https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/us-border-patrol-surveillance-leads-aggravated-felon-and-drug-seizures

Sun;and park is close to the area where non-profit buils teh wall put in a section of crowd sourced funded wall.

El Paso Border Patrol agents apprehend a previously deported criminal alien in Sunland Park, New Mexico. (The mayor of Sunland is a piece of work- appointed mayor at 25)

Late Monday night, Santa Teresa Border Patrol agents conducting line watch operations observed two people making an illegal entry in the Sunland Park area. Agents responded to the area where they encountered two men. Both were taken into custody and transported to the station for further processing.

Record checks at the Santa Teresa Border Patrol station revealed that one subject, Saul Yanez-Vazquez, a 31-year-old Mexican national is a previously deported criminal/aggravated felon. Yanez- Vasquez had been arrested in June of 2009 by the Shawnee County Sheriff’s Office in Topeka, Kansas. The subject served prison time for the weapon’s charge and later deported from the United States.

Vazquez’s criminal history includes a conviction for an aggravated felony conviction for illegal alien in possession of a firearm. He will remain in custody pending criminal prosecution.

In a separate incident, Lordsburg Border Patrol agents were alerted by a video surveillance system to two individuals attempting to transport narcotics by illegally crossing and traversing the Sulphur Canyon Mountain area early Tuesday morning.

A Lordsburg agent and his canine service dog responding to the area alerted to four abandoned bundles of narcotics following a search of the area. The suspected drug smugglers were pursued and later apprehended in close proximity to the bundles. Because the seizure occurred in the state of Arizona, Tucson Sector prosecutions was contacted and accepted custody and possession of the subjects and narcotics.

The seizure yielded approximately 168 pounds of marijuana.

U.S. Border Patrol agents are vigilant and use video surveillance to help patrol remote areas and rugged terrain in the El Paso Sector area. This vital technology aids agents in combating the furtherance of illicit drugs into our community and in helping to keep our nation safe.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection welcomes assistance from the community. Citizens are encouraged to report suspicious activity to the U.S. Border Patrol, while remaining anonymous by calling 1-800-635-2509 toll-free.

On the topic of courts stopping POTUS EO with nationwide injunctions. The DOJ is getting on it and it shows BIAS. IT ALSO SHOWS THEY ARE NOT STTING ON THEIR ASSES part 1/2 yeah it's text.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-jeffrey-rosen-delivers-opening-remarks-forum-nationwide

Important bits.

Our country has crossed a new threshold, where nationwide injunctions have become almost a routine step in a regulation or policy’s lifecycle. In the most recent example just last week, a single district judge in the Middle District of North Carolina enjoined nationwide the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ “unlawful presence” policy for visa overstays.\

Nationwide injunction frequency today is unprecedented and is a 58 percent increase in the Obama years, and increasing.

During the current administration, federal courts have issued at least 55 nationwide injunctions in just three years. That is a rate of nearly 18 nationwide injunctions per year. To put it another way, nationwide injunctions are being issued at over 12 times the rate as in the George W. Bush administration.

And any assertion that there have been more unlawful policies to challenge is belied by the Justice Department’s considerable success in having so many of these nationwide injunctions stayed or reversed on appeal, including in the litigation over the so-called “travel ban,” where the Supreme Court ruled in the government’s favor and vacated the nationwide injunctions. As Justice Thomas wrote in his concurrence in that Trump v. Hawaii decision, nationwide injunctions “are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system.”

So what is that toll? I will address four real examples that will illustrate some of the practical problems nationwide injunctions present.

((OH LOOKY CAIR IS INVOLVED WITH IMMIGRATION!))

The first example comes from CAIR v. Trump and Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued an interim final rule denying asylum to aliens who did not first seek protection in a third country through which they traveled and where protection was available. One case was filed in D.C. and another in the Northern District of California. The four organizations who sued in California were not even subject to the rule.

On July 24, 2019, the district court in D.C. denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction.

Later that same day, the district judge in San Francisco (SURPISE) issued a nationwide injunction blocking enforcement of this same DHS rule as to anyone anywhere in the United States.

(THEN MUCH FUCKERY ENSUES SEE ARTICLE))

So as a fourth and final example, I wanted to turn to the ultimate risk of competing injunctions that direct opposite outcomes, which cannot both be met. The well-known (DACA) and (DAPA) cases highlight this issue. DACA was an Obama administration policy to allow certain illegal aliens who had come to the United States as children to apply for prosecutorial discretion from deportation and for other collateral benefits. When the Obama administration sought to expand the DACA policy to provide DAPA, Texas and 25 other states brought suit in the Southern District of Texas to block implementation of DAPA. The Texas district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that was upheld by the Fifth Circuit and affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court.

Consistent with that ruling, in September 2017, the Trump administration announced that it would end the original DACA policy. But then more than ten lawsuits challenged this termination and sought to block the repeal. District courts in New York and California granted nationwide preliminary injunctions against the administration’s rescission of DACA, and a D.C. district court vacated the rescission nationwide as well. So we have the peculiar scenario of both the Obama and Trump administration each having been blocked — one from implementing and one from repealing fundamentally similar programs.

