Anne
LightNews LightNews
banner
captainseeley.bsky.social
Anne
@captainseeley.bsky.social
770 followers 550 following 120 posts
Policy Analyst. Dog aficionado. Addicted to dice and D&D. She/They
Posts Replies Media Videos
captainseeley.bsky.social
I hope those in his district flood his office with calls.
December 19, 2025 at 5:39 AM
Reposted by Anne
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
🚨Judge Xinis finds that, incredibly, Mr. Abrego Garcia was never ordered deported in 2019. She notes that every since this saga began all the way back in March, the government has NEVER been able to produce any evidence that the immigration judge actually issued a removal order.
B. No Order of Removal Exists for Abrego Garcia No such order of removal exists for Abrego Garcia. When Abrego Garcia was first wrongly expelled to El Salvador, the Court struggled to understand the legal authority for even seizing him in the first place. At the first hearing in Abrego I, the Court inquired of Respondents’ counsel: The Court: I want to ask, though, the very specific question, if there is a final order of removal, what . . . document got this process started? There is no warrant for his arrest by an order of removal. There is no statement of probable cause. There’s no charge. There’s no report that says that anyone saw Mr. Abrego Garcia doing anything illegal or criminal. So what is the actual document that gave these officers the authority to start this process? Counsel: That is not in the record, and the government has not put that into the record. And that’s the best I can do. Abrego I, ECF No. 33 at 21:11–22. The Court continued to press counsel about the existence of a removal order and was told plainly that none can be found: The Court: Okay. So if there’s a Title 8 removal order, there would be an order of removal that’s being executed, and we don’t have one for Mr. Abrego Garcia, right? . . . Do you have that order? . . . Is it in the record? Counsel: I do not have that order. It is not in the record. Id. at 23:7–24:4. Since that time, Respondents have never produced an order of removal despite Abrego Garcia hinging much of his jurisdictional and legal arguments on its non-existence. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 68–69; ECF No. 32 at 10, 15–17, 27; ECF No. 87 at 11–12. Indeed, Respondents twice sponsored the testimony of ICE officials whose job it is to effectuate removal orders, and who candidly admitted to having never seen one for Abrego Garcia. See ECF No. 107 at 30:16–22 (testimony of Cantú) (“Q: Based upon your many years of experience you described to us, you know what a final order of removal looks like, right, sir? Cantú: I do. Q: And have you seen a final order of removal in regard to Mr. Abrego Garcia? Cantú: I have not.”). See also Abrego I, ECF No. 234 at 46:6–12 (testimony of interim Assistant Director for ICE Removal Operations, Thomas Giles (“Giles”)) (“Q: You have not seen the final order of removal, have you, sir? Giles: What do you mean by that? Q: I mean, you have not seen a piece of paper that represents the final order of removal vis-a-vis Mr. Abrego Garcia, correct? Giles: No, I have not.”).15 Based on this, the Court concludes that no order of removal exists.
December 11, 2025 at 4:13 PM
captainseeley.bsky.social
Is that a rainbow? Did Trump give out gay awards??
December 9, 2025 at 12:51 AM
captainseeley.bsky.social
I’m so sorry. It’s been a battle here lately to protect our right to the initiate petition, but we do still currently have it which is something I’m very grateful for.
December 9, 2025 at 12:36 AM
captainseeley.bsky.social
Do you happen to know if Indiana has a process for a referendum should this pass, like we’re attempting here in Missouri?
December 9, 2025 at 12:26 AM
captainseeley.bsky.social
Sad thing is some people will object to that solely as being against “freedom of religion”, but be fine with everything else.
December 8, 2025 at 4:09 AM