update - Abrego Garcia to be deported to Uganda in 72 hours ICE says

Previous Thread Next Thread
mandrill

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,119
117,069
113
New York clerk again refuses to enforce Texas judgment against doctor who provided abortion pills
A county clerk in New York on Monday again refused to file a more than $100,000 civil judgment from Texas against a doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills to a Dallas-area woman.

New York is among eight states with shield laws that protect providers from other states’ reach. Abortion opponents claim the laws violate a constitutional requirement that states respect the laws and legal judgments of other states.




Republican Texas State Attorney General Ken Paxton wants a New York court to enforce a civil decision from Texas against Dr. Margaret Carpenter, who practices north of New York City in Ulster County, for allegedly prescribing abortion medication via telemedicine.

Acting Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck in March refused an initial request to file the judgment, citing the New York law that shields abortion providers who serve patients in states with abortion bans. A second demand was made last week by the Texas attorney general's office, which said Bruck had a “statutory duty” to make the filing under New York civil practice law.

Bruck responded Monday that the rejection stands.

“While I’m not entirely sure how things work in Texas, here in New York, a rejection means the matter is closed,” Bruck wrote in a letter to Texas officials.

An email seeking comment was sent to Paxton's office.



The Texas case is one of two involving Carpenter that could end up testing shield laws.

Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul this year invoked the state's shield law in rejecting a request to extradite Carpenter to Louisiana, where the doctor was charged with prescribing abortion pills to a pregnant minor.

Hochul, responding to the latest request from Paxton's office, claimed he was attempting to dictate “the personal decisions of women across America.”

“Our response to their baseless claim is clear: no way in hell. New York won’t be bullied," she said in a prepared statement. "And I’ll never back down from this fight.”

Michael Hill, The Associated Press
 
mandrill

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,119
117,069
113
The Justice Department has fired at least a dozen employees in recent weeks who at one time worked with former special counsel Jack Smith, ranging from a senior ethics official to low-level support staff, sources familiar with matter tell CNN.


The firings indicate that the Trump administration is still searching high and low for any person who had a hand in the special counsel’s work, which resulted in two federal indictments against Donald Trump. Both cases were dismissed once he was reelected.


Trump has long said that Smith’s investigations amounted to a political “witch hunt,” and vowed to go after anyone who led or helped in that effort. Several career prosecutors on the cases have already been fired.


Related article Trump defends Bondi amid MAGA fallout over her handling of Epstein investigation


Joseph Tirrell, who until last week was responsible for advising Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche directly on ethics matters, posted a short letter advising him of his dismissal that did not provide a rationale for the termination. Tirrell had been director of the departmental ethics office since July 2023, according to DOJ.


“Until Friday evening, I was the senior ethics attorney at the Department of Justice responsible for advising the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General directly on federal employee ethics,” Tirrell wrote on LinkedIn. “I was also responsible for the day-to-day operations of the ethics program across the Department.”


He added: “My public service is not over, and my career as a Federal civil servant is not finished. I took the oath at 18 as a Midshipman to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States’… That oath did not come with the caveat that I need only support the Constitution when it is easy or convenient.”


Former Department of Justice ethics official Joseph Tirrell posted a letter to LinkedIn advising him of his dismissal.


Former Department of Justice ethics official Joseph Tirrell posted a letter to LinkedIn advising him of his dismissal.
Joseph Tirrell/LinkedIn

The Justice Department and Tirrell have not responded to CNN’s requests for comment.

 
mandrill

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,119
117,069
113
Justice Department whistleblower Erez Reuveni sounded the alarm about those in the department around Kilmar Ábrego García's case involving the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport people to a brutal prison in El Salvador.

In April, U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia Judge James Boasberg found "probable cause" to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt. He said that there was enough evidence to indicate the Department of Homeland Security violated his order.



"The Court ultimately determines that the Government's actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt," Boasberg wrote in April.

Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.

In a Lawfare column, analyst Benjamin Wittes wrote that Reuveni's tale "fits an increasingly common trope."

That familiar image is "an official—generally career but occasionally political—perfectly willing to defend or implement Trump administration policy, is not willing to lie or cheat by way of doing so," wrote Wittes. That person then "runs afoul of the powers that be" and is shoved out.

While others at the Justice Department have gone up against the Trump appointees, Wittes said that Reuveni's case is different because he "brought a remarkable collection of receipts." First, there was the 27-page whistleblower complaint, and then, 150 pages of supporting documentation, including texts and emails.


Wittes noted that the documents from Reuveni have bearing on three cases: the Alien Enemies Act case, the case involving Ábrego García, and the case about whether Homeland Security can deport someone to a third-party country where the deportee has no connection and could face persecution.

While Reuveni specifically cited associate deputy attorney general Emil Bove, who is up for a federal appeals court judgeship, he also makes allegations about DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign. Reuveni specifically alleges that Ensign misled the court, and he could have cleared it up, but didn't.

Reuveni’s complaint accused DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign of misleading Boasberg. During a March 15 hearing, Ensign assured the court that none of the named plaintiffs would be removed while the restraining order was in effect, but admitted he did not know the status of the planes.



