The Bill of Rights Applies to ALL People in United States Not Just Citizens

by Scott Creighton

According to new reports, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was illegally whisked away and sent to a black site prison in El Salvador (CECOT) based on some random person claiming he was a member of MS13. No one has presented any evidence thus far of that being true.

Just the say-so of an anonymous secret informant. 

The following is information I am gathering for this afternoon's video. I have to see a doctor this morning and when I get back as soon as I get back I will be putting this together for the video.

Here is some legal information about the case as well as some quotes from yesterday's court ruling against the Trump administration in which the judge is calling them out for being in contempt of court.

 

 the following from Google AI search

 The Bill of Rights applies to all individuals within the United States, not just citizens. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the protections outlined in the Bill of Rights extend to everyone residing in the country, regardless of their citizenship status. This means that non-citizens, including immigrants and tourists, are also entitled to the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition) and other rights protected by the Bill of Rights.  

Elaboration:      

    Constitutional Protections:     The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, protects individuals, not just citizens.   

    Non-Citizens' Rights: Non-citizens, including immigrants and tourists, are entitled to the same constitutional rights as citizens, such as the right to freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.  

    Examples: Non-citizens can't be denied the right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment or the right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment. They also have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.  

    Exceptions: While non-citizens generally have the same constitutional rights as citizens, there are some exceptions, such as in cases related to immigration enforcement where specific rights may be limited. 

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Trump sycophants pretending we are being invaded by Venezuela does NOT rise to the level of evidence needed to suspend the writ of habeas corpus which is as old as Magna Carta (1215) and means you have to 'produce the body' when seeking to arrest or prosecute a person... you have to show evidence. Does MAGA mean we forgo simple, obvious rights humans have enjoyed for the past 800 years? Well yes, I suppose, if you want to enact a Curtis Yarvin style government where Trump becomes a king like King John who signed Magna Carta, then yeah, I guess that is MAGA for ya.

from Maniatis Law

' There is a misconception that the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens. Some passages and phrases in our laws explicitly state only “citizens” are afforded certain rights, such as the right to vote. When the terms “resident” or “person” is used instead of citizen, the rights and privileges afforded are extended to protect citizens and non-citizens alike. Moreover, protections under the 14th Amendment ensure that no particular group is discriminated against unlawfully.'

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.  

6th Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.  

8th Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 

yesterday's ruling (PDF):

' The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely “annul the judgments of the courts of the United States” would not just “destroy the rights acquired under those judgments”; it would make “a solemn mockery” of “the constitution itself.”...

So now what? The Court last details the next steps that these proceedings may take. 

First, before initiating any criminal-contempt proceedings, courts typically allow the contumacious party an opportunity to purge its contempt — that is, to remedy its violation by voluntarily obeying the court order. See Yates v. United States, 355 U.S. 66, 75 (1957) (“[A] court should first apply coercive remedies in an effort to persuade a party to obey its orders, and only make use of the more drastic criminal sanctions when the disobedience continues.”); cf. 9A Wright & Miller, supra, § 2465 (“The district judge normally will preface a contempt citation with an order directing either compliance with the subpoena or a showing of an excuse for the noncompliance.”). 

The most obvious way for Defendants to do so here is by asserting custody of the individuals who were removed in violation of the Court’s classwide TRO so that they might Case 1:25-cv-00766-JEB Document 81 Filed 04/16/25 Page 43 of 46 44 avail themselves of their right to challenge their removability through a habeas proceeding. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *2. 

Per the terms of the TRO, the Government would not need to release any of those individuals, nor would it need to transport them back to the homeland. The Court will also give Defendants an opportunity to propose other methods of coming into compliance, which the Court will evaluate.

In the event that Defendants do not choose to purge their contempt, the Court will proceed to identify the individual(s) responsible for the contumacious conduct by determining whose “specific act or omission” caused the noncompliance. See Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128, 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2003); United States v. Voss, 82 F.3d 1521, 1525–27 (10th Cir. 1996). 

At the suggestion of the Government in the last hearing, the Court will begin by requiring declarations. See Apr. 3 Hrg. Tr. at 24–25. Should those be unsatisfactory, the Court will proceed either to hearings with live witness testimony under oath or to depositions conducted by Plaintiffs. Id. at 29–30 (Plaintiffs suggesting declarations, depositions, hearings). 

The next step would be for the Court, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to “request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2). If the Government “declines” or “the interest of justice requires,” the Court will “appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt...

...For the foregoing reasons, the Court will find probable cause that Defendants’ actions constitute contempt. It will provide them an opportunity to purge such contempt. If they opt not to do so, the Court will proceed to identify the contemnor(s) and refer the matter for prosecution. A separate Order so stating will issue this day.”

 

The court is saying they don't buy the bullshit coming from the Trump administration and that they must return ALL of the folks shipped off to El Salvador immediately or offer up the names of officials to be prosecuted for contempt of court.

A senator went down there in an effort to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia himself and met with the vice president of that corrupt dictatorship. He was told they would NOT return the man to the states because...

... they were being paid CASH to keep him and the rest of the people shipped down there.

They want to keep the money and are afraid this lucrative source of grift for themselves might dry up if all of a sudden TrumpyBear and Little Lying Marco stop sending people down there to be tortured.

The Trumpies have already appealed the ruling and will probably take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

That's right folks, Trump and his merry band of America-hating fascist neocons and oligarchs hate your constitution so much they are willing to risk contempt of court in order to keep violating our constitutional rights just as much as they like.  

All hail King Trump and screw that whole Magna Carta thing.

At what point do the Trump fans have to admit they hate America as well?