Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Illegal alien wins defamation case for being called a 'criminal' – set back for 1st Amendment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
The Northerner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 03:34 PM
Original message
Illegal alien wins defamation case for being called a 'criminal' – set back for 1st Amendment
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 03:34 PM by The Northerner
Illegal alien wins defamation case for being called a 'criminal' – set back for 1st Amendment

An illegal-alien day laborer who attacked a U.S. photographer at a notorious San Diego day labor site in 2006, was awarded $2,500 in damages for "defamation per se" by Judge Ronald Styn in a non-jury trial in San Diego Superior Court.

The Mexican national plaintiff, Alberto Jimenez, who was illegally in the country at the time of the attack of Los Angeles photographer John Monti, sued San Diego Minutemen founder Jeff Schwilk for defamation for calling the illegal immigrant attackers "criminals" when he forwarded an email with Monti's pictures of Jimenez and six other suspects who were at the scene of the crime.

Initially the lawsuit was filed in October 2007 and all seven men shown on the flyer sued Schwilk, Monti, and Fox News Corporation for defamation. However, Fox News and Monti were eventually dismissed from the case in 2008 and 2009 and six of the seven plaintiffs dropped their lawsuits against Schwilk in February, leaving only Jimenez vs. Schwilk for the one-day judge-only trial.

When the trial began, Jimenez was not in the courtroom to meet his accuser. Schwilk immediately asked Judge Styn for a directed verdict to dismiss the case, but the judge opted to start the trial without him and gave Jimenez additional time to appear in court as his attorney said he was running late. The plaintiff's attorney, Dan Gilleon, claimed his client was trying to get across the border and needed more time because he was a Tijuana, Mexico resident.

Read more: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-10317-San-Diego-Coun...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. What do you think about this?
You must think something, since you were prompted to post it. I'm really curious about what you think about the article and its content.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. A Proper Verdict, Sir: Hardly a 'Set-Back For The First Amendment'
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 03:48 PM by The Magistrate
Describing a person as a wanted criminal to others is on its face defamatory, and if the person so described is not actually a wanted criminal, doing so violates long-standing law, that has co-existed with the First Amendment for as long as that has been in existence. It cannot have taken the judge more than a few moments to render verdict here.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. If I were to sneak into Mexico, I could not accurately be described there as a criminal? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. My Ignorance Of Mexican Law, Sir, Is Complete
So whether that would be justified or not is impossible for me to say.

Violation of immigration law in the U.S. is not punished as a crime, but by deportation from the country, though a person will be confined while awaiting deportation.

That is beside the point here, however: the defamation consisted of stating this person was wanted for assault and other similar crimes, and had committed them, at a time when he was not in fact being sought by any police department on such charges, and had not been convicted of such crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
65. in mexico, it's a two year felony to enter unlawfully fwiw
so yes, in that case you WOULD be a criminal, in fact a felon

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. Thank You For The Fact, Sir, But Of Course It Is Irrelevant To This Discussion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #68
75. i agree. but u claimed ignorance on this matter
so i took it upon myself to edumacate you

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #75
79. No Problem, Sir
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. Of course
Feel free to ignore our overly wordy and completely agenda-driven friend here.

If you went to Mexico without permission, believe you me they would have you locked up in the worst jail you can imagine before you could say "no mas". Rights? Not for a foreigner illegally in Mexico, you don't even get assurance of even basic human rights, forget about things like a lawyer, jury trial, etc.

You'll get out when you manage to get someone to bribe them to let you out, and not until.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. And What, Sir, Is My Agenda?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Why don't you tell us?
What sort of agenda would lead one to have such deep knowledge of the status of Mexicans illegally in the United States and be completely ignorant of the reciprocal arrangements?

