Posted on 06/09/2025 10:48:55 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The left that marketed him as the ‘wrongly deported Maryland dad’ now downplays his alleged crimes to fit their messaging.
The propaganda press catchphrase of recent days is “wrongly deported,” used liberally in headlines describing the latest chapter of the Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia deportation saga. For open-border activists, who have been blindly advocating for Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S., “wrongly deported,” goes down easier than “alleged international human trafficker.”
A grand jury indictment unsealed Friday by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), charged Abrego Garcia, 30, with “conspiracy to transport aliens” and “unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens.” The charges are related to his connection to an international human smuggling ring that trafficked thousands of illegal aliens into the U.S. between 2016-2025, the indictment said.
Abrego Garcia worked with co-conspirators to move people from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador, and elsewhere, through Mexico, crossing the border into Texas, and then moving them throughout the United States, the indictment said.
Abrego Garcia’s main co-conspirators are not named, but identified by numbers 1-6. Like Abrego Garcia, co-conspirators 1-5 are citizens of El Salvador, while co-conspirator 6 is a citizen of Guatemala, according to the indictment.
Abrego and his co-conspirators in the trafficking ring took payment, often requiring cash, from the passengers and then transferred the money between themselves to launder it, according to the indictment. The document further claims that certain conspirators, including Abrego Garcia, took phones away from passengers to ensure they did not communicate with anyone on the journey, returning them at the end of the trip. Passengers traveled with no luggage, and these accused conspirators had a cover story in case they were stopped: that they were traveling for a construction job.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
THE DEMS & THE MEDIA ARE DISGUSTING
The reason for this seeming inconsistency is that the MSM fully approves of human trafficking.
By sending him home they are foregoing the ability to punish him for his misdeeds here. Federal charges, guilty verdict, execution. The only way he goes back home is in a box.
The media was paid to publish that
Garcia will be returning soon if sent home, he will never leave a profitable setup here, besides, he has the dems backing him.
Court Docs Say He’s An MS-13 Human Trafficker
An indictment contains unproven charges. The defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The allegations are attributed to unnamed alleged co-conspirators.
Abrego Garcia's removal was unlawful, and no post-removal indictment can change that fact. That the removal was unlawful has been established by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Following the March 15 flights, the Supreme Court twice held such hurried removals violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Trump v. J.G.G., 145 S. Ct. 1003, 1006 (2025) (per curiam); A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367–68 (2025) (per curiam).
Abrego Garcia had to be brought back because his removal was unlawful. Adding an indictment does not put enough lipstick on the pig to disguise it. Administration officials were about to be on the receiving end of contempt of court citations.
Abrego Garcia's return came just two days after Judge Xinis, at the U.S. District Court in Maryland, gave Abrego Garcia’s attorneys permission to pursue sanctions in the case, instructing them to file a formal request for sanctions by June 11.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.186.0_1.pdf
Abrego Garcia v Noem D. Md. (8 Jun 2025) Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Request for Stay
[footnotes omitted]
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Request for StayThough Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is, at long last, back in the United States following his illegal removal, to characterize the Government as having “complied with the Court’s order” is pure farce. ECF No. 181. The Government flouted rather than followed the orders of this Court and the United States Supreme Court. Instead of facilitating Abrego Garcia’s return, for the past two months Defendants have engaged in an elaborate, all-of-government effort to defy court orders, deny due process, and disparage Abrego Garcia. In its latest act of contempt, the Government arranged for Abrego Garcia’s return, not to Maryland in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive to “ensure thathis case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,”1 but rather to Tennessee so that he could be charged with a crime in a case that the Government only developed while it was under threat of sanctions. That Tennessee indictment was filed under seal on May 21,2 yet six days later the Government continued to insist to this Court that it “do[es] not have the power to produce him,” ECF No. 165 at 5. The Government’s convenient ability to return Abrego Garcia in time for a press conference unveiling his indictment puts the lie to its previously feigned powerlessness to comply with this Court’s injunction.
Over the past two months, the executive branch has acted not just in contempt of multiple court orders but with open defiance towards its coequal branch of government, the judiciary. The very highest officials in the administration have publicly stated that they will follow orders of the Supreme Court, in contrast to valid lower court orders, and even that they would refuse to tell a judge about their directly relevant discussions with foreign officials.3 The dichotomy between the lip service Government lawyers have paid the Court about supposed efforts to comply and the hostility and intransigence displayed by the White House and cabinet members has been stark and chilling. Two things are now crystal clear. First, the Government has always had the ability to return Abrego Garcia, but it has simply refused to do so. Second, the Government has conducted a determined stalling campaign to stave off contempt sanctions long enough to concoct a politically face-saving exit from its own predicament.
By proffering witnesses without knowledge, hiding behind questionable assertions of a potpourri of privileges, and deliberately foot-dragging on written discovery, the Government has stonewalled Plaintiffs and the Court’s efforts to get at the truth. The Court previously ordered discovery to “assist the Court in determining whether contempt proceedings are warranted.” ECF No. 79 at 6. The Court has also ordered that Plaintiffs may file by June 11 a motion for discovery sanctions against the Government. ECF No. 179. These critical fact-finding efforts should not cease now that Plaintiffs are finally on the verge of securing answers from knowledgeable officials about what the Government actually did or did not do to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.
The Government waited over 80 days to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States after illegally removing him to El Salvador, despite the President’s acknowledgement back in April that he “could” bring him back.4 In the interim, there was no extradition proceeding.5 All that changed was that the Government finally asked the Government of El Salvador to return Abrego Garcia. It thus appears likely that prior to Friday the Government intentionally disregarded this Court’s and the Supreme Court’s orders to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return. The Government’s conclusory professions of compliance are entitled to no deference, and Plaintiffs are entitled to examine in discovery whether Government officials acted in good faith.
That issue is not merely academic and this case is not moot. This Court continues to have a role “to ensure that [Abrego Garcia’s] case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” Noem, 145 S. Ct. at 1018. At a minimum, this case remains live to address the status of Abrego Garcia following the disposition of his criminal case—given the Government’s continuing threat of removal.6 Even if Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States resolved every claim (it does not), this Court still retains jurisdiction to find contempt and impose sanctions. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396 (1990) (“A court may make an adjudication of contempt and impose a contempt sanction even after the action in which the contempt arose has been terminated.”); Fidrych v. Marriott, Int’l, Inc., 952 F.3d 124, 145 (4th Cir. 2020) (“Because sanction proceedings are collateral to the merits of the underlying case, an otherwise proper sanction award may be imposed even if the court lacks jurisdiction to enter a judgment on the merits.”); In re GMC, 61 F.3d 256, 259 n.3 (4th Cir. 1995) (“contempt proceeding is not moot” even after case settles).
Until the Government is held accountable for its blatant, willful, and persistent violations of court orders at excruciating cost to Abrego Garcia and his family, this case is not over. The executive branch’s wanton disregard for the judicial branch has left a stain on the Constitution. If there is to be any hope of removing that stain, it must start by shining a light on the improper actions of the Government in this tragic affair and imposing meaningful remedies. For all these reasons, the Court should deny the Government’s request for a stay.
Dated: June 8, 2025
Was there "due process" when he came here illlegally?
Was there "due process" when he came here illlegally?
The concept of due process in such a context rapidly devolves to absurdity. It is also irrelevant.
Law Dictionary, 2 ed., Stephen H. Gifis,
DUE PROCESS OF LAW a phrase which was first expressly introduced into American jurisprudence in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which provides that "nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law;" This provision is applicable only to actions of the federal government, 7 Pet. 243 (1833). The phrase was made applicable to the states with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1....The original content of the phrase was a PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS protection, i.e., in guaranteeing procedural fairness where the government would deprive one of his property or liberty. This requires that notice and the right to a fair hearing be accorded prior to a deprivation. 217 U.S. 309.
Due process is accorded by the government to a person. It is not accorded by persons to the government.
Whether a person is in the United States lawfully or unlawfully does not change the constitutional requirement of due process being afforded to any person in a removal action.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep426067/
Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976)
There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 48-51; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 238; see Russian Fleet v. United States, 282 U. S. 481, 489. Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection. Wong Yang Sung, supra; Wong Wing, supra.
