An overturned bus, a smashed pickup, 'chaos'

poor little crimalien

I do not see why the grandmother had to take the button/photo of her grandchild off before she went into the court room. That is really unfair - citeing that it may look like a protest. A photo of my dead grandchild is not a protest - it is a statement that I am representing him here, because he is unable to.

Tale Of Two (Sanctuary) Cities: Don't Re-Elect Their Mayors, Indict Them

http://www.theonerepublic.com/archives/Column...

Mayors Villaraigosa of Los Angeles and Newsome of San Francisco both want to become California's next governor.
Both men, moreover, have granted "sanctuary" to all illegal aliens -- even gang members like those who shattered the lives of the Shaw Family, the Bologna Family, and Heaven only knows how many other families.
Should these two Mayors be elected governor, or should they instead be indicted for aiding and abetting illegal immigration? Let's look at the law:
Entering the country illegally is a crime, punishable by up to six months' imprisonment.(8 U.S.C. 1325.)
Aiding and abetting illegal immigration, moreover, is also a crime.(8 U.S.C. 1324.) Federal law provides for a five-year prison sentence for "any person who ... aids and abets the commission of any" of the following acts:
1. Concealing. "[K]nowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
2. Encouraging. "[E]ncourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law[;]
3. Transporting. "[K]nowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law[.]"
Can you even count all of the ways that Villaraigosa's and Newsome's "sanctuary city" policies aid and abet illegal immigration?
Let's start with "concealing." Villaraigosa's policy is the ultimate in concealment, because it prevents the police from investigating the crime of illegal entry in the first place. The LAPD Manual (Vol. 4, Section 264), specifically states:
"ENFORCEMENT OF UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION LAWS. Officers shall not initiate police action where the objective is to discover the alien status of a person. Officers shall neither arrest nor book persons for violation of Title 8, Section 1325 of the United States Immigration Code (Illegal Entry)."
And the LAPD Manual does not stop there. Consider the following passage (Vol. 1, Section 390): "UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Undocumented alien status in itself is not a matter for police action."
If these provisions in the LAPD Manual do not constitute aiding and abetting through concealment, what does?

That means no more "sanctuary" for illegal alien gang bangers like those who murdered Jamiel Shaw, II and the Bologna men. It means no more tax dollars spent housing people here illegally. And it means never again having to "press one for English" when you call the City of L.A. CRO
copyright 2008 Walter Moore
Walter Moore is an attorney and candidate for Mayor Of Los Angeles www.WalterMooreForMayor.com

Walt would get my vote.

to hard wrote:

I do not see why the grandmother had to take the button/photo of her grandchild off before she went into the court room. That is really unfair - citeing that it may look like a protest. A photo of my dead grandchild is not a protest - it is a statement that I am representing him here, because he is unable to.

That is a tough one. On one hand, leaving it on could give the defense grounds for appeal saying it unfairly influenced the jury. This happens all the time in court.

However, the Supreme court has repeatedly upheld an indivual's right to wear such things into the courtroom.

to hard wrote:

I do not see why the grandmother had to take the button/photo of her grandchild off before she went into the court room. That is really unfair - citeing that it may look like a protest. A photo of my dead grandchild is not a protest - it is a statement that I am representing him here, because he is unable to.

Thank you!!! I agree. All of the families just want to do is support each other and be represent our chidren who don't have a voice in this. It's for the children were hurt and those who are no longer with us.