Probably won't take anybody else too long to figure it out, only questions is whether you'll admit to it or feign innocence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Have You Read The Article, Sir? Poor Tripe As It Is, It Makes What the Verdict Actually Concerned
My comments have concerned only the propriety of the judge's verdict the defamation per se did in fact occur in this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #22
27.  I suspect His Honor is a sleeper for the Mexican Government,
who working in concert with The Big Gay Agenda, are after our guns and porn.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. ROFLMAO!
That was perfect!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. What does the Mexican side of the equation half to do with the price of beans in China?
This is about American Jurisprudence what the Mexicans do is irrelevant. That being said; your attack on The Magistrate was rather silly. He openly admitted to knowing nothing about it, while you painted a rather silly picture based off of what you have heard from Fox News and bad Hollywood b-movies. At least he was honest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
59. NEWSFLASH: the US Constitution & your civil rights end at the border
I do realize that might come as a shock to you. However, you would be entitled to the same rights as a Mexican citizen if you found yourself afoul of the law in Mexico.

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. Sure and that's why your government is a criminal for sneaking into Mexico
and helping to steal their elections from progressive reformers. Right on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
29. If you had been tried in a court of law and found to be a criminal
then yes you can be called a criminal. That is if Mexico's legal system is like ours in that case.

Notice how news stations are very careful to say "alleged" when talking about someone who is accused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #29
87. So you think emails should be held to the same standard as TV news? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #87
103. Absolutely
Email is speech as well. I am all for free speech to say what ever you want about a given topic and to state ones views. I have no sympathy though for folks thinking that they have a right to make false or unproven accusations at will about each other.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. Then DU's days are numbered. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. The 1st amendment doesn't protect defamation.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. 'set back (sic) for 1st Amendment'? - dramatic!
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 03:47 PM by Bluebear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
38. Their copy editors are utterly hopeless
I regularly see grammatical and/or spelling errors on the front page of the local edition. I don't think the people who work there get paid much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'm not sure what the set back is to the First Amendment
Do you believe defamation, libel and slander are protected by the First Amendment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Apparently, Sir, A White Racist was Held To Account In Court By A Brown Person For Lawbreaking
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 03:51 PM by The Magistrate
You did not know the First Amendment prohibits that?

This is an issue of LIBERTY, Sir!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Well after all, the man just wants his country back.
What's this world coming to when a man can't even call a Mexican a criminal without the iron fist of big government coming down on him. This is exactly what happened under Stalin. Wake up people!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Do Not Forget Hitler, Sir! He Did Just The Same Thing, Too!
Criticize some foreigner in Nazi Germany and the Gestapo took you off to a concentration camp!

Time to oil up and load our guns....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
85. What else should we be able to call a Mexican?
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 05:40 PM by county worker
Wetback? Bans/Cans? Bean Burrito? Beaner? Berry Picker? Border Nigger? Border-Bunny? Border-Hopper? Caucasianally- Challenged? Chilango? Chili Shitter?


Which is OK with you?

Archie Bunker would be proud! He just wanted his neigborhood back!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #85
100. Um, I was being facetious
Sorry that wasn't clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. Some People, Sir, Should Not Play Cards For Money....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. +1000 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
106. i heart you.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. reinforcement of 1st amendment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
9. One can certainly hope the law-breaking non-criminal can now
stay in Tijuana while he applies to come into the US as a legal non-criminal immigrant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
12. Umm, since he was here illegally, then by default wouldn't he be a criminal?
I agree, this is a fucked up verdict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. It is not a crime to be in the country without documentation
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 04:05 PM by DefenseLawyer
unless you have previously been deported for committing a crime here and then re-entered the country or in some cases in you over stayed a visa by means of fraud. If you are here without documentation you are deported, not charged with a crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. Let's see,
"Monti also said under oath that Jimenez had previously testified in his criminal trial in 2007 that he was an illegal alien and had no legal papers to gain employment legally in the U.S."

This man was here illegally, he attacked a cameraman, and yet he isn't a criminal? Sorry, but what language are we speaking here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #23
48. English...but a very exact and specific form of it.
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 04:48 PM by anigbrowl
In law there is no such term as 'illegal alien'. For constitutional reasons, you can not declare someone or a group of people 'illegal'. It's just a convenient phrase.

Also, being here as an illegal alien (ie no immigration visa of any kind) makes you deportable, but it is not a criminal offense.