In the DACA case, after the Ninth Circuit affirmed the California injunction, the Supreme Court then granted review. Oral argument was heard this past November, and we are waiting to hear from the Supreme Court. But the upshot of all of this to date is that a few lower courts have forced the Trump administration to spend more than two years implementing, nationwide, a discretionary enforcement policy that it had repealed, after different lower courts and the Supreme Court had barred the Obama administration from implementing a materially indistinguishable discretionary enforcement policy it had wanted. Whatever you think about the particular policies at issue, is that how our system is supposed to work?

>>8122734

(cont)

As these examples illustrate, not only do nationwide injunctions allow a single district judge to wield a nationwide veto against federal policies, they also — and just as worrisome — create discord among courts. Nearly one-third of the nationwide injunctions issued in the last three years came from courts in California. Conversely, in two-thirds of the states, no nationwide injunctions have been issued at all.

What these examples that I discussed tell us, especially with the increased frequency of district judges issuing nationwide injunctions, is that ensuring consistency and coordination in the federal court system is becoming a bigger challenge. Why is that? Perhaps a standard concern might be that of litigants forum-shopping, at least in part, because federal courts are divided into 94 judicial districts, and responsibility for individual cases falls on approximately 600 active district judges and perhaps another 450 senior district judges nationwide. Or perhaps this phenomenon is connected with newer or less experienced judges, as more than two-thirds of the nationwide injunctions issued during the current administration came from district judges appointed after January 2009.

At least one Supreme Court justice has focused on the forum-shopping concern. Justice Gorsuch wrote in his recent concurrence in the DHS v. New York case, that “[b]ecause plaintiffs generally are not bound by adverse decisions in cases to which they were not a party, there is a nearly boundless opportunity to shop for a friendly forum to secure a win nationwide.” If one plaintiff loses, another can try his luck. Yet, if the government loses once, the enforcement of a law is brought to a screeching halt nationwide. Plaintiffs therefore have virtually unlimited bites at the apple, but the government must run the table to prevail, at least unless – and until – the Supreme Court addresses the case.

In wrapping up, I want to suggest that this practice of district judges conferring legal benefits on non-parties to whom other judges had denied relief, and enabling transparent forum-shopping for nationwide rulings by litigants, breeds cynicism and disrespect for our vital institutions of the law. Of course, this is not to say that district courts must agree with one another all the time. But they should not in effect nullify one another’s decisions in an asymmetric way, as the nationwide injunctions I have discussed are very different from most legal rulings that address only the parties actually before the court.

Which takes me back to where I started: “It has become increasingly apparent,” in the words of Justice Gorsuch, that the Supreme Court “must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice.” 2/2

Perhaps that will happen soon. In January, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in another closely-watched case in which a nationwide injunction was issued, Trump v. Pennsylvania, out of the Third Circuit. The Court will review the Third Circuit’s affirmance of a nationwide preliminary injunction that blocks exemptions for religious and moral objectors to the contraceptive-coverage mandate promulgated under the Affordable Care Act. In addition to the underlying merits issues, that case will provide the Supreme Court with a chance to confront the mushrooming phenomenon of district judges issuing nationwide injunctions with regard to parties who are not before them.

So today’s conference is indeed timely, and I hope our next speakers — and all of you here today — will advance constructive solutions to the problems presented by inconsistent and overreaching nationwide injunctions, which will enable our government and the judiciary to function better. Thank you.

MORE ON INJUCTIONS

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-beth-williams-delivers-remarks-acus-nationwide-injunctions

Across administrations of both parties, the Department of Justice has taken the position that nationwide injunctions are improper. The Obama Administration argued forcefully against them, just as the Trump Administration does now. Nationwide injunctions are problematic because they reach beyond the case or controversy that is actually before the court. The Department has argued that nationwide injunctions—which go beyond what is necessary to provide complete relief to the parties in the case—violate Article III of the Constitution and exceed time-honored limitations on equitable remedies.

But I’d like to set that aside for a moment and talk about the practical implications of nationwide injunctions. Many proponents of nationwide injunctions make a fairly utilitarian argument: they are justified, say the proponents, because they provide a necessary check on the Executive and Legislative branches. (the radical left's position of weaponized judges)

(cont)

>>8122752

(last part)

(cont)

The point today is that if you care about balanced checks on the elected branches, you should oppose unlawful nationwide injunctions. There are several reasons for this.

First, nationwide injunctions threaten to undermine the judiciary’s role in our constitutional system by depriving its decisions of their public legitimacy.

Second, nationwide injunctions are a check with little “balance.” Consider that the Constitution established only one court — the Supreme Court — and it does not require that we have lower federal courts at all. It took legislation to establish them. To quote Hamilton again, he asserted “that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two [branches].”

