By DAVID IGNELL
The recent obsession of the mainstream media over the due process rights of illegal aliens turns my stomach.
Serving as an echo chamber to amplify opinions of Democrat politicians and judges appointed by them, the media has attempted to use the Trump administration’s deportation of 29-year-old Kilmar Abrego-Garcia to portray our President as a reckless and dangerous leader.
Even Alaska’s Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski has joined ranks with the Democrat choir, declaring “we are all afraid.”
The media, politicians and judges have gone to great lengths to undermine police evidence and previous judicial findings regarding Abrego-Garcia’s affiliation with the dangerous M-13 gang. They’ve minimized suspicions of his involvement in human trafficking and even downplayed the 2021 domestic violence restraining order his wife obtained against him claiming he “punched and scratched Petitioner, ripped off shirt, grabbed and bruised Petitioner.”
In another deportation case, US District Court Judge Brian Murphy, appointed in 2024 by former President Biden, recently ruled that illegal aliens must be given a “meaningful opportunity” to assert their claims.
It’s upsetting to observe this coordinated outcry for the due process rights of illegal aliens and then think of the silence regarding the injustice endured by Thomas Jack Jr., an Alaskan citizen incarcerated for the past 15 years.
Jack is in prison because his due process rights were egregiously violated, yet the media and Democrat politicians and judges who know about his case have repeatedly ignored pleas for help.
Jack, an Alaska Native, was twice denied a jury of his peers. The Tribal Council of the Hoonah Indian Association has specifically found that “reasonable doubt existed in considerable abundance regarding the charges brought against Mr. Jack, and that he would likely have been acquitted of all charges had he been tried by a jury of his peers.”
The Tribal Council also specifically found that “not having been found guilty by a jury of his peers, Mr. Jack continues to be presumed innocent under the law.” The Tribal Council has asked for Jack to be freed from prison pending the State’s decision whether to retry him in a fair trial before a jury of his peers.
Jack’s conviction came only after a Juneau judge forced a patently unfair trial to proceed despite being told by Jack’s newly State-appointed attorney “there is absolutely no way I could be minimally competent to try this case.”
Pastor Bob Barton, a decorated military pilot and key witness in the Jack case, has stated: “I expected that the charges against Thomas would be dropped as soon as [the] allegations had been properly investigated. I never expected Thomas’ case to go to trial and can’t imagine how he could be convicted in a fair trial by an impartial jury.”
Judge Murphy, do you think Jack was given a “meaningful opportunity” under the Constitution before being sent away to prison for 50 years?
The cases for Jack’s innocence and denial of due process rights are considerably stronger than Abrego-Garcia’s on both substantive and procedural grounds. Abrego-Garcia entered the country illegally in 2012. He doesn’t qualify for asylum because of his several year delay in applying for it.
Abrego-Garcia’s rights are limited to the effect of a Withholding of Removal order, signed in 2019 by an administrative law judge under the direction of the executive branch of the US Department of Justice.
In that proceeding, Abrego-Garcia agreed the United States has the right to remove him. The order specifically “confers only the right not to be deported to a particular country, rather than the right to remain in the US.”
The Trump Administration not only had the right to deport Abrego-Garcia, but they had his acknowledgment of that right.
Jack has been incarcerated for 15 years, Abrego-Garcia for less than two months; Jack and his family have suffered considerably more hardship. Both constitutional and humanitarian principles dictate that Jack should receive as much, if not more, support from the mainstream media, Democrat politicians and their judges. However, Jack has received none whatsoever. Why is that?
US Sen. Chris Van Hollen provided the brutally honest admission Sunday during his appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press – it’s all political.
In responding to California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s warning that the Abrego-Garcia situation is the “distraction of the day,” Van Hollen smiled and said:
“I don’t think it’s ever wrong to stand up for the Constitution. And this is not about one man. If you deny the constitutional rights of one man, you threaten the constitutional rights for everybody. I think Americans are tired of elected officials or politicians who are all finger to the wind — what’s blowing this way, what’s blowing that way. And anybody who can’t stand up for the Constitution and the right of due process doesn’t deserve to lead.
Van Hollen spoke the truth and, in the process, threw under the bus his fellow Democrat Party politicians in Alaska who have ignored the lack of due process in Jack’s case.
