update - Katie Phang disses Trump's $20B "emotional injury" lawsuit vs CBS
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
It's a standard appeal court order to preserve status quo pending full argument of the appeal. Don't get your hopes up. It doesn't mean anything.
For what appears to be the first time, Donald Trump’s administration will “facilitate” the return of a “wrongfully” deported immigrant following a court order.
A gay Guatemalan man referred to as “O.C.G” in court documents says he survived sexual violence and kidnapping in Mexico on his way to the southern border last year. But federal immigration authorities failed to screen him for a credible fear assessment before deporting him back to the same country where he was raped and held for ransom.
Last week, District Judge Brian Murphy ordered the administration to “facilitate” his return — echoing court orders in two other high-profile immigration cases involving “wrongfully” deported immigrants.
“In general, this case presents no special facts or legal circumstances, only the banal horror of a man being wrongfully loaded onto a bus and sent back to a country where he was allegedly just raped and kidnapped,” Murphy wrote.
On Wednesday, lawyers for the Department of Justice said Homeland Security officials are preparing to return him to the United States — and potentially release him from custody for humanitarian reasons.
A flight crew in Phoenix is working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s air division to put him on a charter flight, according to court filings.
Murphy’s ruling marks at least the third time that the Trump administration has been ordered to return a wrongly deported immigrant.
Last month, a Trump-appointed federal judge found that the government’s removal of a 20-year-old Venezuelan man named in court documents as “Cristian” violated a court settlement intended to protect young immigrants who have pending asylum claims.
The Supreme Court has also unanimously agreed that the Trump administration “illegally” deported Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a father and husband living in Maryland. Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador as a teenager in 2011. He has been imprisoned in his home country since March 15.
More than a month after the highest court’s decision, the Trump administration has yet to facilitate his return, and is engaged in a tense legal battle to avoid answering what steps, if any, it is taking to bring him back, and arguing that the administration does not need to answer to questions from a federal judge about its arrangement with El Salvador.
The administration has filed a motion to try to dismiss that case altogether.
O.C.G.’s case is part of a wider class-action lawsuit targeting the administration’s so-called third-country removals, in which immigrants are deported to somewhere other than their home country. Murphy has blocked removing those immigrants without adequate notice — which he alleges the administration defied when authorities sent a group of immigrants to South Sudan.
Homeland Security official says court order blocking South Sudan deportations 'absurd'
Murphy, who was appointed by Joe Biden, has faced a barrage of attacks from the White House, which labeled him a “far-left activist” who is trying to “protect the violent criminal illegal immigrants.” Trump called him “absolutely out of control” and accused him of “hurting our country.”
This week, the judge accused government attorneys of “manufacturing chaos” surrounding the case.
Immigration officials initially claimed that O.C.G. had agreed to be sent to Mexico, but the administration later admitted in court documents that their claim was based on erroneous information. An immigration official wrote in a sworn statement that “ICE was unable to identify an officer or officers” who had even asked the man about his credible fear.
“How was this mistake made?” Murphy asked government lawyers during a hearing last week.
“This is a really big deal,” he said. “It is a big deal to lie to a court under oath. It is an extraordinarily big deal to do so when there are matters of national importance at stake. I take this extremely seriously.”
He suggested he could call Homeland Security officials into court to testify under oath.
“While mistakes obviously happen, the events leading up to this decision are troubling,” Murphy wrote in his order on May 23. “The Court was given false information, upon which it relied twice, to the detriment of a party at risk of serious and irreparable harm.”
Lawyers for the Guatemalan man are likely to “succeed in showing that his removal lacked any semblance of due process,” according to Murphy.
Trump administration agrees to return ‘wrongfully’ deported immigrant for first time after battling court orders
A gay Guatemalan man referred to as “O.C.G” in court documents says he survived sexual violence and kidnapping in Mexico on his way to the southern border last year. But federal immigration authorities failed to screen him for a credible fear assessment before deporting him back to the same country where he was raped and held for ransom.
Last week, District Judge Brian Murphy ordered the administration to “facilitate” his return — echoing court orders in two other high-profile immigration cases involving “wrongfully” deported immigrants.
“In general, this case presents no special facts or legal circumstances, only the banal horror of a man being wrongfully loaded onto a bus and sent back to a country where he was allegedly just raped and kidnapped,” Murphy wrote.
