Jeffrey Epstein is reported to be dead. It has been reported that he was found hanging in his jail cell one day after documents in his case were unsealed, and one day after being taken off suicide watch. The skepticism level in this country has been extremely high ever since, giving rise to various conspiracy theories on social media, one of which was even retweeted by Trump himself.
If Epstein is, in fact, dead as reported, he then died through the complete failure of President Donald Trump’s Justice Department headed up by his politically appointed Attorney General William P. Barr. under which the Federal Bureau of Prisons exists. Barr is already under severe scrutiny by Congress and most mainstream media outlets for allegedly misleading the American public about the results of the Mueller Report, spinning it to further President Trump’s narrative of “total and complete exoneration,” when a simple layperson’s reading of the Mueller Report certainly states otherwise. Barr’s compromised credibility is helping to fuel the skepticism over the reports of Epstein’s death.
Barr decided to use the term “apparent suicide” just hours after Epstein’s body was discovered while at the same time acknowledging that a thorough investigation into this suspicious death is needed. Some in mainstream and other media called this characterization by the nation’s highest-ranking law enforcement officer, who was responsible for Epstein’s life as “premature” at best. Some have called it “political spin.” This begs the question, of why the Justice Department and the Trump Administration would want to launch an early narrative that Epstein’s death was a suicide, despite traditional protocol to investigate before making or even implying any conclusions.
Somehow, despite being the most high profile prisoner in the country, he was left unattended and unmonitored just long enough to die a violent death, either by his own hands or the hands of others.
At the request of the The Convo Couch, an online show covering politics from a Progressive viewpoint, The law firm of Santucci Priore, P.L. is making the complete docket of Jeffrey Epstein’s 2019 federal criminal case available for free download, without subscription. From these official legal documents, people can draw their own conclusions without the filter of the Trump Administration, it’s Justice Department or any biased media on the left or right. Use the link below to access the documents.
Once again U.S. immigration is in the news regarding domestic violence and gang-violence related to asylum seekers. The turmoil came from the speech made by attorney General, Jeff Sessions’ opening remarks to the House Judiciary Committee’s Oversight of the Department of Justice regarding asylum. Mr. Sessions has not created a new rule of law or stepped beyond the current regulations. Instead, he stated that the law should be applied according to his Session’s and the Trump Administration’s interpretation of the Legislators’ intention. The Trump/Sessions interpretation includes separating children from parents suspected of illegally crossing the border.
The fact is, there have been allegations of abuse of the asylum application process related to domestic violence, gang-violence and other type is issues. Sessions is now requesting that Judges be more restrictive regarding these matters. However, that does not mean that qualified applicants cannot file for asylum, even on these grounds.
For example, someone that has been a victim of domestic violence in X country, is not necessarily a victim for asylum in U.S. because, under the Trump/Sessions interpretation, the crime of domestic violence should be resolved within the legal system of that country, and/or maybe that victim can move to other areas within the country in order to find safety. For this person, the asylum application would not be approved. Nevertheless, if a victim of domestic violence is married to a military or governmental official, and the victim neither can be protected by the country’s legal system nor will (s)he be protected by moving to a different area within the country, then this person could have an asylum application approved. In the case of gang-violence, if the victim is in, or married to someone in a gang, and same as above, cannot find recourse within the country’s own legal system or protection anywhere in his or her home country, it is plausible to file for an asylum application.
It is also important to understand that there are other ways to protect foreign nationals that are victims of domestic violence or gang violence, other than through asylum, especially if they are already in the United States.
Feel free to contact our office with any questions.
Solita Chocron, LL.M.
Santucci Priore, P.L.’s immigration law department is committed to keeping the public up to date on President Trump’s executive orders that include travel bans now targeted to travelers from six (6) different countries, and any countries that are added to that list. The updates will include full text of the pertinent orders and other legal documents so that our immigration clients and other followers have the direct information, free of media spin from either side of the political spectrum. Stay tuned to www.500law.com and our firm’s Facebook and Twitter profiles.
The Latest Report and Background:
According to the Courts, the changes made to President Trump’s new Executive Order were not enough. Specifically, on March 15, 2017, a Federal District Judge in Hawai’i blocked President Trump’s Second Travel Ban Order, only six (6) hours before it went into effect. The Court’s Temporary Restraining Order blocks President Trump from implementing sections 2 and 6 of the new Executive Order. Section 2 is the portion of the Executive Order that calls for Temporary Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern During Review Period. This is the portion of the Executive Order that specifies the amount of time in which nationals from the 6 specified countries will be denied entry into the U.S (if they do not meet any of the exceptions). Section 6 addresses the suspension on entry into the United States by refugees. The Trump Administration will not be able to implement these portions of the Executive Order at this point, unless the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court enter a stay of the Temporary Restraining Order while the proceedings continue. The Court’s Order is focused on the constitutional issues with the Executive Order and finds that the new Executive Order still violates the Establishment Clause. (For a further explanation of said constitutional issues see the complete text of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai’i below).
Another Federal District Judge in Maryland temporarily blocked part of the new Executive Order as well. The Plaintiffs in this action consist of nonprofit companies that work with refugees as well as a group of individual visa holders who allege that they’ve experienced stigma from the president’s actions and would be separated from family trying to travel to the United States once the order takes effect. The Plaintiffs sought a nationwide injunction stopping the order from taking effect in its entirety. The Court declined to grant such broad relief and granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion in part and denied it in part. The Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion as to the implementation of section 2(c) of the Executive Order, the section of the Executive Order that specifically states the name of six Muslim countries whose nationals will be denied entry into the U.S for the ninety (90) day period. The Court reasoned that Plaintiffs are likely to be able to establish that Section 2(c) of the Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause. The Court also issued a nationwide injunction on this matter because the Plaintiffs are located in different parts of the United States, indicating that nationwide relief may be appropriate. (For a further explanation of the scope of injunction see the complete text of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland below).
Plaintiffs also requested an injunction against the implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order for the sections relating to the temporary ban on refugees, alleging that they believe that it also offends the Establishment Clause. However, the Court did not believe Plaintiffs met the burden to warrant the entry of an injunction against these sections at this time. As for the remaining portions of the President Trump’s Executive Order, the Court has found that the Plaintiffs have not provided a sufficient basis to establish their invalidity.
Judge Robart, the Judge who issued the Order for the stay on the implementation of the President Trump’s original Executive Order, has been requested to enforce his prior injunction against the new Executive Order but no hearing has been scheduled for this request.
As a precautionary method, it is important to seek the advice of counsel, if the Executive Order has or may impact you or your family in any way. Solita Cochron from Santucci Priore, a veteran United States immigration clerk and attorney in Venezuela, along with the firm’s attorneys, are standing by to offer assistance to those who are confused or concerned and anyone else, with lawful motives, who is seeking to enter or become a legal resident or citizen of our United States of America. Santucci Priore is offering assistance to clients with the following U.S. immigration issues: Family-based immigration, asylum, citizenship, naturalization, change of status, as well as permanent employment and inventor visas. The firm is also, for a limited time, offering, pro-bono (free), immigration advice and assistance to anyone that is or has been affected by President Trump’s Executive Order, and any future modified version of the Executive Order.
By: Jessica Maxey, Law Clerk
SANTUCCI PRIORE, P.L.
J.D. Candidate, May 2017
Click here for the text and an explanation of the Second Executive Order.