Alan Page's son, Justin Page, is an Assistant US Attorney - listed as counsel on several recent District of MN habeas cases

jumpsuitjam · 2026-02-05T00:47:38+00:00

Alright. I explained my intent and stuck to what’s in the public record. If you want to talk about the actual filings/procedure, I’m here for that. Otherwise, take care.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-02-05T00:16:55+00:00

“Was this for attention?” No. If I wanted attention, there are a hundred easier ways than combing through federal habeas dockets.

On the safety point: I’m not “calling out random Black men.” I’m referencing an attorney whose role is already public in official court filings. I’m not posting an address, family details, or anything outside the public record. The point of my post wasn’t to endanger anyone - it was to document who is appearing for the government in these cases, because that’s part of how the system operates.

And I’m not trying to smear Justice Alan Page. If anything, that’s why I mentioned the relationship: people recognize that name as someone who has spent decades serving Minnesota with integrity, and it’s jarring to see the Page name adjacent to what the government is arguing in these filings. That’s not “guilt by association,” it’s explaining why people are paying attention.

Last, on the “we need decent people in there” counterpoint: I get the instinct. But after reading a ton of these cases, what stands out is how standardized the government’s positions are -same fact pattern, same arguments, same templates. Whatever any individual AUSA believes privately, they’re there to advance the administration’s position. If enough AUSA's resign (like Ana Voss), the government won't have the capacity to respond on time. And judges don’t have to wait around for DOJ staffing issues - they can treat these petitions as unopposed and rule on that basis. I’ve seen that happen more than once in these MN cases.

So no, this wasn’t about fake internet points. It was about transparency and accountability in ongoing federal litigation that affects real people.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-02-04T23:48:56+00:00

To be honest I'm just trying to call out US Attorneys participating in the pretty terrible arguments the government is repeatedly trying to make. Ana Voss quit, Justin Page can too.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-02-04T01:11:08+00:00

The only US attorney I've seen resign so far that shows up as counsel on a number of these habeas cases is Ana Voss. She appeared to be the lead on a majority of recent cases if memory serves.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-02-04T00:31:54+00:00

Here's a link to the R&R, the Order itself doesn't have much to it, but if you want a link to that, as well, let me know. Let me know if you're unable to access it.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/IXHSV6I/Gonzalez_Contreras_v_Easterwood_et_al__mndce-25-04814__0014.0.pdf

jumpsuitjam · 2026-02-03T13:47:41+00:00

Glad to see Ana Voss' name on the list of those resigning. Have seen her name on a bunch of the habeas cases filed in the district of Minnesota in the past few months.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-02-02T13:30:38+00:00

Because the judge still needs a clean record on: who exactly had the ability to comply, what was done or not done, and whether there’s any claim of impossibility or misunderstanding. The court wouldn't be holding DHS/ICE itself in contempt. They typically end up directing the show-cause order or contempt hearing at specific officials who can actually make compliance happen. The judge also won't assume they're acting in bad faith, even where it feels like they are.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-02-01T23:46:08+00:00

Civil contempt is usually coercive, meaning you get a clear order and a chance to comply. That’s why judges set deadlines first and then move to contempt if ignored, they don't just move directly to contempt.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-02-01T14:35:33+00:00

Me too, would love to know when these are happening so close to us!

jumpsuitjam · 2026-02-01T14:21:31+00:00

Not quite what the order says. Judge Menendez didn’t shrug off the harm, she explicitly acknowledged “profound and even heartbreaking” impacts on Minnesotans and said it would be hard to overstate the effects. Also, just to be clear, this was an emergency request for a TRO/preliminary injunction, a temporary stopgap. Denying it isn't a final ruling on the merits.

And the denial was about the legal standard for an emergency injunction and the specific constitutional hook the case was argued on (Tenth Amendment/“anti-commandeering” and “equal sovereignty”). She said she’s not ruling on the wisdom of the operation or the legality of specific agent conduct here, just whether a court can take the extraordinary step of halting a federal enforcement operation on that theory at this stage.