"If there are removal flights, the five would not be on them," claimed Ensign.

Reuveni contends that Ensign’s statements were false, as internal communications indicated DOJ officials were aware that deportations were imminent.

When Ensign couldn't answer the judge's questions, he paused the hearing to allow Ensign time to figure out the answers to his questions. They would return at 6 p.m. that day. But by 5:24 p.m., two minutes after they adjourned the court, "DOJ attorneys, including Ensign and Mr. Reuveni, received an email from plaintiffs’ attorney citing public reporting of flight information and stating that they had reason to believe that people were on planes for imminent deportation," the report said.

Ensign still appeared in court after that, doubling down on his claims.

What Reuveni didn't write about was Ensign's appearance before Boasberg two weeks later.


When pressed by the judge, Ensign claimed, again, he had no knowledge from his client about the flights, only from the plaintiffs’ submissions. However, Reuveni’s documentation suggests otherwise, alleging a pattern of obfuscation and lack of candor.

According to Reuveni’s account, this wasn't true either, Wittes argued.

Wittes described Reuveni’s experience as emblematic of a broader trend: career officials willing to defend administration policy, but not to lie or break the law, are pushed out. Wittes argues that the administration’s approach reflects a willingness to ignore legal constraints, demand total loyalty, and reject mechanisms of accountability.

Read the full column here.


'Remarkable' receipts prove DOJ repeatedly lied to judge: Legal expert
 
mandrill

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,119
117,069
113
A federal judge of the United States District Court in Massachusetts has blocked President Donald Trump‘s executive order that aimed to dramatically change how elections are conducted nationwide, specifically for federal elections. The ruling stated that the order oversteps presidential authority and infringes upon states’ constitutional powers, Knewz.com has learned.

Trump’s Executive Order Attempted to Overhaul Elections


The executive order, signed by President Trump on March 25, sought to overhaul elections in the U.S. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The executive order, signed by President Trump on March 25, sought to require documentary proof of citizenship for all voters in federal elections, accept only mail-in ballots received by Election Day, as opposed to those postmarked by Election Day but received later, and tie federal election funding to states’ compliance with these new rules. The executive order was immediately challenged by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general, who argued the directive was unconstitutional. According to reports, the executive order is the culmination of President Trump’s longstanding complaints about the way elections are conducted. Following his win in 2016, Trump claimed that his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” After losing to President Joe Biden in 2020, the president made “false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines,” per reports.

Judge Casper’s Ruling Regarding Trump’s Executive Order


Judge Denise J. Casper wrote that “the Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.” BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts wrote in her ruling that “the Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.” She also noted that while U.S. citizenship is indeed a legal requirement to vote in federal elections — and must be attested to in voter registration forms — the Constitution grants states, not the president, the authority to regulate elections. That authority is outlined in Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which states that the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections are to be set by states, with Congress permitted to make laws to regulate them, not the executive branch, according to reports. Casper also cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would “burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs” to update procedures.

White House Defends Executive Order


The White House defended the executive order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections.” BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The White House defended the executive order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections” and called proof of citizenship a “commonsense” requirement. Justice Department attorney Bridget O’Hickey argued that the order aimed to streamline voting rules and reduce what she described as a “patchwork” of conflicting state laws. O’Hickey also suggested that ballots received after Election Day could be manipulated based on early election returns, a claim that election experts widely dismiss as speculative.

Legal Setback for Trump’s Executive Order


The lawsuit against Trump’s executive order was brought by attorneys general from several Democratic-led states. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The lawsuit against Trump’s executive order was brought by attorneys general from several Democratic-led states, including California and New York. “Free and fair elections are the foundation of this nation, and no president has the power to steal that right from the American people,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by that date. Election officials in mail-dependent states like Oregon and Washington had filed separate lawsuits against the executive order, stating it could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters. Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots arrived after Election Day during the 2024 election alone. Judge Casper, whose ruling went in favor of the states filing the lawsuit, said that the states had a strong likelihood of succeeding in their legal challenge.

Judge Blocks Trump's Attempt to Overhaul Elections
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
100,063
27,270
113
kherg007 said:
Ahh. Silly of me to forget. Lol.
But seriously, we're back in the world where norms, rules, laws and ethics only apply to others. Judges who block blatantly illegal executive orders are "interfering". And now, when I pull the Obama/Biden swap on my arch conservative friends I get silence. (Swap is... "If Obama did what Trump did, would you be OK with it?").
Remember how Fox news immediately went to "Tyrant!" On any Obama executive order, despite their legality.
Click to expand...
Its a good point. That ground was laid decades ago and its been a steady decline by both parties. True with both the dems and the GOP. Biden took it to the extreme by aiding genocide, after that there is no arguing that the dems follow rules based governance.

We've known that american politicians don't respect the will of voters, they only act on the will of those with money.
But they used to at least pretend they were upholding the law and doing it for the people.

www.vox.com

Study: Politicians listen to rich people, not you

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...
www.vox.com www.vox.com
 
mandrill

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,119
117,069
113
CHICAGO (Reuters) -A group of Democratic attorneys general sued Thursday to block the implementation of portions of a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rule set to go into effect next month that they say could lead to nearly 2 million people losing their health insurance.



