Any noticable effects of 1804 yet?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

[EDIT]  Who are the "they" you are referring to anyway?

To put it another way, the police suspecting someone of being illegal and asking them about their citizenship when being investigated for another crime is constitutional, just as it's permissible for a police officer to ask you if you've had a few to drink when you're pulled over for expired tags.

Yes I am.  [EDIT]  What about a judge in a courtroom?

You're equated things, that are inherently unequal.  As if civil courts don't have rules to follow, or somehow civil courts are exactly like investigative agents, ICE agents, or police.

I don't think that judges are the ones asking the questions in our case, unless you're trying to prove a point that leads you nowhere.

If a judge needs to get a delcaratory judgment from a ALJ on the status of a suspect illegal, then so be it.  Still doesn't make the law unconstitutional.

Either path leads to the deporation of illegals which is the goal in the first place. Whether you have to take steps 1 and 2 before you deport or 1, 2 and 3 is insignificant to me.

Lastly, YES, a judge may inquire according to current case law.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

This legal challenge is tantamount to saying that the police aren't allowed to ask a suspect if he comitted a crime because he might implicate himself.  Sheer ignorance.

[EDIT]

They were not "suspects" in an "illegal immigration" case.  Yet, that's what they were charged with, after self-incrimination coaxed out of them by a judge.

[EDIT] What IP is saying is absolutely correct.

[iplaw]

Bottom line, your heros that are trying to kill 1804 are using recycled arguments that have been nuked in multiple courts around the nation, but you can keep hope alive!

[Neptune]

And so, here it is again Ippy.  That's what is being argued.  Not sure how it will turn out.  [EDIT]
Tulsa World

quote:OKLAHOMA CITY -- An attorney for two men who were jailed when they told a judge they were not in the country legally says they should be freed because their constitutional rights were violated.

Attorney Joan Lopez asked the state Court of Criminal Appeals Friday to have the men released because the judge's questions about their immigration status violated the men's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Lopez said Oklahoma County District Judge Jerry Bass forced the men to incriminate themselves when he asked them if they were legal residents of the United States. Bass sent both men to jail when they acknowledged they were not in the country legally.

Bass does not have the authority to inquire about their immigration status under the new state law that went into effect Nov. 1, the attorney said.

Lopez also contends the new Oklahoma immigration law is not valid because it is pre-empted by the federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1986.

[EDIT]

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Still doesn't make the law unconstitutional.

I said the law was possibly unconstitutional (that would be determined later, if it is).  I never said this case would make the law unconstitutional.  Never believed that.  Depending on how technical it gets, and how far up it goes, it might change some things.  Probably won't.  Don't know.

[iplaw]

Good lord gas bag.  You do realize that ASKING the question is NOT illegal don't you?  A judge may inquire as to anything they feel is relevant (relevant being defined roughly as having the potential to produce valuable evidence) in a case.

An illegal has the right to refuse to answer under the 5th amendment, not the right not to be ASKED a question.

If this is the best your side has, 1804 supporters need not worry.

[}:)]

[Neptune]

[EDIT]
Not that I care much, I'm just interested in seeing the challenges.  Seeing how it all turns out.  1804, it's a bit of yawner.  But brings up some interesting questions.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

[EDIT]

It doesn't take a lawyer to realize that a judge asking a defendant a question in court isn't a violation of the 5th amendment.  The 5th amendment doesn't protect you from being questioned.

Only you would categorize this is as a "technical issue."  I suppose it's technical if you think 2+2 is a complicated arithmetical equation.

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

Oh, little jack-off, I doubt it's the best they've got.  But it does end up being highly technical, because of the nature of the law vs 5th Amendment vs Civil Rights.  Which you would be able to recognize, if you were any kind of lawyer.

Not that I care much, I'm just interested in seeing the challenges.  Seeing how it all turns out.  1804, it's a bit of yawner.  But brings up some interesting questions.

Are you related to MichaelC and Aoxa/FOTD....

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

It doesn't take a lawyer to realize that a judge asking a defendant a question in court isn't a violation of the 5th amendment.  The 5th amendment doesn't protect you from being questioned.

Only you would categorize this is as a "technical issue."  I suppose it's technical if you think 2+2 is a complicated arithmetical equation.

Sure, as long as you leave out the third value in that equation.

And if it is anything like your other simplifications, where you just plain equated two inherently inequitable entities, just throwing out garbage for a defense, your crazy side is in trouble.

And it's not specifically about the question, it's about incrimination and prosecution under those circumstances.  And it can be highly technical.  We'll see.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

Oh, little jack-off, I doubt it's the best they've got.  But it does end up being highly technical, because of the nature of the law vs 5th Amendment vs Civil Rights.  Which you would be able to recognize, if you were any kind of lawyer.

Not that I care much, I'm just interested in seeing the challenges.  Seeing how it all turns out.  1804, it's a bit of yawner.  But brings up some interesting questions.

Are you related to MichaelC and Aoxa/FOTD....

What do you mean related? Neptune appears to be an alien hybrid.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

What do you mean related? Neptune appears to be an alien hybrid.

Over here.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8039

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

It doesn't take a lawyer to realize that a judge asking a defendant a question in court isn't a violation of the 5th amendment.  The 5th amendment doesn't protect you from being questioned.

Only you would categorize this is as a "technical issue."  I suppose it's technical if you think 2+2 is a complicated arithmetical equation.

Sure, as long as you leave out the third value in that equation.

And if it is anything like your other simplifications, where you just plain equated two inherently inequitable entities, just throwing out garbage for a defense, your crazy side is in trouble.

And it's not specifically about the question, it's about incrimination and prosecution under those circumstances.  And it can be highly technical.  We'll see.

Please enlighten us all, oh brilliant one, as to how a judge may kept from asking that question.  I noticed you didn't bother to mention this "third" value.  I suspect this because: (1) you don't even know what it is; (2) you're embarassed to mention it. I'm guessing it's the latter.

When you can actually formulate the argument and provide us all with some solid reasoning why any of us should buy into it, I'll respond.

Flailing your arms and proclaiming victory doesn't buy you anything here.

[Neptune]

[EDIT]

[iplaw]

[EDIT]