On Wednesday, lawyers for the Department of Justice said Homeland Security officials are preparing to return him to the United States — and potentially release him from custody for humanitarian reasons.
A flight crew in Phoenix is working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s air division to put him on a charter flight, according to court filings.
Murphy’s ruling marks at least the third time that the Trump administration has been ordered to return a wrongly deported immigrant.
Last month, a Trump-appointed federal judge found that the government’s removal of a 20-year-old Venezuelan man named in court documents as “Cristian” violated a court settlement intended to protect young immigrants who have pending asylum claims.
The Supreme Court has also unanimously agreed that the Trump administration “illegally” deported Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a father and husband living in Maryland. Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador as a teenager in 2011. He has been imprisoned in his home country since March 15.
More than a month after the highest court’s decision, the Trump administration has yet to facilitate his return, and is engaged in a tense legal battle to avoid answering what steps, if any, it is taking to bring him back, and arguing that the administration does not need to answer to questions from a federal judge about its arrangement with El Salvador.
The administration has filed a motion to try to dismiss that case altogether.
O.C.G.’s case is part of a wider class-action lawsuit targeting the administration’s so-called third-country removals, in which immigrants are deported to somewhere other than their home country. Murphy has blocked removing those immigrants without adequate notice — which he alleges the administration defied when authorities sent a group of immigrants to South Sudan.
Homeland Security official says court order blocking South Sudan deportations 'absurd'
Murphy, who was appointed by Joe Biden, has faced a barrage of attacks from the White House, which labeled him a “far-left activist” who is trying to “protect the violent criminal illegal immigrants.” Trump called him “absolutely out of control” and accused him of “hurting our country.”
This week, the judge accused government attorneys of “manufacturing chaos” surrounding the case.
Immigration officials initially claimed that O.C.G. had agreed to be sent to Mexico, but the administration later admitted in court documents that their claim was based on erroneous information. An immigration official wrote in a sworn statement that “ICE was unable to identify an officer or officers” who had even asked the man about his credible fear.
“How was this mistake made?” Murphy asked government lawyers during a hearing last week.
“This is a really big deal,” he said. “It is a big deal to lie to a court under oath. It is an extraordinarily big deal to do so when there are matters of national importance at stake. I take this extremely seriously.”
He suggested he could call Homeland Security officials into court to testify under oath.
“While mistakes obviously happen, the events leading up to this decision are troubling,” Murphy wrote in his order on May 23. “The Court was given false information, upon which it relied twice, to the detriment of a party at risk of serious and irreparable harm.”
Lawyers for the Guatemalan man are likely to “succeed in showing that his removal lacked any semblance of due process,” according to Murphy.
Trump administration agrees to return ‘wrongfully’ deported immigrant for first time after battling court orders
Trump's ludicrous shakedown $60B lawsuit Against CBS news is up and running with the Fat Corrupt TACO Fucker demanding a $25M bribe to drop the case.
The Orange Asshole is claiming he suffered $60B in "emotional damage" from a mean news item that was shown. The lawsuit is frivolous and is clearly just a vehicle for shaking down a bribe from the media.
Fat Donny's legal team claims in a new court filing that the president suffered “mental anguish” over the 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris at the center of his $20 billion lawsuit against CBS News, arguing that the network is wielding “the First Amendment as a sword.”
In a pair of objections filed in response to the network’s motions to dismiss the defamation suit, which legal experts have described as “frivolous,” the president’s lawyers reiterate that Trump was caused personal financial harm by the editing of the interview, claiming that CBS' parent company, Paramount, and Trump Media – which owns Truth Social – are competitors.
The latest development in this legal fracas comes after the Wall Street Journalreported Paramount had offered the president $15 million to settle the lawsuit, only for Trump to reportedly demand at least $25 million along with an apology over the interview. Trump also threatened to file another lawsuit accusing the network of biased news coverage, according to the Journal.
Even though Paramount’s legal team filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit in March, calling it an “affront to the First Amendment without basis in law or fact,” the company has proposed settling the complaint as it needs the Trump administration’s approval to complete an $8 billion merger with Skydance Media.
The discussions around a settlement, which Paramount chair Shari Redstone has pushed for ahead of the merger, have resulted in tensions within the network. In recent weeks, 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens and CBS News chief Wendy McMahon, who had made it clear they would not apologize as part of any deal with Trump, abruptly announced their resignations.
