Re: What the Constitution, Supreme Court say about 'due process' for Trump deportees:

On 6/7/2025 10:26 AM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:

In article <2ta84k5178gqcnqegg78j6ouvlpn2f50gn@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder  <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

Actually, as I explained, anyone who is officially accused of being an
illegal has a due process right to provide evidence to the accusing
official that he is not an illegal.

 When you play it this way, you're putting 100% of your faith and trust
in the honesty of the official who is accusing you. That's not the way a
free country works.
 There are mostly good LEOs out there. But there are some bad apples. You
don't give those bad apples that kind of power because they will simply
lie and abuse it.
 Like I said, probably different levels of trust in the government, here.
 

While I agree with you that this is subject to ineptitude, abuse and corruption, as all law enforcement issues are by their nature, how is it different from "You were speeding." "No I was not." ?
Or, the Lindsay Lohan defense, "That cocaine in my pants? These are not my pants." which is humorous.  Dope planted by an officer during an arrest is not humorous and does happen.
More crucially in a present issue, while I am no friend of perverts the huge deluge of "possession of digital child pornography" charges raise the exact same criticism. Wouldn't it be convenient to download prohibited materials to a political enemy, an ex-lover, the guy ahead of you for promotion and so on?  Defense is sketchy as files may appear on your device and possession itself is the crime, not intent.  Consider:
https://ktla.com/news/california/man-sues-san-bernardino-county/
I think your criticism is a valid concern and extends beyond deportation of illegals.
Which is shocking.  To me, anyway.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971