(WalterM140) wrote in message ...


His aiders and abettors, the United States Supreme Court, disallowed the Habeas
Corpus petetiton Padilla's lawyer filled because he filed it in New York, not
where Padilla is now being held, in South Carolina.

IMHO, that was incorrect inasmuch as he had been moved form New York
to South Carolina and is held there by the same sovreign, and is being
held one presumes, for the same reasons and on the same evidence,
though absent a hearing one doesn't know what justification, if
any, the Feds have for holding him. While I do not believe he was
moved to do an end-run around a habeas petition this ruling opens
the door on that tactic.

By ruling on the jurisdictional issue the USSC avoided ruling one way or
the other on the substantive one.

HOWEVER, another case heard by the court did address the exact same
substantive issue raised in Padilla and that ruling upheld habeas,
thus mooting the substantive issue in Padilla.

So, your characterisation was, to say the least, inaccurate.

The USSC handed America a great victory that day.

--

FF