Meanwhile, mediation sessions between Paramount and Trump’s team have stalled over the past month, though the two sides were scheduled to meet again on Thursday. Redstone, meanwhile, has recused herself from the negotiations.
On the last day to file an objection, the president’s lawyers opposed both of Paramount’s motions to dismiss on Wednesday night.
Regarding Paramount’s efforts to get the lawsuit kicked out of court due to improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction, the president’s legal team rejected the notion that it was “naked-forum shopping” by filing the case in the Northern District of Texas. Instead, they argued that Trump and his co-defendant Rep. Ronny Jackson (D-TX) have “sufficient minimum contacts” in the state, and their complaints arise from that.
“The fact that such commercial speech was issued by a news organization does not insulate Defendants from liability under the First Amendment,” the objection states. “The First Amendment is no shield to news distortion.”
As for the motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim, Trump’s lawyers stated that the interview – which the president has asserted was deceitfully edited to make Harris look good and therefore interfere with the election – caused personal damage to both Trump and viewers.
“This led to widespread confusion and mental anguish of consumers, including Plaintiffs, regarding a household name of the legacy media apparently deceptively distorting its broadcasts, and then resisting attempts to clear the public record,” the opposition motion declares.
Additionally, the president’s team claimed that Paramount and CBS “seek to wield the First Amendment as a sword, arguing that they cannot be held responsible for illegal conduct, intended to mislead the masses and undertaken in the pursuit of profit, because such conduct was the result of ‘editorial judgment.'”
Donald Trump and his legal team asseted that the “First Amendment is no shield to news distortion” in a recent court filing in the CBS lawsuit. (AFP/Getty)
“No matter how many times they claim the conduct at issue was editorial speech, that ipse dixit does not make it so,” the objection adds.
While Paramount appears to want to settle the complaint that CBS News has said is “completely without merit” sooner rather than later, it is also getting its ducks in a row in case the deal with Skydance falls through.
According to the Journal, the company is expected to nominate three new directors to the board in the coming weeks to bring the total to seven. Additionally, a current director is expected to step down soon and will also need to be replaced.
Though the media conglomerate seems desperate to settle with the president, some executives have expressed concerns that paying the president to make the lawsuit go away could open them up to liability or even criminal charges for bribery.
In fact, several Democratic senators have already warned Redstone and Paramount that they could face investigation for violating anti-bribery laws if a settlement with Trump is reached. Furthermore, the Freedom of the Press Foundation has said it intends to sue Paramount if the company settles with the president.
Due to those concerns, the board is hoping to keep the settlement amount in the range of other media companies that have recently reached deals with Trump, in hopes that this would minimize any liability.
The $15 million that Paramount is reportedly offering Trump, for instance, is the same amount that Disney paid to end his defamation suit against ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos over an interview that saw Stephanopoulos claiming that Trump was found civilly liable for rape rather than sexual abuse.
The Independent has always had a global perspective. Built on a firm foundation of superb international reporting and analysis, The Independent now enjoys a reach that was inconceivable when it was launched as an upstart player in the British news industry. For the first time since the end of the Second World War, and across the world, pluralism, reason, a progressive and humanitarian agenda, and internationalism – Independent values – are under threat. Yet we, The Independent, continue to grow.
Trump now claims 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris caused him ‘mental anguish’
The Orange Asshole is claiming he suffered $60B in "emotional damage" from a mean news item that was shown. The lawsuit is frivolous and is clearly just a vehicle for shaking down a bribe from the media.
Fat Donny's legal team claims in a new court filing that the president suffered “mental anguish” over the 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris at the center of his $20 billion lawsuit against CBS News, arguing that the network is wielding “the First Amendment as a sword.”
In a pair of objections filed in response to the network’s motions to dismiss the defamation suit, which legal experts have described as “frivolous,” the president’s lawyers reiterate that Trump was caused personal financial harm by the editing of the interview, claiming that CBS' parent company, Paramount, and Trump Media – which owns Truth Social – are competitors.
The latest development in this legal fracas comes after the Wall Street Journalreported Paramount had offered the president $15 million to settle the lawsuit, only for Trump to reportedly demand at least $25 million along with an apology over the interview. Trump also threatened to file another lawsuit accusing the network of biased news coverage, according to the Journal.
