Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (25675)	1/22/2004 6:30:43 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793903

My only problem with the "Patriot Act" is that I know it is going to end up being used like the "Rico Act." When people fuss about the Patriot Act, they're not talking about provisions for tapping cell phones. They're talking about abuse. Surely the WSJ knows that.

To: LindyBill who wrote (25675)	1/22/2004 6:46:38 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Respond to of 793903

My only problem with the "Patriot Act" is that I know it is going to end up being used like the "Rico Act." It already is. Judge rejects attempt to deport Despite partial victory, Garofano remains in jail Michael Gannon , Register Staff 01/17/2004 HARTFORD — A North Branford man will remain imprisoned for at least the weekend, and possibly for a good deal longer, despite a ruling Friday that terminated deportation hearings against him. An immigration judge dismissed the case against Luigi Garofano while the 56-year-old father of five applies for citizenship. But the attorney for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security reserved the federal government’s right to appeal the judge’s ruling. Garofano has been incarcerated and facing deportation to his native Italy since September, shortly after he and his wife returned from a trip to Italy through O’Hare International Airport in Chicago. A routine check while going through customs in August turned up a 1985 conviction on a narcotics charge. Three subsequent interviews with immigration officials in Hartford the next month led to his being sent to prison. He has been held at the maximum-security Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers. Outside the Abraham Ribicoff Federal Building on Friday, Garofano’s family and more than 70 supporters took heart in the partial victory, while worrying about his continued detainment. "We’re grateful that the judge terminated the case," said a crying Theresa Garofano. "But I am disgusted with the Department of Homeland Security for not releasing him during an appeal. We’ve been without him for months. He’s falling apart in jail." "He went back to Hartford three times," said Luigi Garofano Jr. "They know he won’t flee." The ruling of Immigration Judge Matthew D’Angelo allows the government to refile charges against Garofano in the future. Homeland Security attorney Robert Bingham said the government reserved the right to appeal the ruling, and has until Feb. 17 to decide whether to do so. Michael Boyle, a North Haven attorney who specializes in immigration matters, hopes the government will see its way clear to release Garofano, even if an appeal goes through. "He can be released on bond or his own recognizance," Boyle said. "If they appeal today’s ruling, it would be heard in … Virginia. "If he remains incarcerated, it could take six or eight months. If he’s released, it could take a year." Boyle said the head official at the Office for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Hartford is the person empowered to grant such a conditional release, but that he was not in town and would not return until Tuesday, after Martin Luther King Jr. Day. "I hope he will give the judge’s decision the respect it deserves," Boyle said. "To lock up a 56-year-old man … would be to rob him of the victory he won today." The victory came when D’Angelo ruled that Garofano met all three criteria that allowed a judge, rather than the federal government, to decide on the matter: that he had applied for naturalization, that there are compelling or humanitarian reasons why the judge should rule in his favor, and that the government conceded that he’s eligible to apply for naturalization. Both sides agreed that Garofano has in fact applied for naturalization. D’Angelo also found that Garofano’s request for dismissal met the federal standard for special compelling or humanitarian factors. Boyle argued that the hardship on Garofano’s wife and children would be disastrous if the family were to be split up, and that neither Garofano nor his wife would have the means to live or work in Italy. He cited more than 80 letters from friends and associates, many of whom met him through various youth and adult soccer programs over two decades. Boyle also was prepared to offer testimony from the head of the U.S. Probation Office and a U.S. attorney who were prepared to say Garofano’s role in the drug case was minor and that he had cooperated fully with them. "I find both compelling and humanitarian factors," D’Angelo said. He admitted he was concerned about two drunken-driving arrests since the conviction, but noted that both were dropped and were not in Garofano’s criminal file. Both arrests were brought to the court’s attention by Garofano. The sticking point was the third factor, requiring the DHS to acknowledge that Garofano was eligible for citizenship. Bingham argued that, to be eligible, Garofano had to have been legally admitted to the country, and argued that he had not since his detention was a result of the stop in Chicago. D’Angelo said the regulation required that legal admission was required when Garofano first entered the country in 1960 or at some later time. "The regulation says ‘or,’" D’Angelo said. "It does not say ‘and.’" D’Angelo ruled further that while Bingham argued that the DHS does not consider Garofano eligible to apply for citizenship, Boyle’s motion for dismissal dated Jan. 6 refers to a conversation with another DHS attorney who said he "would not disagree" that Garofano is eligible. D’Angelo ruled that the motion had been on file with Bingham’s office, and that he had made no response to it within the required 10 days that ended Friday. ctcentral.com