Acting Vermont AUSA Michael P. Drescher is up again for rebuttal.
DOJ: On bail, our threshold position is, considering Jennings, Velasco Lopez, there's a question of whether court is permitted to release. Our argument is court doesn't have jurisdiction.
The US attorney is the chief law enforcement officer for a district court for the US federal government. There are only 93, one per district. They're basically local federal attorneys general. An AUSA is an attorney that works for a US attorney.
DOJ: On Mapp factors, anyone detained is having 1A freedoms limited.
Judge: There are multiple concerns. Petitioners argue Ozturk's own 1A rights are violated. Second, how arrest happened, whether permitted to know where she was going, etc. Denied ability to get to court.
The entire thing is so blatantly vile. I cannot believe these illegal arrests even need to be litigated. The only factor that should be litigated is the compensation the victims deserve.
Judge: I've suggested bringing Ozturk back here for hearings on claims (so she can assist) and bail/release. How are you prejudiced by that proceeding?
DOJ: As an advocate, I don't think that would be prejudicial. Would mainly be in details of detention—would need to find detention bed locally, etc
It's interesting how this AUSA is behaving normally in courtroom—not calling Ozturk a terrorist, not being inflammatory. Not sure if main DOJ / Trump will hate this or not care.
This is both very Vermont and fairly clever insofar as being agreeable and superficially reasonable can go some distance in masking faults in your argument.
Be polite, not nice. DOJ had been previously rude, angered judges though they didn't lash out in a way that the GOP admin could leverage. Not sure if they pulled back on loaded language bc it has been used against them already, but who knows what their reasoning is. Kairos rhetoric, probably.
I think that cuts the other way: They've been happy behaving abysmally in other cases (Abrego Garcia, J.G.G.), knowing they plan to ask the Supreme Court to overrule any lower-court decisions
Vermont practice is generally collegial. It is a small district, so the attorney is going to appear before this judge often. Inflammatory or off-base argument does not work in Vermont.
She’s a bit of a problem because there’s proof she didn’t do anything wrong and the awful video of her being kidnapped by masked ICE agents has been widely circulated.
But this guy might be put on admin leave tomorrow.
On this topic, Joshua, are you speculating that the AUSA is engaging in a (very minor) act of defiance, or just wondering if this is his normal affect in court? (That hyperbole doesn’t gain any ground with a reasonable audience).
Or just opining that Bondi has called for uncritical conformance?
AUSAs are usually very experienced attorneys who have long learned the lesson that pissing off a judge for no reason is a terrible idea. So they usually try to sound reasonable to the judge. They can always outsource looking like a dick to their client who are usually more than happy to oblige.
How this AUSA could possibly calliing Oztürk a terrorist when all she did in fact was to write in very poised terms about peace, genocide of innocent Palestinians and free speech???
He actually has a point of law to argue. What's the expression? If the law is on your side, hammer the law. If the law is not on your side, hammer the table.
The prosecution is saying that if we choose to detain you prior to deportation we can and current law says the courts cannot involve themselves at all. For any reason.
There was so much of this country that was based in good faith. We used to force resignation for breaking that faith.
looks like if we ever mange to right this crap piece of a ship it's time to inscribe some actual rights to due process for legal residents and non-citizens
Biden made a good faith effort that would have handled pending climate migrations, processing our huge backlog of asylum requests, came up with a quick way of sorting sheep from goats (migrants vs bad actors).
On outgoing for deportees.. I honestly don't even know where to start with that. Requiring an arraignment/bail hearing within the next business day would probably handle the majority of the issues.
Comments
DOJ: On bail, our threshold position is, considering Jennings, Velasco Lopez, there's a question of whether court is permitted to release. Our argument is court doesn't have jurisdiction.
Judge: There are multiple concerns. Petitioners argue Ozturk's own 1A rights are violated. Second, how arrest happened, whether permitted to know where she was going, etc. Denied ability to get to court.
DOJ: As an advocate, I don't think that would be prejudicial. Would mainly be in details of detention—would need to find detention bed locally, etc
Professional, at least, as they defend the nazi regime
Not a lawyer.
ACLU now up: Would want to consult with immigration counsel and submit short supplement to court.
Judge: Yes, if court were to accept habeas jurisdiction, let me know if May hearing is viable.
Judge: I appreciate professionalism from advocates. This was very well argued.
[END]
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/pam-bondi-justice-department-punish-lawyers-rcna200220
But this guy might be put on admin leave tomorrow.
Or just opining that Bondi has called for uncritical conformance?
How this AUSA could possibly calliing Oztürk a terrorist when all she did in fact was to write in very poised terms about peace, genocide of innocent Palestinians and free speech???
There was so much of this country that was based in good faith. We used to force resignation for breaking that faith.
It needed work, but it was a good start.