. Why do progressive human rights and immigration advocates continue to turn out the vote and loyally support a Dem Party that, once in office, considers them, their values, and the human souls they represent to be “expendable” — essentially “fungible political capital?” It’s something I often wondered when I was on the inside watching Dem Administrations screw up EOIR and immigration policy. I still don’t know the answer, and perhaps never will.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-15-22