The attorneys general of 20 states, including New Jersey, California and Massachusetts, joined with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, to file the lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts. They argue that the department's actions illegally change the rules governing state and federal health insurance marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act and therefore will push more healthcare costs onto the states. The final rule creates barriers to enrollment for health insurance sold on marketplaces and will increase insurance premiums, co-pays and other out-of-pocket costs they claim. The Trump administration has said that up to 1.8 million people could lose their health insurance as a result, according to the lawsuit. The attorneys general are asking the court to block portions of the rule from taking effect next month.



“As New Jersey and other states prepare for the 2026 open enrollment period, the Trump Administration is seeking to cause confusion and chaos in the healthcare marketplace, increase costs for our state, and create barriers to enrollment,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said in a statement. A representative for HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The rule, finalized by the HHS's Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in June, includes provisions meant to limit improper enrollments and the improper flow of federal funds, according to CMS.

The lawsuit challenges parts of the rule that shorten enrollment periods and charge a monthly $5 fee for some marketplace shoppers. It also targets a provision barring transgender healthcare from the list of essential health benefits subject to mandatory coverage under the Affordable Care Act.



The lawsuit claims the rule imposes burdensome and expensive paperwork and will force consumers to spend millions to prove eligibility for coverage and subsidies. The states say the rule is arbitrary and capricious and was enacted in violation of federal administrative law.

(Reporting by Diana Novak Jones, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Aurora Ellis)

Democratic attorneys general sue to block HHS changes to ACA health insurance marketplaces
 
mandrill

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,119
117,069
113
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has fired Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI director James Comey and a federal prosecutor in Manhattan who worked on the cases against Sean “Diddy” Combs and Jeffrey Epstein, three people familiar with the matter told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

There was no specific reason given for her firing, according to one of the people. They spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters.

Maurene Comey was a veteran lawyer in the Southern District of New York, long considered the most elite of the Justice Department’s prosecution offices. Her cases included the sex trafficking prosecution of Epstein, who killed himself behind bars in 2019 as he was awaiting trial, and the recent case against Combs, which ended earlier this month with a mixed verdict.

She didn’t immediately respond to messages seeking comment Wednesday.


It’s the latest move by the Justice Department to fire lawyers without explanation, which has raised alarm over a disregard for civil service protections designed to prevent terminations for political reasons. The Justice Department has also fired a number of prosecutors who worked on cases that have provoked President Donald Trump’s ire, including some who handled U.S. Capitol riot cases and lawyers and support staff who worked on special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutions of Trump.


Maurene Comey was long seen as a potential target given her father’s fraught relationship over the last decade with the Republican president. The Justice Department recently appeared to acknowledge the existence of an investigation into James Comey, though the basis for that inquiry is unclear.

Most recently, she was the lead prosecutor among six female prosecutors in the sex trafficking and racketeering case against Combs. The failure to convict the hip-hop mogul of the main charges, while gaining a conviction on prostitution-related charges that will likely result in a prison sentence of just a few years, was viewed by some fellow lawyers as a rare defeat by prosecutors.


But she was successful in numerous other prosecutions, most notably the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell on sex trafficking charges for helping financier Epstein sexually abuse underage girls. In that case, she delivered a rebuttal argument during closings, as she did in the Combs case.

Her firing comes as Attorney General Pam Bondi faces intense criticism from some members of Trump’s base for the Justice Department’s decision not to release any more evidence in the government’s possession from Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation. Some right-wing internet personalities, like Laura Loomer, who have been critical of Bondi’s handling of the Epstein files had been calling for Maurene Comey’s firing.

James Comey was the FBI director when Trump took office in 2017, having been appointed by then-President Barack Obama and serving before that as a senior Justice Department official in President George W. Bush’s administration. But his relationship with Trump was strained from the start, and the FBI director resisted a request by Trump at a private dinner to pledge personal loyalty to the president — an overture that so unnerved the FBI director that he documented it in a contemporaneous memorandum.




Trump soon after fired Comey amid an investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s presidential campaign. That inquiry, later taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller, would ultimately find that while Russia interfered with the 2016 election and the Trump team welcomed the help, there was insufficient evidence to prove a criminal collaboration.

Trump’s fury at the older Comey continued long after firing him from the bureau, blaming him for a “hoax” and “witch hunt” that shadowed much of his first term.


Comey disclosed contemporaneous memos of his conversations with Trump to a friend so that their content could be revealed to the media, and the following year he published a book calling Trump “ego driven” and likening him to a mafia don. Trump, for his part, has accused Comey and other officials of treason.

_____

Associated Press reporter Larry Neumeister in New York contributed.

apnews.com

Justice Department fires Maurene Comey, prosecutor on Epstein case and daughter of ex-FBI director

The Justice Department has fired Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI director James Comey and a prosecutor in the federal cases against Sean “Diddy” Combs and Jeffrey Epstein, three people familiar with the matter told The Associated Press.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Valcazar
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom