[U: Another Hearing Monday -- A Criminal Contempt Hearing.] Last Minute Zoom Call / Hearing -- Ordered By Judge Boasberg -- Listening In Now...

This is likely going to be to deny the government's motion to put a hold on his orders.

This is late into the evening (Eastern), on Good Friday night. Indeed. So after this, it is on to the appeals.

. . .MINUTE ORDER:

Having reviewed Plaintiffs' [85] Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and [90] Emergency Motion to Expedite, the Court ORDERS that the parties shall appear for a Zoom hearing on April 18, 2025, at 6:15 p.m. The hearing will proceed by videoconference for the parties and by telephone for members of the public. Toll free number: 833-990-9400. Meeting ID: 049550816.

So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on April 18, 2025. . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Orders, Updated On The Above Zoom Call:]

Defendants’ arguments rely on a misconstruction of the Court’s directive. Having found probable cause that they committed criminal contempt, the Court required Defendants to choose one of two paths. See Order at 1. First, they can opt to purge their probable contempt and explain to the Court how they will do so. Id. In its Opinion, the Court observed that the “most obvious way” for them to do so would be by choosing to “assert[] custody of the individuals who were removed in violation of the Court’s classwide TRO so that they might avail themselves of their right to challenge their removability through a habeas proceeding.” Op. at 43–44. In offering the Government a chance to voluntarily assert custody of the people it placed in a foreign prison, then, the Order did not “forc[e] the government to successfully execute foreign diplomacy” in violation of the separation of powers. See Mot. Br. at 11. The Court expressly allowed, moreover, that Defendants could “propose other methods of coming into compliance.” Op. at 44. Whether to purge the likely contempt, and whether to do so by voluntarily asserting custody of those individuals in Salvadoran jail, is entirely up to Defendants.

If they do not want to “make what was wrong, right,” Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 2025 WL 1135112, at *1 (4th Cir. Apr. 17, 2025), they can choose the second path: identify the individual(s) whose conduct caused the noncompliance. See Order at 1. Although the Opinion noted that the Court might eventually refer this matter for prosecution, see Op. at 44 (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2)), we are not at that juncture. Their separation-of-powers arguments concerning any future prosecution(s), see Mot. Br. at 8–11, are therefore premature and misplaced.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS that Defendants’ [88] Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal is DENIED. . . .

Separately, it now is clear that Mr. Mazzaro lied in his sworn status reports -- as to Abrego Garcia, in front of Judge Xinis.

A Maryland US Senator who met with him yesterday in a hotel in El Salvador said he'd been moved (almost nine days ago!) out of the "terrorists' prison" to a separate local one, where he's being held in isolation. Expect Judge Xinis to hold an emergency hearing on that prevarication, as early as Monday morning.

Shockingly, again at about 6 PM Eastern time tonight, Mazzaro filed another FALSE sworn declaration -- even after the Senator's report was in newspapers all over the world. He again said there is "no update" -- but to this moment has never told Judge Xinis that Abrego Garcia had been moved to a separate prison (despite a standing and very clear federal court order to do so).

That is willful obstruction of justice. Out.

नमस्ते