Guy attacked a cameraman - that's criminal, but the crime involved in (probably) assault.

edit: deleted a paragraph because I misread something,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #48
81. I think that you're misreading a lot, including the law
However at this point it is all moot. You're not going to budge, I'm not going to budge, and neither one of us have the full story to settle this issue. So I'm going on to something else more important now. Have a nice day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. In Any Case, Sir, the Defamation Was Not Concerned With Immigration Violations
The defendant broadcast the claim the plaintiff was wanted for robbery, assault, and battery. That was false, and so defamatory on its face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. Thanks so much for your posts on this thread.
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #17
28. The ruling by the judge was because the defendant called the plaintiff a criminal
From the article

"After a 15-minute recess, Judge Styn returned with his verdict finding Schwilk liable for one count of defamation for "carelessly" calling Jimenez a "criminal."

I would think that being an illegal alien would fit the definition of criminal. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Not So, Sir: He Said the Man Was Wanted For Robbery, Assault, And Battery
As a matter of law, that had not been, and has not been, established.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. But that is not what the judged ruled on,
He specifically used the word "criminal" in his ruling.

"After a 15-minute recess, Judge Styn returned with his verdict finding Schwilk liable for one count of defamation for "carelessly" calling Jimenez a "criminal."

Nothing about calling the man a robber or mugger, but rather a "criminal." By being in the country illegally, then Mr. Jiminez is de facto a criminal, he is breaking the law. Therefore how can one win a defamation lawsuit when one is indeed a criminal?

Look, I think that the defendant in this case is an asshole, but I also happen to like the 1st amendment a lot. This ruling smacks more of British style law, that has much tighter definitions of defamation than the US, something that I really don't want to see land on these shores.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. That, Sir, Is Simply Sloppy Reporting
The case concerned the dissemination of a 'wanted poster' claiming the plaintiff was wanted for robbery, assault, and battery. The defendant admitted he had circulated this, which made it all rather cut and dried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. Maybe, maybe not, I would like to see the original case record
If the judge was ruling on the basis of the word "criminal" then it was a poor ruling. If was ruling on the basis of the words "robbery, assault and battery" then he might have a case. It depends on the wording.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #43
52. Circulation Of the 'Wanted Poster', Sir, Is What the Case Concerned
To say a man is wanted for robbery is to call him a criminal, and to say he is wanted for robbery when in fact no police department seeks him on that charge is to defame him. This is not a complicated matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #52
60. Well, apparently a police department did seek him out,
Since Mr. Jimenez did stand trial for the crime and was found innocent. However the supposed slander of calling him a "criminal" occurred before the arrest and trial.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. Not Sure Where You Get That, Sir
Here is what the defendant himself said in court in his defense, in this very pro-defendant article:

'Finally, Schwilk reminded the court that although Jimenez was never formally charged with the assault on Monti, he did participate in the attack and then fled the scene of the crime. “In law enforcement, flight implies guilt,” he said.'

This would seem to establish Mr. Jimenez was not arrested or tried for this attack on the photographer, and SWchwilk's insistence he was guilty has no standing as a fact under law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. Next paragraph down, apparently there was a criminal trial regarding this assault
"Monti also said under oath that Jimenez had previously testified in his criminal trial in 2007 that he was an illegal alien and had no legal papers to gain employment legally in the U.S."

A criminal trial implies an arrest :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #67
77. It Does Not Say That Concerned This Assault, Sir
He might have been tried for any number of things ion the year 2007, but he was not tried for attack Monti. Thus, this has no bearing whatever on the issue at trial, which is the defamation committed by Schwilk in circulating claims late in 2006 Mr. Jimenez was wanted for robbery and assault and battery. Had Mr. Jimenez even been tried for that offense, the defense here would have asserted a defense of truth, and prevailed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #77
82. Hmm, you don't think that a criminal trial in '07 has nothing to do with the Monti assault
OK, whatever.

Look, this has been fun, I'm glad that you're back in circulation. But I've more important things to do right now, so I've got to head on. We'll have to see what the appellate court says on this manner, and hopefully at some point we can get ahold of a full trial transcript.

