Comments on: County Files Motion For Lawsuit Dismissal

By: James Young

James Young — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:18:12 +0000

Sure thing, “Fredo.” Whatever you say.

By: freedom

freedom — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:22:00 +0000

those who need to know me, do, jimmy….and quite frankly I somehow don’t see your particular need…:)

By: manassascityresident

manassascityresident — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:50:55 +0000

Anonymous said on 31 Oct 2007 at 9:06 pm:
$1,000 fine and/or 1 year in jail for transporting or harboring an illegal alien in Oklahoma beginning at midnight.

OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: James Young

James Young — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:39:50 +0000

We understand that you act cowardly, “freedom.”

By: Vigilant1

Vigilant1 — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:32:33 +0000

News item from Oklahoma re federal judge thowing out suit brought about by illegal alien advocates to stop Oklahoma law becoming effective 1 November. Maybe the tide is turning…..FINALLY!

http://www.koco.com/news/14475678/detail.html

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:06:45 +0000

$1,000 fine and/or 1 year in jail for transporting or harboring an illegal alien in Oklahoma beginning at midnight.

By: freedom

freedom — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:35:26 +0000

We understand that you “think unwise,” jimmy…:)

By: Advocator

Advocator — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:33:17 +0000

A similar lawsuit against the state of OK was dismissed Monday. Reported at For The Cause (http://www.forthecause.us/):

Federal Judge Tosses Hispanic Group’s Lawsuit Against Oklahoma
A Tulsa federal judge Monday dismissed a Hispanic organization’s lawsuit challenging Oklahoma’s new immigration law, saying the group and several unnamed individuals lack standing to bring suit.U.S. District Judge James Payne dismissed the case without prejudice, which means that another lawsuit can be filed.The law, part of which are scheduled to go into effect Nov. 1, was challenged by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, two churches, Mexico Lindo Restaurants and several John and Jane Does.Payne said the coalition and its Oklahoma chapter lack standing because the lawsuit alleges no injury on the part of the group or any of its members. He also found lack of standing in the two churches’ contentions that the law has negatively affected their memberships and their stated fear that they will be subject to felony prosecution if they continue to transport undocumented aliens. However, Payne pointed out that his ruling does not close the courthouse door. “While a constitutional vetting of HB 1804 would serve the interest of all parties to this litigation, the interest of the public would best be served by a sharpening of the issues presented prior to such a vetting,” he wrote. “Such a sharpening can only be achieved through a suit brought by plaintiffs with well-defined injuries causally connected to HB 1804.”

By: anon

anon — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:53:01 +0000

I wouldn’t worry James Young. One would have to assume that folks here actually knew what they were talking about and/or that there were actual facts involved in the discussions or the blog itself. Don’t think that’s an issue.

By: James Young

James Young — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:05:59 +0000

I think it is unwise to comment on legal matters in a forum such as this, particularly as to technical matters like motions to dismiss, ripeness, standing, etc.

I am torn as to whether it is laymen or lawyers who are more unwise in doing so.

By: Advocator

Advocator — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:21:59 +0000

Mr. Smalls and Nova: Do either of you (or anyone else) have a link to the County’s response to the complaint? It’s difficult to assess the equities without having the documents themselves.

Thanks

By: Rob Smalls

Rob Smalls — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:02:23 +0000

NoVA Scout said on 31 Oct 2007 at 8:37 am:
“The defense seems to be that the measures enacted by the BOCS will not have the effects that their supporters said they would have. ”

No, their defense is that what the plaintiff said WILL happen has not happened, and that the plaintiff has based their entire lawsuit on a maybe, which doesn’t pass the smell test when determining if a law is harmful in court. The plaintiff has to prove the measure has done the harm they say it does, and it has not.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:23:20 +0000

Anybody have a link to PWC’s Answer and Motion in this lawsuit?

By: Vigilant1

Vigilant1 — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:05:30 +0000

Did anyone catch Kaine’s spin on the radio that he is doing everything possible to protect us from illegal immigration. He has “his” national guard troops on the border with Mexico protecting the U.S. and has “his” State Police checking on the immigration status of suspected illegals. I thought he said he would NOT involve the State Police and illegal immigration is a Federal problem. There must be an election coming up soon.

By: freedom

freedom — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:05:27 +0000

ok…:) A lawsuit can be filed at any time. If the enacted resolution resulted in unjust harm to me, I could file suit against the county. However, I don’t have much of a case until that occurs….filing suit, just because the “potential” exists that I MIGHT BE harmed isn’t much of a case.

The defense of the County doesn’t have a whit to do with whether the measures enacted by the BOCS will not have the the desired effect or not.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:58:34 +0000

NoVA Scout on 31 Oct 2007 at 8:37 am:

HUH? Can you put that comment in English?

By: freedom

freedom — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:58:33 +0000

Well now, if THAT isn’t a twist…:) “…will not have the effects that their supporters said they would have.”

No, I don’t think that’s the defense at all….seems pretty elemental to me…until someone is unjustly harmed by the enactment of the resolution, there is no need being in the courtroom.

By: NoVA Scout

NoVA Scout — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:37:53 +0000

The defense seems to be that the measures enacted by the BOCS will not have the effects that their supporters said they would have. Amusing, yes? If that is the case (and I suspect it well may be), we than have the spectacle of the plaintiffs chasing the palapable, but legally elusive ill will that underlay the resolution and the defendants trying to stave this off by claiming that what they did doesn’t have much relation to the rhetoric of why they said they did it.