>>9282557

Judge Bashant Diggz

Federal Judicial Center

https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/bashant-cynthia-ann

Born 1960 in San Francisco, CA

Federal Judicial Service:

Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Nominated by Barack Obama on January 6, 2014, to a seat vacated by Irma Elsa Gonzalez. Confirmed by the Senate on April 30, 2014, and received commission on May 8, 2014.

Education:

Smith College, A.B., 1982

University of California, Hastings College of the Law, J.D., 1986

Professional Career:

Private practice, San Diego, California, 1986-1989

Assistant U.S. attorney, Southern District of California, 1989-2000; deputy chief of narcotics, 1995-1997; chief of border crimes, 1997-1998

Judge, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, 2000-2014; presiding judge, juvenile court, 2010-2013

Other Nominations/Recess Appointments:

Nominated to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, September 19, 2013

Senate Confirmation Vote:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00122

Vote Summary

Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Cynthia Ann Bashant, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California )

Vote Number: 122Vote Date: April 30, 2014, 05:21 PM

Required For Majority: 1/2Vote Result: Nomination Confirmed

Nomination Number: PN1211

Nomination Description: Cynthia Ann Bashant, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California

Vote Counts:YEAs94

NAYs0

Not Voting6

Ballotpedia Details

https://ballotpedia.org/Cynthia_A._Bashant

Awards

2012: San Diego Juvenile Justice Commission, Judge of the Year for service to juvenile justice

1997: Director's Award for Superior Performance as an Assistant United States Attorney

1997: Young Women's Christian Association of San Diego TWIN Award

1996: California Women in Government, Law and Justice Award

1994-1999: Special Commendations for Outstanding Performance as an Assistant United States Attorney

1991: Office of the United States Attorney Victim-Witness Award

Associations

2012-2013: Member, San Diego County Child Abuse Prevention Coordinating Council

2011-2013: Advisory member, United Way Child Abuse Network Vision Council

2010-2013: Board of directors, Children's Initiative of San Diego

2010-2013: Advisory board, San Pasqual Academy

2010-2013: Board of directors, Children's Initiative of San Diego

2010-2012: Chair, San Diego County Commission on Children, Youth and Families

2003-2005: Advisory board, June Burnett Institute

2002-2007: Board of directors, San Diego County Judges' Association

2003-2004, 2005-2006: Secretary

1992-Present: Lawyers Club of Sand Diego

1995-2008: Advisory board

1994-1995: President

1992-1995: Board of directors

1992-1993: Treasurer[12]

>>9282557

Judge Bashant Diggz

[Hussain] appointed judge does not believe in the First Amendment evidently.

Guess two months of self-isolation and masks causes Non-essential to spread coronavirus.

Judge Dismisses Chula Vista Church’s Suit To Reopen During Coronavirus Pandemic

May 15 2020

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2020/may/15/judge-dismisses-chula-vista-churchs-suit-reopen-du/

A Chula Vista church's request to hold in-person services during the COVID-19 pandemic was denied Friday by a San Diego federal judge, who rejected the church's argument that the state's reopening plan is dismissive of the religious rights of Californians.

South Bay United Pentecostal Church and its senior pastor, Bishop Arthur Hodges III, sued Gov. Gavin Newsom and a host of other state and local officials last week for placing churches and other places of worship under Stage 3 of California's reopening plan, which also includes movie theaters, salons and gyms.

The lawsuit filed in San Diego federal court alleges state and local elected officials have "intentionally denigrated California churches and pastors and people of faith by relegating them to third-class citizenship."

Plaintiffs' attorney Paul Jonna argued the state's plan makes "arbitrary exceptions" in recently opening certain industries under Stage 2, while churches are characterized as "higher-risk workplaces" under Stage 3.

Jonna said South Bay United is not asking for a complete return to normal services and would abide by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines regarding social distancing, masks and other precautions against the virus.

"For the millions of faithful in California, religion is needed in these times more than ever," Jonna said. "It might be hard for governing officials to understand, especially if they're hostile to religion or don't see its relevance, or if they think it's `low reward.' But to Bishop Hodges and millions of Californians, free exercise of religion is eternally important. To them, it's the most essential of activities."

In denying the church's request for an injunction halting enforcement of the ban on religious gatherings, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant said the state's order placed churches under Stage 3 because "the services involve people sitting together in a closed environment for long periods of time."

The judge noted that similar restrictions have been placed on a variety of secular industries and that alternatives such as drive-in and remote services remain in place for people to engage in worship activities.

"Individuals can practice religion in whatever way they wish, as long as they're not sitting with each other in large groups inside," she said.

The judge also referenced her prior ruling in a case brought by a Campo church that sought to open its doors for Easter Sunday services.

Abiding Place Ministries sued San Diego County and challenged its public health order under similar allegations, but Bashant denied the church's request to reopen two days before Easter.

"The state may limit an individuals' right to freely exercise his religious beliefs when faced with a serious health crisis such as the one we're facing now with COVID-19," the judge said. "The right to practice religion freely does not include the liberty to expose the community to communicable disease or to ill health or death."

Deputy Attorney General Todd Grabarsky said the reopening plan remained a "work in progress" that was subject to adjustments based on the developing status of COVID-19.

He said the state deems faith-based services as essential and has authorized faith leaders to leave home "to provide congregants with worship opportunities," such as the alternatives Bashant outlined.

(continued)

>>9282557

>>9282910

Judge Bashant Diggz

Judge Dismisses Chula Vista Church’s Suit To Reopen During Coronavirus Pandemic (continued)

"This notion that the state has been hostile to religion simply isn't supported by the facts and how the executive order has treated religion and faith-based groups from the onset. In other words, there's no complete or total prohibition on the ability to worship," Grabarsky said.

Bashant ruled that limiting large public gatherings such as in-person church services was ultimately in the public's interest.

"The only way currently known to curb the disease is to limit personal exposure," Bashant said. "I understand it's difficult for everyone involved, but it is in the public interest to continue to protect the population as a whole."

Rabbi Mendel Polichenco of Chabad of Carmel Valley was originally a plaintiff in the suit, but dismissed his claims on Monday and was removed from the case. As a result, a number of defendants from the city of San Diego, including San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer and San Diego Police Chief David Nisleit, were also dismissed from the case.

>>9282557

>>9282938 Judge Bashant Diggz bun

[Hussain] appointed judge loves open borders and foreigners violating laws.

Asylum ban doesn’t apply to potentially tens of thousands of migrants, federal judge rules

(LA Times Nov 19 2019)

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-19/asylum-ban-migrants-border-san-diego-ruling

A San Diego judge rules the Trump administration was misapplying policy to migrants who’d arrived at southern border before the ban took effect but were told to wait in line

SAN DIEGO — A San Diego federal judge on Tuesday ruled that the Trump administration’s so-called asylum ban does not apply to migrants who had already been waiting in line in Mexican border cities for their official chance to ask for protections in the U.S. when the policy took effect in mid-July.

The preliminary injunction affects potentially tens of thousands of migrants and will give them a chance to have their asylum claims heard.

In issuing the order, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant emphasized she was not being asked to rule on the legality of the asylum ban — that question is being handled in other lawsuits — nor was she being asked to make determinations as to the merits of asylum claims. Rather, this was a question of whether the government was applying its own policy correctly.

In a strongly worded opinion, she concluded the administration had gotten it wrong.

The third-country asylum ban requires non-Mexican asylum seekers to first apply for protection in other countries that they passed through, such as Mexico. If they are denied, only then can they apply for asylum in the U.S.

In Mexico, migrants must apply for asylum within 30 days of arriving in the country.

When the policy went into effect on July 16, it clashed with another government policy, called “metering,” in which only a set number of asylum seekers are accepted formally into the U.S. on any given day. Typically, when asylum seekers arrive at the border, they are told to get on a wait list that is managed by various organizations in Mexico.

The wait can take several weeks, even months.

Suddenly, migrants who’d been turned back to wait under the U.S. “metering” policy were told that they were no longer eligible to be heard. For many, the 30-day window to apply for asylum in Mexico had already passed.

The judge said the asylum seekers relied on the government’s representations that if they returned and waited in Mexico as instructed, they would eventually have an opportunity to make a claim in the U.S. Later holding those migrants ineligible because of the asylum ban represents “a shift that can be considered, at best, misleading, and at worst, duplicitous,” Bashant said.

Attorneys for the government had argued that the asylum ban applies to all those who are arriving to the U.S. — officially entering the port of entry’s turnstiles — not those waiting in Mexico. But Bashant had already rejected that interpretation of “arriving” in an earlier order.

Instead, those who present themselves to border authorities even if they are turned away and told to wait should be considered in the process of arriving. Therefore, someone who arrived at the border in June but whose name was not called up on the list for entry into the U.S. until August should not be limited by the asylum ban, according to the preliminary injunction.

“The wording of the asylum ban is clear. … The government’s position that the asylum ban applies to those who attempted to enter or arrived at the southern border seeking asylum before July 16, 2019 contradicts the plain text of their own regulation,” the judge wrote.

Bashant on Tuesday also provisionally certified a class to which the preliminary injunction applies: “All non-Mexican asylum-seekers who were unable to make a direct asylum claim at a U.S. (port of entry) before July 16, 2019, because of the government’s metering policy, and who continue to seek access to the U.S. asylum process.”

It’s unclear exactly how many people are eligible for relief.

(last paragraphs on immigration in link)

>>9282533

first thing that came to mind,

that kid Damien from "The Omen" grew up, had a sex change and is now Imperial Governor of Michigan