ACLU asks judge to force the Trump administration to state under oath if it violated his court order

[Nobody911]

"Plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed to halt deportations under a rarely-used 18th century wartime law invoked by President Donald Trump asked a federal judge Monday to force officials to explain under oath whether they violated his court order by removing more than 200 people from the country after it was issued and celebrating it on social media.

The motion marks another escalation in the battle over Trump’s aggressive opening moves in his second term, several of which have been temporarily halted by judges. Trump’s allies have raged over the holds and suggested he does not have to obey them, and some plaintiffs have said it appears the administration is flouting court orders.

On Saturday night, District Judge James E. Boasberg ordered the administration not to deport anyone in its custody over the newly-invoked Alien Enemies Act, which has only been used three times before in U.S. history, all during congressionally-declared wars. Trump issued a proclamation that the 1798 law was newly in effect due to what he claimed was an invasion by the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua.

Trump’s invocation of the act could allow him to deport any noncitizen he says is associated with the gang, without offering proof or even publicly identifying them. The plaintiffs filed their suit on behalf of several Venezuelans in U.S. custody who feared they’d be falsely accused of being Tren de Aragua members and improperly removed from the country.'

Judge questions Trump administration on whether it ignored order to turn around deportation flights

A federal judge on Monday was incredulous at the contention by the Trump administration that his directive to turn around deportation flights wasn't binding because it was made verbally.

apnews.com

The only way to confront tyranny is with facts and the truth.

Dude, what do you expect from the US government of the wealthy, for the wealthy? Do you think the rich Trump admin really cares what those judges said? Gee, someone doesn't know anything about the American revolving door. lol.

The administration is characterized by an unprecedented number of billionaires holding key roles. President Trump has appointed at least 13 billionaires to his administration, making it the wealthiest in modern history24. This includes prominent figures like Elon Musk, who is overseeing a new Department of Government Efficiency, and other billionaires in roles such as commerce secretary, education secretary, and ambassadors to various countries24. The combined net worth of these individuals is substantial, with Elon Musk alone having a net worth exceeding $400 billion4. This wealth concentration raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and whether these officials can effectively represent the interests of average Americans24.

sources:
1. The FY2025 House Budget reconciliation and Trump Administration Tax Proposals: Budgetary, Economic, and Distributional Effects — Penn Wharton Budget Model
2. After running on a working-class message, Trump fills his government with billionaires
3. President Trump Is Delivering Needed Economic Relief
4. Trump has tapped an unprecedented 13 billionaires for his administration. Here's who they are
5. Here’s How Trump’s Executive Orders Align With Project 2025—As Author Hails President’s Agenda As ‘Beyond My Wildest Dreams’
6. Here's what we know about how Trump will tackle these major issues
7. Trump Administration Pauses Federal Financial Assistance | Insights | Holland & Knight
8. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/04/g-s1-50488/trump-congress-joint-address-fact-check

 

[jotathought]

That did not happen.

I see .. so the Biden administration didn't ignore education debt against the decision with the Supreme Court?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I see .. so the Biden administration didn't ignore education debt against the decision with the Supreme Court?

Actually, no. The Biden Administration DID stop forgiving Student Loan Debt under their interpretation of the specific existing law they were using as justification which the SCOTUS ruled on.

The SCOTUS did NOT rule there weren't other laws that allow for student debt loan forgiveness. For example the PSLF (Public Service Loan Forgiveness) program authorized by Congress.

WW

 

[Crepitus]

I see .. so the Biden administration didn't ignore education debt against the decision with the Supreme Court?

Exactly.

 

[struth]

"Plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed to halt deportations under a rarely-used 18th century wartime law invoked by President Donald Trump asked a federal judge Monday to force officials to explain under oath whether they violated his court order by removing more than 200 people from the country after it was issued and celebrating it on social media.

The motion marks another escalation in the battle over Trump’s aggressive opening moves in his second term, several of which have been temporarily halted by judges. Trump’s allies have raged over the holds and suggested he does not have to obey them, and some plaintiffs have said it appears the administration is flouting court orders.

On Saturday night, District Judge James E. Boasberg ordered the administration not to deport anyone in its custody over the newly-invoked Alien Enemies Act, which has only been used three times before in U.S. history, all during congressionally-declared wars. Trump issued a proclamation that the 1798 law was newly in effect due to what he claimed was an invasion by the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua.

Trump’s invocation of the act could allow him to deport any noncitizen he says is associated with the gang, without offering proof or even publicly identifying them. The plaintiffs filed their suit on behalf of several Venezuelans in U.S. custody who feared they’d be falsely accused of being Tren de Aragua members and improperly removed from the country.'

Judge questions Trump administration on whether it ignored order to turn around deportation flights

A federal judge on Monday was incredulous at the contention by the Trump administration that his directive to turn around deportation flights wasn't binding because it was made verbally.

apnews.com

The only way to confront tyranny is with facts and the truth.

So the ACLU, who's suppose to be fighting for people's civil liberties, is trying to get the Court to force citizens to potentially incriminate themselves?

Deporting criminal aliens isn't tyrantical....but trying to force courts to violate citizens rights, is.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So the ACLU, who's suppose to be fighting for people's civil liberties, is trying to get the Court to force citizens to potentially incriminate themselves?

Deporting criminal aliens isn't tyrantical....but trying to force courts to violate citizens rights, is.

If someone thinks they committed a crime, they are free to claim the 5th Ammendment.

However this is a civil case.

WW

 

[struth]

If someone thinks they committed a crime, they are free to claim the 5th Ammendment.

However this is a civil case.

WW

The 5th applies to civil cases as well. Moreover, the 5th doesn't just protect you from if you think you committed a crime, it protects you from being forced to testify against yourself if you think there is a possiblity of criminal exposure, simply a reasonable belief, such as even criminal contempt by a Judge, or if a demafascsit ever takes the Oval again, and does that they did to their political rivals.

What the ACLU is asking the Court to do, was something they should never be requesting if they are in fact about defending civil liberties.

 

[Cougarbear]

#1 You know that the way laws are coded over time has changed right? So the dates can reflect the conversion.

#2 You just dishonestly chopped the quote. What it says is "or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,".

You left off that it had to be a foreign nation or government. A criminal gang, even one designated as a terroristg organization, is not a foreign nation or government.

WW

I was stressing the word "Or" in context that this part did not include governments. Do you know English and usage of words like "Or?" No, you don't.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I was stressing the word "Or" in context that this part did not include governments. Do you know English and usage of words like "Or?" No, you don't.

Yes I get that you were stressing the us of "OR" by taking it out of context and changing the meaning.

The whole relevant part of the sentence is: "Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,..."

The "or any invasion or predatory incursion" is by a foreign government. You can't ignore the final part of the phrase if honest understanding is the goal.

WW

 

[Cougarbear]

Yes I get that you were stressing the us of "OR" by taking it out of context and changing the meaning.

The whole relevant part of the sentence is: "Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,..."

The "or any invasion or predatory incursion" is by a foreign government. You can't ignore the final part of the phrase if honest understanding is the goal.

WW

So, there are two words, "Or" and "And." "And" means "In addition to." If the sentence had "And" in it, then the invasion or predatory incursion would be directly related with declaration of war, foreign nation or government. In which you are trying to make the case for. But, the word is not "And." It's "Or." And, it doesn't say either/or or either or Or. "Or" represents by definition an alternative choice between "Declaration of War, Foreign Nation or Government, predatory invasion/incursion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So, there are two words, "Or" and "And." "And" means "In addition to." If the sentence had "And" in it, then the invasion or predatory incursion would be directly related with declaration of war, foreign nation or government. In which you are trying to make the case for. But, the word is not "And." It's "Or." And, it doesn't say either/or or either or Or. "Or" represents by definition an alternative choice between "Declaration of War, Foreign Nation or Government, predatory invasion/incursion.

Nope. I’m and electronics technician and a database guy. You are twisting the language toward in incorrect application.

There are two logic entities: declaration of war or foreign government. The declaration of war is a single state logic entity.

The foreign government as a separate OR entity and has its own logic input conditions that can result in a TRUE result.

But that’s OK, those who can read and understand logic understand what that passage is saying.