For years I’ve tried in vain to get Juneau’s state politicians, all Democrats, to do something about Jack’s wrongful conviction. Sen. Jesse Kiehl, Rep. Sara Hannan, and Rep. Andi Story are all aware of the disturbing facts behind the denial of Jack’s due process rights. Yet they held their fingers up to the wind and ignored the facts. Under Van Hollen’s standard, they don’t deserve to lead.
Matt Claman from Anchorage, currently Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee is another Democrat politician familiar with the denial of due process behind Jack’s wrongful conviction but hasn’t spoke up in protest. He doesn’t deserve to lead.
On Elizabeth Peratrovich Day last year, Jack’s 80-year-old mother, family members and supporters rallied on the steps of the Capitol Building in Juneau holding signs requesting justice. Afterwards, the group fanned out throughout the building and handed out flyers specifying multiple violations of Jack’s due process rights. Democrat politicians again held their fingers to the wind and did nothing. They don’t deserve to lead.
Van Hollen has now created a most interesting situation for himself, Newsom and other Democrat politicians. They can’t unring the bell. I’ll send a copy of my article to them and encourage you to do the same. Will they show resolve and stand up for the Constitution and Jack’s due process rights? If not, they don’t deserve to lead either.
David Ignell formerly practiced law in California state and federal courts and was a volunteer analyst for the California Innocence Project. He is currently a forensic journalist and recently wrote a book on the Alaska Grand Jury.
The article fails to address how jack’s due process was violated.
What was he charged with? How were his rights violated?
Denial of effective assistance of counsel at a minimum?
CHILD MOLESTER.
Raped his 11 year old foster child girl.
50 years?
Should’ve got the death penalty OR been sent to that jail in El Salvador – for life.
Great writing. Thanks, David. Why do you think the Democrats and their appointed left-wing judges want to protect and give extra rights to murderous MS-13 gang members?
it’s actually terrible writing lol, david doesn’t make the case at all how this jack’s rights were violated
explain to the readers HOW jack’s right to due process was violated
For starters:
.
1. indictment without first searching the scene of the alleged crimes
2. indictment without interviewing key witnesses
3. witholding evidence from the jury which would have exonerated Jack
4. violating right to have jurors who represent a fair cross-section of Jack’s community
5. violating right to effective assistance of counsel
6. violating right to access post-conviction relief process
7. judicial admission that accusations were significantly inconsistent
8. judicial indifference to evidence of witness tampering
9. indifference to evidence of incompetent law-enforcement investigation, including failure to interview the accuser’s great grandmother who feared her great granddaughter, the accuser, was coached to lie, and failure to interview the teacher to whom the accuser recanted her allegations
10. indifference to the fact that Jack refused a plea deal.
.
Prosecutors offered Jack a plea deal that could have resulted in only 2 years’ jail time if he pled guilty, but he refused.
.
Wouldn’t you expect due process to reveal some clue why a supposedly guilty person facing 50 years in jail wouldn’t leap at the chance to get out in 2 years?
.
Wouldn’t due process strongly suggest only an innocent person would refuse such a deal?
.
How is due process working when prosecutors with supposedly solid evidence and proof of Thomas’ heinous crimes deserving 50 years in prison would propose a deal whereby Thomas could be out, free to do the same stuff again, in 2 years?
.
There’s lots more, but you’re probably getting the point.
When Dems fight for the rights of illegal immigrants they are fight for their voters and/or future voters.
That simple.
Illegal aliens are inherently criminals. They need to be deported safely back to their country of origin with no right of reentry.
That there is so much interference from leftists of various stripes (and robes) further solidifies that we must separate from them. We do not share common culture, values, or a country anymore. All of this foolishness is sleepwalking to the inevitable.
Glad to finally hear someone of your stripe acknowledge your repudiation of the Fifth Amendment. So many Constitution haters!!!!
Non citizens do not have constitutional rights.
Try reading the 5th Amendment 😉
Actually, they do to a certain degree ONCE they are IN the country. If we actually secure the border and keep illegal entrants from getting IN in the first place, then the constitutional rights argument becomes moot.
The only rights they gain once they are in the country were created by decisions of judges starting in the early 1980s rather than by constitution or legislation. Those judges’ decisions are quite arguable.
