"...Easy jimpit. Just trying to help you see a different
perspective. I, for one, really have my doubts that the
S.Ct. will choose this particular case to rewrite our laws..."
Rewrite WHAT laws? If we're still talking about Elian and
the manner in which HE is being denied a proper hearing in
court after being illegally kidnapped at gunpoint, please reread
Napolitano's view of the events below. Are you
familiar enough with INS law to dispute him? I'm no
attorney, but, my view of what he's saying is that
Reno/Hillary/Slick grossly violated, and ARE violating,
EXISTING laws.
Here's the Napolitano piece from NewsMax:
_______________________________________________________
NewsMax.com
newsmax.com
For the story behind the story...
Thursday April 27, 2000; 11:38 PM EDT
Napolitano: 'Indict Reno for Kidnapping'
Florida Governor Jeb Bush should convene a grand
jury and attempt to indict Attorney General
Janet Reno for Saturday's gunpoint abduction of
6-year-old Cuban refugee Elian Gonzalez.
That's the opinion of former New Jersey Superior
Court Judge Andrew Napolitano, who made the
shocking assertion Thursday night on Fox News
Channel's Hannity & Colmes.
Arguing that the Justice Department had gone far
beyond what the law allowed in the Gonzalez
case, Napolitano told Fox:
"The search warrant was unlawful. The seizure of
the boy was in direct violation of the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals. And Jeb Bush should go
before a grand jury in Florida and ask that
Janet Reno be indicted for kidnapping."
Since last Saturday's pre-dawn raid, Napolitano
has become one of Reno's more outspoken legal
critics. On Wednesday he penned a forceful op-ed
piece for The Wall Street Journal entitled
"Reno's Raid Was Based on Tissue of Lies."
But Napolitano reserves his strongest rhetoric
for the talk show circuit, where his arguments
often defy conventional legal wisdom.
Nationally syndicated radio host Lowell Ponte
cited one of Napolitano's more remarkable Elian
case insights in his Monday column for Front
Page Magazine Online (See: Search and Seizure)
Noting that the INS appointed Elian's
great-uncle Lazaro Gonzalez to be the boy's
legal guardian and that Lazaro has already
applied for Elian's asylum, Ponte wrote:
"As veteran Judge Andrew Napolitano has
observed, under federal law and INS regulations,
once such an asylum claim is filed, the INS and
Justice Department lose all power to remove the
original guardian. If they could do this, the
government could deny any asylum application a
fair hearing merely by assigning a new and
unfriendly guardian to his case."
If the judge's argument turns out to be legally
sound, it could have devastating implications
for the Clinton administration. For instance, it
would make the Justice Department's gunpoint
abduction of Elian a gross violation of the law
and perhaps provide the foundation for the
kidnapping indictment Napolitano envisions.
The former Superior Court judge, who now teaches
constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School,
made the same case Wednesday on Sean Hannity's
New York radio show:
"The federal court had already ruled that
[Elian] was lawfully in the house. Why? Because
the INS chose Lazaro as the guardian. And the
INS designated the place for the boy to live -
in Lazaro's house. Now the INS attempted to
change that. But they made the mistake of
attempting to change the idenitity of the
guardian and the place of the boy's residence
after the application for asylum was made."
Napolitano continued:
"If they had made that change before Lazaro and
Elian filed an application for asylum, they
could do it. But once the application for
political asylum has been made, the INS loses
its power to change the identity of the guardian
and the place of residence for the boy."
Obviously, the Clinton gang doesn't see it that
way. But if the courts concur with Napolitano,
the Elian Gonzalez case could turn out to be the
most prosecutable of all Clinton administration
scandals.
All Rights Reserved ¸ NewsMax.com
______________________________________________________________
"...But, when it comes down to a child suing his mother
because he/she does not want his mother forcing her religion
(let's say that is some Protestant denomination) on him/her
what would you say then? Or, what if a child sued his
parents becuase they wouldn't let him move to Cuba to live
with the other socialists because he believes their system
to be superior. Or when a kid sues his dad for assault and
battery when the kid gets a spanking..."
I know, I know... you and I could probably think of
thousands of "what if" examples like this. And given
enough time, all of them, and many more we haven't thought
of, will pass through the courts. If you need someone to
blame for that, you might do well to review the history of
the profession of your choice and organizations like the
ACLU, etc. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the
laws in this country were written of lawyers, by lawyers,
and for lawyers. <g>
"...Maybe I am not giving you enough credit here, but I
just don't think you are really taking this to through to
the disasters that could result from Dersh's position. I
think Dersh is a brilliant man, but he is just a little
radical for my tastes..."
Of course, Dersh is *beyond* radical. I was enraged at him
because of his participation in the O.J. Trial and Slick's
impeachment trial... and probably 100's of other times over
the years. But... I agree with him on this! $hit happens.
What can I say?
"Finally, with regard to this trash:
Not only are you misquoting me, you are presuming to think
for me. Typical of the "...we know what's best for you..."
socialist elite establishment that is the Clinton
Administration.
I didn't realise I had misquoted you. I apologize."
I accept your apology without reservation. Thank you.
I presume your "trash" remark was aimed at my reference to:
"...you are presuming to think for me. Typical of the
"we know what's best for you" socialist elite establishment
that is the Clinton Administration."
That IS my opinion of what the Clinton Administration
is all about. I did not assign those attributes to you.
Although I can see, upon rereading the passage, that they
could easily have been interpreted that way. I also
apologize. |
