4 ms·

It was in the defenses own filing. I don't have the link off hand but look up last week's filing of the case and they dug up that the contract was for 1 year,

by ty6853 2y ago

It was in the defenses own filing. I don't have the link off hand but look up last week's filing of the case and they dug up that the contract was for 1 year, after which the US will decide the disposition of the prisoners. They used it as part of their argument that the US still maintains control over the prisoners, since the contract stated the US has control over their disposition. It should be findable on either PACER or court listener, although all the ones I read were pdf from various news articles.

sorcerer-mar 2y ago
FYI because it can be misleading here, "the defense" is Kristi Noem/DHS/the US Government. Kilmar Garcia has never been charged with a crime and is not a defendant in any case whatsoever. He is a kidnapping victim who is suing his kidnapper. Into the main topic: I looked and don't see any such filing. I can find references to a memo from El Salvador claiming that it's 1 year for $6 million. I can't find a contract though, so the evidence suggests no such contract has been produced. Curious if you're willing to link directly to it though! Here's what the aforementioned filing states: > According to a memorandum issued by El Salvador’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the agreement provides that the detainees will be held “for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on [their] long term disposition.” I.e. referencing a memo, not a contract. This is unusual/illegal as any contract that USG signs over $25,000 must be reported.
- ty6853 2y ago
  >El Salvador’s ministry of foreign affairs confirmed that it “will house these individuals for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on their long term disposition.” S.A. 149 (quoting Matthew Lee & Regina Garcia Cano, Trump Officials Secretly Deported Venezuelans and Salvadorans to a Notorious Prison in El Salvador, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Mar. 15, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/trumpdeportations-salvador-tren-aragua64e72142a171ea57c869c3b35eeecce7 https://apnews.com/article/trumpdeportations-salvador-tren-a... (emphasis supplied)). >The Government undertook this action pursuant to its agreement with El Salvador, wherein the United States paid El Salvador six million dollars to hold detainees “for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on [their] long term disposition.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 6 https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/abergo-garcia-fourth-circuit-stay-denial.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ab... I think this was written by Judge Thacker
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    All of which references the same memo and not a contract.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      A federal judge recognized the imprisonment service agreement in trade for money. That's a contract. You can semantic-smith all you want that a memo cannot present the contract. A contract can be referenced without there being some big document that says 'contract' on it. Everyone else but you knows what it is. Whatever you reply next will just be word-garbage to try and refute that. Judges in this case aren't buying it, and they aren't buying your case that informal arrangements are nothing but memos.
      - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
        So you can show me this contract in the Governmentwide Point of Entry, as is required under FAR Part 5? No, you can't. You can try to escape the substance of the argument with phrases like "semantic-smith" if you'd like, but law is semantics. And no, the judges referencing the memo that claims such an agreement exists does not indicate that judges "buy it" that there is a contract. The case before them is not about contracting compliance and public records, so they wouldn't be interested to bottom out that issue. The quoted language is not even allegedly from any agreement, contract or not, formal or informal. The quoted language is from a memo about the alleged agreement. Edit to your edit: > they aren't buying your case that informal arrangements are nothing but memos. Ah, so it's "an informal arrangement" now? Interesting change of heart you've had. Our government is not allowed to make "informal arrangements" that involve shipping human beings to foreign governments and paying them several million dollars per year, for all sorts of very obvious procurement and budgetary reasons, even aside from the human rights issues.
        ty6853 2y ago
        They're 'not allowed to'. But they did. Trump & co pulled one over on you. Just because it's not in the GPoE does not mean it doesn't exist. It appears to be an informally arranged contract. Federal judges and 'memos' also recognizes this contract. Bukele and Trump publicly have reiterated much of the terms. I do not know if you will ever see a single traditional looking contract paper you desire, but the evidence is everywhere, not the least of which that the memos statements and actual reality of El Salvador taking prisoners on behalf the US and publicly stating they have an agreement to do it.

by ty6853 2y ago

sorcerer-mar 2y ago

FYI because it can be misleading here, "the defense" is Kristi Noem/DHS/the US Government. Kilmar Garcia has never been charged with a crime and is not a defendant in any case whatsoever. He is a kidnapping victim who is suing his kidnapper. Into the main topic: I looked and don't see any such filing. I can find references to a memo from El Salvador claiming that it's 1 year for $6 million. I can't find a contract though, so the evidence suggests no such contract has been produced. Curious if you're willing to link directly to it though! Here's what the aforementioned filing states: > According to a memorandum issued by El Salvador’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the agreement provides that the detainees will be held “for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on [their] long term disposition.” I.e. referencing a memo, not a contract. This is unusual/illegal as any contract that USG signs over $25,000 must be reported.

ty6853 2y ago
>El Salvador’s ministry of foreign affairs confirmed that it “will house these individuals for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on their long term disposition.” S.A. 149 (quoting Matthew Lee & Regina Garcia Cano, Trump Officials Secretly Deported Venezuelans and Salvadorans to a Notorious Prison in El Salvador, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Mar. 15, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/trumpdeportations-salvador-tren-aragua64e72142a171ea57c869c3b35eeecce7 https://apnews.com/article/trumpdeportations-salvador-tren-a... (emphasis supplied)). >The Government undertook this action pursuant to its agreement with El Salvador, wherein the United States paid El Salvador six million dollars to hold detainees “for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on [their] long term disposition.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 6 https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/abergo-garcia-fourth-circuit-stay-denial.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ab... I think this was written by Judge Thacker
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  All of which references the same memo and not a contract.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    A federal judge recognized the imprisonment service agreement in trade for money. That's a contract. You can semantic-smith all you want that a memo cannot present the contract. A contract can be referenced without there being some big document that says 'contract' on it. Everyone else but you knows what it is. Whatever you reply next will just be word-garbage to try and refute that. Judges in this case aren't buying it, and they aren't buying your case that informal arrangements are nothing but memos.
    - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
      So you can show me this contract in the Governmentwide Point of Entry, as is required under FAR Part 5? No, you can't. You can try to escape the substance of the argument with phrases like "semantic-smith" if you'd like, but law is semantics. And no, the judges referencing the memo that claims such an agreement exists does not indicate that judges "buy it" that there is a contract. The case before them is not about contracting compliance and public records, so they wouldn't be interested to bottom out that issue. The quoted language is not even allegedly from any agreement, contract or not, formal or informal. The quoted language is from a memo about the alleged agreement. Edit to your edit: > they aren't buying your case that informal arrangements are nothing but memos. Ah, so it's "an informal arrangement" now? Interesting change of heart you've had. Our government is not allowed to make "informal arrangements" that involve shipping human beings to foreign governments and paying them several million dollars per year, for all sorts of very obvious procurement and budgetary reasons, even aside from the human rights issues.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        They're 'not allowed to'. But they did. Trump & co pulled one over on you. Just because it's not in the GPoE does not mean it doesn't exist. It appears to be an informally arranged contract. Federal judges and 'memos' also recognizes this contract. Bukele and Trump publicly have reiterated much of the terms. I do not know if you will ever see a single traditional looking contract paper you desire, but the evidence is everywhere, not the least of which that the memos statements and actual reality of El Salvador taking prisoners on behalf the US and publicly stating they have an agreement to do it.