Jack Jr. was a foster parent who repeatedly molested a vulnerable child placed in his care. He has expressed no remorse, nor accepted responsibility for his crimes. He has not established the existence of any extraordinary or situational factors which accounted for his crimes, or other circumstances unlikely to be repeated. He engaged in grooming behaviors, and his offenses occurred repeatedly over a period of time.
In 2010, a jury found Thomas Jack Jr. guilty of three counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor and three counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor for conduct involving his eleven-year-old foster daughter. The superior court imposed a composite sentence of 50 years and 3 days with 10 years suspended (40 years and 3 days to serve) — the lowest active term of imprisonment permitted under the sentencing statutes in the absence of a mitigating factor or referral to the statewide three-judge sentencing panel. The appeals See ‘https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/court-of-appeals/2022/a-13471.html
2022 Court of Appeals’ Conclusion The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED. 50 years and 3 days with 10 years suspended (40 years and 3 days to serve). The comparison of an illegal alien gang member in El Salvador and a convicted sexual predator doesn’t seem the same standard (double or not), but I am not a lawyer nor a judge.
Background:1JU-09-00194CR State of Alaska vs. Jack Jr, Thomas PMP
‘https://www.ktoo.org/2016/08/22/qa-rep-munoz-sought-lenient-sentences-for-convicted-child-abusers-empire-reports/
Munoz letter of support for convicted predator ‘https://www.juneauempire.com/news/panel-of-judges-refers-sexual-assault-case-back-to-juneau-court/
‘https://www.juneauempire.com/news/panel-of-judges-refers-sexual-assault-case-back-to-juneau-court/
‘https://www.juneauempire.com/news/jude-upholds-extraordinarily-long-sentence-for-sex-offender/
You decide – You are entitled to your own views, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Damn you Fish. We were having such a good time being victims again and you go and present facts. We don’t care about the things we used to like when we all carried around copies of the Constitution. Its for suckers and losers now.
Got forensic evidence, doctors’ statements, dates and findings of crime-scene searches, witness-interview transcripts, crime-scene analyses, etc., to back up your accusation?
.
If not, could what you wrote be seen as false and defamatory, false, because forensic proof, or reference to proof, seems to be missing, and defamatory because the statement could deter people from wanting to deal with Thomas Jack?
I’d think the cited court cases and news articles pretty well cover whatever defamation you imagine is happening.
“Cover” is hardly the same as “prove”, is it?
.
Might be helpful to understand what defamation actually means …if it happens to you, ruins your life, your career, would you be “imagining” it then?
AK FISH, Based on your definition of facts, OJ Simpson did not murder his wife; and we know that is not a bankable fact. The only inarguable facts we have are the Word of God and the laws of physics. Your blind faith in our dysfunctional judicial system reflects poorly on your own judgement.
AK Fish thanks for the background.
Mr. Jack had a lawyer, jury trial and access to an appeal court. That’s called due process. Mr. Garcia was detained and sent to a foreign prison with no court hearing, no lawyer, no judge. That’s called kidnapping. Not so hard to understand.
The illegal alien, wife beater, human trafficker, and gang member saw more than a couple judges with a lawyer to boot at his hearings. He was sentenced for deportation by a judge, during a hearing that his lawyer represented him at. Not only has this illegal alien, wife beater, human trafficker, and gang member had due process he has experienced the failure of our justice system that did not deport him when he should have been. He was in this country illegally and he was legally slated to be removed following an extensive abuse of due process. If he were to somehow make it back to the US he would legally be subject to deportation as soon as he stepped foot on our soil.
First glance it looks like Jack got due process, then you look at the facts and see Jack never got anything near due process, and except for a few annoying people who won’t take no for an answer, nobody seems to give a damn.
.
Then you have Garcia, reportedly a violent, wife-beating, illegal alien, MS-13 gang member, human trafficker, eligible for deportation, without a hearing, under 50 USC Ch. 3: ALIEN ENEMIES, §21. Restraint, regulation, and removal,
.
…and everybody suddenly gives a major, loud, nonstop damn, Important People show up on Garcia’s doorstep sipping margaritas with him, doing all sorts of lawfare on his behalf and presumably on the behalf of the other ten million or so illegal aliens the Biden regime imported without hearings.
.
President Biden can import illegal aliens without hearings but President Trump can’t export them without hearings? Now that’s hard to understand.
.