Third, nationwide injunctions spark a frenzied litigation process that deprives courts of a full opportunity to explain their rulings. But nationwide injunctions spark a rush to and through the courthouse, and to and through the appellate process. Often this occurs on a deficient or non-existent record, with expedited briefing and expedited decision-making. If the nation’s most pressing legal questions are now to be decided on a rushed or emergency basis, a predictable consequence will be a watering down of the courts’ ability to carefully deliberate and to persuasively articulate the reasons for their decisions. This threatens one of the core reasons that courts are an effective check in the first place.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/fleeing-smuggler-endangers-16-year-old-and-others

Fleeing Smuggler Endangers 16-Year-Old and Others

Release Date:

February 12, 2020

PINE VALLEY, Calif.—San Diego Sector Border Patrol agents arrested who was transporting five illegal aliens, including a teen, after fleeing the Pine Valley immigration checkpoint Tuesday morning.

At approximately 10:45 a.m., on February 11, a man driving a 2001 Mercedes sedan approached the Interstate 8 westbound checkpoint with five passengers. Agents referred his vehicle to secondary inspection for further examination.

The driver appeared to comply and drove towards the secondary inspection area but abruptly turned back toward the highway and absconded at a high rate of speed. An agent in the primary inspection area quickly deployed a vehicle immobilization device and successfully deflated two tires on the fleeing car.

The 39-year-old U.S. citizen driver was not deterred and drove erratically westbound on Interstate 8 with the two flatten tires. Agents pursued the vehicle, then witnessed the sedan slide off the freeway and onto the I-8 center median east of the Pine Valley Road Exit. The five passengers immediately fled on foot into the surrounding brush.

An agent quickly approached the driver who had remained in the vehicle. The agent observed the man inject himself with a syringe that contained a black substance, which was later identified as heroin. The agent ordered the driver to slowly remove the needle and exit the vehicle. The man complied and was handcuffed by the agent then placed under arrest.

Agents searched and located the five people who had fled into the nearby brush. The group included two men, two females, and a 16-year-old boy. All admitted to being Mexican nationals illegally present in the U.S.

The five people sustained no injuries during the incident and were transported to a nearby Border Patrol station to be processed for removal.

“This is another example of the dangerous acts human smugglers perform for financial gain and how they show no regard for human life,” said Chief Patrol Agent Aaron Heitke. “Fortunately, this pursuit came to a safe conclusion and ended with the driver in custody.”

The driver faces alien smuggling charges and is currently in Federal custody undergoing medically monitored detox at a local facility.

To prevent the illicit smuggling of humans, drugs, and other contraband, the U.S. Border Patrol maintains a high level of vigilance on corridors of egress away from our Nation’s borders. To report suspicious activity to the U.S. Border Patrol, contact San Diego Sector at (619) 498-9900.

Share so people know. These folks make the roads dangerous.

>>8122790

we've seen it. January 3 2018 is not exactly hot gossip.

>>8122800

It's govt sourced. No one read this stuff.

You're WELCOME

Images not loading for me. No big deal.

3 Girls, Losing to Biological Males in Track, Announce Lawsuit

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/02/12/frustrating-and-disheartening-3-girls-losing-to-biological-males-in-track-announce-lawsuit/?utm

The suit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, claims that the state athletic conference is violating Title IX, the section of federal law designed to protect equal athletic opportunities for women and girls.

The lawsuit states that Miller and Yearwood have won 15 girls state championship titles and “taken more than 85 opportunities to participate in higher level competitions from female track athletes in the 2017, 2018, and 2019 seasons alone.”

then more blah blah blah.

WHY is this important? JUDGES. 191 JUDGES. Those judges are probably going to take away any incentive for claiming tranny for gain.

Just great, this will be national news about muh racism…

I hope he enjoys playing with his new black friends in jail.

>>8122765

i want to add that this is going to dig up some dirt…

ashington – Four members of the Senate Finance Committee have started probing the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) after numerous inspector general audits and news reports raised questions about the adequacy of patient safety standards, suggested thousands of available organs are not being used, and highlighted questionable financial practices of some organ procurement organizations (OPOs).

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sens. Todd Young (R-Ind.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) have sent an expansive request for information and data to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), which was contracted by Congress nearly four decades ago to oversee the OPTN.

“Recent reports of lapses in patient safety, misuse of taxpayer dollars, and tens of thousands of organs going unrecovered or not transplanted lead us to question the adequacy of UNOS’ oversight of these [organ procurement organizations]. According to CMS, 20 Americans die each day because an organ transplant remains out of reach,” the senators wrote.

“Media reports and OIG audits point to a serious lack of accountability, transparency, and objective donor standards that have allowed underperforming [organizations] to continue operating.”

The requests for information about the organ procurement and transplant process and various OPOs include:

· Legally required periodic performance reviews of OPOs;

· Audits of OPOs that suggest the government’s Medicare program was billed for unallowable expenditures;

· Data related to OPOs identified as ‘underperforming’ or not in good standing over the last ten years;

· Data and documentation related to delayed, mishandled or damaged organs over the last ten years;

· Data relating to the number of organs not recovered or not transplanted over the last ten years; and

· Information relating to the financial improprieties or conflicts of interest of OPOs over the last ten years.

there's a trove of goodness at this site!

https://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings