Posted on 04/13/2005 2:10:42 PM PDT by Mamie2010
On March 8, 2005, Jerry Seper reported in The Washington Times that the Supreme and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco "backs immigrants in job lawsuit" after the district court magistrate refused to allow the defendant from questioning the 'immigration status' of the plaintiffs under their Title VII claim for "unlawful" discrimination.
Appellate Judge Stephen Reinhardt, whose Ramona Ripston is president of the Los Angeles chapter of the ACLU. wrote his "opinion" in the case saying "Granting employers the right to inquire into workers' immigration status in cases like this would allow them to raise implicitly the threat of deportation and criminal prosecution every time a worker, documented or undocumented, reports illegal practices or files a Title VII action."
The Constitution for the United States established the judicial power of the federal courts that "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States ... between citizens of the same state ... " and whether the plaintiffs are 'citizens' of the United States entitled to the 'privilege' of suing in the courts of the United States determines the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case. Article VI explicitly provides that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme law of the Land...and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." The Judiciary is restricted to the confines of the Constitution and not "opinion' or personal agenda.
Federal judges are 'unconstitutionally' amending provisions of the Constitution conferring unlawful jurisdiction upon itself and and granting 'privileges' of citizenship upon "illegal aliens" and "foreign nationals" without the consent ir ratification of the States. Federal judges are operating "outside of the law" -- Congress does nothing.
"Aliens" -- "documented or undocumented" -- are not "persons" under the Constitution entitled to the privilege of suing in the courts of the United States and "their acts of pretended legislation " is unconstitutional. "Aliens" are 'ficticious plaintiffs' not permitted in federal cases under 'Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,' only a citizen can sue as per Article III of the Constitution and the courts holding that "There being no fictitious party practice in the courts of the United States, it is hereby ORDERED that the ction be DISMISSED as to all fictitious parties. Dismissal is without prejudice to the right of any party to take advantage of the provisions of Rule 15(c), Fed.R.Civ.P" -- as a 'matter of law' 'fictitious parties' never existed in the first place.
Title VII bars discrimination based on national origin and protects all United States citizens whether the citizens be African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Italian-Americans, Native-Americans, Irish-Americans, Arab-Americans, Russian-Americans, etc. Title VII protects "national origin" and not "foreign nationals" -- regardless of whether they are legal or 'illegal' immigrants.
Federal agents raided Wal-Mart stores across the country and arrested "illegal" workers in 21 states. In a settlement to the United States for knowingly hiring illegal aliens, Wal-Mart paid an $11 million and 12 of it's contractors agreed to pay $4 million and pled guilty to criminal immigration charges.
Executives and managers of Tyson Foods Inc. were indicted with a 36-counts for conspiracy to smuggle illegal aliens to its U.S. facilities for profit. Tyson Foods aided and abetted illegal aliens by obtaining false documents so they could work at processing plants "under the false pretense of being legally employable."
It is unlawful to hire any individual for employment in the United States without complying with employment eligibility verification requirements and any person will be subject to prosecution, criminal fines, and imprisonment under the laws of the United States for transporting, hiring and harboring "illegal aliens." 8 USC Sec 1324 provides that "Any person who . . . encourages or induces an illegal alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each illegal alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the judges of the Supreme Court and district court are in violation of the Constitution and their judicial oath to "preserve, protect and defend ... the Constitution of the United States" as well as 8 USC Sec 1324 because "Any person" does not exclude federal judges. Conspiracy to commit the "criminal acts" is a separate federal offense under 18 USC Sec 371.
Federal judges are 'unconstitutionally' amending provisions of the Constitution conferring unlawful jurisdiction upon itself and and granting 'privileges' of citizenship upon "illegal aliens" and "foreign nationals" without the consent ir ratification of the States. Federal judges are operating "outside of the law" -- Congress does nothing.
=====
Of course they are, and it is ILLEGAL AS CAN BE. For those unfamiliar with some basic law, ** judges are NOT ALLOWED to legislate from the bench ** - that means they are not allowed TO MAKE LAWS from the bench, only enforce and APPLY EXISTING LAW TO DECISIONS.
Were you watching during the 2000 elections when the liberal/leftist activist judges in Florida tried to pull this very trick to throw the election in favor of Gore, by TRYING TO RE-WRITE FLORIDA ELECTION LAW from the bench, and were slapped down by the Supreme Court for their illegal attempt to do so.
Breaking the law is standard fare for these liberal renegade activist judges.
Were you watching during the 2000 elections when the liberal/leftist activist judges in Florida tried to pull this very trick to throw the election in favor of Gore, by TRYING TO RE-WRITE FLORIDA ELECTION LAW from the bench, and were slapped down by the Supreme Court for their illegal attempt to do so.
aka when "Bush stole the election"? ...
I can feel the pain, there's nothing worse than a judge constantly changing your 'burden of proof' so they can rule against you
Breaking the law is standard fare for these liberal renegade activist judges.
=======
The obvious questions are, When is it going to STOP... and who has the GUTS to stop it??? ;-))
Does Congress care less about this or the open borders?
I don't think either is really on the radar of Congress
I am not defending the 9th Circuit's decision in this case, which is ridiculous, but the part of your post which I quoted is just gibberish. Aliens are specifically authorized by the Constitution to sue in federal court: Article III, section 2, gives jurisdiction to federal courts in suits "between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
Article III, section 2, gives jurisdiction to federal courts in suits "between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
a "foreign state" was another state in the union.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 codified at 28 U.S.C. §1350, referred to the Alien Tort Statute, explicitly confers to aliens the privilege of suing for an actionable "tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States"
an "alien" is not entitled to sue for violations of the laws of the United States -- those laws are for the citizens and states only.
BUMP
According to this Ramona Ripston belongs to Stephen Reinhardt. Is this "Ramona Ripston" a person? A slave? If it is a woman who is Presicent of the LA chapter of the ACLU, it is doubtful that she belongs to Judge Reinhardt. More likely it is the other way round.
No, a foreign state means a foreign country. That is why it says "citizens or subjects thereof." U.S. states have citizens, foreign countries (sometimes) have subjects.
an "alien" is not entitled to sue for violations of the laws of the United States -- those laws are for the citizens and states only.
If that were the law, there would be no international trade or commerce, because no foreign buyer or seller of goods could sue for breach of contract.
I see what you mean -- wife was in there, I don't know how it got deleted
I had always thought a "foreign state" was a state not in the union ...
Yeah?
SOWADDAYAGONNADOABOUDIT!?
Here come da judge, here come da judge
d;^)
Of course, judges are a serious problem, but they're not the only problem. Neither the President nor the Congress are fulfilling their duty to protect our borders. When the inevitable happens and violence results, they'll all trot out that old standby - respect for the "rule of law" - to shut us up while they've been standing the law on its ear for years. Bush is way too "cozied up" with Vicente Fox to suit me and, as a result, he's screwing us all.
You must have hand typed the post. It would be hard to type somethinhg this long without some errors creeping in.
Also, I don't know about you, but my failure rate in prcking up typos proofreading from a computer screen is abysmal.
Stuff like this gets by me all the time, unless I print it out forst and read the printed page. Then the errors jump right out.
And there I go. "somethinhg"..... I read that over twice before hitting the "post" button.
hey it happens to all of us! I guess I'm just use to it ...
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.