Take care, see you later :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #82
86. Clearly, Sir, It Had Nothing To Do With A Charge Of Assaulting Or Robbing Monti
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 05:36 PM by The Magistrate
If it had, that would have been brought forward by the defense, to establish the truth of the statement plaintiff alleged to be defamatory, and prevail in the suit.

Take care yourself, Sir: this is getting into 'say something once, why say it again' territory....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #28
94. It does not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #17
88. Broadcast?
As I understand it, he forwarded emails.

If I had a nickel for every time I've defamed George Bush or Glenn (raped and murdered a young girl in 1990) Beck, I'd be a rich man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #88
97. Several Points, Sir
Under the law in this matter, communication of the claim to even one person by the defendant makes the matter actionable.

What the man found liable for defamation here did is send the 'wanted poster' to several law enforcement agencies and to several chapters of his Minuteman organization.

The plaintiff is a private person, and the standards for public personages, people who are well known and prominent in public life, are very different. It is practically impossible for a political figure to prevail in a libel or defamation case here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. No. He'd be subject to administrative law, not criminal law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. Yet by entering illegally he is still breaking the law,
Hence, he is a criminal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Overstaying a parking meter is against the law
but parking violations don't make one a criminal, because "illegal" parking is not a crime for which one could be charged, tried and jailed. Sorry to disappoint you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. Really? I think you've got it wrong
"8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien
Search 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."

<http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325 >

Hmm, fined, imprisoned, sounds like criminal punishment to me.

I think what happens is that this is simply ignored in most of the run of the mill illegal alien cases and they are simply deported. However just because it is ignored doesn't mean that it isn't in effect, which means that yes, Mr. Jimenez is a criminal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Let me put it another way, when I translated these cases
it was never in a criminal court, okay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. But there is a criminal penalty
You don't have a law with jail time attached to it that is simply a civil law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #47
55. you are misreading the article
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 05:06 PM by anigbrowl
"Alberto Jimenez, who was illegally in the country at the time of the attack"

It does not tell you how he got to be here. You are assuming illegal entry, but only know of illegal presence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. No, Sir, He Claims Defamation Because He Was Said To Be Wanted For Robbery And Assault And Battery
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 04:58 PM by The Magistrate
That statement was untrue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. oops - made a mistake
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 05:06 PM by anigbrowl
I mixed up the DU poster's argument with the trial defendant's argument, sorry about that. fixed above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #55
62. Umm, being here illegally is a crime
What, do you think that Mr. Jimenez spontaneously materialized somehow without crossing the border. You are playing such a twisted semantics game that you're tying yourself in knots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #62
66. No it is not
You could be illegally because you entered legally on a visa and allowed it to expire, for example. In this case no criminal act has taken place, it's just that the person's status changes to that of a being deportable. Look it up in USC 8.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. But that's not what Mr. Jimenez did
Apparently he entered illegally.

"Monti also said under oath that Jimenez had previously testified in his criminal trial in 2007 that he was an illegal alien and had no legal papers to gain employment legally in the U.S."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #69
76. I'm not seeing anything about illegal entry there
He could have arrived with a tourist visa, which would not legally allow him to work or to remain after it had expired. For all you or I know, he told the border patrol he was coming to visit someone in San Diego and they waved him in.

All we know is that he was in the US without a valid visa or employment documents. The testimony says nothing about the manner in which he arrived.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #76
80. So you are opting for which, spontaneous materialization or virgin birth?
Frankly I'm going to watch and see on this one, since it is going to be appealed. Hopefully the appellate court will take into consideration the 1st Amendment rather than British slander laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #80
90. Damn, why is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong?
You have NO EVIDENCE of illegal entry.

Many thousands of people cross the Mexican border every day at border crossings. it is perfectly possible that Jimenez did so, on a visa that later expired. whether he did or not, there is no record of him committing a crime of illegal entry reported in this story. And if it goes to appeal, the 5th amendment would protect his right not to answer questions about how he arrived if he chose not to answer them.

