In the 80's DUI in Az. was a civil infraction as was speeding, and jaywalking.
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, non-violent misdemeanor convictions are wiped in that state after 10 > years of sentence. (insurance regulations) I know the case because I > participated on the ex-wifes behalf (they still lived together). You can > simply type in "Paul Blesh, Arizona" as I just did and you will find his > death notice. In the 80's DUI in Az. was a civil infraction as was speeding, > and jaywalking. > > If you open this page,http://www.tandvlaw.com/ you will find a list of recent active cases that show the prosecutor has the capacity (even today in the same court system) to apply or ask for civil or criminal status of the statute. When arrested there you are charged as a criminal violator and as a violator of civil DUI laws. They will use both or either to prosecute yet the two are very separate cases from the very same acts. They will normally take and inform you and the public only of the easy and "standard" practice. > > 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. > > -- 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.
