Thread: Hazleton - Anonymity sought in immigrant lawsuit

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/16245437.htm

Posted on Fri, Dec. 15,

HAZLETON

Anonymity sought in immigrant lawsuit
Several in case challenging ordinance fear personal info could be used against them.

By TERRIE MORGAN-BESECKER tmorgan@timesleader.com

SCRANTON – Fearful the information could be used against them, several of the plaintiffs challenging Hazleton’s illegal immigration crackdown are seeking a protective order to prevent the city from learning their identity or immigration status.

In a letter to Judge James M. Munley filed Thursday, Foster S. Maer, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, said some of his clients are so fearful of the consequences of their identity being disclosed that they are considering dropping out of the litigation.

Maer, of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, was among a group of attorneys who sued the city in August on behalf of 11 private citizens and several businesses and charitable organizations. The suit seeks to have the city’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act ordinance declared unconstitutional.

The ordinance, passed in July, makes it illegal for landlords to rent to illegal immigrants or for employers to hire them. Landlords who violate the ordinance face fines of up to $1,000 per day, and employers could lose their city business permits.

A federal judge halted enforcement on Oct. 31 for 120 days.

A number of plaintiffs in the suit have been identified only as John or Jane Doe. The suit did not specifically state if all the Doe defendants are illegal immigrants. Contacted Thursday, Maer declined to say whether the plaintiffs seeking the protective order were illegal immigrants, saying only that his letter “speaks for itself.”

In the letter, Maer said he is seeking the order so there are some ground rules regarding what type of information might be exempt for disclosure. There is concern, for instance, that attorneys for the city might argue certain information the plaintiffs wish to withhold must be turned over so the city can impeach their credibility. Such disclosure would have a “chilling effect” on the litigation, Maer wrote.

The proposed order is expected to be submitted to Munley by today for his consideration.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 829-7179.

Hazleton and the citizens there of have the right to know who is suing them. They must not believe that they were really wronged, otherwise they would disclose their names.

Dixie

They do have the right to know who is suing them. Why should they be allowed to have their identities hidden. They are illegal, that should be enough in itself. Our immigration laws should be enforced and laws should not be changed to protect the illegal alien!

This is absurd! And we should NOT BE QUIET ABOUT THIS!
As someone, April...I think says, from a rumble to a ROAR!

I guess we are all supposed to consider the state of being an illegal alien as a protected category.

Added to Home Page.
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=48796

What happened to the right of people to be able to confront individuals who are filing lawsuits against them. Just because you are illegal doesn't mean that you get a pass from the law. Illegals are filing lawsuits all over the place but when someone goes after the illegals they are protected.

Beckyal wrote:

What happened to the right of people to be able to confront individuals who are filing lawsuits against them. Just because you are illegal doesn't mean that you get a pass from the law. Illegals are filing lawsuits all over the place but when someone goes after the illegals they are protected.

I'm no lawyer and I'm not in the mood to research the U.S. Constitution, but I've always understood that the accused has the constitutional right to face his or her accuser(s). In preparation for the defense, I believe Hazelton's lawyers have the right to research their accusers background prior to offering rebuttal and arguments in court. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that is the law. Furthermore, I seriously doubt these so-called accusers came forward desiring to file a criminal lawsuit against Hazelton under their own accord. More than likely, the PRLDEF actively solicited these folks, because without them there would be no case. The PRLDEF is not being harmed by the Hazelton ordinance, so on their own they have no standing to file a lawsuit .

No doubt the PRLDEF has promised the so-called accusers ribbons and rainbows to come forward, but if things get sticky and the potential for deportation arises - these folks will probably bow out post haste! Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Sounds pretty clear-cut to me, crusader. Nice to know everyone isn't as lazy as me - thanks for looking it up.

Originally Posted by MW

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Sounds pretty clear-cut to me, crusader. Nice to know everyone isn't as lazy as me - thanks for looking it up.

No problem, was glad to help.