Lol, sure, your wanted me to check out the pages I have been pasting a dozen of so times, that you obviously did not read until now. .Cakes: Thanks. I asked because I want you to check out page 13. The determination of Garcia’s ‘gang membership’ is linked to an unidentified other person saying that Garcia is in a gang. It’s acknowledged that this is hearsay but one judge has decided that this is ‘valid enough’. My point is that this went back and forth and likely wouldn’t hold up in court in most situations. Regardless, you’ve keyed into this because you seem to think that this allows for elimination of due process, perhaps, or that an unknown person alleging that someone else is ‘in a gang’ is the proper standard for determining any such thing, when this claim could be made by anyone about anyone.
It is linked to several things, and a confidential informant is one of them. It is not hearsay, it is admissible evidence by a reliable source. For all we know it was a undercover source.
And it also reads in a greater context... " Although the Court is reluctant to give evidentiary weight to the Respondent's clothing as an indication of gang affiliation, the fact that a "past, proven, and reliable source of information" verified the Respondent's gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member, and the Respondent has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion."
LOl....I never ever said this allows avoidance of due process in the context you are implying, I have said maybe a dozen of more times he was removed under AEA, and because he was deemed a MS-13 gang member. The two judges decision, the same verdict that protection by Garcia was filed against, stand from a past and proven reliable source.
CFR how you know it would not hold up in most court situations and how it negates the decision here.
I guess this has gone full circle.