Sorry, non-violent misdemeanor convictions are wiped in that state after 10 years of sentence. I know the case because I participated on the wifes behalf. You can simply type in "Paul Blesh, Arizona" as I just did and you will find his death notice.
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:35 PM, euwe <[email protected]> wrote: > Give me the link to Blesh v. Arizona. Just for grins, I'd like to see > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > > 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 ยป- 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. > -- Mark M. Kahle H. -- 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.
