Was it a hoax

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Suppose so if you're an Agent Provocateur or have Double Vision. You know what I'm sayin' still we keep on playin' head games.

My question was not entirely tongue in cheek. I'm sure that none of us consider Rob a foreigner. Similarly, if a family from another country lived next door to you for several years, and you learned of naturalization of the adults, you would more than likely consider them neighbors rather than foreigners. Would one be more likely to consider them foreigners if they had a different skin color or a strong accent.

On the other hand, my secretary is from Germany, and has lived her for more years than it would be polite to tell. She has impeccable grammar, and only a hint of an accent if you listen for it. Nevertheless, she has chosen to retain her German citizenship. Very few would consider her a foreigner. She is also blond and fair-skinned and would "pass" for an American.

I suppose my point is that appearances have much more of an affect on us than we are sometimes willing to acknowledge.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I suppose my point is that appearances have much more of an affect on us than we are sometimes willing to acknowledge.

Completely agree. I was just having fun with you.

Here's one for you- if your next door neighbor comes from an English family, is proud of his heritage and chooses to fly an English flag on his house I bet you wouldn't think much of it. But if your neighbor is of Mexican heritage and chooses to fly a Mexican flag, does that make you feel any different?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Completely agree. I was just having fun with you.

Here's one for you- if your next door neighbor comes from an English family, is proud of his heritage and chooses to fly an English flag on his house I bet you wouldn't think much of it. But if your neighbor is of Mexican heritage and chooses to fly a Mexican flag, does that make you feel any different?

Especially not today. The difference might be that I would joke with the brit about him being a damn limey, but I would be uncomfortable making a similar comment to a Mexican neighbor.

Happy Cinco de Mayo

Regards,

D-Ray

[whoaru99]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Why would they not? The law applies to anyone subject to US law, not just citizens and certainly not just citizens from birth. It's really very simple.



The "debate" is between people who are accurately describing US law and those who aren't. Truth and falsity are not "both sides of the issue".

John

I think there is a clause having to do with a public safety exception.

Besides, not Mirandizing someone doesn't stop questioning nor prevent getting a statement or information, nor does it violate ones constitutional rights, it merely renders such statement(s) inadmissible in court. Even evidence obtained using such statements is admissible in court, just not the statements themselves.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whoaru99

I think there is a clause having to do with a public safety exception.

Besides, not Mirandizing someone doesn't stop questioning nor prevent getting a statement or information, nor does it violate ones constitutional rights, it merely renders such statement(s) inadmissible in court. Even evidence obtained using such statements is admissible in court, just not the statements themselves.

Evidence obtained as a result of using illegally obtained evidence is also inadmissible, as what the Court has described as "fruit of the poisonous tree." You can't take an improperly obtained admission and use it to find other evidence. Unless the prosecution can prove that there was an independent source for the evidence, it stays out.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whoaru99]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Evidence obtained as a result of using illegally obtained evidence is also inadmissible, as what the Court has described as "fruit of the poisonous tree." You can't take an improperly obtained admission and use it to find other evidence. Unless the prosecution can prove that there was an independent source for the evidence, it stays out.

Regards,

D-Ray

If you're a lawyer, then perhaps you could interpret this better than I: United States v. Patane, 542 US 630

Here's a bit...

Justice Thomas, joined by The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia, concluded that a failure to give a suspect Miranda warnings does not require suppression of the physical fruits of the suspect’s unwarned but voluntary statements. Pp. 4—12.

(a) The Miranda rule is a prophylactic employed to protect against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause, U. S Const., Amdt. 5. That Clause’s core protection is a prohibition on compelling a criminal defendant to testify against himself at trial. See, e.g., Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 764—768. It cannot be violated by the introduction of nontestimonial evidence obtained as a result of voluntary statements.

[d-ray657]

That statement is not binding on lower courts for two reasons. First is was a plurality opinion. A plurality opinion means that the majority of the court did not adopt that position. Justice Souter wrote the only part of that decision that resulted in a majority opinion.

Second, that statement arose in the context of a civil action. It was not the result of of a review of an decision by a lower court to exclude or not exclude evidence. Thus, Thomas' statement are non binding dicta - statements that are not necessary to the disposition of the case, and thus need not be followed by lower courts.

What you are advocating is an intentional disregard of the law by law officers - to deliberately fail to provide a prisoner with a Miranda warning in order to attempt to obtain admissions without the prisoner's knowledge of his rights and without assistance of counsel. I would expect a court faced with such intentional illegal conduct by the law enforcement personnel to give the exclusionary rule its full scope, including the exclusion of the fruit of the poisonous tree.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

When you become a naturalized citizen are you still a foreigner?

Regards,

D-Ray

Depends upon the viewpoint of others, I do not consider myself a foreigner, not sure about how some folks feel about me.

An interesting side effect is that the only way to renounce Canadian (or British) citizenship is to head to their capitals and do it in person. This result in an interesting bit of play, when you surrender your passport the feds mail it to the home country. The home country promptly mails it back to you.

[merrylander]

Dave would probably know more about this but we did have a big flap over in NoVa about what the text books were teaching in the muslim schools, all supplied by our 'friends' in Saudi. Of course they practice the wahaabi sect and that is a bit wierd to say the least.

[merrylander]

and as it turned out both perps are singing their heads off. I was disappointed in Lindsay Graham taking the McCain position, I alwas thought he was smarter than that.