It's nothing to do with 'British slander laws' even if it makes you better to blame some other foreigners). It is the simple fact that illegal presence does not constitute proof of illegal entry or employment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #69
102. third base..
how many fucking times does it have to be explained to you?! illegal entry into the us is not a CRIMINAL OFFENSE! if you beleive it to be so, then cite the fucking criminal code.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #102
105. No, illegal *entry* is actually a criminal offense.
Illegal presence is not.

If you run across the border to avoid the officials at a designated crossing post, the border patrol could chase and arrest you, and you would be charged with illegal entry. If you come through the border at Tijuana and they let you in, then you don't go back when your visa expires, it's not a criminal offense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #62
107. It's a civil offense; it's no more illegal than speeding or running a stop sign
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #41
54. That is someone who is in the act of entering the country
Crossing the border somewhere other than a checkpoint or trying to enter with bogus documents. Once a person is here it is impossible to establish that he or she entered at an undesignated place, eluded inspection or used false papers, thus just being here without documentation isn't contemplated by that statute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #54
64. Umm, more law, read it
"(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts"

By the simple act of being in the country they have avoided examination or inspection. What, you think that they spontaneously materialized out of thin air or a virgin birth, sprung from somebody's head fully formed like Athena sprung from the head of Zeus?

Good thing the law is a bit more rational than you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #64
71. don't go into the detective business
"By the simple act of being in the country they have avoided examination or inspection."

And you know this...how?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. Don't go into the lawyer business,
You apparently can't understand the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #73
78. I understand it a hell of a lot better than you.
your whole argument is based on the idea that he must have snuck across the border illegally.

Even if he had, he has not been prosecuted for it, nor convicted, so he cannot accurately be described as a criminal for that. But we actually have no idea how he first entered the US, as there is nothing in the story to prove his entry was illegal. We can only suspect that it was, and suspicions are not proof.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #78
83. No, I'm basing it on Mr. Jimenez's own statements in court
But at this point further conversation with you on this matter is useless and pointless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #83
96. ...which don't say what you think they say.
for the last time, being in the Us illegally is all he admitted to. that is not proof of illegal entry.

Suppose someone from France goes to New York, via plane, as a student or tourist. He likes it and stays in New York after his visa expires. Well now the guy is here in America illegally, and he is not employable. But he did not enter the US illegally.

Jimenez testified under oath he was present in the US illegally, and that he had no employment documents. What does that tell us about the manner of his arrival, exactly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #64
99. You are wrong.
ENTERING at an improper time or place or avoidance of examination or inspection WHILE ENTERING or misrepresentation WHILE ENTERING. A person can enter the country legally on a student visa, for example, and simply stay when it expires. At that point he is here illegally, but he has not ENTERED the country illegally. The simple act of being in the country without the necessary documents to stay would not at all mean that he avoided examination or inspection while entering the country. A person can enter the country legally on a day pass or a work permit or a tourist visa. There are lots of ways to get here legally without being sprung from anybody's head. Don't feel bad, lots of people talk about things they don't know a goddamn thing about. This is America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #35
53. But ignoring the court summons CAN subject you to that
I just love it when people whine about being jailed for traffic tickets, when they're really tossed in the can for contempt of court. :rofl: Soooo, how many court summons DID you ignore anyway?

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #31
51. WRONG
Not all laws carry criminal penalties. Administrative agencies have powers of enforcement but not, generally, of prosecution.

Being in the US without a valid visa is not a criminal offense. Entering illegally can be, but you can enter legally and have your visa expire. Or if you enter illegally but are not caught, then you have not been charged and convicted, and and cannot be defined as a criminal for legal purposes (unless evidence of your illegal entry comes to light within a certain time).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #51
70. And by his own testimony, Mr. Jimenez entered illegally
Therefore he was subject to criminal penalties and technically was a criminal :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #70
84. his testimony says nothing at all about his entry into the US
it says only that at the time of his 2007 trial he had no visa or employment documents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #31
95. No. There are civil laws, too
One who breaches a contract is not a criminal.

by your definition, a debtor who failed to pay a debt in time is a criminal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
40. It's a matter of civil law, not criminal law.
The illegal alien in question is no more a criminal than the man who committed defamation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. Actually it is a matter of criminal law
"8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien
Search 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

<http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325 >

When you can be imprisoned, it is entering the realm of criminal law :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
45. No. That is not a crime, it is an administrative violation.
It's like you can't actually be jailed for not paying your income tax - it isn't a criminal offense. They can come and take away all your stuff, drain your bank accounts, audit you up down and sideways (and if they find you have lied about or concealed anything, then they CAN jail you).

