Thread: Federal judges: JUDICIAL "OUTLAWS"

Federal judges: JUDICIAL "OUTLAWS"

Is "illegal immigration" and aiding and abetting "illegal aliens" a crime or not?
by an American Patriot
March 30, 2005

On March 8, 2005, Jerry Seper reported in The Washington Times that the Supreme and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco "backs immigrants in job lawsuit" after the district court magistrate refused to allow the defendant from questioning the 'immigration status' of the plaintiffs under their Title VII claim for "unlawful" discrimination.

Appellate Judge Stephen Reinhardt, whose wife Ramona Ripston is president of the Los Angeles chapter of the ACLU. wrote his "opinion" in the case saying "Granting employers the right to inquire into workers' immigration status in cases like this would allow them to raise implicitly the threat of deportation and criminal prosecution every time a worker, documented or undocumented, reports illegal practices or files a Title VII action."

The Constitution for the United States established the judicial power of the federal courts that "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States ... between citizens of the same state ... " and whether the plaintiffs are 'citizens' of the United States entitled to the 'privilege' of suing in the courts of the United States determines the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case. Article VI explicitly provides that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme law of the Land...and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." The Judiciary is restricted to the confines of the Constitution and not "opinion' or personal agenda.

Federal judges are 'unconstitutionally' amending provisions of the Constitution conferring unlawful jurisdiction upon itself and and granting 'privileges' of citizenship upon "illegal aliens" and "foreign nationals" without the consent ir ratification of the States. Federal judges are operating "outside of the law" -- Congress does nothing.

"Aliens" -- "documented or undocumented" -- are not "persons" under the Constitution entitled to the privilege of suing in the courts of the United States and "their acts of pretended legislation " is unconstitutional. "Aliens" are 'ficticious plaintiffs' not permitted in federal cases under 'Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,' only a citizen can sue as per Article III of the Constitution and the courts holding that "There being no fictitious party practice in the courts of the United States, it is hereby ORDERED that the action be DISMISSED as to all fictitious parties. Dismissal is without prejudice to the right of any party to take advantage of the provisions of Rule 15(c), Fed.R.Civ.P" -- as a 'matter of law' 'fictitious parties' never existed in the first place.

Title VII bars discrimination based on national origin and protects all United States citizens whether the citizens be African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Italian-Americans, Native-Americans, Irish-Americans, Arab-Americans, Russian-Americans, etc. Title VII protects 'national origin" and not "foreign nationals" -- regardless of whether they are legal or 'illegal' immigrants.

Federal agents raided Wal-Mart stores across the country and arrested illegal workers in 21 states. In a settlement to the United States for knowingly hiring illegal aliens, Wal-Mart paid an $11 million and 12 of it's contractors agreed to pay $4 million and pled guilty to criminal immigration charges.

Executives and managers of Tyson Foods Inc. were indicted with a 36-counts for conspiracy to smuggle illegal aliens to its U.S. facilities for profit. Tyson Foods aided and abetted illegal aliens by obtaining false documents so they could work at processing plants "under the false pretense of being legally employable."

It is unlawful to hire any individual for employment in the United States without complying with employment eligibility verification requirements and any person will be subject to prosecution, criminal fines, and imprisonment under the laws of the United States for transporting, hiring and harboring "illegal aliens." 8 USC Sec 1324 provides that "Any person who . . . encourages or induces an illegal alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each illegal alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the judges of the Supreme Court and district court are in violation of the Constitution and their judicial oath to " "preserve, protect and defend ... the Constitution of the United States" as well as 8 USC Sec 1324 because "Any person" does not exclude federal judges. Conspiracy to commit the "criminal acts" is a separate federal offense under 18 USC Sec 371.

Appellate Judge Stephen Reinhardt, whose wife Ramona Ripston is president of the Los Angeles chapter of the ACLU. wrote his "opinion" in the case saying "Granting employers the right to inquire into workers' immigration status in cases like this would allow them to raise implicitly the threat of deportation and criminal prosecution every time a worker, documented or undocumented, reports illegal practices or files a Title VII action."

This defies all logic
I'm speechless

It seems the law is on our side but we never use it.

I wonder if FAIR and NumbersUSA has lawyers working for them.

I wonder why they never tested this in court, or did they.

We need to recruit Mark Levine.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

Appellate Judge Stephen Reinhardt, whose wife Ramona Ripston is president of the Los Angeles chapter of the ACLU. wrote his "opinion" in the case saying "Granting employers the right to inquire into workers' immigration status in cases like this would allow them to raise implicitly the threat of deportation and criminal prosecution every time a worker, documented or undocumented, reports illegal practices or files a Title VII action."

This defies all logic
I'm speechless

I'm speechless too! read on

Illegal Wins $4 Million Suit

NEW YORK SUN
Tuesday March 8, 2005


A Bronx, N.Y., day laborer living and working illegally in the United States has been awarded a $4 million settlement for injuries suffered on the job, the largest ever award of its kind, the New York Sun reported Tuesday in a Page One story.

---

Originally Posted by Darlene

It seems the law is on our side but we never use it.

I wonder if FAIR and NumbersUSA has lawyers working for them.

I wonder why they never tested this in court, or did they.

We need to recruit Mark Levine.

the ACLU sues everybody for violating the Constitutional "rights" of the "illegal aliens" -- "rights" that they don't have, but do you think anyone would sue the judges and members of Congress?

I don't get the cable networks, so I'm not able to watch Lou Dobbs or the other shows that's on our side ... maybe he would spotlight it.

It seems the law is on our side but we never use it.

I wonder if FAIR and NumbersUSA has lawyers working for them.

I wonder why they never tested this in court, or did they.

We need to recruit Mark Levine

I just posted an older article re:" Illegal Alien Sanctuary"
Please take a look.......there is a mention of a GROUP in DC that possibly could help with information concering a LAWSUIT. It's bolded in blue.

YES MAMIE,
We know about the NY case.........outrageous but yet Bloomberg has been a big proponent of ILLEGALS as was Rudy. What makes it worse is that he has the audacity to actually go on the radio weekly and spout his UNDOCUMENTED crap which gives them even more power.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

YES MAMIE,
We know about the NY case.........outrageous but yet Bloomberg has been a big proponent of ILLEGALS as was Rudy. What makes it worse is that he has the audacity to actually go on the radio weekly and spout his UNDOCUMENTED crap which gives them even more power.

it doesn't do any good when our government officials defend criminal activity.

I think they are 'confused' -- legal immigrants and "illegal aliens" are two entirely different things ...

saying an "illegal alien" is an "undocumented immigrant" is like saying a drug dealer is an unlicensed pharmacist

Mamie wrote:

it doesn't do any good when our government officials defend criminal activity

You wouldn't believe the brazen "verbiage" that Bloomy spouts! It's simply mind numbing. And then there's the government advertisement to come and get your MONEY with no fear of documentation!!
***Bloomberg actually said one time that "they're not illegal, they're undocumented!!!" I almost choked.......no, I did choke. On the radio for all to hear!

I'm speechless

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

Mamie wrote:

it doesn't do any good when our government officials defend criminal activity

You wouldn't believe the brazen "verbiage" that Bloomy spouts! It's simply mind numbing. And then there's the government advertisement to come and get your MONEY with no fear of documentation!!
***Bloomberg actually said one time that "they're not illegal, they're undocumented!!!" I almost choked.......no, I did choke. On the radio for all to hear!

I'm speechless

Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales in testimony to Congress stated "They're otherwise law-abiding people" and "...they're unlawful aliens but otherwise lawful citizens."

these are not "lawful citizens," "illegal citizens" or "illegal immigrants" -- they're invaders. How can an "unlawful alien" be a "lawful citizen"?

<snip>
MALDEF was key in the gutting of Californian Prop 187, which would have placed restrictions on illegals receiving state social aid. Putting legal and political pressure on Davis, they forced the state into dropping the appeals to overturn the district court decision striking down the referendum. On their website they trumpet their role in the usurpation of the people's power by the courts, “MALDEF is pleased in this victory of basic human and civil rights.�

One of the many goals of MALDEF is to prevent the spread of English-only laws, fighting to keep ineffectual bilingual education programs and multi-lingual election ballots. They have provided legal assistance and amicus briefs in a variety of cases that have resulted in the implementation of “reforms� legislated from the bench.

In a recent policy paper, MALDEF has presented what they call a constitutional argument against the use of local and state police enforcement of federal immigration law. Citing concerns of racial profiling and the disparity of enforcement against Mexican illegals they claim that local law enforcement agencies are not trained to deal with the sensitive nature of protecting the civil rights of naturalized citizens.
<snip>
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=9765