Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Federal Judge Green-lights Lawsuit Against DOJ and DHS: William Cassidy's Actions to Receive Strict Scrutiny

At the instigation of immigration judge William Cassidy, a former deportation agency prosecutor, on April 19, 2010 various federal officials and Paragon Systems, Inc. guards interfered with my Constitutional rights to observe deportation hearings for the detained docket in Atlanta, Georgia.  Last week, Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit District Court Judge Orinda Evans filed an order denying the federal government's motions to dismiss my pro se lawsuit based on those events and related ones.

For background on the underlying complaint, please go here.

The order allows me to show a jury the violations of my First and Fifth Amendment rights by guards employed by Paragon Systems, Inc. , and also to seek injunctive relief against William Cassidy, aka, the immigration-judge-who-deported-a-North-Carolina-born-U.S.citizen-who-speaks-no-Spanish-and-has-no-relatives-in-Mexico-to-Reynosa.  Judge Evans also denied his accomplices' motions to dismiss my lawsuit, and so they also remain as named federal defendants who may be ordered to follow the law that they are charged with enforcing.

These federal defendants are:  Eric Holder, Attorney General; Juan Osuna, Director, EOIR; Fran Mooney, Assistant Director for the Office of Management Programs, EOIR; MaryBeth Keller, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, EOIR; Gary Smith, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, EOIR; William Anthony Cassidy, Immigration Judge (EOIR); Cynthia Long, Atlanta Court Administrator, EOIR; Darren Eugene Summers, DHS.

Part of the order, alas, grants Department of Justice attorney/adjudicator William Cassidy absolute judicial immunity, from the damages portion of the lawsuit.  I will be appealing that portion of the order on the grounds that Congress deliberately denied immigration judges any authority to control the physical movement of anyone in their hearings or anywhere else, unlike federal judges who do have legal authority over the physical movement of spectators in their court rooms.  Congress provides federal judges the prerogative to issue orders to law enforcement personnel to make arrests and control the physical movement of people in their court rooms, and provides other contempt authority as well.  None of these are in the statute circumscribing the contempt authority for immigration judges, which at most would be to issue civil fines, but only if authorized by the Attorney General, and the A.G. has not provided even this limited authority.  Therefore, precedents that protect court room abuses by Article 3 federal judges do not apply to immigration judges.

(My complaint is that Cassidy unlawfully closed hearings and the damages are claimed because in addition to this, he ordered guards to remove me from the building.)

In addition to Cassidy lacking contempt authority, save the robes and other paraphernalia, immigration hearings are closer to kangaroo courts than actual judicial venues, including other administrative law proceedings.  Unless the courts want to rule that federal employees who wear black gowns can escape accountability for their civil rights violations, juries should have the opportunity to hold accountable immigration judges, along with the rest of the thugs in that gang.  

No comments:

#End read more