So, compare the Garcia Legend to the story of Thomas Jack, a U.S. citizen, rotting in jail, convicted of a crime for which the jury wasn’t allowed to see, or hear, facts proving his innocence and you get something that’s just not right. Problem is what to do about it, but that’s a work in progress.
.
(‘https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=%2Fprelim%40title50%2Fchapter3)
Funny as reading the article , it lacked information on charges . I was trying to find relativity to MS13 criminal ? MS13 criminal has no rights in America to due process or the courts . Only eviction is remedy for the gang banger . It’s nice that it starting to show how criminal our justice system behaves and why would we want this MS-13 gang banger back in the country ?
Dave pick a better soapbox to stand on. The culture of sexual assault violence and cover up is exactly what’s wrong in the villages and you’re not helping.
Good point. The culture of sexual assault violence and cover up in the villages is a huge problem. Alaska has the highest rates of domestic violence and sexual assault in the U.S., three times national average.
(‘https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorney-general-william-barr-visits-alaska-shines-light-on-public-safety-emergency/)
.
May be hard to think about, but bear with us for a moment …what goes through your mind when you hear someone’s been accused of a crime like robbery or murder? Is it different from what goes through your mind when you hear someone’s been accused of sexual assault? Why?
.
Why ask? Have things got to the point where we’re so justifiably outraged at the culture of sexual assault violence and cover ups that just accusing someone of rape should be good enough reason to string ’em up and be done with it?
.
No right or wrong answer, you don’t even have to answer …what might persuade you to question whether this guy could have been wrongly convicted?
Good article Dave. May God’s righteousness prevail.
Why would a trial by his peers result in a different outcome?? Is there a culture of child molestation amongst his peers?
Fair question.
.
It’s not about the outcome, it’s about Constitutionally-guaranteed fairness of the process.
.
Trial by peers is a Sixth Amendment right.
.
Means you can have your case heard by a group of ordinary citizens who are similar to you. The idea is that jurors should represent a cross-section of the community, which helps ensure fairness in the trial. This comes from the Founders’ belief that a person is more likely to receive a fair trial when judged by people who understand their background and circumstances.
.
You’re right, the whole “culture of child molestation” is a heinous concept. But, closer to home, where’s the fairness if a vengeful neighbor, rebellious child, incompetent authority figure plasters that label on you; if you’re run through a sham trial, where your jury isn’t allowed to see evidence or hear testimony proving your innocence, and you’re slapped in jail for 50 years?
What exactly is a trial by his peers that meets the judicial standards? Does he need to have middle aged men accused of similar crimes with the same genetic makeup to be considered peers?
In the US it is understood that a jury of one’s peers is a “guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which “peer” means an “equal.” This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans.”
Good explanation at ‘https://www.legalbriefai.com/legal-terms/jury-of-ones-peers.
.
You’re right about jury selection. But judge and prosecutor wouldn’t allow Alaska Natives on the jury. Jurors were all white, none were from Jack’s village.
.
Alaska was labeled “Racism’s Frontier” by the Alaska Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights. The Committee recommended tribal courts be immediately restored in villages and all defendants be tried before juries of their peers.
.
(Alaska Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, “Racism’s Frontier: The Untold Story of Discrimination and Division in Alaska”, April 2002)
.
That didn’t happen for Jack.
A proper jury of his peers may ask more questions to make it harder for an overzealous prosecutor to suppress exculpatory evidence and railroad the accused to rack up another conviction for the resume’.
Due process for U.S. citizens means you’re entitled to a jury of your peers and competent counsel. Jack did not get either of those when he was convicted, as the article states.
The alleged crime was said to have occurred in Hoonah but the trials were held in Juneau, where many people look down on citizens from the outlying villages and bias is widespread. I grew up in Juneau and have witnessed this myself.
Several Alaska Natives were in the Juneau jury pool, but were all dismissed by the judge and prosecutor when called up. That, in and of itself, is quite telling.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has labeled Alaska as “Racisms Frontier.” Only from that perspective can a guilty verdict in light of the facts begin to make sense.
The non-Native jury heard direct evidence from three Alaska Native women who lived in Hoonah that Jack was innocent, then disregarded it. One of those women was a teacher, a mandatory reporter at law. Another was a good friend of the accuser. Both testified that the accuser later told them her accusations weren’t true. I know one of these witnesses and she is a very credible person.
