Posted on 04/20/2010 9:07:43 AM PDT by bcsco
Yeah, good question. And that's an affirmative defense to the issue of the use of the word "criminal". Wouldn't avail you much on the issue of falsely claiming someone was wanted for robbery.
This is what you get with Quisling traitor judges.
I don’t miss Cali.
See the quote in my post #80. The plaintiff had been tried in criminal court in 2007.
So what is he suppose to be called?
A law breaking Alien?
This really points up why we’re going to hell. Here we have an illegal alien (a criminal) who can use our courts to file a law suit against an American citizen and gain a monetary amount which will increase his country’s GDP by 10%. PURE INSANITY!!
He may have been able to construct a silly paper hat from it too . The plaintiff had a lawyer and the defendant did not , and you want to assume the pleading favored Mr Scwilk ?
His lawyer was smart enough not to have his client show up so Scwilk could not prove his affirmative defense with the plaintiff's own testimony .
Oldest trick in the book prove your case with you opposition testimony . Second oldest , have your client lay low so they can't do that .
Is this a joke. The judge held the trial WITHOUT the Plaintiff? WTH?
Maybe it’s just me, I usually wait until somebody’s actually been convicted of a crime before I call them a criminal. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.
You might want to look up exactly who the charges were filed against in this case before you start calling people criminals because they’ve been charged.
You’re still missing the point, the issue here is not the question of whether someone who’s entered the country in violation of our laws can be called a “criminal”. That’s Jeff’s spin, but it’s not the issue that produced the ruling.
So did Schwilk tell the judge to go look it up ?
revolution is the solution!!
Yep.
No, you're the one who's interested, you go find it. I said so before. Do it. The plaintiff was identified by the victim as having attacked him. There was a 2007 trial, so the DA apparently felt he had enough evidence to convict. I don't know the outcome, but also am not interested. It's you who are, so you do the work.
If I want to consider him a criminal, I will. He was here illegally, after all. And while not technically considered a criminal offense, I consider it such. And always will.
No, if you look at my post #80, and consider it in context, you'll see that Monti, the victim, testified on behalf of Schwilk, and stated in his testimony that the plaintiff was an illegal alien based on the plaintiff's prior testimony.
Unless of course you’re a terrorist and enemy combatant. /s
OH, I did go find it. I was trying to give you the opportunity to save yourself some embarassment, but.. oh well.
So, where is it?
One link is on post 92, here’s another one
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_771df5ce-bfba-5fff-8cab-d1a30d767310.html
There’s two ways to interpret the sentence, “Monti said that Jimenez testified at his trial”. The word “his” is subject to misinterpretation which is probably what the author intended.
And the DOJ recently blocked an institution from asking applicants for proof-of-citizenship. Said it was "unconstitutional"...
It states there the illegals were the victims in 2006, yet the real victim (IMO), Monti, claims they attacked him after the police left and he had to defend himself. Interestingly, all but the current plaintiff dropped their suit against Monti and Fox News. One has to wonder over that if they indeed were the victims...
Frankly, I'm more than inclined to believe the true victim in this case than I am the 7 illegals. And you're using a pro-illegal website to bolster your argument doesn't do it for me.
I'll stick with the facts of the story I posted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.