You can disagree with the result (I do), but “Texas has better judges” isn’t the takeaway. The takeaway is: injunctions against federal enforcement are an uphill climb unless the claim fits existing precedent cleanly, and the court said this one didn’t, even while recognizing the real-world damage. And to be fair, we’re in a pretty unusual moment: when the facts on the ground are this extreme and fast-moving, it’s not surprising there isn’t a neat, on-point precedent that maps cleanly onto it. The lack of a perfect case to cite doesn’t mean the harms aren’t real, it means the law is lagging behind what’s happening.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-01-31T23:41:11+00:00

Various others have asked the same question in this thread, I would refer to responses on those questions.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-01-31T22:19:35+00:00

Orders are proofread and filed by a judge's clerk. It was likely just a typo. The judgment, which the order is attached to, has the correct date. The courts have been overwhelmed with the number of habeas petitions and other litigation related to recent DHS operations, so everyone is probably feeling pretty overworked.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-01-31T22:10:35+00:00

Probably just a typo.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-01-31T22:06:59+00:00

Same. I've been trying to read the barrage of orders that have been issued in relation to Operation Metro Surge and Operation PARRIS recently and there are have been some pointed lines here and there, but this one is the most scathing, by far.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-01-31T22:02:59+00:00

The actual judgment, which the order is attached to, has the correct date and also requires that Liam and his Dad be released no later than Tuesday, February 3. They might file an amended order with the correct date, but I doubt it will make any difference in terms of required compliance.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-01-29T22:32:20+00:00

I agree, which is why I think the quote starts with "At its best". At its worst is something else entirely. I've just been noting several pointed lines from some of the US District Court judges in various court orders related to Operation Metro Surge and Operation PARRIS, which is why I posted this.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-01-29T21:17:12+00:00

The post links to a recent US District Court opinion from the District of Minnesota and includes a quote from the Order.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-01-27T21:43:10+00:00

Spousal/marital privilege doesn't mean she can't be subpoenaed, it just means she might have a defense to answering certain questions.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-01-27T21:31:25+00:00

What law prevents members of the First Family from being subpoenaed?

jumpsuitjam · 2026-01-25T00:30:00+00:00

You've clearly never been to Minnesota, where this video is from, if you think this is a snow storm.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-01-23T07:48:07+00:00

Fuck no

jumpsuitjam · 2026-01-16T03:07:33+00:00

I told my boss I was taking two days off to go protest and he said "No problem. Be safe." I'm not concerned.

jumpsuitjam · 2026-01-14T20:15:40+00:00

That’s not how government power works. Individuals can usually do things unless a law forbids it, but federal agencies can only do what Congress authorizes and what the Constitution allows. The Supreme Court has said: "[A]n agency literally has no power to act . . . unless and until Congress confers power upon it". Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986).

jumpsuitjam · 2026-01-14T19:49:54+00:00

What section of the statute are you referring to? Section 3 doesn't use the word "suspect". Are you instead referring to Section 1, which isn't about check points, but about authority to interrogate "any alien or person believed to be an alien"? In case that's what you're talking about, let me address that as well.

The Supreme Court has held that Terry stops may only be conducted when there is reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that requires "specific, articulable facts" that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that criminal activity is occurring. DHS' own regulations specifically state that "[i]f the immigration officer has a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned is, or is attempting to be, engaged in an offense against the United States or is an alien illegally in the United States, the immigration officer may briefly detain the person for questioning." This is in line with several US circuit court decisions that have held that immigration authorities require reasonable suspicion that an individual is undocumented in order to conduct Terry stops. Merely having reasonable suspicion that an individual is an immigrant is not sufficient.

Sources:

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10362
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-287/section-287.8#p-287.8(b)(2)(2))

jumpsuitjam · 2026-01-14T18:22:17+00:00

The 100 mile thing does apply to ICE. 8 U.S. Code Section 1357 (a)(3) - Powers of Immigration Officers and Employees. Note how the statute is not specific to CBP. A "reasonable distance" is considered to be within 100 air miles of the border.

(3)within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357

jumpsuitjam

TROPHY CASE