---
only the first time
most illegal alien/criminals are caught more than once
and they committ a disporportionate amount of crimes while they're
here, are filling our prisons, and steal from our social services
they also kill 12 Americans everyday
Let the Trail Of Tears II begin!!!
On May 24, 2:41 pm, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now imagine a really
> nasty Prosecutor that wants someones hide on the wall.
> -----
> With your assumptions he can put you in jail for drinking to
> intoxication in the house - saying the first body part that
> participated in the act of driving while drunk was what passed out of
> the house onto the porch, and so charged with DUI.
>
> However, this has nothing to do with simple presence in the United
> States illegally. It is a civil infraction, and is treated like one,
> and no matter how nasty the prosecutor is, it's still a civil
> infraction. Even the conspiracy argument falls flat because it would
> be a civil conspiracy.
>
> The courts would be crowded with plaintiffs of this nutty prosecutor,
> while the state spends millions trying to prove a felony actually took
> place, the appeals court would throw it out...
>
> Try again.
>
> On May 24, 11:49 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Euwe,
>
> > You miss the point entirely. The felony does not have to include
> > participation in the misdemeanor act itself. It is a separate issue
> > and is consumated with the first body part that crosses the line. You
> > are talking about the act of being present in the US illegally.
>
> > The comparison is DUI/Physical control while intoxicated; everyone
> > knows exactly what it is and what it entails. Now imagine a really
> > nasty Prosecutor that wants someones hide on the wall. Say someone is
> > washing their car in front of the house listening to the radio, key
> > turned on, and drinking a beer though they are not seated in the
> > car.... are they guilty as well ?? Why yes they are even though they
> > never set down in the car, never started the motor, (and unlike your
> > immigrants) never had the intent to do so. We can push that one step
> > further, call the car a convertible with an emergency or second
> > starter under the hood (as some do have) which is open making the car
> > impossible to drive and an entry door that was never opened...
> > Are they still guilty ??? Why , yes they are even though the acts are
> > on private land, and the motor was never started. You are speaking of
> > the started motor, I am speaking of the events that could lead to a
> > started motor.
>
> > Now imagine that his wife actually placed the keys in the ignition and
> > started the radio... Is the man still guilty... why yes he is. Was the
> > wife guilty of facilitation ?? Yes she was. He did 90 days, she did
> > 10. Her act was before and separate from the act. They soon divorced.
>
> > By the way the above is from "Blesh v. Arizona" from the 80's it is
> > not a figment of my imagination.
>
> > There are only two ways a prosecutor could not include the felony
> > conspiracy (before and separate from the act) with the "illegal
> > presence" act is if the person crossed on his own (all by him/her
> > self) or by conscious choice.
>
> > On May 23, 6:21 pm, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I posted the applicable civil conspiracy law, that shows that simply
> > > going across with a friend or family member does not constitute a
> > > felony, and also showed that smuggling does not apply to illegal
> > > immigrants who are simply present. Felony charges may be levied
> > > against "coyotes" but not against those who are simply discovered to
> > > be present illegally. Your repetition still has not changed the fact
> > > that illiegal immigrants are not guilty of felonies, or any other
> > > criminal law unless they meet other conditions besides simply being in
> > > the united states illegally.
>
> > > Try again.
>
> > > On May 23, 7:08 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Euwe,
>
> > > > I do suggest that you get a dictionary of legal definitions. Then look up
> > > > the rules for human smuggling, then look up the conspiracy rules that apply
> > > > and do so to the act committed in the particular instance,ie conspiratorial,
> > > > before the fact illegal entry. It deals only with the conspiracy and the
> > > > acts leading up to but NOT INCLUDING the actual criminal or civil violation.
> > > > Those pre-act discussions and planning are in deed a felony.
>
> > > > Then read the entire summary and keep each phrase as self defining (I love
> > > > legalese, it keeps the common man from being able to understand enough to
> > > > represent himself.) and read it as though each sentence were its own
> > > > paragraph with all content simply referring back to the main theme (illegal
> > > > entry) while each sentence is in fact self defining. It has a whole new
> > > > meaning IN CONTEXT of the law, not layman's terms and definitions of same..
>
> > > > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 4:41 PM, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I've heard you reiterating a point that doesn't apply. Your references
> > > > > apply to smugglers.
>
> > > > > Establishing that someone who is simply "present" without
> > > > > documentation helped someone to come in, and is therefore guilty of a
> > > > > felony is not a forgone conclusion - it requires at least one witness,
> > > > > evidence, or confession, since criminal violations assume innocence.
> > > > > Neither witness, evidence or testimony that the immigrant was guilty
> > > > > of helping somoene across would be available during a simple
> > > > > discovery, nor would one think, at any time from then until they are
> > > > > deported.
>
> > > > > You might insist on repeating your "analysis" again, but it' would not
> > > > > make "being an illegal alien" a felony. Even after another 10 or so
> > > > > repetitions, it will still be a civil violation to be illigally
> > > > > present in the United States.
>
> > > > > Try again.
>
> > > > > On May 23, 3:45 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > As I keep saying.... it is on the books as a felony.... I would imagine
> > > > > that
> > > > > > the research done by these people is a whole lot more thorough than
> > > > > yours.
>
> > > > > > The Congressional Research Service (CRS), in an Apr. 6, 2006 report
> > > > > entitled
> > > > > > "Immigration Enforcement Within the United States," offered the
> > > > > following:
>
> > > > > > "The INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] includes both criminal and
> > > > > civil
> > > > > > components, providing both for criminal charges (e.g., alien smuggling,
> > > > > > which is prosecuted in the federal courts) and for civil violations
> > > > > (e.g.,
> > > > > > lack of legal status, which may lead to removal through a separate
> > > > > > administrative system in the Department of Justice). Being illegally
> > > > > present
> > > > > > in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil
> > > > > > proceedings. For instance, a lawfully admitted nonimmigrant alien may
> > > > > become
> > > > > > deportable if his visitor's visa expires or if his student status
> > > > > changes.
> > > > > > Criminal violations of the INA, on the other hand, include felonies and
> > > > > > misdemeanors and are prosecuted in federal district courts. These types
> > > > > of
> > > > > > violations include the bringing in and harboring of certain undocumented
> > > > > > aliens, the illegal entry of aliens, and the reentry of aliens previously
> > > > > > excluded or deported."
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > *
>
> > > > > > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 2:29 PM, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > CIVIL CONSPIRACY
> > > > > > > 'The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are the formation and
> > > > > > > operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an
> > > > > > > act or acts done in furtherance of the common design. . . . In such an
> > > > > > > action the major significance of the conspiracy lies in the fact that
> > > > > > > it renders each participant in the wrongful act responsible as a joint
> > > > > > > tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrong, irrespective of
> > > > > > > whether or not he was a direct actor and regardless of the degree of
> > > > > > > his activity.'' (Doctors' Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 44,
> > > > > > > citing Mox Incorporated v. Woods (1927) 202 Cal. 675, 677-78.)' (Id.
> > > > > > > at 511.)
>
> > > > > > > 'Conspiracy is not a cause of action, but a legal doctrine that
> > > > > > > imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a
> > > > > > > tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or
> > > > > > > design in its perpetration. By participation in a civil conspiracy, a
> > > > > > > coconspirator effectively adopts as his or her own the torts of other
> > > > > > > coconspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy. In this way, a
> > > > > > > coconspirator incurs tort liability co-equal with the immediate
> > > > > > > tortfeasors. Standing alone, a conspiracy does no harm and engenders
> > > > > > > no tort liability. It must be activated by the commission of an actual
> > > > > > > tort. ''A civil conspiracy, however atrocious, does not per se give
> > > > > > > rise to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has been committed
> > > > > > > resulting in damage.'' 'A bare agreement among two or more persons to
> > > > > > > harm a third person cannot injure the latter unless and until acts are
> > > > > > > actually performed pursuant to the agreement. Therefore, it is the
> > > > > > > acts done and not the conspiracy to do them which should be regarded
> > > > > > > as the essence of the civil action.' [para.s] By its nature, tort
> > > > > > > liability arising from conspiracy presupposes that the coconspirator
> > > > > > > is legally capable of committing the tort, i.e., that he or she owes a
> > > > > > > duty to plaintiff recognized by law and is potentially subject to
> > > > > > > liability for breach of that duty.' (Allied Equipment Corp. v. Litton
> > > > > > > Saudi Arabia Ltd., supra, 7 Cal.4th at 510-11.)
>
> > > > > > > On May 23, 3:27 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Presence in the
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment