Thread: Judge Rules Suburban New York Village Discriminated Against

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, so it wasn't our Alipac members that were "stereotyping" these loving and law abiding day laborers who happen to be hispanic, many who are ILLEGAL. I'm glad I asked as your post made it sound as those Alipac was doing the stereotyping.

Guess you don't get it, B.

They ARE ILLEGAL.......mr. johnny doe 1-2-3-4-5-6
The judge, in all her love of Constitution for the American people, did NOT allow the information concering the ILLEGALS illegality to be entered due to their fear of deportation. It's a wonderful thing that the judge, if one can call her that, finds it in her heart to protect ILLEGALS instead of Americans.

I will tell you something interesting, if you don't mind. You know all these ILLEGALS who are invading our beautiful country? The very people, who are approx 85% hispanic, who give not a damn about our Rule of Law. These people and their disregard for our Laws and our Country are making it very bad for Legal Immigrants. They're causing trouble for the Legal Immigrants. It's a shame that those who've respected our laws are the ones who will suffer right along side Americans.

Towns across the country are being boxed in due to the huge numbers of ILLEGALS who congregate to "wait for work." They urinate in public streets and walkways, harrass women, use drugs and some are quite physical. That happens in large numbers. It's unsafe and unsanitary not to mention, unlawful. But the poor towns, cowards that they are, have a choice. Try to be "nice" and get these bums a place to congregate or have them willy nilly all over the taxpayer's living areas.

Back to the, ahhh, day laborers.
The lovely and polite day laborers who congregate in this little town are made up of both legal AND ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Now, why do you think there was a lawsuit? Hmmm, it was because the police WERE TRYING to get the area under control. And, gee wizzz, the legals and ILLEGALS didn't like having a police vehicle staring at them while they were harrassing the fine women and children of the little town and doing whatever else they do.
How could there be "evidence" of criminal behavior when there's been difficulty in patroling the area?

the PARK IS DESTROYED. Who did it? The women and children? You know, the very ones who are afraid to go near the area?

Now, how about you hop on over to Mamaronack and tell those women and kids that THEY'RE NUTS and using derogotory terms to explain all the HARRASSMENT that the legals & ILLEGALS - most if not all of whom happen to be hispanic - have been doing to them is rude and nasty. Tell those ignorant Americans that they'll just have to go somewhere else to play and stroll even though, oh my........the legal folks of that town paid their taxes to keep it a pretty and safe place to live.

Why don't you go and tell the good people of Mamaronack that they must take this ABUSE from mostly if not all hispanic/latino day laborers many who happen to be ILLEGAL? You know, the law breakers that get off of the hook and are ALLOWED to work in our country without fear of the law.

BTW, you are correct! They're not locusts, B..........they're worse. They're hateful, dirty, nasty, LAW BREAKERS who don't give a damn about mom and apple pie, your wife, my kids or anyone other than their own gratification.

I've said my peace.........JOHNNY DOE 1-2-3-4-5-6 ARE ILLEGALS.

Sorry B.........not gonna fly.

Let`s give a big applaud to 2ndsis!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers, jeers for day-laborer decision

By CANDICE FERRETTE
THE JOURNAL NEWS
Speak out
Join the discussion on the ruling in favor of the day laborers in Mamaroneck in the "Issues in the Lower Hudson Valley" forum at LoHud.com.


(Original publication: November 23, 2006)


Day laborers standing on Mamaroneck streets early in the morning expressed relief yesterday that a federal judge ruled in their favor when she found village officials and police had discriminated against them.

"Every morning, all of us are out here looking for work and nothing more, " said Nava, 45, a day laborer and a Mamaroneck resident who asked that his full name not be used for fear of retaliation, and who was among the 15 laborers waiting for contractors on Jefferson Avenue at 7 a.m. yesterday. "Now, hopefully, we can do that again."

