what you left out. Also, your scenario involves a criminal infraction,
not a civil one. Am I correct in saying your case is that you can make
someone who enters illegally into a smuggler simply by overanalyzing
the act of crossing over?
On May 24, 3:05 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please, you know not of which you speak. As to your analogy.... it does not
> fit the specific scenario which requires ALL the various pieces. The wife
> was charged with a felony... legally (plea bargained down). though the DUI
> was merely a misdemeanor and committed by a second party and she was 100%
> sober. Please read and comprehend within the context and without being stuck
> with your mind in the supposed and (to this or any criminal
> conspiracy argument) irrelevant final act or crime (as long as it did result
> in a crime of ANY nature). You are simply mixing apples and oranges and
> doing so because you always revert back to the crime committed once the
> entire foreign nationals body has already crossed the line. This is a
> SEPARATE issue and chargeable as such.
>
> There can be a murder conviction even if there is no body or any trace of
> one found. The logic you are using in your argument says that this is not
> possible yet...http://www.nobodymurdercases.com/exists. Your idea is just
> the "easy" way, NOT the complete and exhaustive, just as legal, way.
>
> t On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:41 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
>
> ...
>
> 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