Thread: Philly to deport aquitted suspect. YEAH!

greyparrot-


Yes, the newspapers do in deed get their facts wrong. In fact, just last week they were CONVINCED Omar was the rapist. They were sure wrong about that.

And as for the 1999 conviction, here are some quotes taken directly from the transcripts.

.
.
.
After the conviction, the “victim� (Officer Addison) testified on Omar’s behalf, strongly urging leniency.

§ “I think if we were to recommend jail for these two gentlemen I don’t think that would be a solution to this situation.�

§ “I don’t see them as incorrigible people.�

§ “I don’t see them as bad individuals.�

§ “If my suggestion means anything to the court I would think probation with some alcohol counseling would suffice in this situation. And that is my recommendation to the court.�

The Assistant District Attorney also argued in Omar’s defense for a light sentence.

§ “No one is in a better position to judge the defendants’ actions in this case than Officer Addison. And I would ask the court to give Officer Addison’s testimony today significant weight.�

§ “The standard range in this case Your Honor is 40 to 54 months.� “I would ask the court to depart downward from the standard range. And even from the mitigated range in this case significantly.�

§ “I would ask the court to impose at least a brief period of house arrest.�

Recognizing the uniqueness of the case, the Trial Judge gave Omar an extremely lenient sentence.

§ “The court both at the time of trial and today was greatly impressed by Officer Addison’s articulateness and intelligence, and the maturity that he displayed in handling this matter.�

§ “I am convinced that the incident was an aberrational act by the defendants not likely to be repeated again.�

§ “The court sentences [Omar] to three to six months incarceration to be followed by four years reporting probation. The three months will be served under house arrest.�


Now think about it, if you're assaulted by someone as a police officer and the standard range is 40 - 54 months of prison time, why would you recommend NO jail time?

Here is some other material about the incident in 1998 (conviction in 1999) . . . .

In January of 1998, Omar was a back seat passenger in a car pulled over in the early morning hours. Police Officers ordered the occupants out of the car, but the passenger sitting next to Omar did not comply with the Officers’ request. Omar tried to climb over the other occupant’s lap to get out, but the Officer pushed him back in because he wanted the other passenger to exit first. A scuffle ensued, but nobody was seriously hurt. Charges were filed against Omar and the other passenger. Officers claimed one of the passengers had lunged at an Officer with a knife.

There was a dispute among Police Officers with regard to which passenger,
if either, had a knife.

§ One Officer testified Omar had lunged at Officer Addison with a knife.

§ Another Officer thought it was the other passenger who had lunged at Officer Addison.

§ Officer Addison admitted that no one lunged at him with a knife, as far as he was aware.

§ A knife was recovered by Officers at the scene, but the driver of the car said the knife was his.

§ For reasons never explained, it appears Officers never checked the knife for fingerprints in order to determine who, if anybody, had handled it.


Now, knowing the leniency the one officer showed during sentencing (and went out of his way to show), do you think it's possible he didn't think Omar did anything wrong?

Dash said:

"7/29/97 Omar received his green card. This was well before the deportation hearing"

Philadelphia Inquirer:

The couple met at a nightclub in the city in 1996, she said, and she was immediately impressed with how kind he was.

"He is a beautiful person," she said, adding that they were married a year later and now have a 16-month-old son, Antonio.

Not sure why you posted that greyparrot . . .

They met in '96
Married in '97, he got his green card.
"Incident" occured in 98
Conviction in 99
Deportation hearing (and decision to let him stay) '00

Was there a contradiction?

Was there a contradiction?

Not at all Dash. Just thought I should clarify the time line between when he met his future wife (1996) when they married (1997), and when he received his green card (1997). One cant help but to wonder how THAT green card was issued at such warp speed!

Care to explain this unusual circumstance Dash?

I don't think saying it took under a year is exactly "warp speed".

I spoke with someone at work who was on a vacation visa from South Africa who then married a woman from Cherry Hill. After the marriage he applied for his green card and received it within 3 months.

So I don't find it unusual someone would receive their green card the same year they got married.

I spoke with someone at work who was on a vacation visa from South Africa who then married a woman from Cherry Hill. After the marriage he applied for his green card and received it within 3 months.

So I don't find it unusual someone would receive their green card the same year they got married.

The "I", in the highlighted sentence above, speaks volumes counselor! For everyone else, this process can takes years..and you KNOW it!

When an illegal alien knowingly breaks our laws by crossing our borders, they have NO right to "favorable" consideration . There are too many people waiting, patiently, to enter the U.S. legally to make such an unfair exception.

gp- you overestimate me.

I have no idea how long this process takes. Since you're so knowledgeable, what was the average time it took in 1997 between an alien marrying a citizen and that alien's receipt of a green card?

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050729/phf014.html?.v=19

Press Release Source: Philadelphia Bar Association

Philadelphia Bar Association: Don't Deport Lezama de la Rosa
Friday July 29, 12:36 pm ET


PHILADELPHIA, July 29 /PRNewswire/ -- The Philadelphia Bar Association's Board of Governors has called upon the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement Office and other pertinent Federal authorities "to withdraw and/or desist from any further efforts to deport Omar Lezama de la Rosa from the United States" and back to Mexico.
The Resolution defending Lezama de la Rosa was unanimously approved by the Association's governing body. It comes on the heels of a letter from Bar Association Chancellor Andrew A. Chirls to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Office stating that "there were far too many casualties of September 11. Mr. Lezama de la Rosa should not be another one of them, and his infant child should not be one either."

Speaking for the 13,000-member Bar Association, Chirls said Lezama de la Rosa's removal from the United States would represent a "terrible injustice." Citing the history of Lezama de la Rosa's case, the Board's Resolution states that "no principal basis exists upon which to now deport a law-abiding and responsible legal resident of our country and that Lezama de la Rosa's background and conduct [since 1999] have been beyond reproach."

Lezama de la Rosa was convicted of a criminal assault in 1999 but went on to fulfill all the obligations of his sentence uneventfully. On or about July 19, 2005, he was mistakenly arrested and charged with a rape alleged to have occurred in the Chinatown section of Philadelphia. Since then the District Attorney of Philadelphia has formally withdrawn all charges against Lezama de la Rosa. It was the mistaken arrest, however, which once again brought Lezama de la Rosa's case to the attention of a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office.

"Given that the 1999 conviction was not a basis for deportation when it was considered in 2000, and given Mr. Lezama de la Rosa's impeccable behavior since then, it seems hard to believe that there is any reason arising from Mr. Lezama de la Rosa's conduct that would cause anyone to consider deporting him," Chancellor Chirls concluded.