But if you owe taxes and don't actually have the money to pay them, and you did not cheat the IRS, you can't be sent to prison. You still owe the money, but it is not a crime to be unable to pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. But you can be sent to prison for illegally crossing the border
8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien
Search 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

<http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325 >

I don't think that this criminal penalty of imprisonment is enforced too terribly often, it would simply overwhelm the court system. But the fact of the matter is that there is a criminal penalty, people can be jailed over it, thus that makes Mr. Jimenez a criminal and this judge's ruling, if was based on the word "criminal" (if that was indeed the word used) rather weak and easily overturned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #49
58. That's correct, but is there any proof he did so? No.
The guy has not been convicted of such a crime, nor evidence presented of his having committed it. Therefore, not a criminal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #58
72. Mr. Jimenez's own words.
"Monti also said under oath that Jimenez had previously testified in his criminal trial in 2007 that he was an illegal alien and had no legal papers to gain employment legally in the U.S."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #72
98. And? This is the 3rd time. They say NOTHING about how he entered.
All they say was that he did not have a valid US visa at the time of trial.

How do you know he didn't have an expired visa? That would make him an illegal alien, ineligible to work. To prove criminality, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to present evidence which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he broke the law. I have a reasonable doubt that he crossed the border without inspection, because I have met many people who were in the US illegally on expired visas, but whose entry was perfectly legal.

What is your evidence?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
13. What the hell?
Is it crap on brown people day?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Apparently. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
91. It took electing Obama to flush out the racists in the right wing and now the new
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 05:44 PM by county worker
Arizona law seems to have the same effect on DU! For a group of people who claim to care about people it makes me wonder! I guess we all have our limits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #13
108. Is it a day ending in "y"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
37. A person is not a criminal unless they've been convicted.
Foreigners sue in the US all the time for things that happen in the US. You can't get up in a trial for a broken back on the job and say "the plaintiff is a criminal, because he's not in country legally!"

Libel and slander are about truth. If you tell the truth, you cannot be hit for either in civil court. If a person is not convicted of a crime, they are not a criminal, so calling them one may result in a finding of slander or libel. The reason the verb used is "may" is simple: the trier of fact in the civil case can determine that the use of the term "criminal" was (1) clearly pejorative, or (2) used in humor, or (3) appropriate because the plaintiff had called himself that publicly, or (4) appropriate because the plaintiff really is considered a criminal by the community, even if not convicted.

In this case, the judge was the trier of fact. He made the decision and in that decision are implicitly the elements of slander/libel. He found the elements, and some damages are appropriate.

There's nothing extraordinary about this case, including the lack of understanding that foreigners present in the USA have certain rights in spite of their lack of citizenship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Much like George Bush, Dick Cheney and OJ Simpson.
Innocents all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Not at all like any of those three.
When you make such suggestions, you don't improve your position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #42
89. Because writing that George Bush is a war criminal is so totally not defamatory.
Because... well just because.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #89
92. Because he's a public figure, because it's pejorative, because ...
... because too many consider him a criminal.

When you skip past the conditions I stated clearly, you make yourself appear either inattentive or purposely deceitful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
50. Actually it's established law
you can't call someone a criminal until they have been convicted of a crime. Where do you think the term "alleged" murder/rapist/burglar came from anyway?

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
56. Thought I was on the wrong website for a second. Then I remembered what DUers are like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kgnu_fan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
74. wow, examiner does it again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
93. Defamation cases are not set backs to the First Amendment
Why are people such idiots?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC