Transcript
Lifelock Sponsor (0:01)
This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. Not everyone is careful with your personal information, which might explain why there's a victim of identity theft every five seconds in the U.S. fortunately, there's LifeLock. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity. If your identity is stolen, a US based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year by visiting lifelock.com podcast terms apply.
Factor Sponsor (0:30)
This episode is brought to you by Factor. Optimize your nutrition this year with Factor America's number one ready to eat meal service. Factor's fresh, never frozen meals are dietitian approved. Ready to eat in just two minutes, choose from 40 weekly options across eight dietary preferences like calorie smart, protein plus and keto. Eat smarter@factormeals.com listen50 and use code listen50 for 50% off plus free shipping on your first box. FactorMeals.com listen50 code listen50 teas and see.
Michael Popak (0:59)
Apply Judge Zinnis in Maryland. She's cracking her knuckles and she's issuing new orders in the Abrego Garcia matter and it spells bad news for the Trump administration and the Department of Justice. I'm going to put it in context of some recent rulings all in the in the immigration and deportation civil rights violation by Donald Trump. You're here on the Midas Touch Network and Legal A f I'm Michael Popak. Let me dive in. Judge Zinnis has been, in a masterful way, been presiding over the administration of justice in Maryland for the Armando Abrego Garcia case. She's been affirmed by the Supreme Court. 90 she's been affirmed by two different panels of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 30 apiece. There is no more powerful federal judge than that and she's taking it seriously. The Supreme Court told her she was right to order the Trump administration to facilitate the release, not the return, the release from an El Salvador in prison of Abrego Garcia who was illegally sent there. That is an undisputed fact. The due process that he's entitled to can only be administered to him, of course, under the Constitution in the United States. And so we have this constant friction and two things burst out into the open just in the last 48 hours in her courtroom. One, you've got the media, which is sort of fed up with all of the attempts by the Trump administration primarily to seal, redaction, black out their filings. I mean, there are just, there's just about a dozen sealed filings on the docket and this is the way the public justice system works. You and I and everybody else, we have a seat at the table. It's the criminally accused who's innocent unless proven guilty. It's the prosecution team, it's the judge, but it's also the public. And that's why our court system is done in the open, in the sunshine. We don't have star chambers on purpose, you know, at least currently. And so as part of being, being a stakeholder in the public justice system where somebody is both accused and either cleared or convicted in the public domain, we have to be able to look at documents that are filed. That's how I can have a show like Legal AF with all these court doc can't be in every courtroom at all at the same time. And so there are certain ways and very limited, narrow exceptions to the rule that all documents are public. And we allow under certain limited circumstances for a party to assert some sort of privilege or secrecy around the filing, even for a short time, and allow it to be filed under seal. So then when I click the button, I can't get it. So there's just been a series of under sealed things. I'll tell you the one that kicked this off and I'm sure it got the media who have now filed a motion to intervene in the case for the purposes of getting the docket and those docket entries unsealed so they can do the reporting, so they can do their part in our democracy. I think what kicked it off was about two weeks ago, the judge had ordered very fast paced discovery in the case that the government would have to provide depositions, question and answers under oath in live testimony before a court reporter and answer questions and provide documents. And then there was, right on the eve of when that was supposed to start, the parties both filed sealed papers and the judge says, I'll give you a week. Now I thought it was related to, you know, trying to look under the wrap here. I thought it was related to a filing that was made by the Trump administration to the Abrego Garcia side in which they said they were engaged in diplomatic channels to try to get his return. And maybe the plaintiff side believe that and they asked for a break. So, you know, the prying eyes wouldn't help the process. So the judge, judge saw the, the sealed motions. The court always sees them. But we didn't. So we were, you know, we're speculating, but I think I got a pretty good guess why she postponed discovery for a week. Then they asked the Trump side, asked for more time, she said no. And now we've got another set of filings by the Trump administration in which they're exercising or trying to exercise state secrets privilege to prevent their answering any questions about what they're doing to facilitate. So the judges ordered them to facilitate. The Supreme Court has confirmed her order, affirmed her order, and their response is, we can't tell you. Originally it was we're never going to get them back. Let's go through the iterations of the Trump administration about their flip flopping on these positions. First it was we're never getting him back. Literally, ha ha. He's there forever and we don't have to give him due process. Then the order came out confirmed by the Supreme Court which said, you must facilitate his release from prison. Then they took the position for another week or two that they only had to facilitate it on the domestic side. Oh, we'll just open the gates. If he shows up at a port or at an airport, we'll let him in. And the 4th Circuit, led by Judge Wilkinson, took a look at that ridiculous position and said that's not a good faith interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling. So that's wrong.