Even though Paramount’s legal team filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit in March, calling it an “affront to the First Amendment without basis in law or fact,” the company has proposed settling the complaint as it needs the Trump administration’s approval to complete an $8 billion merger with Skydance Media.
The discussions around a settlement, which Paramount chair Shari Redstone has pushed for ahead of the merger, have resulted in tensions within the network. In recent weeks, 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens and CBS News chief Wendy McMahon, who had made it clear they would not apologize as part of any deal with Trump, abruptly announced their resignations.
Meanwhile, mediation sessions between Paramount and Trump’s team have stalled over the past month, though the two sides were scheduled to meet again on Thursday. Redstone, meanwhile, has recused herself from the negotiations.
On the last day to file an objection, the president’s lawyers opposed both of Paramount’s motions to dismiss on Wednesday night.
Regarding Paramount’s efforts to get the lawsuit kicked out of court due to improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction, the president’s legal team rejected the notion that it was “naked-forum shopping” by filing the case in the Northern District of Texas. Instead, they argued that Trump and his co-defendant Rep. Ronny Jackson (D-TX) have “sufficient minimum contacts” in the state, and their complaints arise from that.
“The fact that such commercial speech was issued by a news organization does not insulate Defendants from liability under the First Amendment,” the objection states. “The First Amendment is no shield to news distortion.”
As for the motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim, Trump’s lawyers stated that the interview – which the president has asserted was deceitfully edited to make Harris look good and therefore interfere with the election – caused personal damage to both Trump and viewers.
“This led to widespread confusion and mental anguish of consumers, including Plaintiffs, regarding a household name of the legacy media apparently deceptively distorting its broadcasts, and then resisting attempts to clear the public record,” the opposition motion declares.
Additionally, the president’s team claimed that Paramount and CBS “seek to wield the First Amendment as a sword, arguing that they cannot be held responsible for illegal conduct, intended to mislead the masses and undertaken in the pursuit of profit, because such conduct was the result of ‘editorial judgment.'”
Donald Trump and his legal team asseted that the “First Amendment is no shield to news distortion” in a recent court filing in the CBS lawsuit. (AFP/Getty)
“No matter how many times they claim the conduct at issue was editorial speech, that ipse dixit does not make it so,” the objection adds.
While Paramount appears to want to settle the complaint that CBS News has said is “completely without merit” sooner rather than later, it is also getting its ducks in a row in case the deal with Skydance falls through.
According to the Journal, the company is expected to nominate three new directors to the board in the coming weeks to bring the total to seven. Additionally, a current director is expected to step down soon and will also need to be replaced.
Though the media conglomerate seems desperate to settle with the president, some executives have expressed concerns that paying the president to make the lawsuit go away could open them up to liability or even criminal charges for bribery.
In fact, several Democratic senators have already warned Redstone and Paramount that they could face investigation for violating anti-bribery laws if a settlement with Trump is reached. Furthermore, the Freedom of the Press Foundation has said it intends to sue Paramount if the company settles with the president.
Due to those concerns, the board is hoping to keep the settlement amount in the range of other media companies that have recently reached deals with Trump, in hopes that this would minimize any liability.
The $15 million that Paramount is reportedly offering Trump, for instance, is the same amount that Disney paid to end his defamation suit against ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos over an interview that saw Stephanopoulos claiming that Trump was found civilly liable for rape rather than sexual abuse.
The Independent has always had a global perspective. Built on a firm foundation of superb international reporting and analysis, The Independent now enjoys a reach that was inconceivable when it was launched as an upstart player in the British news industry. For the first time since the end of the Second World War, and across the world, pluralism, reason, a progressive and humanitarian agenda, and internationalism – Independent values – are under threat. Yet we, The Independent, continue to grow.
Trump now claims 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris caused him ‘mental anguish’
Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to the president of the American Bar Association (ABA) saying that the organization is no longer welcome to weigh in on President Donald Trump's appointments to the courts.
Typically, the ABA scores the qualifications of an appointee to the bench regardless of the administration and partisanship. The ABA hasn't yet made any scores during Trump's latest term but in his first, of his 264 nominees, the ABA rated 187 "well-qualified." Another 67 earned "qualified rankings," and ten were rated "not qualified."