Federal Judge Colleen McMahon's decision, issued Monday afternoon, said that comments made by officials were evidence of "racial animus." She said it was clear that the village attempted to reduce the number of day laborers in the village by aggressively ticketing the contractors who hire them.

It was the kind of affirmation day laborers needed, advocates said.

"The most important thing that has come out of this is that they (day laborers) have a right to be on the streets and they have the right to talk to contractors, and the police have no right to intervene in that conversation," said Mariana Boneo, executive director of the Larchmont-Mamaroneck Hispanic Resource Center, which helps the laborers get hired. "It's federal court, so if this happens in any other community, they can refer to this case. The goal is to make sure it doesn't happen again."

The lawsuit, filed in May on behalf of six anonymous day laborers, charged the village's Police Department with violating the laborers' rights when it stepped up the police presence in the Columbus Park area and began aggressively ticketing the contractors who hire day laborers.

The plaintiffs, all identified as John Doe, told the court that police officers follow groups of Latino men around the area on foot, on bicycles and in patrol cars. In one instance, a police officer held a day laborer in a contractor's truck for two hours without giving any reason for detaining him. In another instance, an officer asked a day laborer: "Why don't you go back to your own country?"

They charged that the police increased their harassment soon after construction started on a luxury apartment building across the street from a longtime day-laborer hiring site.

Others, however, were outraged by the decision and the possible influence it may have on other municipalities. Among them is Bill Mangieri, a resident of Brewster, a community in the midst of a similar debate.

"I'm upset with the fact that these six plaintiffs were illegal aliens and they were treated in a court of law as citizens. I hope that the village of Mamaroneck appeals the decision and it goes up to the Supreme Court of the United States," said Mangieri, 37, owner of a Brewster dry-cleaning business.

Mangieri said he hoped the ruling didn't discourage his local government from enforcing laws against day laborers in Brewster.

The immigration status of the Mamaroneck laborers is not clear. Their lawyers refused to reveal their status to the court. Their names were also withheld for fear of retaliation from police officers.

The weeklong federal trial, held in White Plains in early September, included testimony from Mamaroneck officials who defended the police enforcement as a response to residents' complaints.

Neither race nor immigration status factored into neighbors' complaints, said Tony Fava, a Mamaroneck resident and business owner in the Columbus Park area.

Fava, who unsuccessfully ran on the Republican ticket for a seat on the village's Board of Trustees, said he was still not clear about who really won the case, since the judge said she would not force the village to set up a hiring site.

"What did they win here? What's the victory? They can't have a day-laborer site - and wasn't that really the point of the whole thing? We didn't want them to use the park as a day-labor site. That's why we wanted it closed," Fava said. "The only real winners here seem to be the lawyers."

The village will have to pay attorneys' fees for the laborers, which have been estimated at well over $1 million.

McMahon gave both sides 10 business days to propose a possible remedy. It is still not clear what solutions the plaintiffs might request or whether the village will appeal the decision.

Victor Padilla, 51, a Carmel resident and day-laborer supporter, said he believed the lawsuit would have implications not yet known.

"This decision is going to wake up a lot of local governments," Padilla said. "They have to know that harassing them, chasing them away is not solving the problem."

Reach Candice Ferrette at cferrett@lohud.com or 914-696-8229.
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs ... 6611230368

KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR THESE ATTORNIES

Judge: Mamaroneck village and police harassed day laborers

By CANDICE FERRETTE
THE JOURNAL NEWS
Speak out
Join the discussion on the day-laborer ruling in the "Mamaroneck" forum at LoHud.com.

Related Media
U.S. District Court Mamaroneck laborers case decision

(Original publication: November 21, 2006)



Mamaroneck's village officials and its police harassed day laborers in a racially motivated attempt to reduce the number of men who waited on the streets for work, a federal judge has ruled.

"There is thus no question, on this record, that the campaign of aggressive law enforcement instigated by the village police in the Columbus Park area was aimed at and disproportionately affected Latino day laborers and the contractors who sought to hire them," wrote federal court Judge Colleen McMahon in the 70-page decision handed down yesterday.

The decision was a clear victory for the the six anonymous plaintiffs - four from Guatemala and one each from Mexico and El Salvador - and for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. The Latino advocacy group had filed the suit on the laborers' behalf.

The case was the first of its kind in the Northeast, where suburban municipalities continue to grapple with how to effectively manage an influx of temporary immigrant workers.

"I think Mamaroneck had become symbolic of the resistance of local communities to the presence of day laborers on their streets," said Alan Levine, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. "As in many cases, the campaign to get rid of them was cloaked in the rhetoric of criminal activity and quality of life."

McMahon's decision, however, offered little insight into any remedies for the Mamaroneck situation. She ruled out requiring the village to open a hiring site.

"However, I know of no law that would compel the village of Mamaroneck to create a hiring hall for temporary workers, and certainly not for any undocumented workers who might be among the day laborers," McMahon wrote.

The village will have to pay the fees of the laborers' attorneys. While the judge has yet to determine the amount, Levine said that costs would be well over $1 million for the seven lawyers, including four from the international firm Dewey Ballantine, who have worked on the case for the past six months.

In addition, the laborers asked for an injunction against the village's police presence, but their lawyers have not yet proposed to the judge what that might mean.

The village's mayor and attorney were were not pleased with the ruling last night.

"Obviously, we're disappointed with the findings. We truly believe that we really didn't do anything wrong and we disagree with the conclusions," said Phil Trifiletti, the mayor of Mamaroneck village. "Anyone who knows me knows that that is absolutely not true - that we would not do anything based on race and that we are not racist. ... We met for over 18 months on a monthly basis to resolve issues and to make things better for all residents in the village."

The judge found the policy decisions of Trifiletti and village Police Chief Edward Flynn to be in violation of the laborers' rights to equal protection. She also wrote: "The behavior of the police officers and their comments to the day laborers provide further evidence of racial animus."

"We think that this judge has taken a strained approach to finding an equal-protection violation," Village Attorney Kevin Plunkett said. "The main case she relies on is a unique set of facts involving Native American Indians on a reservation in upstate New York, which is clearly distinguishable from large groups of people who assemble in public places in other communities. ... I truly respect this judge, but I totally disagree with her. We have some concerns about the legal analysis."

Plunkett would not say last night whether he would advise the village to appeal the decision.

The original lawsuit charged the village with violating the laborers' rights to free speech and assembly in addition to their rights of equal protection. Just before the case went to trial in early September, the plaintiffs dropped the First Amendment claims because the judge would have required the immigration status of the anonymous laborers to be disclosed.

Reach Candice Ferrette at cferrett@lohud.com or 914-696-8229.
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs ... 6611210344

I doubt many of you actually read the judge's decision, and some who did probably did so with minds already made up.
http://www.prldef.org/Civil/mamaroneck.pdf

Sometimes judges make unpopular decisions that aren't liked by groups with a particular point of view. Unpopular decisions aren't necessarily biased. Sometimes the facts don't favor a particular point of view.

The decision specifically documents instances of racism, such as harassment of Latinos who weren't day workers while no whites were not harassed, and ticketing of Latino drivers and trucks that appeared to be contractors while other vehicles engaged in the same offenses and weren't ticketed. The judge also noted allegations from both sides that weren't substantiated and disregarded them.

Making the assumption that all of the John Does are illegal immigrants is stereotyping. News reports were that some plaintiffs were illegal immigrants, but others were legal immigrants or citizens.

The plaintiffs all said they preferred to remain anonymous to the public because they were afraid of retaliation by police, who they said had already been harassing them. It could be that they were illegal immigrants and afraid of "la migra", but also that they are poor, dependent on the community for their day jobs, or simply afraid of right wing extremists.