The third woman was Jack’s wife who said her husband was in bed with her when the alleged acts were said to have occurred, and that the accuser was sleeping in the same bed as her sister. The sister corroborated the wife’s testimony.
How none of this testimony constituted “reasonable doubt” is a huge problem for those who would like to believe the jury was not biased.
There are so many things wrong with Jack’s conviction, my article just scrapes the surface. There is evidence of witness tampering in both trials, brought up to the judge by defense counsel, who then did nothing. There is evidence the judge favored a participant who may have had significant influence on his upcoming judicial retention. Improper investigation by State Troopers. Improper withholding of exculpatory evidence from the grand jury. Etc., etc. There is even evidence the accuser was manipulated to lie.
On the issue of Jack’s incompetent counsel, the prosecutor told the judge they were willing to take the risk of retrying the case in 6 years. That was 15 years ago! The legal forum to raise that issue is through a Post Conviction Relief motion which can’t be filed until certain appeals are exhausted. Jack has a slam dunk PCR case based on the admission of the prosecutor and concerns expressed by the judge. His motion was timely filed 10 years ago, but his State-appointed attorneys have sat on it ever since.
To the naysayers commenting on this article: How do you dismiss the statement quoted in the article from Bob Barton, a decorated military pilot?
Barton’s statement also says, “In my view, prosecutors are obligated to follow the truth regardless of the result it leads to.” We both believe that clearly didn’t happen in Jack’s case.
Key players for the State involved in Jack’s conviction received promotions. It was 2010, an election year, and the campaign slogan for the eventual winner of the governor’s race was “Alaskans Choose Respect”. About a year into my investigation, Jack’s former boss at the regional electric company told me his conviction was political.
I’ve since come to completely agree with his assessment.
I don’t know how anyone with any knowledge of either of these cases could try and claim that there was no due process in either case.
It is obvious the controversy is not about how much “due process” occurred. Rather, it is about the quality of the due process, and how much manipulation and corruption occurred. These are points we should all be keenly concerned about. It appears an innocent man is unjustly imprisoned.
Just to make things more complicated, three types of rights are protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: (1) procedural due process, (2) individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights, incorporated against the states; and (3) substantive due process.
.
(1) is about procedures government must follow before taking someone’s life, liberty, or property;
(2) the Bill of Rights originally applied only to federal government, so the Fourteenth Amendment was written to provide federal protection of individual rights against states;
(3) is about the Supreme Court deciding due process guarantees in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments also protect certain rights which aren’t listed in the Constitution.
.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits states from denying any –citizen– the “privileges and immunities” of –citizenship–.
.
Facts show due the process in (1) and (3) didn’t happen for Jack, a U.S. citizen.
.
For Garcia, illegal alien and Mara Salvatrucha member, things are different. In response to President Trump’s Executive Order 14157, the State Department designated eight organizations, including MS-13, as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO’s) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists.
.
EO 14157 and 50 USC Ch. 3: Alien Enemies, §21. “Restraint, regulation, and removal” lay out a different framework for the President to do his job of protecting us from incursion of illegal aliens and FTO members.
.
Jack, a U.S. citizen, didn’t get due process, and the receipts are there to back up that claim.
.
Garcia, an illegal alien and FTO member, is arguably no more entitled to due process than any of the 5 million or so illegal aliens and gangbangers President Obama removed from the U.S.
.
So …no due process in either case.
Thank you David for another important article about my Brother Thomas Jack Jr. He and my family have suffered much from this injustice forced upon us by a corrupt legal system in the State of Alaska. You are correct, no one cares , and by some of the comments left, racism still is an issue in Alaska as it was when I grew up there. The comments made are based on information gathered on stats, but has anyone stopped to think how many of the convictions adding to the horrible stats within the Native community may reflect that as a whole native Alaskans are not getting the “due process” other Alaska residents are afforded? Probably not. With all the evidence we had going into the farce of the first and second trials we were certain he would not be convicted, even in Juneau. But, we were wrong, so wrong. The State of Alaska, politicians and others in the community are not interested in equal justice under the law. My family is real, my brother is real, my parents who have missed every holiday, and other important days for the last 15 years have suffered because Thomas is not a character for politicians to use as a weapon against the other “Party”. Our situation not click bait material for Democrats. When will someone with power and courage come forward and help to make this unjust situation right?