The U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) has agreed to listen to arguments in a pair of cases involving immigrants.On Wednesday, justices will hear oral arguments in Flores-Figueroa v. U.S. where a Mexican immigrant was convicted for using a false social security number and resident alien card to obtain work. Lawyers for Ignacio Flores-Figueroa argued that it was not conclusively proven that he knew that the documents did not belong to him. Thus, the USSC will examine if “an individual who used a false means of identification but did not know it belonged to another person can be convicted of ‘aggravated identity theft’”. (Those guilty of the law in question “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.”)
Yesterday the USSC agreed to hear oral arguments this fall in the case of Padilla v. Kentucky. The case involves the issue of legal representation of prospective deportees; a contentious subject that has never resolved by the top court. The issue has become more contested after former Attorney General Michael Mukasey said last month that immigrants have no right to legal counsel.
As to be expected differing sides of the immigration debate have distinct arguments on Padilla v. Kentucky:
“In the past, there was a right to be represented by an attorney, just not at the expense of the government,” said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Law Foundation...If you don’t have a right to an attorney you don’t have an opportunity to say I want to talk to a lawyer. This gives a much stronger green light to those judges that they can push the cases ahead”…Image- China daily
Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (said) “there’s a traditional division between criminal and civil proceedings...When you send somebody home, you’re sending them home. It’s not punitive. You’re simply making a determination as to their civil status,” he said. “The illegal immigrations advocates want everybody to get O.J. Simpson’s version of a deportation hearing.” [Ed. - Laying it thick on the hyperbole, huh Dan?]
Online Sources- The Washington Independent, AP, Oyez, SCOTUSblog, The Latin Americanist
I read my local newspaper article of February 22, 2009 on the case of Flores-Figueroa v. U.S., 08-108.
ReplyDeleteI am completely numbed to hear that more than 20 immigrants' rights groups are representing Mr. Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa. An illegal immigrant from Mexico who was charged with identity theft. Perhaps even more shocking is that the United States Supreme Court took up the certiorari.
You see Mr. Masterson I am a law abiding American Citizen.
I have been battling my local school district in San Diego California since the year 2000.
Since the year 2000 I contacted so many non-profit organizations for assistance and received no assistance. In fact I would not be surprised if the 20 listed organizations were the same one I contacted for assistance.
I filed a case in federal court in pro se in an IDEA case (Individual with Disabilities Ed. Act.) I was dismissed because I was not a licensed attorney to represent my child. I appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court and my case was used in the oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court Winkelman Certiorari. Well, the Supreme Court ruled in favor or the Winkelman’s. When my case came up for appeal over 16-months later (after the Winkelman’s ruling) in the 9th circuit court. It was papered with the other pro se cases in the “NINTH CIRCUIT PRO SE TASK FORCE.” The Ninth Circuit judges who papered my case were B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW.
Not only did I not have an opportunity for my case to be heard by a three-judge panel. My case was dismissed in an unpublished Memorandum with cases that were totally irrelevant to my appeal by Circuit Judges B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW. To make matters worst the 9th Circuit panel disregarded the U.S. Supreme Court Winkelman’s decision in its entirety. I filed a Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court and on the day my case came up all of the cases on the docket were dismissed. Yes, the Supreme Court does not look over cases either [The U.S. Supreme Court receives over 7,500 requests for certiorari per year and only accepts less than 70 cases.]
The reason why I am writing this is that I honestly lost faith and respect for my own government.
I am ashamed to be an American.
The judges in the Ninth Circuit Court were the most liberal judges who have ruled in favor of illegal aliens consistently and have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court various times. All of the organizations that I went to for assistance turned me down. Yes I am sure the organizations that are helping illegal immigrant Mr. Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa were the same organizations that turned me down.
Now I know that these same organizations operated and run by public grants paid for by our tax dollars. So how do you think I feel knowing that illegal aliens who violate the law like Mr. Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa have access to UNITED STATES COURTS? While AMERICAN CITIZENS like myself are DENIED ACCESS to the courts or the right to have their appeal be heard by a three-judge panel?
Yes Justice in not blind and America has no respect or grant rights to its own citizens.
While illegal aliens have access to the courts Americans are routinely DENIED ACCESS TO THE COURTS.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-983.pdf
http://www.olrs.ohio.gov/asp/winkelmandecision.asp
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/23/scotus-immigration-022309/#comments
Supreme Court hears immigrant's ID theft case
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/02/22/news/nation/zabedb1ec90034bd088257565007e8f43.txt
I believe that what it all amounts to is DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS FOR WOMEN in this country. Particularly in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, District Federal Courts and state courts. There are a lot of women who have been denied access to the courts in the United States particularly in California the most liberal state.
One would think that an organization would take up their cause. To protect the rights of women to bring their grievances in a proper forum but not so in the United States.
Since women do not have rights to the courts in the United States of America there must be an international organization that would be willing to take up the cause. Perhaps in Europe or in the Middle East, who would want to fight for American Women to protect their constitutional rights and have access to the U.S. Courts.
You may contact your local California newspaper to contact these invisible women because the newspapers all know about them. Have refused to write a newspaper article about the issue. But hey!!! Lets keep protecting and advocating for illegal aliens and turn our back on American Citizens.
Case in point today decision in the Ninth Circuit Appeals of Soto-Olarte v. Holder, No. 06-71822 a illegal alien immigration case. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the illegal alien.
On the other hand the NINTH CIRCUIT COURT of APPEALS has completely denied access to pro se WOMEN to have access the courts in the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
cases like:
Houston v. EUSD, in the USDC Southern district of California and 9th Cir.
Stewart v, PUSD, in the USDC Southern district of California and 9th Cir.
Peters v. Guajome Park Academy in the USDC Southern district of California and 9th Cir.
Russell vs. the Department of Education [Hawaii] 9th circuit court
Blanchard v. Morton School District, 9th circuit court
Shinoff v. Larkins USDC Southern district of California and CA state court
so what's your point? maybe this is why your case got dismissed, because you never stated your point. FyI the laws are clearly written to adress the issue, if you don't know the rule of law with all element that applies to your issue you got no case. Simple as that.
ReplyDelete