The police made no effort whatsoever to determine immigration or citizenship status, yet there is significant documented evidence that some police treated anyone who appeared to be Latino differently than whites. That's not immigration or crime control; that's discrimination based upon ethnicity.

There are a few racists on both sides of the immigration issue, along with many who are not racist at all and are only concerned with immigration. None of us appreciate some Latino leaders playing the race card to justify illegal immigration and amnesty, but at the same time there are white racists using immigration as a cover to promote their own racist agendas. If you don't believe me, take a look at some skinhead/nazi web sites.

I'm not accusing anyone on this board of promoting a hidden racist agenda, but negative stereotypes are inherently unfair and do result in racism. A person who belongs to a stereotyped group has to overcome negative preconceptions created by the stereotype while someone not in the group does not.

I'm not accusing anyone on this board of promoting a hidden racist agenda, but negative stereotypes are inherently unfair and do result in racism. A person who belongs to a stereotyped group has to overcome negative preconceptions created by the stereotype while someone not in the group does not.

NO?

That's interesting, Bq. To be completely accurate, you said that I was RACIST & committed a person attack upon you.
Everything I've written is in the open for all to see. Neither a personal attack or a shred of RACISM has come out of my mouth.
Your credibility is now tarnished.

FYI: read the above articles for more ACCURATE information concerning Mamaronack. Please don't continue with the anti-American judge's "decision." It's now become a non starter in this discussion.

Again, I repeat, YOU have no idea what's gone on in Mamaronack and have no informtion other than the "judge's decision." I do believe that the difficulty with the ILLEGALS status is highlighted in red in the above article, which forced them to drop one of their claims.

Obviously, you have another agenda which is surfacing in your repetative, inaccurate statements. What it is, I can only assume. Lacking any accurate information, you've resorted to the OBL's favorite ploy by pulling out the RACE CARD and personally attacking me. Then you actually think that by insulting others by assuming that they are so intellectually dishonest &/or lazy that they have not read the judge's biased and UNCONSTITUTIONAL decision, that would get your point? across.

As I said before, Bq.........won't fly. Facts are facts and you're not going to be able to water down the truth in this situation.

*** very interesting how the lawyers for these ILLEGAL HISPANICS in Mamaronack are the same lawyers that have reared their heads in other pro bono cases against towns who are trying their best to begin to address this and other problems stemming from ILLEGALS.

.

Originally Posted by bquasius

You keep trying to spin the town's actions as anti-illegal immigrant, but the evidence shows the police were harassing all Latinos, whether illegal, legal, or citizen, day labor or otherwise. The town admitted at the trial they had not even determined whether the day laborers were legal immigrants or otherwise. One would think if police were cracking down on illegal immigrants they would check documents and chase illegal immigrants, while leaving legal immigrants and citizens alone.

Are you really this dense?

Seriously, I'm genuinely curious.



Day-laborers are-by definition-illegal immigrants.

That's why they are day laborers.

People who are in this country legally-and belong to the construction trade-do not not need to loiter on a street corner and furtively approach every van that stops in front of them.

They do not need to present their "papers"-and by this I assume you mean W-4s and/or Social Security numbers-to suspicious law enforcement officials, because they presumably have a pre-existing place of employment.

It appears there was selective enforcement based upon ethnicity or race. That's not immigration enforcement; that's racism. I don't doubt that some of the day laborers are illegal immigrants, but likely some are not. The news articles I have read indicate some were illegal, but some legal immigrants and citizens.

Stop dissembling.

As much as the news media attempts to obfuscate this issue not one of the articles related to this imbeclic jurist's decision ever implied that any of these individuals was not an illegal alien.

That is why they are not testifying in their own names, and-newsflash Einstein-ADMITTED TO BEING IN THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY!

You can brandish the discredited racist card all you like, but it holds no weight around here.

We're not the Brown power, pro-Aztlan bigots, so I suggest you come up with a somewhat more convincing slanderous attack.

You mentioned legal immigrants. Well, it just so happens that my wife and step-daughter are both legal immigrants and Latinos, who have never violated our immigration laws, and have never waved foreign flags, flown American flags upside down, or demanded amnesty at parades.

Bully for them.

I'll bet if they had been in Mamaroneck at this location during daytime hours, they likely would have been treated by police as if they were criminals.

Nice assumption.

You do realize what the first part of that word is, don't you?

Stereotyping an ethnic or racial group as criminals is a form of racism. I'm all for stopping illegal immigration, but please don't use immigration issues as a cover for racism. Racism is un-American and un-democratic. We have many patriotic - and Latino - immigrants in this country who deserve to be treated with respect.

Yes, and sterotyping people who commit crimes as criminals is no doubt a grave violation of politically correct etiquette.

Look, if you're going to be a troll at least try to come up with something original instead of rehasing the same dumb-ass, specious line of reasoning all of your Mechista friends have flooded this board with since Day One.

b cuas of us Wrote:

The plaintiffs all said they preferred to remain anonymous to the public because they were afraid of retaliation by police,The plaintiffs all said they preferred to remain anonymous to the public because they were afraid of retaliation by police,

Withholding names will draw suspicion. Withholding their names because their afraid of police retaliation makes no sense, the police already know who they are.
Besides, most of them change their name anyway.
The only thing they have to lose is their Illegal status in the US. so their afraid of being deported.
Hell, whites are harressed by white cops all of the time.
Early one morning, I was on my way up the San Bernardino mountains to go fishing, I pulled over in a turn-off because the bait shop did,nt open for another half hour.
A cop pulled up in front of me made me get out, run me through a sobriety test but did`nt give me a breathalizer test, when I insisted on taking one, I was slammed across the hood of my El Camino, cuffed and hauled in on a DUI(without my rightd bieng read to me).
They took a blood test when I arrived at the jail. When it was time to go to court, my name was`nt on the courtroom rouster and my files disappeared. Noone knew anything.
This did`nt suprise me for two simple reasons,(1) they did`nt read me my rights and (2)I don`t drink alchohol.
I`m not the only white person this and other types of harrassment has happened to. Whites get harrassed just as much,
it`s just not broadcast as much or put center stage.

So stop sympathizing those immigrants. What they did happens everyday in California. They deficate on sidewalks and harrass other people.
People get pretty damned fed up with it.

The point is, if they were as innoccent as they claim, there would be no reason to hide their names.

There's a dinstinction to be made between police officers abusing their authority, e.g. in your case allegedly assaulting you, and doing the job they've been tasked with, i.e. enforcing the law.

What the police in this town upstate were doing was analagous to the DWI checkpoints law enforcement creates in order to ensnare individuals who are suspected of driving while under the influence.

If this park were not a meeting place for people engaged in criminal conduct then the police would not be patrolling it.

That seemingly elementary concept is one that this nitwit judge-who should have never been appointed, let alone confirmed-simply fails to apprehend.

Why would a legal immigrant who worked hard to assimilate into this country and is experiencing backlash because of illegals be hanging around them at a day labor site?

Day Laborer defined:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_laborer

Nothing in Wikipedia stating illegal immigrant status is requirement for someone to be a day laborer. Defining day laborers as illegal immigrants is further proof that day laborers are stereotyped as illegal immigrants and therefore criminals. And don't forget that Latinos who are not day laborers were harassed as well.

All evidence in this case is the plaintiffs and other day laborers were a mix of illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, and U.S. Citizens. How can you make the assertion that all day laborers are illegal immigrants and criminals without knowing the details of their status? The town could not demonstrate any connection between the day laborers and crime.

There has been a day laborer's site in Mamaroneck for decades, which used to be predominately white day laborers until about a decade ago.

Jane Doe in Roe vs. Wade was anonymous as well. Jane Doe did nothing illegal, but didn't want to become a victum of extremist abortion foes. A desire for anonymity in a controversial court case is not proof of criminality.