Thread: Judge Dismisses Trespassing Charges Against Illegal Immigran

I was just reading a little more about this case in the NY Times. Here is the part that is simply amazing that the Mexican government is behind all these court cases. If the Mexican government is so concerned, then take care of your people in your own country and don't interfere in ours.

The towns' actions received national attention, with police departments from Florida to California considering taking similar steps if the charges were upheld in the New Hampshire courts. The Mexican government became concerned enough to pay some legal fees and to send its consul general in Boston to the court hearings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/natio ... artner=AOL

I know. It's pathetic. The decision was so conciliatory so biased in favor of the foreign government's agenda and so against the best interest of the American People, that one wonders why?

"The criminal charges against the defendants are unconstitutional attempts to regulate in the area of enforcement of immigration violations, an area where Congress must be deemed to have regulated with such civil sanctions and criminal penalties as it feels are sufficient," Justice Runyon wrote.

again, ILLEGAL ALIENS are granted "immunity" -- that is unconstitutional.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. . . . No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Congress was granted the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization" and "repel invasion" of foreign nationals . . .

The Constitution guarantees every state a "republican form of government" and there is NOTHING in the Constitution that restricts "regulating" immigration to the federal government and there is NOTHING in the Constitution prohibiting the states from enforcing federal immigration laws or ESTABLISHING STATE or LOCAL IMMIGRATION LAWS

Judge, L. Phillips Runyon III of Jaffrey/Peterborough District Court, is in violation of the Constitution NOT the police officers

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT

this was about state courts having jurisdiction over RICO violations, but it could also include immigration laws --- perhaps RICO violations could be used against illegal aliens

The Supreme Court in Tafflin traced the historical roots of concurrent jurisdiction, emphasizing the principle that " `nothing in the concept of our federal system prevents state courts from enforcing rights created by federal law.' " 493 U.S. at 459 (quoting Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502, 507-08 (1962)).

The Supreme Court has long abided by the "general rule that the grant of jurisdiction to one court does not, of itself, imply that the jurisdiction is to be exclusive." United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 296 U.S. 463, 479 (1936). Consistent with this principle, the Tafflin Court concluded that the RICO statute's permissive grant of jurisdiction to federal district courts did not constitute an "explicit statutory directive" sufficient to divest state courts of their inherent federal question jurisdiction. 493 U.S. at 460-61. Likewise, I would hold that the TCPA's permissive grant of jurisdiction to state courts does not constitute an"explicit statutory directive" sufficient to divest district courts of their section 1331 federal question jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by Mamie

this was about state courts having jurisdiction over RICO violations, but it could also include immigration laws --- perhaps RICO violations could be used against illegal aliens

The Supreme Court in Tafflin traced the historical roots of concurrent jurisdiction, emphasizing the principle that " `nothing in the concept of our federal system prevents state courts from enforcing rights created by federal law.' " 493 U.S. at 459 (quoting Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502, 507-08 (1962)).

[quote:2f4y75wi]The Supreme Court has long abided by the "general rule that the grant of jurisdiction to one court does not, of itself, imply that the jurisdiction is to be exclusive." United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 296 U.S. 463, 479 (1936). Consistent with this principle, the Tafflin Court concluded that the RICO statute's permissive grant of jurisdiction to federal district courts did not constitute an "explicit statutory directive" sufficient to divest state courts of their inherent federal question jurisdiction. 493 U.S. at 460-61. Likewise, I would hold that the TCPA's permissive grant of jurisdiction to state courts does not constitute an"explicit statutory directive" sufficient to divest district courts of their section 1331 federal question jurisdiction.

[/quote:2f4y75wi]

Mamie, are you a LAWYER? Damn you are sharp on this law.
Will you defend me in federal court?

Originally Posted by Sixx

Originally Posted by Mamie

this was about state courts having jurisdiction over RICO violations, but it could also include immigration laws --- perhaps RICO violations could be used against illegal aliens

The Supreme Court in Tafflin traced the historical roots of concurrent jurisdiction, emphasizing the principle that " `nothing in the concept of our federal system prevents state courts from enforcing rights created by federal law.' " 493 U.S. at 459 (quoting Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502, 507-08 (1962)).

[quote:12dh7nbd]The Supreme Court has long abided by the "general rule that the grant of jurisdiction to one court does not, of itself, imply that the jurisdiction is to be exclusive." United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 296 U.S. 463, 479 (1936). Consistent with this principle, the Tafflin Court concluded that the RICO statute's permissive grant of jurisdiction to federal district courts did not constitute an "explicit statutory directive" sufficient to divest state courts of their inherent federal question jurisdiction. 493 U.S. at 460-61. Likewise, I would hold that the TCPA's permissive grant of jurisdiction to state courts does not constitute an"explicit statutory directive" sufficient to divest district courts of their section 1331 federal question jurisdiction.

Mamie, are you a LAWYER? Damn you are sharp on this law.
Will you defend me in federal court?[/quote:12dh7nbd]


no, I'm not a lawyer .... but if we can reform the federal courts to courts of law and justice, the American people can plead their own cases as intended ... as is we have "the best judges money can buy" -- and if you think Corporate America owns Congress --- try the federal courts !!! our founding fathers would have sent them all packing