Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
You're asking for a legal determination or law that a President cannot be charge or convicted for violating the law?Can you provide an authority for that? Case law, legislation, or constitution.
You're asking for a legal determination or law that a President cannot be charge or convicted for violating the law?Can you provide an authority for that? Case law, legislation, or constitution.
You can't be serious. Have you been living in a box over the last 2 years?No, that the law doesn't apply to the president.
The mayor was clearly an invitee. But that is moot, as the charges were dropped.Like a legal right to be there prevents being arrested for refusing to leave when so ordered.
You do not know that. We have no idea why that one person let him in.The mayor was clearly an invitee. But that is moot, as the charges were dropped.
Except that the act of being let in is legally an invitation.You do not know that. We have no idea why that one person let him in.
Depends on the context of the "invitation".Except that the act of being let in is legally an invitation.
As previously discussed, irrelevant.You do not know that. We have no idea why that one person let him in.
No, its very relevant.As previously discussed, irrelevant.
So you're just taking his word for it?You can't be serious. Have you been living in a box over the last 2 years?
Ever heard of the United States Supreme Court?So you're just taking his word for it?
That is the correct interpretation of law. The mayor is clearly an invitee under the law in this instance. It is utterly irrelevant what representations may have been made, or what circumstances may have prevailed, prior to the granting of license to enter. But once granted, that license is a defense against a charge of trespassing. Under case law, a person whose license to remain is revoked must leave "forthwith" or be liable to a further charge of trespassing, but this is defined as a reasonable time to effect a departure and does not render the prior sojourn retrospectively a trespass.Except that the act of being let in is legally an invitation.
We dont know why he was let in.That is the correct interpretation of law. The mayor is clearly an invitee under the law in this instance. It is utterly irrelevant what representations may have been made, or what circumstances may have prevailed, prior to the granting of license to enter. But once granted, that license is a defense against a charge of trespassing. Under case law, a person whose license to remain is revoked must leave "forthwith" or be liable to a further charge of trespassing, but this is defined as a reasonable time to effect a departure and does not render the prior sojourn retrospectively a trespass.
And? I laughed that off when I had a lousy retail job. I can't imagine that threat would hold any weight with a federal employee.We dont know why he was let in.
He may have threatened to have the guy fired if he was not let in.
Which is why you have a managerial hierarchy. You don't know about this guy? Call your manager.He may have lied about his authority to enter the complex.
What possible lie could Baraka have told that could not have been shattered with a phone call?You're assuming it was all up and up and honest.
Told by whom? A security guard who doesn't understand policy in your scenario?However, at some point ICE told him to leave, and he did not leave at first. That may have been criminal.
There is no policy that allows a local mayor free access to a ICE facility at any time he desires.And? I laughed that off when I had a lousy retail job. I can't imagine that threat would hold any weight with a federal employee.
Which is why you have a managerial hierarchy. You don't know about this guy? Call your manager.
What possible lie could Baraka have told that could not have been shattered with a phone call?
Told by whom? A security guard who doesn't understand policy in your scenario?
Federal law dictates such policy.You seem to be a lot more sure of the guest policy at that facility than the personnel there
That's because like many other people in Newark there are totally ignorant about the law.the people there didn't seem to think it was very clear