Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Tell that to Valetta, who seems to present Trump's and Bukele's statements as sufficient fact of garcia's guilt.Trump doesn't decide who's guilty of a crime or not. He might have opinions. Just like the rest of us do, but the judges and juries still determine guilt.
On topic, since you seem to accept's Trump's (and Bukele's) statement as sufficient.Off topic. The election is over, you lost.
The court's decision was limited to the question of whether or not to release him from custody. No ruling was made as to whether or not he belonged to MS13.Opinions are a dime a dozen. He was found to be MS13 and he could not prove he wasn't a danger.
The court's decision was limited to the question of whether or not to release him from custody. No ruling was made as to whether or not he belonged to MS13.
Everyone knows that MS-13 gang members apply for work permits, hold down steady jobs, and pay taxes.Exactly.
The court did not find him to be a member of MS-13.
And in any case, even if he was proven to be a member of MS-13, he still has a right to due process.
So what gang was he found to be a member of? Was the governments case based around a "gang"? Any gang, a generic gang what gang was at issue here?The court's decision was limited to the question of whether or not to release him from custody. No ruling was made as to whether or not he belonged to MS13.
So what gang was he found to be a member of? Was the governments case based around a "gang"? Any gang, a generic gang what gang was at issue here?
No gang. He was not *ruled* a member of any gang. That is part of the point here. (The other is that due process applies even if he *was* a known gang member.)So what gang was he found to be a member of? Was the governments case based around a "gang"? Any gang, a generic gang what gang was at issue here?
Back in 2019, he was picked up at a Home Depot parking lot looking for work as a day laborer. Two members of a gang were with him - were they also looking for work? Who knows, but someone, an informant, told a police officer, since fired, that Garcia was a member of a gang in Long Island, NY (where Garcia has never lived) possibly in exchange for favors (informants often inform, sometimes falsely, for payments, leniency, etc., or so I've heard). This is hearsay, not proof, and this hearsay was credibly disputed eventually.So what gang was he found to be a member of?
Yeah, that's an interesting point. In 2025, President Trump proclaimed that he was invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 17something-or-another against Tren de Aragua (TdA), a Venezuelan gang. Garcia was picked up in a sweep of Venezuelans, as a part of this proclamation, even though he is not Venezuelan and not a gang member and, ironically was here because he fled El Salvador to avoid being impressed into MS13, as his brother fled before him.Was the governments case based around a "gang"? Any gang, a generic gang what gang was at issue here?
That's wrong. The court found he was.There is zero evidence that he belonged to a gang.
The only evidence that he was exists entirely in the mind of the corrupt administration that violated his Constitutionally Protected Rights.
And even if he was, or had been, associated with a gang, it wouldn't change the fact that his CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS were violated.
-CryptoLutheran
Yeah he was.No gang. He was not *ruled* a member of any gang. That is part of the point here. (The other is that due process applies even if he *was* a known gang member.)
The found he was a fang member. The entire stop and case was based upon MS13. So he was found to be a member of MS13 because that was the claim. The claim wasn't he was a member of some unknown generic gang. The evidence was he was a gang member with MS13. And the court found that he was. Period.Back in 2019, he was picked up at a Home Depot parking lot looking for work as a day laborer. Two members of a gang were with him - were they also looking for work? Who knows, but someone, an informant, told a police officer, since fired, that Garcia was a member of a gang in Long Island, NY (where Garcia has never lived) possibly in exchange for favors (informants often inform, sometimes falsely, for payments, leniency, etc., or so I've heard). This is hearsay, not proof, and this hearsay was credibly disputed eventually.
Yeah, that's an interesting point. In 2025, President Trump proclaimed that he was invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 17something-or-another against Tren de Aragua (TdA), a Venezuelan gang. Garcia was picked up in a sweep of Venezuelans, as a part of this proclamation, even though he is not Venezuelan and not a gang member and, ironically was here because he fled El Salvador to avoid being impressed into MS13, as his brother fled before him.
Does this answer your questions?
Attorney General Bondi’s Claim That ‘Courts’ Have ‘Ruled’ That Abrego Garcia Is a Member of MS-13That's wrong. The court found he was.
That's a blatant falsehood and total misrepresentation of what the judge said.Attorney General Bondi’s Claim That ‘Courts’ Have ‘Ruled’ That Abrego Garcia Is a Member of MS-13
The AG insists that two “courts” — an immigration court and an appellate court — have “ruled” that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13. Bondi is new to the federal system but she has been in law enforcement long enough to know that her assertion is deeply misleading.
The court proceedings in connection with the administration’s illegal deportation of Abrego Garcia to El Salvador indicate that he has no known criminal record in any country. That doesn’t mean he is not an MS-13 member — he may well be. But it means the Justice Department hasn’t proved that he is.
The actual issue that those DOJ tribunals “ruled” on was bail, not gang membership.
As Bondi presumably knows, the issue at a bond hearing is not whether the detainee is a member of a criminal organization. The issue is whether there is any condition or combination of conditions that will satisfy the court that, if released, the detainee will neither flee nor pose a danger to the community.
At the hearing, and then on appeal, the DOJ immigration tribunals accepted the government’s evidence for the purpose of determining that Abrego Garcia’s release could pose a danger. But this was not a conclusive finding that he was a member of MS-13...
If the judge denies bail, that doesn’t mean the government has conclusively established that the accused is a member of the criminal organization. It just means the judge has found he should not be released pending trial. It’s a bail ruling, not a finding that the person is guilty.
In claiming that immigration “courts” looked at this evidence and “ruled” that Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 member, Bondi skips by the stubborn fact that two actual judicial courts, presided over by actual Article III judges, looked at the same evidence and discounted it — both because it is weak and because it was offered in connection with bail, not with a formal allegation that Abrego Garia was an MS-13 member.
To summarize, then, the two immigration tribunals cited by AG Bondi are not judicial courts and did not rule that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13; they held that he should be denied bond while his asylum claim was pending. No judicial court has ever adopted the tribunals’ reasoning, in 2019, that the government’s scant evidence proves MS-13 membership.
The article isn't about the words that the judge said, but rather their legal significance.That's a blatant falsehood and total misrepresentation of what the judge said.
"The determination that the Respondent is a gang member appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in the record, namely, information contained in the Gang Field Interview Sheet. Although the Court is reluctant to give evidentiary weight to the Respondent’s clothing as an indication of gang affiliation, the fact that a ‘past, proven, and reliable source of information’ verified the Respondent’s gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member,” Kessler wrote, referring to the informant’s tip
No it's not.That's a blatant falsehood and total misrepresentation of what the judge said.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?