Suspected rapist's father arrested by ICE

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't US citizens rather be debating other issues than this rape ? Obama didn't follow the law. Prosecutorial discretion deployed.

What do you expect from Obama who pardoned a terrorist responsible for real deaths? NYC is crazed that this creature is on city council:

Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, was/is thrilled with the pardon. This is Obama's legacy. http://nypost.com/2017/01/17/puerto-rican-terrorist-among-prisoners-freed-by-obama/

“I’m so very excited and happy for Oscar. It’s been a long road and I’ve been very invested in this case personally and emotionally, so it’s overwhelming,” she said. “This was an unjust sentencing and it’s been 35 years of having been in jail for his political convictions.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Jezic & Moyse ($$$$$$) claim this man is paying them to represent his son? Very interesting, see in the interview:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/tucker-to-defense-attorney-are-you-putting-your-soul-on-the-line-by-impugning-teen-rape-victim/

The attorney would not say who is paying for the defense. All he said was that the family hired him. That doesn’t mean that the family is paying him.
It does make one wonder where the money is coming from ... and if the accused man’s father is paying. Looks like he’ll be paying an attorney of his own now.

It's a violation of attorney-client privilege to state who is paying him -- that's why the attorney didn't say.

Incorrect. Fee payment arrangements typically are not deemed to be a confidential communication subject to protection.

I see nothing in the ABA model guidelines that states fee information is NOT confidential information:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/comment_on_rule_1_6.html

On top of that, if the client asks for this information not to be revealed, their attorney should comply. At the very least, that's what happened.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't US citizens rather be debating other issues than this rape ? Obama didn't follow the law. Prosecutorial discretion deployed.

What do you expect from Obama who pardoned a terrorist responsible for real deaths? NYC is crazed that this creature is on city council:

Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, was/is thrilled with the pardon. This is Obama's legacy. http://nypost.com/2017/01/17/puerto-rican-terrorist-among-prisoners-freed-by-obama/

“I’m so very excited and happy for Oscar. It’s been a long road and I’ve been very invested in this case personally and emotionally, so it’s overwhelming,” she said. “This was an unjust sentencing and it’s been 35 years of having been in jail for his political convictions.”

That person is not responsible for real deaths. Please don't spread false information.

But, if you are interested in a off-topic discussion about who let whom out of prison, let's discuss Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee who let Maurice Clemmons out of prison and then Clemmons went on to kill four police officers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120102601.html

Huckabee also released Wayne DuMond, a convicted rapist who went on to commit another rape after being released.

If this is the sort of thing you propose debating, I'm all for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Jezic & Moyse ($$$$$$) claim this man is paying them to represent his son? Very interesting, see in the interview:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/tucker-to-defense-attorney-are-you-putting-your-soul-on-the-line-by-impugning-teen-rape-victim/

The attorney would not say who is paying for the defense. All he said was that the family hired him. That doesn’t mean that the family is paying him.
It does make one wonder where the money is coming from ... and if the accused man’s father is paying. Looks like he’ll be paying an attorney of his own now.

It's a violation of attorney-client privilege to state who is paying him -- that's why the attorney didn't say.

Incorrect. Fee payment arrangements typically are not deemed to be a confidential communication subject to protection.

I see nothing in the ABA model guidelines that states fee information is NOT confidential information:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/comment_on_rule_1_6.html

On top of that, if the client asks for this information not to be revealed, their attorney should comply. At the very least, that's what happened.

So who EXACTLY is the client here:

The rapist?
The father who's now in trouble himself?
Or the mystery person/organization paying off the lawyer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Jezic & Moyse ($$$$$$) claim this man is paying them to represent his son? Very interesting, see in the interview:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/tucker-to-defense-attorney-are-you-putting-your-soul-on-the-line-by-impugning-teen-rape-victim/

The attorney would not say who is paying for the defense. All he said was that the family hired him. That doesn’t mean that the family is paying him.
It does make one wonder where the money is coming from ... and if the accused man’s father is paying. Looks like he’ll be paying an attorney of his own now.

It's a violation of attorney-client privilege to state who is paying him -- that's why the attorney didn't say.

Incorrect. Fee payment arrangements typically are not deemed to be a confidential communication subject to protection.

I see nothing in the ABA model guidelines that states fee information is NOT confidential information:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/comment_on_rule_1_6.html

On top of that, if the client asks for this information not to be revealed, their attorney should comply. At the very least, that's what happened.

So who EXACTLY is the client here:

The rapist?
The father who's now in trouble himself?
Or the mystery person/organization paying off the lawyer?

Anyone?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't US citizens rather be debating other issues than this rape ? Obama didn't follow the law. Prosecutorial discretion deployed.

What do you expect from Obama who pardoned a terrorist responsible for real deaths? NYC is crazed that this creature is on city council:

Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, was/is thrilled with the pardon. This is Obama's legacy. http://nypost.com/2017/01/17/puerto-rican-terrorist-among-prisoners-freed-by-obama/

“I’m so very excited and happy for Oscar. It’s been a long road and I’ve been very invested in this case personally and emotionally, so it’s overwhelming,” she said. “This was an unjust sentencing and it’s been 35 years of having been in jail for his political convictions.”

That person is not responsible for real deaths. Please don't spread false information.

But, if you are interested in a off-topic discussion about who let whom out of prison, let's discuss Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee who let Maurice Clemmons out of prison and then Clemmons went on to kill four police officers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120102601.html

Huckabee also released Wayne DuMond, a convicted rapist who went on to commit another rape after being released.

If this is the sort of thing you propose debating, I'm all for it.

I don't believe Huckabee should have released those people either. More on FALN http://www.npr.org/2017/01/15/509914267/pardon-sought-for-prisoner-who-fought-for-puerto-rican-independence

It is interesting that many people here [not on DCUM] never heard of the FALN bombings. Puerto Rico independence or statehood is another potential topic. Colonialism was/is the issue with the FALN. Should the USA cut off ties to Puerto Rico? No more citizenship etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Jezic & Moyse ($$$$$$) claim this man is paying them to represent his son? Very interesting, see in the interview:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/tucker-to-defense-attorney-are-you-putting-your-soul-on-the-line-by-impugning-teen-rape-victim/

The attorney would not say who is paying for the defense. All he said was that the family hired him. That doesn’t mean that the family is paying him.
It does make one wonder where the money is coming from ... and if the accused man’s father is paying. Looks like he’ll be paying an attorney of his own now.

It's a violation of attorney-client privilege to state who is paying him -- that's why the attorney didn't say.

Incorrect. Fee payment arrangements typically are not deemed to be a confidential communication subject to protection.

I see nothing in the ABA model guidelines that states fee information is NOT confidential information:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/comment_on_rule_1_6.html

On top of that, if the client asks for this information not to be revealed, their attorney should comply. At the very least, that's what happened.

So who EXACTLY is the client here:

The rapist?
The father who's now in trouble himself?
Or the mystery person/organization paying off the lawyer?

Anyone?

What is your question? The client of the minor's lawyer is the minor.

[Anonymous]

As an ideological matter, I do think that people who do not have legal authorization to be here have committed a crime and should be deported back to their home countries to get in line to immigrate legally. As a practical matter, we have been letting it slide for so long that it's much more complex than just rounding everyone up and sending them away. We really need meaningful reform in this area. I would support a path to citizenship for those who can prove they've been living in this country peacefully and productively for X years (5 years, maybe?). Anyone who cannot prove they have been here that long or have criminal records, etc. can go. From then on, we actually enforce the laws on the books. If the laws we have aren't working, lets change them. This problem has been festering long enough. People either need to be able to obtain legal status or we need to actually deport those who have broken immigration laws. It does not benefit anyone to have this strange gray area.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As an ideological matter, I do think that people who do not have legal authorization to be here have committed a crime and should be deported back to their home countries to get in line to immigrate legally. As a practical matter, we have been letting it slide for so long that it's much more complex than just rounding everyone up and sending them away. We really need meaningful reform in this area. I would support a path to citizenship for those who can prove they've been living in this country peacefully and productively for X years (5 years, maybe?). Anyone who cannot prove they have been here that long or have criminal records, etc. can go. From then on, we actually enforce the laws on the books. If the laws we have aren't working, lets change them. This problem has been festering long enough. People either need to be able to obtain legal status or we need to actually deport those who have broken immigration laws. It does not benefit anyone to have this strange gray area.

+1

It's not a grey area. Follow the law, deport all illegals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great news. Thanks for sharing, OP.

Please describe why it is great news. You're confirming what I thought about this case, that the people dwelling on it are the ones who already wanted all of the undocumented out in the first place. A majority of Americans actually support a path to citizenship.

As an ideological matter, I do think that people who do not have legal authorization to be here have committed a crime and should be deported back to their home countries to get in line to immigrate legally. As a practical matter, we have been letting it slide for so long that it's much more complex than just rounding everyone up and sending them away. We really need meaningful reform in this area. I would support a path to citizenship for those who can prove they've been living in this country peacefully and productively for X years (5 years, maybe?). Anyone who cannot prove they have been here that long or have criminal records, etc. can go. From then on, we actually enforce the laws on the books. If the laws we have aren't working, lets change them. This problem has been festering long enough. People either need to be able to obtain legal status or we need to actually deport those who have broken immigration laws. It does not benefit anyone to have this strange gray area.

Where is this "line" that you speak of?

https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/immigrant-process.html

You file your paperwork and then you wait.

From the website you linked:

To be eligible to apply for an immigrant visa, a foreign citizen must be sponsored by a U.S. citizen relative, U.S. lawful permanent resident, or a prospective employer, with a few exceptions, explained below

So no, someone doesn't just file their paperwork and wait. They need to be lucky enough to have a family member who is a citizen or permanent relative, or have a job offer from an employer.

There's a reason for those rules. It's to ensure the safety of the American people and also to ensure that individual isn't a burden to the American people.

That may or may not be true. But it also makes anyone who uses the "get in line" rhetoric an uniformed idiot.

It is common for legal immigrants' family reunion to take up to 5 years., I know that for a fact. Because there a 'line, - immigration services get to the case when they get to it, basically. There are types of visas that are urgent and not urgent, and pretty limited immigrations services workforce. An uniformed idiot is you.

Family reunion only applies if you have family legally in the U.S. to sponsor you. Your comment above didn't specify people with family legally here. For people without family, or specific professional expertise, there is no "line" to get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As an ideological matter, I do think that people who do not have legal authorization to be here have committed a crime and should be deported back to their home countries to get in line to immigrate legally. As a practical matter, we have been letting it slide for so long that it's much more complex than just rounding everyone up and sending them away. We really need meaningful reform in this area. I would support a path to citizenship for those who can prove they've been living in this country peacefully and productively for X years (5 years, maybe?). Anyone who cannot prove they have been here that long or have criminal records, etc. can go. From then on, we actually enforce the laws on the books. If the laws we have aren't working, lets change them. This problem has been festering long enough. People either need to be able to obtain legal status or we need to actually deport those who have broken immigration laws. It does not benefit anyone to have this strange gray area.

+1

+2

I know there's no laches in immigration law, but for illegal immigrants who after so many years of living peacefully and abiding by laws, it seems to me that there should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Jezic & Moyse ($$$$$$) claim this man is paying them to represent his son? Very interesting, see in the interview:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/tucker-to-defense-attorney-are-you-putting-your-soul-on-the-line-by-impugning-teen-rape-victim/

The attorney would not say who is paying for the defense. All he said was that the family hired him. That doesn’t mean that the family is paying him.
It does make one wonder where the money is coming from ... and if the accused man’s father is paying. Looks like he’ll be paying an attorney of his own now.

It's a violation of attorney-client privilege to state who is paying him -- that's why the attorney didn't say.

Incorrect. Fee payment arrangements typically are not deemed to be a confidential communication subject to protection.

I see nothing in the ABA model guidelines that states fee information is NOT confidential information:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/comment_on_rule_1_6.html

On top of that, if the client asks for this information not to be revealed, their attorney should comply. At the very least, that's what happened.

So who EXACTLY is the client here:

The rapist?
The father who's now in trouble himself?
Or the mystery person/organization paying off the lawyer?

Anyone?

What is your question? The client of the minor's lawyer is the minor.

The 18 year old is legally an adult, we have no verification for his real age, do we?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Jezic & Moyse ($$$$$$) claim this man is paying them to represent his son? Very interesting, see in the interview:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/tucker-to-defense-attorney-are-you-putting-your-soul-on-the-line-by-impugning-teen-rape-victim/

The attorney would not say who is paying for the defense. All he said was that the family hired him. That doesn’t mean that the family is paying him.
It does make one wonder where the money is coming from ... and if the accused man’s father is paying. Looks like he’ll be paying an attorney of his own now.

It's a violation of attorney-client privilege to state who is paying him -- that's why the attorney didn't say.

Incorrect. Fee payment arrangements typically are not deemed to be a confidential communication subject to protection.

I see nothing in the ABA model guidelines that states fee information is NOT confidential information:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/comment_on_rule_1_6.html

On top of that, if the client asks for this information not to be revealed, their attorney should comply. At the very least, that's what happened.

So who EXACTLY is the client here:

The rapist?
The father who's now in trouble himself?
Or the mystery person/organization paying off the lawyer?

Anyone?

What is your question? The client of the minor's lawyer is the minor.

The 18 year old is legally an adult, we have no verification for his real age, do we?

*but we ....

[Anonymous]

Exactly how do you verify his age?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As an ideological matter, I do think that people who do not have legal authorization to be here have committed a crime and should be deported back to their home countries to get in line to immigrate legally. As a practical matter, we have been letting it slide for so long that it's much more complex than just rounding everyone up and sending them away. We really need meaningful reform in this area. I would support a path to citizenship for those who can prove they've been living in this country peacefully and productively for X years (5 years, maybe?). Anyone who cannot prove they have been here that long or have criminal records, etc. can go. From then on, we actually enforce the laws on the books. If the laws we have aren't working, lets change them. This problem has been festering long enough. People either need to be able to obtain legal status or we need to actually deport those who have broken immigration laws. It does not benefit anyone to have this strange gray area.

+1

You realize these people often use aliases and fake birth dates when nicked by police, yes? It's quite easy to get arrested for felony, fake name, bond out, then just hop on a $20 bus to the next sanctuary. New alias and new birthday.