• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

California bar say illegal immigrant should get license

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
We the People OF the United States...

...in Order to ...establish Justice...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Justice that is upheld every time you apply the rights guaranteed by the constitution to those who are under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.

Why do you have such a hard time with human rights, those that most need protection against intrusion by government?
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
I normally don't bother with you,

Or the facts for that matter...

but there's no fiction. If you're going to blast wikipedia, how about this?

or this:

Let's post this again...
"Violation or infringement; breach of a statute, contract, or obligation.

The term infraction is frequently used in reference to the violation of a particular statute for which the penalty is minor, such as a parking infraction. "

You were arguing that speeding was not a crime. A parking violation is NOT speeding. In addition, a definition from a legal dictionary is meaningless when a term is defined by statute, which most states do define the term "crime".

You're claiming I have no argument because I used a simple link that has references for a person to go and investigate for themselves further? Fine, I provide more above. The fact remains, doing something illegal does not mean you've committed a criminal act.

No, you have no argument that speeding is not a crime. You're "simple" link(s) provide no evidence that speeding is not a crime and indeed MOST state statutes refute your claim. I say most because I don't know the law in EVERY state.

Untrue, unfortunately. The Terry stop is specifically related to a search of your person without witness of an illegal act. More specifically, it primarily relates to the stopping a suspect of a potential imminent crime (one that has not already occurred) and engaging in a physical pat down of the suspect. In contrast, a traffic infraction (which every traffic violation is in WA, unless other wise specified - more here) is issued either when the infraction has already occurred in the officers presence or in many similar situations. It's not a preemptive stop, but it is still a stop for an infraction .

You have shown that some traffic “crimes” are defined as infractions in your state but you have not shown that a traffic infraction is not a crime. However, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.63.060 indicates specifically that:

“(b) A statement that a traffic infraction is a noncriminal offense for which imprisonment may not be imposed as a sanction; that the penalty for a traffic infraction may include sanctions against the person's driver's license including suspension, revocation, or denial; that the penalty for a traffic infraction related to standing, stopping, or parking may include nonrenewal of the vehicle license;”

It appears to me that traffic infractions in your state are indeed non-criminal. This is not the case in most states so a blanket statement “speeding is not a crime” in not true unless a specific jurisdiction is mentioned such as “in the state of Wa.”. In the state of Louisiana, speeding is a crime.

It also seems traffic “infractions” have been moved to the area of administrative law in Wa. making stops for speeding and such unconstitutional. The citizens of Wa. should be aware of this and take appropriate action.

Even though you get part of it wrong, you get the important part right. *Applause*
There's more to it than that, though. Even some who come here criminally have those offenses become civil due to statutes of limitations. Per the earlier article, the DHS estimates over 90% of illegal immigrants don't even qualify for criminal penalties, regardless of how they came here.

This is true. I’m sure there are those that would say this should be changed/fixed.

He was brought here by his parents as a kid. Per federal regulations, he doesn't qualify for the criminal penalty based on that fact. The previous article I linked details that.

Agreed.
 
Last edited:

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
It also seems traffic “infractions” have been moved to the area of administrative law in Wa. making stops for speeding and such unconstitutional. The citizens of Wa. should be aware of this and take appropriate action.

That's an interesting fiction. You seem to think that after witnessing a violation of the law the police are not allowed to stop a person. Somehow, it seems you draw that from Terry, which relates to stopping someone without witnessing a violation of the law, but suspecting a criminal violation is about to occur. They are totally different.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
You should mean it when you take the Oath, clearly he will not. Attempting to circumvent the legal process for your own selfish goal is not swearing to an oath with any sincerity.


 
Last edited:

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
Fundamentally, the problem here is that jbone and others don't actually know what "crime" and "criminal" mean. They think that they refer to someone who has violated a law. While this is how the term is colloquially used, it is not a legal definition.

Quick aside to demonstrate just how severely the people arguing with Tawnos fail to understand the relevant issues:
The Constitutional assurance of trial by a jury of peers applies only to criminal trials. If you get sued for breach of contract, you have no guaranteed privilege of a jury trial. Whoops, you didn't know that, did you?

Back to the specific matter at hand. "Crime" is a legal term, and therefore has a legal (aka unambiguous and incontrovertible) definition. jbone wants to use "criminal" ambiguously, and insist that people know what he means. Unfortunately, all I know is that he doesn't know he's saying, and it doesn't matter what he means.

There is no argument to be had here:
"crime" does not mean "violation of law". Period.

Side topic:
It's laughable that some people still try to pooh-pooh Wikipedia. What a bunch of Luddite nincompoops. Ray LaHood wants to talk to you about your cell phones.
 
Last edited:

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
You have a good life, now. I've got better things to do than argue with someone who's close to dragging me down to their level.

As if my dragging you down to being an American is bad!
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
That's an interesting fiction. You seem to think that after witnessing a violation of the law the police are not allowed to stop a person. Somehow, it seems you draw that from Terry, which relates to stopping someone without witnessing a violation of the law, but suspecting a criminal violation is about to occur. They are totally different.

No fiction. You’re convoluting the issue. The issue is that one can be stopped(seized) reasonably for a CRIME based on reasonable suspicion. If there is no CRIME then there is illegal seizure.

From Terry v Ohio...
"It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person."

Of course this applies to stopping an individual regardless of the manner of conveyance.

From Terry v Ohio…
“One general interest is of course that of effective crime prevention and detection; it is this interest which underlies the recognition that a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.”

Notice the words “crime” and “criminal”.

You have effectively, with my help, argued that speeding is not a “crime” nor “criminal” in the state of Washington. So, if an officer stops(seizes) someone for speeding(not a crime) then he has made an illegal seizure.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Fundamentally, the problem here is that jbone and others don't actually know what "crime" and "criminal" mean. They think that they refer to someone who has violated a law. While this is how the term is colloquially used, it is not a legal definition.

SNIP

Thank you.

Back to the specific matter at hand. "Crime" is a legal term, and therefore has a legal (aka unambiguous and incontrovertible) definition. jbone wants to use "criminal" ambiguously, and insist that people know what he means. Unfortunately, all I know is that he doesn't know he's saying, and it doesn't matter what he means.

There is no argument to be had here:
"crime" does not mean "violation of law". Period.

Super thank you!!!

SNIP
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
No fiction. You’re convoluting the issue. The issue is that one can be stopped(seized) reasonably for a CRIME based on reasonable suspicion. If there is no CRIME then there is illegal seizure.
There's a difference between reasonable suspicion and actual observation of an illegal act. That's what you're missing. If an officer here in WA sees me engage in the act of driving above the speed limit, they aren't acting on suspicion. They're acting on knowledge.

From Terry v Ohio...
"It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person."

Of course this applies to stopping an individual regardless of the manner of conveyance.

From Terry v Ohio…
“One general interest is of course that of effective crime prevention and detection; it is this interest which underlies the recognition that a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.”

Notice the words “crime” and “criminal”.

You have effectively, with my help, argued that speeding is not a “crime” nor “criminal” in the state of Washington. So, if an officer stops(seizes) someone for speeding(not a crime) then he has made an illegal seizure.

Again, Terry dealt with stopping an individual based on suspicion, rather than knowledge. You'd be laughed out of court if you tried to use this argument against an officer writing you a ticket for a civil infraction that he witnessed.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
As if my dragging you down to being an American is bad!

You're an American who doesn't understand freedom, ignores due process, denies the blessings of liberty to others, and does so with a prideful smile. I'm quite happy being better than that, and I certainly don't need to go down to your level of name calling. Good day.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
Fundamentally, the problem here is that jbone and others don't actually know what "crime" and "criminal" mean. They think that they refer to someone who has violated a law. While this is how the term is colloquially used, it is not a legal definition.

Quick aside to demonstrate just how severely the people arguing with Tawnos fail to understand the relevant issues:
The Constitutional assurance of trial by a jury of peers applies only to criminal trials. If you get sued for breach of contract, you have no guaranteed privilege of a jury trial. Whoops, you didn't know that, did you?

Back to the specific matter at hand. "Crime" is a legal term, and therefore has a legal (aka unambiguous and incontrovertible) definition. jbone wants to use "criminal" ambiguously, and insist that people know what he means. Unfortunately, all I know is that he doesn't know he's saying, and it doesn't matter what he means.

You guys need to start coming off as little angels, and as if my use of the word is any less harmful than the tainted Obama press story itself. Tawnos has already proven himself a hypocrite. And I bet if I were to read every post by the both of you on OCDO I would find you both being guilty of what you try to squash me over. Only a guess of coruse.

I’d like to hear the rest of the story, not just the liberal anti-America social movement side of it. Why is he facing deportation? Could it be because he’s undocumented, never received a VISA for some reason, has he violated something, like U.S. or California law(s), and the bar and his lawyer would rather not mention. I don’t know, but there’s more to the story, always is. We need some reporting other than the Obama media parading this under votes for amnesty.
 
Last edited:

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
You have a good life, now. I've got better things to do than argue with someone who's close to dragging me down to their level.

You're an American who doesn't understand freedom, ignores due process, denies the blessings of liberty to others, and does so with a prideful smile. I'm quite happy being better than that, and I certainly don't need to go down to your level of name calling. Good day.

I though you were already done? You just can't resist your own special blend of trash talk.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
There's a difference between reasonable suspicion and actual observation of an illegal act. That's what you're missing. If an officer here in WA sees me engage in the act of driving above the speed limit, they aren't acting on suspicion. They're acting on knowledge.

This is faulty logic. Speeding is not a crime(in Wa.) therefore there is no knowledge of anything criminal. There is no observable crime.


Again, Terry dealt with stopping an individual based on suspicion, rather than knowledge. You'd be laughed out of court if you tried to use this argument against an officer writing you a ticket for a civil infraction that he witnessed.

Stopping (seizing) can only be done reasonably if there is suspicion of a crime. Perhaps if the speeding vehicle fit the description of a bank robber's get-a-way vehicle then you would have your "suspicion".

As for your prediction of the outcome of a hypothetical... what court do you speak of... the one where you're a defendant or a plaintiff?
 
Last edited:

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
Fundamentally, the problem here is that jbone and others don't actually know what "crime" and "criminal" mean. They think that they refer to someone who has violated a law. While this is how the term is colloquially used, it is not a legal definition.

Quick aside to demonstrate just how severely the people arguing with Tawnos fail to understand the relevant issues:
The Constitutional assurance of trial by a jury of peers applies only to criminal trials. If you get sued for breach of contract, you have no guaranteed privilege of a jury trial. Whoops, you didn't know that, did you?

Back to the specific matter at hand. "Crime" is a legal term, and therefore has a legal (aka unambiguous and incontrovertible) definition. jbone wants to use "criminal" ambiguously, and insist that people know what he means. Unfortunately, all I know is that he doesn't know he's saying, and it doesn't matter what he means.

There is no argument to be had here:
"crime" does not mean "violation of law". Period.

Side topic:
It's laughable that some people still try to pooh-pooh Wikipedia. What a bunch of Luddite nincompoops. Ray LaHood wants to talk to you about your cell phones.

At least you make it easy to know you lie, jbone. You put that handy icon indicating the topic that causes you to lie the most, while alerting the reader that you may be lying elsewhere. Consider, the person in this case is not a criminal, but a civil violator (overstayed a tourist visa). Additionally, he was approved for a visa in 1995. NINETEEN NINETY FIVE! You're arguing people should follow a system that is so broken it's laughable, and that you get so frothy mouthed (love the new signature) about it makes it hilarious. You should get a picture uploaded so you can look as classy as these people when history moves on and leaves you behind.

Mmm, delicious rage from a derptard who doesn't know the difference between illegal and criminal acts.

From the bar's legal document:


The only way I'm "part of the problem we face" is that I dare see people as people, and that I hold the constitution and its values in high regard. You betray those values so easily that it is clear their value to you is only in the "got mine, screw you" sense.

But, like I said, your kind is dying off. Anyone who can see could look at a public opinion chart and see the shift in this country to (in general) embrace freedom, rather than your pathetic tyranny and oppression of groups you don't like.


Tawnos, it's clear you're more focused on my signature than my suspicion of this illegal alien. And there’s been a great deal of talk of words, and not understanding them. Tawnos you condemn me as a one-man hater of others over the words "do not support" in my signature. Do you not understand the meaning of support? Sure it's has more than one use, but you just assume I hate without understanding, this is very hypocritical of you. This is becoming a trend with you!

How selfish, your sense of freedom that labels others haters for not supporting what you might, this, is the anti-freedom you speak of Tawnos.


Where is it writing that non-support is hate? I work with, and know people in a couple of those categories. I don’t hate them, I just don’t believe what they believe in, and I would never support them with a vote, or anything that is organized specially to promote, or advance their beliefs or agenda.


My video card does not support certain games; **** my video card is a hater. I don't support breading of pit bulls, **** I hate pit bulls, well I really do hate bit bulls and would love to put a bullet in every single one of them. But to you I would hate all pit bull breeders. I do not support Union’s, so under you lack of understanding I must hate all people in Union’s. Damn don’t tell my brother’s and my many friend’s in Union’s you trash talker.


If you’d be so kind and mention a few areas that involve society where you do not support, Of course you have some, everyone does. Since I doubt you’ll be honest enough to reveal (the liar in you) perhaps others on the forum can mention a few things they do not support. Then you can trash talk them for the ones that go against your grain. And then without missing a beat of your drum tell yourself you’re a supporter of freedom.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
This is faulty logic. Speeding is not a crime(in Wa.) therefore there is no knowledge of anything criminal. There is no observable crime.




Stopping (seizing) can only be done reasonably if there is suspicion of a crime. Perhaps if the speeding vehicle fit the description of a bank robber's get-a-way vehicle then you would have your "suspicion".

As for your prediction of the outcome of a hypothetical... what court do you speak of... the one where you're a defendant or a plaintiff?

Lrn2legal

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/440/648/case.html
Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
As you can see, violation of the law is reason for a stop.
the permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests
And the reasons for the violation are based on a reasonableness standard (intermediate scrutiny).

This was upheld recently: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-5841.ZO.html
As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. See Prouse, supra, at 659; Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977) (per curiam).

So, really, you're just wrong. It's pretty simple: it's not unreasonable to stop you (and remember, the 4th amendment says "unreasonable search and seizure" not "all search and seizure") if you have broken the traffic laws and need to be given a ticket for doing so. Terry is completely different to this and an orthogonal issue, because it's related to stops before there's any reason to believe a violation of the law has occurred. It has a higher standard (imminent criminal violation) because it is done absent knowledge of a present violation.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
This thread is now about good book quotes:
Neal Stephenson "The Diamond Age: Or said:
Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy... Because they were hypocrites, the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefarious conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves-they took no moral stances and lived by none.

Isaac Asimov "Foundation" said:
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
His father, who was a lawful permanent resident at the time, and who has since gained full citizenship status, filed a petition for an immigrant visa (“Form I-130”) for his son on November 18, 1994. That petition was approved in January of 1995, and Mr. Garcia has been waiting, in an undocumented status, for the past 17 years for the visa to become available.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/SergioGarcia .pdf
The dude is here somewhat illegally. His petition to get a visa has been granted and he continues to await the visa. Now, does he have to leave the country to wait for his visa? Apparently not. Whether his remaining here is permitted under the statutes is a question that appears to be settled.....he is still here and will be permitted to practice law in California.
 
Top