Thread: Initiating a lawsuit against chicago sanctuary policies.....

Welcome Rubicon 220 and fellow Ill. resident. I'm useless on the legal front as well but boy am I glad to see somebody doing something legal.

It's basicly the same story in all areas surrounding Chicago.

Our Senators are useless. It's tought to find anyone that isn't willing to roll over and give this state to illegals. I'm sick of the sanctuary business, sick of "must speak Spanish" to get a job........etc.

Anyway WELCOME. There's a new guy that will be on the ballot for Ill. Gov. from the Green Party. Haven't checked him out yet but maybe there's something they might know.

It's gonna be tough going against Daley. But there are people out here who support your efforts.

Seems really, really, liberal and no mention of ANYTHING having to do with immigration or border enforcement. (about the Green cand. Rich Whitney).

Good for you Rubicon! While you're at it, how about seeing if you can get the judge who delayed deportation of those illegals in Chicago, impeached. You might check with the Heritage Foundation and see if they can be of help. I know they have a website dedicated to report corruption in government.

You might find assistance at the Action Panel

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=C ... age&pid=19

Just wanted to make sure you saw this Rubicon.


Court Rules Against LAPD: Special Order 40 Lawsuit to Move Forward
by Tom Fitton
Posted Aug 03, 2006


A significant victory was won last week by Judicial Watch in its campaign to stop local law enforcement agencies from undermining federal immigration laws.

California Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu ruled against the Los Angeles Police Department in its attempt to halt Judicial Watch's lawsuit challenging Special Order 40, a policy that prohibits police officers from inquiring about an individual's immigration status and reportedly restricts police officers from fully cooperating with federal immigration officials.

Here's what the Judge Treu had to say about the LAPD's “demurr” (motion to dismiss): “The parties have expended a great deal of energy arguing their substantive claims here on demurrer.

However, in a demurrer, the sole issue is whether the facts pleaded, if true, state a valid cause of action. [Judicial Watch's] complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action…to withstand demurrer. The demurrer is therefore overruled.”

I covered this case fairly extensively last week, so I won't go into too much detail with respect to the various legal arguments. However, I do encourage you to read the judge’s ruling for yourself. And feel free to visit our Special Order 40 summary page on the Internet for more information.

This case now moves to discovery and I will have much to report in the coming weeks

Near as I can tell, the action against the LAPD began as a request for public records relating to special order 40. That is, the police department itself initiated the order and carried it out.
Judicial watch demanded to see the policy via FOIA and began their suit after examining the paperwork. right?
The sanctuary policy in chicago was initiated by harold washington's mayoral executive order in 85, and has been renewed a number of times ( by succeedibg mayors) since then.
which brings us to 29 march, 2006 when the city council itself made the sanctuary policy official.
the thing is the law now.
my understanding is, and correct me if I'm wrong, no state laws may be in conflict with our federal/national constitution or US code.
considering the freewheeling and perverse nature of our federal judiciary, it might be better to point out the illegl nature of sanctuary policies in relation to US code.
certainly any taxpayer should be able to do what Mr. Sturgeon has done.
again. I'm at the beginning of all this so expect mistakes.
I haven't gotten to the judges statement yet.
I'm trying to figure out on what groundsd these guys started the their attack.

thanks.
david tatosian

here's the suit- http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/20 ... ratton.pdf

special order 40-- http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/20 ... -gates.pdf

opposition to demurrer--- http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/20 ... 071706.pdf


d tatosian