Will Chamberlain

Let's tell another story about Kilmar Abrego Garcia. This one has to do with his lawyer, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, and how a 4th Circuit judge (and the entire media) effectively got duped into underplaying the evidence that Abrego-Garcia was in MS-13. 

Today, AG Bondi released the underlying Gang Field Interview Sheet (GFIS) related to Abrego Garcia's detainment in 2019, along with other documents.

In the GFIS, the police officer attests that when Abrego-Garcia was arrested, he was hanging out with multiple confirmed MS-13 members, that he was wearing apparel associated with MS-13, and that a confidential source independently identified Abrego-Garcia's membership in MS-13 along with his rank and moniker in the organization.

Interestingly, when Judge Thacker wrote her concurring opinion in the 4th Circuit decision that ruled for Abrego-Garcia, she was extremely dismissive of the evidence that he was in MS-13. She said it was "thin, to say the least," and made no mention of the fact that Abrego-Garcia was detained while hanging out with two other members of MS-13. 

Why was that omitted? Well, let's take a look at her footnotes.

Her first footnote points to SA 146 n.5. That's the underlying district court opinion.

The district court opinion by Judge Xinis also characterizes the MS-13 evidence against Abrego-Garcia as weak: "nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie, and a vague, uncorroborated allegation" that he was in MS-13. Again, no mention of the fact that he was arrested with two MS-13 members.

Judge Xinis cited ECF 31 - which must have been a mistake, because she was citing the very document she was writing! Totally circular, likely an error by her clerk, but it means that we don't know exactly where Judge Xinis got this.

Judge Thacker's second footnote points to the Addendum to the Motion for Stay at pages 10-11. 

This is the complaint written by Mr. Sandoval-Moshenberg. And now things become clear: the reason that both Judge Xinis and Judge Thacker underplayed the MS-13 evidence is because Mr. Sandoval-Moshenberg did so in his complaint.

He's the only lawyer on the brief. No one else is responsible.

The really interesting thing here is that based on what Sandoval-Moshenberg put in the complaint, it's pretty clear he had access to the underlying GFIS report. And yet he didn't put that report in the record, instead choosing to underplay the cop's statement.

As a result, both Judge Xinis at the district court level and Judge Thacker on the 4th Circuit got blindsided, and themselves underplayed the evidence. Judges really don't like that; they like to be able to to rely on the lawyers litigating in front of them to cut square corners. That didn't happen here.

The lesson for them, as well as the media - you can't just take a plaintiff's lawyer's word as gospel. Complaints are not evidence. And it's really dumb to underplay evidence that will eventually be revealed to the public.

FIN.

@willchamberlain Okay. Agree. But, why wasn’t the government getting this proof in at the hearing or through declarations

@jaybjackson Rushed posture, frustrated DOJ attorney (who has since been put on leave)