Trump recently named his own personal lawyer, Emil Bove, to serve on the Court of Appeals
Bondi said in her letter to William R. Bay that the ABA has become a politically biased institution because it ranks Democratic appointees higher than Republicans.
ALSO READ: Revealed: Far-right pressuring Johnson to join Trump in new attack
"Unfortunately, the ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees' qualifications and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations. The ABA's steadfast refusal to fix the bias in its ratings process, despite criticism from Congress, the Administration, and the academy, is disquieting," wrote Bondi.
Bondi didn't include any information to prove the statistics on GOP appointees vs. Democratic ones.
Criminal-defense attorney Scott H. Greenfield remarked, "AG Bondi has officially ousted the ABA from access to nominees to rate their qualifications for the bench. Frankly, the criticism of the ABA's progressive bias is more than fair."
During his first term in office, the ABA rated 264 of Trump's nominees; 187 were rated “well-qualified,” 67 were rated “qualified,” and 10 were rated “not qualified," Ballotpedia cited.
A Nov. 2011 report from Marquette University Law School said that former President Barack Obama saw 14 of his appointees rejected by the ABA's judicial vetting committee.
"The overall rejection rate was 7.5 percent, a rate three and a half times that for the eight-year administrations of both President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton," the report said.
Iowa law school professor Andy Grewal, who advocated impeaching "the entire federal judiciary," wrote on X, "The ABA did this to itself."
In February, however, amid threats on law firms and judges by Trump, the American Bar Association president penned a column saying that their group "supports the rule of law."
Read the letter here.
Pam Bondi ousts American Bar Association from Department of Justice: lawyer
Typically, the ABA scores the qualifications of an appointee to the bench regardless of the administration and partisanship. The ABA hasn't yet made any scores during Trump's latest term but in his first, of his 264 nominees, the ABA rated 187 "well-qualified." Another 67 earned "qualified rankings," and ten were rated "not qualified."
Trump recently named his own personal lawyer, Emil Bove, to serve on the Court of Appeals
Bondi said in her letter to William R. Bay that the ABA has become a politically biased institution because it ranks Democratic appointees higher than Republicans.
ALSO READ: Revealed: Far-right pressuring Johnson to join Trump in new attack
"Unfortunately, the ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees' qualifications and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations. The ABA's steadfast refusal to fix the bias in its ratings process, despite criticism from Congress, the Administration, and the academy, is disquieting," wrote Bondi.
Bondi didn't include any information to prove the statistics on GOP appointees vs. Democratic ones.
Criminal-defense attorney Scott H. Greenfield remarked, "AG Bondi has officially ousted the ABA from access to nominees to rate their qualifications for the bench. Frankly, the criticism of the ABA's progressive bias is more than fair."
During his first term in office, the ABA rated 264 of Trump's nominees; 187 were rated “well-qualified,” 67 were rated “qualified,” and 10 were rated “not qualified," Ballotpedia cited.
A Nov. 2011 report from Marquette University Law School said that former President Barack Obama saw 14 of his appointees rejected by the ABA's judicial vetting committee.
"The overall rejection rate was 7.5 percent, a rate three and a half times that for the eight-year administrations of both President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton," the report said.
Iowa law school professor Andy Grewal, who advocated impeaching "the entire federal judiciary," wrote on X, "The ABA did this to itself."
In February, however, amid threats on law firms and judges by Trump, the American Bar Association president penned a column saying that their group "supports the rule of law."
Read the letter here.
Pam Bondi ousts American Bar Association from Department of Justice: lawyer
SCotUS allows temporary application by Trump admin uphold its decision to end Biden's protected status of asylum seekers from Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua in the US.
The majority believed that the decision was squarely within the purview of the president and that ultimate success was guaranteed in any event. 2 dissents said "fuck that! If ordinary people are going to be fucked over and deported, the stay should issue and remain in place until the outcome of the case was reached and 100% certain."
Case goes back down to the court of appeal for full argument.
The majority believed that the decision was squarely within the purview of the president and that ultimate success was guaranteed in any event. 2 dissents said "fuck that! If ordinary people are going to be fucked over and deported, the stay should issue and remain in place until the outcome of the case was reached and 100% certain."
Case goes back down to the court of appeal for full argument.
I thought you said it was $60 billion. Oh, never mind, I forgot you exaggerate everything.
