of the Federal Courts.....especially the SCOTUS. There-in lies the
problem.
On May 23, 6:41 pm, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a nation governed by laws, not opinions.
>
> On May 23, 7:38 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > and those who protect illegal alien/criminals are scum and anti-
> > American
>
> > On May 23, 7:31 pm, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > illiegal immigrants are not guilty of felonies
> > > ---
> > > those who return again and again after being deported are committing
> > > felonies
> > > -------
> > > and frogs with wings can fly.
>
> > > On May 23, 7:27 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > illiegal immigrants are not guilty of felonies
> > > > ---
> > > > those who return again and again after being deported are committing
> > > > felonies
>
> > > > your position is a slippery slope
>
> > > > On May 23, 7:21 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 United states without permission is a civil
> > > > > > > > > > infraction. For it to be a criminal offience, the offender has to
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > been deported.
>
> > > > > > > > > > That is assuming he/she acted alone.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > One of the most fundamental distinctions between civil and criminal
> > > > > > > > > > > law is in the notion of punishment.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > criminal law
> > > > > > > > > > > In criminal law, a guilty defendant is punished by either (1)
> > > > > > > > > > > incarceration in a jail or prison, (2) fine paid to the government,
> > > > > > > > > > > or, in exceptional cases, (3) execution of the defendant: the death
> > > > > > > > > > > penalty. Crimes are divided into two broad classes: felonies have a
> > > > > > > > > > > maximum possible sentence of more than one year incarceration,
> > > > > > > > > > > misdemeanors have a maximum possible sentence of less than one year
> > > > > > > > > > > incarceration.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > civil law
> > > > > > > > > > > In contrast, a defendant in civil litigation is never incarcerated
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > never executed. In general, a losing defendant in civil litigation
> > > > > > > > > > > only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant's
> > > > > > > > > > > behavior.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > So-called punitive damages are never awarded in a civil case under
> > > > > > > > > > > contract law. In a civil case under tort law, there is a
> > > > > > > possibility
> > > > > > > > > > > of punitive damages, if the defendant's
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
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