Video: 'You would think we deported a candidate for father of the year'

[BPPLEE]

Ultimately irrelevant - he still is entitled to due process.

I didn't say he wasn't. This thread is about his character, not his rights

 

[Valletta]

Not really, as it reflects public opinion of the individual. At this point though, I've recognized that the well is...er...well and truly poisoned, and there's no point in trying to change your personal opinion of the man. In then end though, what you think of him is meaningless as far as the justice system goes. He could be literally Hitler, and it wouldn't change my position on this - he deserves due process under the law. If the courts said that he couldn't be deported, and he was deported anyway, then the government broke the law. Full stop. Nothing else matters at that point. They should be doing everything in their power to correct their mistake, no matter who he is or how good or bad a person he is. If, once the mistake is corrected, they want to go to court and ask that his protection from deportation be revoked, they can do that. And if their request is granted, they can deport him again, and I won't raise a fuss - due process will have been followed.

But trying to distract from the fact that the government violated a court order - broke the law - by arguing that the victim somehow deserved it because he wasn't a model human being (whether that's true or not) is pretty morally bankrupt in my opinion and runs completely counter to the founding principles of our country.

"Due process" has been a slogan to deflect away from the Democrat Party violations of our border laws and to further those illegal acts. "Due process is not well defined at all and has been applied by the courts to aliens in different manners depending on whether an alien entered legally or illegally and actually how far an alien has got into our country before being stopped.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

"Due process" has been a slogan to deflect away from the Democrat Party violations of our border laws and to further those illegal acts. "Due process is not well defined at all and has been applied by the courts to aliens in different manners depending on whether an alien entered legally or illegally and actually how far an alien has got into our country before being stopped.

Again, irrelevant to this case. A judge said, "You can't deport this guy." He was deported anyways. That's a clear due process violation. If a judge rules that you cannot do something, then to do so anyway, without appealing the decision, violates the law. That's pretty clear-cut. The government isn't even arguing that point - they admit they screwed up.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I didn't say he wasn't. This thread is about his character, not his rights

Any discussion of his character is ultimately a red herring when it comes to the question of whether he should be returned to the US.

 

[wing2000]

So all this back and forth about whether or not he was a gang member is irrelevant?

Legally, yes....that point was made several pages ago.

 

[wing2000]

...and noting, the courts have yet to rule whether the Trump Administration can deport anyone (gang member or otherwise) under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The USSC put a temporay hold on such deportations on April 20th.

Supreme Court temporarily blocks new deportations under Alien Enemies Act

In a brief order, the court directed the Trump administration not to remove Venezuelans held in Texas' Bluebonnet Detention Center "until further order from this court."

www.cbsnews.com

 

[JosephZ]

Court Docs Reveal Ex-Husband of MS-13 Member's Wife Fears for His Children’s Lives — Warned Authorities She’s Dating a “Gang Member” | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

Newly unearthed court documents reveal that the ex-husband of a "U.S. citizen," now married to a deported illegal immigrant linked to the notorious MS-13 gang, warned in 2018 that his children’s lives were at risk. Yet despite mounting evidence tying Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the brutal criminal...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Court Docs Reveal Ex-Husband of MS-13 Member’s Wife Fears for His Children’s Lives — Warned Authorities She’s Dating a “Gang Member”​

A judge found that an emergency court hearing on the custody of the couple’s two children wasn't warranted, which means the ex-husband's claims that his children were in danger because of the mother's actions and the boyfriend being a gang member were found to be meritless.

​

 

[BPPLEE]

Any discussion of his character is ultimately a red herring when it comes to the question of whether he should be returned to the US.

Whether he should be returned to the US is not the topic of this thread.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Whether he should be returned to the US is not the topic of this thread.

What other purpose is there to casting aspersions on this person's character than to justify his continued incarceration in El Salvador?

 

[BPPLEE]

A judge found that an emergency court hearing on the custody of the couple’s two children wasn't warranted, which means the ex-husband's claims that his children were in danger because of the mother's actions and the boyfriend being a gang member were found to be meritless.

​

It was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Nothing was found meritless
"She is dating a gang member,” Ramos explicitly said in his plea for an emergency hearing, which was ultimately denied and dismissed in early 2019 on jurisdictional grounds, according to The New York Post."

 

[JosephZ]

It was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Nothing was found meritless
"She is dating a gang member,” Ramos explicitly said in his plea for an emergency hearing, which was ultimately denied and dismissed in early 2019 on jurisdictional grounds, according to The New York Post."

