One of the judges this story mentions is William Cassidy, who was promoted from an Atlanta IJ position to a BIA member position in 2019 by the Trump DOJ. Cassidy has an awful history that has been well-documented, but I'm still enraged reading this reporting.

The story notes that the EOIR Director served as an ICE attorney in Atlanta and practiced before Cassidy for years. And it points to FOIA records unearthed by Bryan Johnson showing they remain friendly.
A trove of complaints against Cassidy was published by AILA in 2019 after FOIA litigation. They generally show misconduct, substantiated in the record, followed by "written counseling" etc. https://t.co/tkaspDbAAK
One way Cassidy could avoid discipline is by turning off the recording device during the hearing. If he made a lewd or offensive comment off the record, all the EOIR would do is listen to the recording. If it's not there, the complaint is "unsubstantiated" https://t.co/wUeBPEEbpV
In that case, Cassidy joked about a detained immigrant saying he missed his wife. The complaint was dismissed because the ACIJ found "no levity or joking" in the comment.
Here's a complaint from 2010 where Cassidy disclosed confidential information about an asylum applicant's case to a third party and had "prepared a complete written decision" denying the claim "before the hearing" had occurred. https://t.co/O4PbvIIoup
No discipline. Just "counseling" and eventually a promotion to be a BIA member.
In this complaint, the person said Judge Cassidy repeatedly turned off the recording device and had a third party removed from the court room by security. Dismissed for failure to state a claim.
In this one, Judge Cassidy went to another judge's courtroom dressed in his robe and "made a suggestion on how to handle the case." Resulted in "written counseling."
Cassidy encouraging a detained individual not to file an appeal. Resulted in "oral counseling."
One reason people have stopped making complaints about IJs is that they obviously go nowhere. The best evidence of this? The BIA seems to have largely stopped reporting IJ misconduct under the Trump Administration. You can see that in their annual statistics reports.
In 2016 and early 2017, the BIA itself was the source of nearly 1/3 of complaints about IJ misconduct (they learn of it when they're reviewing the transcript on appeal). https://t.co/EMk9itZfXR
Under Trump that dropped to 3%. https://t.co/aBLGsegqRW
In 2019 the BIA made 0 complaints about IJ misconduct. None. From 30% of the complaints about IJs to 0. https://t.co/yZgGS0nDdO
The BIA made just 1 complaint about IJ misconduct in 2020. All of this points to the utter worthlessness of IJ complaints. Nobody does anything about the misconduct. and when private attorneys risk make a complaint, they risk retaliation. https://t.co/6oOv6YwVDI

More from Law

This thread will debunk "the judges didn't look at evidence" nonsense that has been going around.

Over and over again, judges have gone out of their way to listen to the evidence and dismantle it, enjoy the carnage!

1/

Bowyer v. Ducey (Sidney Powell's case in Arizona)

"Plaintiffs have not moved the
needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible"

This is a great opinion to start with. The Judge completely dismantles the nonsense brought before her.

2/

https://t.co/F2vllUhM2G


King vs. Whitmer (Michigan, Sidney Powell case)

"Nothing but speculation and conjecture"

This is a good one to show people who think affidavits are good evidence. Notice how the affidavits don't actually say they saw fraud happen in Detroit.

3/

https://t.co/NZAtqivWkL


Trump v. Benson (Michigan)

"hearsay within hearsay"

Another good one to show people who think affidavits are absolute proof.

4/

https://t.co/17GeGhImHF


Stoddard v. City Election Commission (Michigan)

"mere speculation"

/5

https://t.co/ekqYEqiIL9
Pretty much every professional field EXCEPT police have clear, rigorous, transparent consequences for unethical behavior, negligence and malpractice.


The idea that we can "disbar" lawyers but not police is absolute foolishness.

All the factors that make disbarment a necessary tool for lawyers apply to cops... except that cops don't need to be qualified in the first place.

It is a rank absurdity of the criminal justice system that one needs to be educated and certified with a degree in order to argue on behalf of someone's life in court, but to have no qualifications necessary to detain, assault, or prematurely end that same life.

There are countless circumstances in which a lawyer's unethical behavior will result in them not only losing their job but never being able to practice it again.

But corrupt and murderous cops can be rehired indefinitely.

A lawyer's entire career can be ended forever if they were found to have knowingly put someone on a stand to lie.

Police officers however are allowed to lie in court on the stand under oath.

So much that lawyers aren't penalized for putting cops on the stand to lie.

You May Also Like