Julie DiCaro

Another legal observer loses her Global Entry clearance Losing My Perspicacity, February 10, 2026

And read @juliedicaro.bsky.social who was first to interview those ICE watchers:
losingmyperspicacity.beehiiv.com/p/another-le...

Thanks, Dave.

In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia J.G.G. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB Plaintiffs; LIYANARA SANCHEZ, as next friend on behalf of FRENGEL REYES MOTA, et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, V. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his officia sapacity as President of the Unite Respondents-Defendants. NOTICE OF APPEAL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that all Respondents-Defendants appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the following judgments of this Court and all orders merging therewith: • Memorandum Opinion and Order of February 12, 2026 (ECF 247). Respectfully submitted, Brett A. Shumate Assistant Attorney General Yaakov M. Roth Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew C. Ensigr Deputy Assistant Attorney Genera August Flentje Special Counsel for Immigration Case 1:25-cv-00766-JEB Document 254 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 3 s/Tiberius T. Davis Tiberius T. Davis Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice

NEWS: DOJ is appealing Judge Boasberg’s February order that the people deported to CECOT under the claimed authority of the Alien Enemies Act receive the due process they have been illegally denied since March 15, 2025. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

I don’t know, I had to turn it off. Just don’t have the patience today.

Another legal observer loses her Global Entry clearance Losing My Perspicacity, February 10, 2026

Here’s the second piece:

@peoplesfabric.bsky.social hey Steve, I’m a freelance journalist in Chicago and I’ve written a couple stories about people who have had their global entry revoked for similar situations. I’d love to chat if you’re willing!

this should be the end of the Gavin Newsom 2028 discussion. the party has spoken, full stop

Me either. And I can’t find anything, but my eyes are itching like crazy.

Look, generally, who someone is sleeping with is no one else’s business.

But when that person is receiving taxpayer money and is signing off on DHS projects, it becomes everyone’s business.

We don’t know. They’re redacted. I’m guessing it’s not necessarily politicians, but more like big donors and CEOs.

A perfect example are the people who send Epstein misogynistic jokes. Why are their names reacted?

Believe me, I know.

Why is Chicagoland’s air quality so bad right now? Anyone know?

My eyes are killing me.

I know that this is common knowledge by now, but going through the Epstein files, there are so many bad actors whose names are redacted for apparently no other reason than the DOJ doesn’t want people to know who the bad guys are.

So disheartening.

Because the signature block says Bill and Melinda Gates foundation global development.

Aww, that’s you! Nice to see you!

It is! They treat it like it’s a video game.

I’ve definitely been impressed watching her!

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Laura K. McNally: In 174, this Court ordered Defendants to file a list of all individuals whose role as attorney forms the basis for a claim of privilege. The Court directed, as to each attorney, identification of that person's employer and the party or parties represented by that individual in the relevant communication. Defendants filed such a list at 182 . In reviewing this list, the Court recognizes two individuals who are known to the Court to be non-lawyers. In 182, each is described as "Attorney" and each is described as representing specific Defendants. The Court has not audited the full list. Defendants are ordered to closely re-review docket 182 and, by 3:00 p.m. on 3/4/26, file either a corrected list (in alphabetical order please) or a statement that Defendants are standing by the representations in 182 . This revised filing shall be submitted over a signature of counsel of record. As with 182, this filing may be submitted under seal. If Defendants confirm that certain individuals should not have been included in the list of counsel, Defendants are directed to review all claims of privilege involving these individuals and, if appropriate, disclose to the Plaintiffs and the Court any documents over which Defendants are no longer asserting privilege. Mailed notice (McNally, Laura) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

How bad is the DOJ at lawyering these days? According to the Broadview ICE case (IL), they are listing non-attorneys as attorneys in court documents.

When he says this, he’s not talking about the Iranian regime, he’s talking about the Iranian people, who are the ones bearing the brunt of these attacks.

You know what, dude, I am not in the mood for this today. I don’t need you to mansplain politics to me.

OK, and as a person who has tried many many cases, I can tell you that what you get people to admit on camera I can also be used in legal proceedings down the road.

Do you just want people not to like her or do you want to see her in jail?

It’s not about a linguistic preference it’s about them all asking the same questions over and over that don’t mean anything. There are so many newsworthy things to question her about. 10 people asking her if she’ll apologize does nothing except get them each their own sound bites.

Switch to decaf.

Yes, criticizing Democrats for their amateur questioning styles means I’m on the side of the Noems and the Maces. You nailed it, dude.

💯

They’re not wrong. I wish they would pivot faster on their feet and not read from a list of questions.

JFC, dude.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Laura K. McNally: In 174, this Court ordered Defendants to file a list of all individuals whose role as attorney forms the basis for a claim of privilege. The Court directed, as to each attorney, identification of that person's employer and the party or parties represented by that individual in the relevant communication. Defendants filed such a list at 182 . In reviewing this list, the Court recognizes two individuals who are known to the Court to be non-lawyers. In 182, each is described as "Attorney" and each is described as representing specific Defendants. The Court has not audited the full list. Defendants are ordered to closely re-review docket 182 and, by 3:00 p.m. on 3/4/26, file either a corrected list (in alphabetical order please) or a statement that Defendants are standing by the representations in 182 . This revised filing shall be submitted over a signature of counsel of record. As with 182, this filing may be submitted under seal. If Defendants confirm that certain individuals should not have been included in the list of counsel, Defendants are directed to review all claims of privilege involving these individuals and, if appropriate, disclose to the Plaintiffs and the Court any documents over which Defendants are no longer asserting privilege. Mailed notice (McNally, Laura) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

How bad is the DOJ at lawyering these days? According to the Broadview ICE case (IL), they are listing non-attorneys as attorneys in court documents.

It’s so painful to watch Congress question people because half of their questions read like brand new prosecutors thinking they’re cute.

“Oh, you loved your wife? Did you love her when you punched her in the face? Did you love her when you choked her?”

C’mon, people.