Tortured Logic...

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by pegwinn, May 20, 2006.

  1. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    I am beginning to wonder about the judges in this country. Perhaps it would be better if one were drafted to be a judge and simply have a panel of lawyers to advise you.......

    How crazy or more self evident can this be? Yet they.......... Ah hell, read it fer yerself. :bs1:


    Justices used tortured logic
    Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 05/20/06

    "Without any fault on their part."

    That's the key phrase in a baffling 17-page opinion issued unanimously Thursday by the state Supreme Court that ruled an illegal alien has the right to collect damages from the state's uninsured motorists fund.

    The fund is administered and financed by insurance companies that write automobile policies in New Jersey. Some of the cost of the fund is passed on to motorists who have liability insurance through surcharges.

    Citing a previous case, the court found the fund was established out of a recognition that "there is an economic hardship resulting to those persons referred to in the statute who, without any fault of their own, suffer losses through motor vehicle accidents . . . ." The persons referred to in the statute must be residents of the state.

    The case was brought by Victor Caballero, who followed his family from his native Mexico and illegally entered the country in March 2001 when he was 17. The court went out of its way to recount the plight of illegal immigrants seeking a better life here compared to their homeland and how Caballero, in particular, suffered physically and financially as a result of the accident. The opinion even went so far as to explain that Caballero now cannot eat some of the foods he previously enjoyed.

    Caballero was being driven by a co-worker, Ricardo Martinez, to his job as a computer repairman when Martinez fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into a parked tractor-trailer. Martinez's car was neither registered nor insured.

    Caballero needed hospitalization costing $38,300 and lost $1,482 in net wages. When he filed his appeal in court of his denial of the claim against the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund, he was living in Lakewood with his parents and girlfriend.

    Two lower courts decided against Caballero, but in reversing the trial court and appeals court, the Supreme Court found that for purposes of the fund, Caballero was a resident of New Jersey — even though Caballero crossed the border illegally and is subject to deportation.

    The Supreme Court found that Caballero's determination to stay in New Jersey and work made his argument that he was a resident stronger. The court took no notice of federal law in this case, it said, because to consider whether Caballero was an illegal alien or not would assume, or possibly usurp, the role of the federal Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration.

    So, seven lawyers sitting on the high court say they can't take judicial notice of federal law. In other words, find a way to get around the conclusion any clear-thinking person would reach: An illegal alien can't be a state resident. Plain and simple, the court chose to ignore the law of the land to legislate its social values in New Jersey. Who knows what floodgates have now been opened?

    The court conveniently failed to apply the test of whether this person "without any fault of their own" suffered losses through a motor vehicle accident. Caballero was in the United States, illegally, of his own volition. He was not kidnapped. He deliberately broke the law. Clearly, had he not chosen to break the law, he would not have been in a car accident in New Jersey.

    How can seven lawyers sitting on the high court get so tangled up in legal musing that it leads them to such an illogical conclusion? We'll say it again: It's baffling.

    Source
     
  2. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    I'm not certain what his immigration status has to do with his ability to collect damages when he was neither the owner nor operator of the uninsured vehicle. If it was HIS vehicle which was uninsured, I'd agree with you. They are talking about the accident not being his fault. That is an issue unrelated to whether or not he was here illegally.

    Illegals have the right to collect wages, as well, if they've worked because public policy dictates that employers shouldn't be able to avoid paying people whose work they used.

    What are you seeing as tortured logic?
     
  3. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Really interesting post introducing this topic.

    There's no twisted logic, in fact it follows settled law. The law doesn't allow a sort of transfer of concepts from one jurisdiction to another and sometimes even between statutes in a single jurisdiction. The issue of illegal immigration is federal US law and is determined by federal statutes. But it seeks only to deal with immigration, not with anything else and certainly not domestic state law.

    I'm not sure of the NJ statute (just in passing I think it's an excellent idea, I wish my jurisdiction had something like this - if there's a link I'd appreciate reading the statute) but it relates to a purely domestic situation in NJ. I would think that the statute - unless it is written to expressly excluded illegal immigrants - would treat anyone living in NJ as coming within the definitions in the statute.

    If people in NJ don't like this then they should pressure the NJ legislature to change it but on the face of it the court has applied the law consistently and that's all anyone can ask.

    Disclaimer: I'm looking at the law from my perspective and my understanding, in general, of the law in jurisdictions which are derived from English common law.
     
  4. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
  5. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Thank you jillian, I shall read it with interest.

    On edit: read it - that is really interesting. I can see how it works. Thanks again. :thup:
     
  6. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    No worries. Glad it was helpful. :)

    Still waiting to find out what "faulty logic" was involved in the decision. :D
     
  7. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    The way the court went out of it's way to reward someones criminal behavior. Had he been in compliance with the law the accident would not have included him. As to wages? Those are ill gotten gains or proceeds of a crime that the court refused to consider. In fact at his appearance he should have been dealt with summarily and turned over to the feds.

    I don't mind paying the hospital, but I oppose any moneys paid directly to him for wages.

    I hope the insurance fund sues the US Gov, GWB personally (or the sitting president when the kid came across), the Mexican Gov, and VFox personally for not keeping the kid contained within his own country.
     
  8. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Illegals have the right to a ride back to the border. Nothing more. They damned sure shouldn't be allowed to avail themselves of the benefits of our social/financial infrastructure while contributing nothing to it. Illegals most certainly do not have a right to collect wages without paying taxes like the rest of us do.

    You are ignoring a key point .... IF said illegal was where he was supposed to be, he wouldn't have been in NJ to get into an accident. His mere presence is criminal, in and of itself, and contributed to his being involved in an accident in a place he would not have been if he was where he was supposed to be.
     
  9. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    Sorry, Gunny. You know I enjoy your posts, but I think that's sort of tortured logic. Why should an employer who avails himself of an illegal's cheap labor then be able to say "sorry, chief, I don't have to pay you. get yourself back across the border." All of us have immigrant ancestors in our background. I think that the immigration laws should be enforced, but we can't do so in such a way that we forget that the Statue of Liberty still means something as does Emma Lazarus' poem, "The New Colossus".

    Should this country give up the values it has always had? Or aren't we any longer a safe refuge for people who want a better life?
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Sorry Jillian, but do you have a link to where that is happening? On the contrary from all that can be found, they are paid, abysmally small wages, but paid; in order for the employer NOT to have to pay the rate that would be necessary to pay those here legally. In fact, the best way to curtail the tidal wave would be for the government to go after the employers of illegals, rather than the illegals. They are here for $$ to feed their families. If that dries up, they would prefer Mexico, which is very different than those in line legally.
    Contrary to the idea that we've lost that philosophy, take a look at what legal immigrants think, here's one:

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=430137#post430137
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page