When a prosecutor secures a warrant, the other side does not get to argue before the issuing magistrate that the probable cause grounds are lacking. Only one side gets to present the case for a warrant to issue.
At arraignment, the other side gets to hear the charges. At a probable cause hearing, the other side may argue the lack of probable cause. At a motion to quash, the other side may argue the warrant was defective.
Also, a timeline of the case, with more docs and news cites.
Of course, the “secret arguments” is now considered moot, since the indictment, and the media is framing the story as a “plot to assassinate the president”. How convenient. Time to rally 'round the leader, right? Especially now, when the SS debate is going south, and the Gannon/Guckert story is picking up steam. Note that Ali has not been formally charged with the “assassination plot”…
Meanwhile, this kid has no fingernails, according to the alleged remark by Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon D. Kromberg back in November:
I guess they figured he was good for a quick news cycle diversion… Anyone think this case will go anywhere beyond that?
And in the case filed by Mr. Abu Ali’s family, if the judge had granted the government’s request to file a secret legal argument, Mr. Abu Ali’s family would have had a chance to rebut…when, exactly?
As I said, when a warrant is issued against a person, the other side eventually gets to hear why the warrant was issued. It may be at a different proceeding, but it does happen. In the case of the civil charges filed by Mr. Abu Ali’s family, had the judge granted the government’s request, there would have been no proceeding analogous to an arraignment, probable cause hearing, or motion to quash.
This example doesn’t help either side in this argument, truth be told. No one has compared this civil case to issuing a warrant. I was actually curious, though, if there were any proceedings in which the other party never gets to rebut the presented arguments, because I was curious if there was any precedent for this sort of thing at all in the current legal system. Your response doesn’t answer that question, however: in the case of a warrant, just because the chance to rebut occurs at a different proceeding or a set of proceedings doesn’t mean the chance to rebut never occurs.
I guess there is no precedent of note; if there was, Bricker would have been right on top of it…
Other than the PR reasons I mentioned in the previous post, could there be a legal strategy reason why the DOJ avoided a ruling on “secret arguments”?
If there had been a ruling that went against their argument (which seemed likely, even though Bates was hand-picked, and the 4th district court is considered very conservative), wouldn’t that constitute a case law example they wanted to avoid?