That’s why the Judge issued the TRO and Trump/DOJ will loose on the merits.

WW

 

[Cougarbear]

Nope. I’m and electronics technician and a database guy. You are twisting the language toward in incorrect application.

There are two logic entities: declaration of war or foreign government. The declaration of war is a single state logic entity.

The foreign government as a separate OR entity and has its own logic input conditions that can result in a TRUE result.

But that’s OK, those who can read and understand logic understand what that passage is saying.

That’s why the Judge issued the TRO and Trump/DOJ will loose on the merits.

WW

Trump will win easily. Only liberal Democrats twist simply conjunctions.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Trump will win easily. Only liberal Democrats twist simply conjunctions.

Not in court.

Only to people that don't under stand basic "OR" functions and their application to the limiting entities.

To have a TRUE (Output) result, it must be either a Foreign Government or Declared War.

Criminal organizations are not governments.

WW

 

[Cougarbear]

View attachment 1091587

Not in court.

Only to people that don't under stand basic "OR" functions and their application to the limiting entities.

To have a TRUE (Output) result, it must be either a Foreign Government or Declared War.

Criminal organizations are not governments.

WW

Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Truman all did it. Wilson and Truman well after the war was over. The Supreme Court agreed as well with Truman. You lose again.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Truman all did it. Wilson and Truman well after the war was over. The Supreme Court agreed as well with Truman. You lose again.

When you mention Truman are you referencing the Luedecke case?
It doesn’t say what you think. Read the decision. It doesn’t say what you think.

It was about German deportations while we where in a state of declared war.

When did Congress declare war on Venezuela?

I provided the link earlier in the v thread. You should read it.

You can make false statements in the internet, but they won’t matter in court. Because the Judge WILL read it, probably already has.

WW

 

[toobfreak]

Too funny.

Fuck the ACLU and the judge they came riding in on.

 

[Cougarbear]

When you mention Truman are you referencing the Luedecke case?
It doesn’t say what you think. Read the decision. It doesn’t say what you think.

It was about German deportations while we where in a state of declared war.

When did Congress declare war on Venezuela?

I provided the link earlier in the v thread. You should read it.

You can make false statements in the internet, but they won’t matter in court. Because the Judge WILL read it, probably already has.

WW

We were no longer in a state of declared war with Germany. You are wrong on this. Therefore, we do not have to be in a state of declared war on Venezuela to deport their terrorist organizations. The word "Or" in the law provides for terrorist groups to be deported without hearings.

 

[toobfreak]

View attachment 1091587

Only to people that don't under stand basic "OR" functions and their application to the limiting entities.

Why would you not simply use a three input OR gate? Why would you use two gates with three inputs if you only have two different variables? And if there are only two variables, then why not just a single 2-input OR gate?

Criminal organizations are not governments.

Wrong. In some cases (like Mexico) the criminal organization IS the government.

 

[WorldWatcher]

We were no longer in a state of declared war with Germany. You are wrong on this. Therefore, we do not have to be in a state of declared war on Venezuela to deport their terrorist organizations. The word "Or" in the law provides for terrorist groups to be deported without hearings.

Again you show thatg you haven't read the decision you are repeating what you have been told. The decision was rendered in 1948, but stems from attempted deportation of Germans in 1946.

The SCOTUS found that "YES" were were still in a state of war and remained so until the Paris Peace Treaties formally ended the war AFTER the attempted 1946 deportation.

So ya, we were in a declared war and was the basiss for the SCOTUS Ludecke decision.

WW
.
.
.

Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948)

Ludecke v. Watkins

supreme.justia.com

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why would you not simply use a three input OR gate? Why would you use two gates with three inputs if you only have two different variables? And if there are only two variables, then why not just a single 2-input OR gate?

Truth table works out the same. However I showed the logic using they two OR gates representing the relevant logic entitites (that match the sentence), those being (A) and Act of Congress declaring war, and (B) The action of a Foreign Government - either then can be used as input to the final "Entity" gate for determinging if the logic output is TRUE or FALSE.

The left two gates present the triggering entities, the left gate represents final output.

Wrong. In some cases (like Mexico) the criminal organization IS the government.

No, it's not.

WW