The Justice Department was back in court on Friday as part of the ongoing court battle with Portland, Oregon, where federal agents and National Guard soldiers have been dispatched to carry out President Donald Trump's mass deportation efforts.

Lawyer-turned-journalist Julie DiCaro reported on Bluesky that the day began with a lot of problems.

The DOJ's witness, ICE Seattle Field Office Director Cammilla Wamsley, was on the stand when the DOJ began asking questions about specific documents. However, the DOJ didn't appear to be organized, handing her documents that prompted responses like, "that's not what that says," and "I've never seen that document," said DiCaro.

At one point, Portland began objecting to the DOJ trying to admit exhibits into the record that they hadn't seen or heard of.

"I don't know what the DOJ is doing with their lawyers that none of them know how to lay a proper foundation. It's Trial Advocacy 101," said DiCaro.

Portland repeatedly objected to entering the documents due to a witness's "lack of personal knowledge," but the DOJ was unfazed and kept trying.

Ultimately, Judge Karin Immergut stopped the exchange, saying that the "witness claims no knowledge of how these forms are created," relayed the ex-lawyer.

The DOJ "splutters and tries to make an argument," said DiCaro.

The judge shot back that the witness clearly said he's never seen the forms before.

"Defense has no idea how to get this exhibit in," said DiCaro. "Immergut is trying to help them by suggesting they try 'public records.'"

Oregon's legal team stopped, saying they still don't know where the documents came from, how they were created, or who created them.

They argued that there doesn't appear to be a witnesses who could authenticate how the record was made and that "it doesn't fit into any hearsay exceptions."

Immergut agreed and "disallows the exhibits and I'm crying with second-hand embarrassment," said DiCario.

Portland then began moving exhibits about Trump possibly violating "Posse Comitatus" into evidence; however, the DOJ objected. The problem, however, is that they have already stipulated to the exhibits.

The judge was forced to remind the DOJ that anything stipulated to will be considered.

"If you object, why did you stipulate to it?" asked Immergut.

The DOJ began attacking Portland, saying there was "switching of exhibits and moving exhibits around."

"The whole point of a stipulation is that it's already in evidence. I don't have an independent obligation to exclude something you stipulated to," Immergut replied.

The incident was so humiliating, DiCaro confessed, "I haven't tried a case for 15 years, and I could litigate rings around these yahoos from DOJ. Good Lord. Can't get evidence in, can't figure out how to keep evidence out. Just terrible lawyering."

See her full thread on the case here.