Does an illegal alien become an enemy combatant when they call for “death to America?”
Nobody becomes any type of combatant by calling for anything. A combatant is a member of the uniformed armed services of a nation who wears distinctive insignia, carries arms openly, etc. A civilian is defined as anyone who fails to meet any of the criteria required to be considered a combatant. Upon capture by the enemy, combatants have rights as prisoners of war. So ask yourself, when someone who calls “death to America” gets captured, does he become a prisoner of war? If he does, his actions as a combatant were legal.
What about “insurrectionist?”
J6ers were “insurrectionists” for merely being in the vicinity.
SCOTUS already smacked that idiot down once.
They’ll do it again.
L
Should you be imagining a Scotus smackdown of Judge Xinis, it is time for a reality check.
The Court wrote: “The order properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term ‘effectuate’ in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority.”
Within hours, the district court issued an order “to DIRECT that Defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible.” The order also required the government to provide a declaration with information of Abrego Garcia’s current location and steps taken to facilitate his return.
Scotus upheld the order of Judge Xinis and merely required replacing the unclear word "effectuate" with the word "facilitate" and all was well.
“to DIRECT that Defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible.”
So Trump should find a flowery way, using a different word or two of course, to tell this idiot judge to kiss his Presidential ass.
Something along these lines works for me:
“Gee your honor. We asked the President of El Salvador really nicely to send this piece of human debris back and he said “Neener, neener, neener”. We will try again tomorrow.
So we are all out of steps.
Have a nice day.”
L
But apparently an “available step” is to indict his criminal ass, extradite him, and try him on 100 counts of human trafficking
Bet this stupid joke of a judge didn’t think about that.
So I’m getting a nice chuckle out of that.
L
Expect to see Abrego in the Maryland court long before any criminal trial takes place in Tennessee. The whole indictment rests on a three year old traffic stop that did not even result in so much as a citation.
So Trump should find a flowery way, using a different word or two of course, to tell this idiot judge to kiss his Presidential ass.
If you insist upon idiocy. Acting like jerks is what has the administration hamstrung by the orders of the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Saturday, 04/19/2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ORDER stating in relevant part:
The government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court. See 28 U. S. C. §1651(a).
Until they get a further order of the Supreme Court, they can't remove anyone from the putative class. So the question becomes which do you value more, getting the order lifted and actually doing removals, or playing class clown?
On May 16, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, recognized the putative class in the Northern District of Texas and enjoined the government from removing putative class members pending the outcome of the litigation. Who knows how long that litigation may take? I doubt telling the court to kiss your ass will get them to speed things up.
But apparently an “available step” is to indict his criminal ass, extradite him, and try him on 100 counts of human trafficking
Not exactly. The next step was to hold a press conference and talk a bunch of crap that is not in the two-count indictment.
As for "human trafficking," that is really alleged as one alleged incident of transporting undocumented aliens, and is Count Two, citing November 30, 2022, and not another 99 dates. You appear to have a vivid imagination, but little knowledge of the actual two-count indictment.
COUNT TWO8 U.S.C. §1324 (a)(l)(A)(ii)
(Unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens)
31. The Grand Jury realleges paragraphs one through seven and ten through thitiy of this Indictment and further alleges the following.
32. On or about November 30, 2022, in the Middle District of Tennessee and elsewhere, KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA, aided and abetted by others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact that certain aliens had come to, entered, and remained in the United States in violation of law, did transport and move said aliens within the United States by means of transportation and otherwise in furtherance of such violation of law, with intent to further the unlawful presence of the aliens in the United States and for private financial gain, and did aid and abet the same.
In violation of Title 8, United States Code, Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 1324(a)(1)(B)(i), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.
I wonder who, in reckless disregard of the fact that certain aliens had come to, entered, and remained in the United States in violation of law, did transport and move said aliens within the United States by means of transportation and otherwise, in the greatest quantity? Was it Abrego Garcia or the U.S. Government?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.