A magistrate judge denied Law Dork's request for online access to the docket in a significant refugee rights case in Minnesota. Law Dork's lawyers filed their objection on Tuesday.
Thank you. I’m a retired attorney from California and have no experience in Federal Courts. Your commentary is excellent. I access your links to the pleadings and orders. You educate me.
I keep hoping for consequences for misuse, contempt, or delays by litigants in immigration cases. It appears that subjects are detained for extended periods, are transported far from family and legal representation sometimes resulting in life-changing consequences. Courts should not tolerate these actions.
I saw one of those in a 2005 case today - there are all sorts of abuses like that (a) non-precedential orders to violate equal protection in case they need it for someone they deem worthy (b) with the various case access for sale sites popping up one has a case the others don't. All of this ought to be free and provided by government they could hire the same people and instead of making world war.
I really want to say how much I appreciate what you are doing, and it does absolutely seem wrong to me. How can 'public access to terminals at courthouse' be considered having met their notification obligation, after all the wrongdoing noted (I assume) in the decision? I wish there was more I could do to help you guys with your mission, but I will at least share this on my page. I honestly don't understand the court's position here, except the fact that immigration judges work for the executive. (?)
Chris, it seems that the journalist, Estefany Maria Rodriguez Flores, who was detained in Nashville and sent to Louisiana, ought to qualify as a member of this class. Is that correct?
Thank you. I’m a retired attorney from California and have no experience in Federal Courts. Your commentary is excellent. I access your links to the pleadings and orders. You educate me.
And you’ve got great lawyers.
I appreciate all that you do.
I appreciate your work on this. Also, I love seeing "Law Dork" repeatedly referred to in a court filing. :)
I keep hoping for consequences for misuse, contempt, or delays by litigants in immigration cases. It appears that subjects are detained for extended periods, are transported far from family and legal representation sometimes resulting in life-changing consequences. Courts should not tolerate these actions.
I saw one of those in a 2005 case today - there are all sorts of abuses like that (a) non-precedential orders to violate equal protection in case they need it for someone they deem worthy (b) with the various case access for sale sites popping up one has a case the others don't. All of this ought to be free and provided by government they could hire the same people and instead of making world war.
I really want to say how much I appreciate what you are doing, and it does absolutely seem wrong to me. How can 'public access to terminals at courthouse' be considered having met their notification obligation, after all the wrongdoing noted (I assume) in the decision? I wish there was more I could do to help you guys with your mission, but I will at least share this on my page. I honestly don't understand the court's position here, except the fact that immigration judges work for the executive. (?)
Chris, it seems that the journalist, Estefany Maria Rodriguez Flores, who was detained in Nashville and sent to Louisiana, ought to qualify as a member of this class. Is that correct?