Reposted by @eskohn.bsky.social
Was a national civics competition for high-school kids ...
Rigged? Biased? Botched?
I followed one family through Trump's patriotic contest and found a remarkable story about our age of suspicion.
For @notus.com:
www.notus.org/national/ame...
notus.org
Suspicion and Doubt at the National Civics Contest
America’s finest young scholars competed to mark their country's birthday. It led to a disputed finish in the age of mistrust.
![On February 13, 2026, Petitioner [REDACTED] filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus. Dkt. 1. The same day, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring
Respondents to respond to the Petition no later than February 17, 2026. Dkt. 4 at ¶ 1. That
order also required Respondents to file all their supporting documentation by February 17,
2026. Id. at ¶ 2. On February 18, 2026, Respondents late-filed their response to the Petition
along with a declaration and single exhibit. Dkts. 5–6. Around two hours later, the Court
issued an order requiring Respondents to file a declaration and exhibits references in the
late-filed Response but not filed with the court, along with a declaration explaining the
reason for filing late, within 24 hours. Dkt. 7. Respondents finally filed the balance of their
supporting documentation by 4:06 P.M, February 18.1 Dkt. 9.
Respondents never moved the Court for an extension of time to file their response
or supporting documentation. Third Declaration o f[REDACTED] in Response to
Text-Only Order ECF No. 7, Dkt. 10, at ¶ 9 (hereinafter “3d. [REDACTED] Decl.”). They never
even contacted Counsel for Petitioner to inform him of the late filing. In the declaration, of
1 The declaration explaining the cause for late filing was not filed until 11:06 P.M. that
night. Dkt. 10.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ccm7gttkbfs2eyyrlpshmeun/bafkreify7suznttum67oxtxt5aihc5xi7n2mootnpswjyjel5jdn3f77ue)
![Assistant U.S. Attorney [REDACTED], Counsel for Respondents offers a host of
limp excuses for filing late. First, AUSA [REDACTED] admits he was fine with violating the
Court’s scheduling order, instructing his staff that it was okay to “file before midnight if
possible or early Wednesday morning.” 3d. [REDACTED] Decl. at ¶ 3. His excuse for the late
filing of the response itself is risible: support staff was offline and, in [REDACTED] own words,
“I do not know how to file documents through CMECF.” Id. This is no excuse. The Court’s
order makes no exception for staff unavailability or the failure of an attorney to know the
basic functions of their profession.2 See Order to Show Cause, Dkt. 3.
Further, Counsel for Respondents admits he was not prepared to file all of the
documentation the Response relied upon even at that late date. As he points out, he only
requested a copy of the travel document after the Court’s order to respond further. 3d.
[REDACTED] Decl. at ¶ 6 (“Upon receipt of the Court’s Order, ECF No. 7, I immediately
contacted ICE and requested the travel document referenced in the [REDACTED] Declaration as
it had not been provided to me earlier.”). It is troubling that Counsel for Respondents
knowingly referenced documents he did not have, had not seen, and seemingly had no plans
to see until the Court ordered them produced. See, e.g., Response to Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus, Dkt. 5 at 2, 4 (hereinafter “Response”). Besides the potential ethical issues
that filing without ever seeing relied-up evidence raises,3 it evinces a total lack of respect
for Petitioner’s rights and the Court’s order. Counsel for Respondents apologies to the
Court and below-signed counsel for the late filing. 3d. [REDACTED] Decl. at ¶ 10. Wherefore
Petitioner, who has been unconstitutionally detained for two months?
2 Counsel for Petitioner will note that he can somehow manage to file documents through
CM/ECF himself without the resources and might of the Federal Government…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ccm7gttkbfs2eyyrlpshmeun/bafkreib5m66fz5oqonwik3qj74rwh44cz5augk5so2pu2w7fc4puijnoye)