Ramos vs Sura

Enter case #CAD18-26172

8/20/18, Judge Herman C. Dawson Ordered, that the matter before the Court is determined not to be an emergency and this matter shall proceed in due course, fd., cc: E. Ramos and J. Sura

 

[BPPLEE]

What other purpose is there to casting aspersions on this person's character than to justify his continued incarceration in El Salvador?

What other purpose is there to casting aspersions on this person's character than to justify his continued incarceration in El Salvador?

This is not just some upstanding citizen, he's not even a citizen, he is not what he is being characterized by his supporters.
That is the topic of the thread.
He was wrongly deported and should be brought back to the US and deported properly but that's not the topic of the thread

 

[BPPLEE]

Ramos vs Sura

Enter case #CAD18-26172

8/20/18, Judge Herman C. Dawson Ordered, that the matter before the Court is determined not to be an emergency and this matter shall proceed in due course, fd., cc: E. Ramos and J. Sura

02/26/2019
Document Name:	Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction Rule 2-507(b)
Comment:	Dismiss 2507b WO Prej Juris fd 007 321/kfw

It was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction meaning it could be brought up again in the proper venue

 

[probinson]

A judge found that an emergency court hearing on the custody of the couple’s two children wasn't warranted, which means the ex-husband's claims that his children were in danger because of the mother's actions and the boyfriend being a gang member were found to be meritless.

This is incorrect. The judge determined the matter not to be an emergency and the issue was ultimately dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction. Nothing was ever judged on the merits.

 

[JosephZ]

This is incorrect. The judge determined the matter not to be an emergency and the issue was ultimately dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction. Nothing was ever judged on the merits.

This was an emergency custody petition. This is why a judge reviewed and made a decicion on the same day the petition was filed. The safety and well-being of the children is the court's priority; if the ex-husband's claims had merit, the judge would have ordered that the children immediately be removed from the mother's custody. Depending on the situation, they would have been given to the father, another family member, or put in the care of someone approved by the state until a custody trial could be held.

 

[probinson]

This was an emergency custody petition. The safety and well-being of the children is the court's priority; if the ex-husband's claims had merit, the judge would have ordered that the children immediately be removed from the mother's custody. Depending on the situation, they would have been given to the father, another family member, or put in the care of someone approved by the state until a custody trial could be held.

If it were deemed to be an "emergency", then you would be correct. IANAL (or a judge), but I would have to imagine there is a difference between "danger" and "immediate danger", and the difference is whether or not "emergency" relief is granted. All we know for certain is that the judge felt that the claims did not warrant "emergency" relief and those claims were never judged on their merit because they were dismissed for jurisdictional issues. Anything beyond that is speculation.

 

[JosephZ]

It was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction meaning it could be brought up again in the proper venue

This is true, but if the ex-husband's claims had merit, the children would have been removed from the mother's home until the case was heard.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Again, irrelevant to this case. A judge said, "You can't deport this guy." He was deported anyways. That's a clear due process violation. If a judge rules that you cannot do something, then to do so anyway, without appealing the decision, violates the law. That's pretty clear-cut. The government isn't even arguing that point - they admit they screwed up.

So what is the solution to bringing the wife beating gangster back into the united states to receive his "due process" before he is shipped back to the "gulag?"

 

[JosephZ]

If it were deemed to be an "emergency", then you would be correct. IANAL (or a judge), but I would have to imagine there is a difference between "danger" and "immediate danger", and the difference is whether or not "emergency" relief is granted. You're just speculating. All we know for certain is that the judge felt that the claims did not warrant "emergency" relief and those claims were never judged on their merit.

If the judge would have believed that the mother was suicidal, leaving the children unattended, and in a relationship with a dangerous gang member, as the ex-husband claimed, then he would have in all likelihood issued an emergency removal order. He certainly wouldn't have allowed the case to proceed in due course, which would take months or longer to reach the hearing stage.

 

[probinson]

If the judge would have believed that the mother was suicidal, leaving the children unattended, and in a relationship with a dangerous gang member, as the ex-husband claimed, then he would have in all likelihood issued an emergency removal order. He certainly wouldn't have allowed the case to proceed in due course, which would take months or longer to reach the hearing stage.

Again, all we know for certain is that the judge didn't deem it an emergency. The case was never judged on its merits.