thompsonx
Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:
This from your cite earlier:
CHICAGO – A Filipino couple, who owned a health care agency, will be facing a maximum of 215 years in prison
and a fine of $10,750,000 or “twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting from the offenses, which ever is greatest” after changing their plea from not guilty to “guilty to Count 1 of the indictment” for allegedly knowingly hiring the services of illegal aliens, mostly from the Philippines.
Your own cite says that these people pled guilty to one count of illegally employing 43 illegal aliens and their sentence is five years for each illegal employed and $250,000 fine for each illegal employed.
First, you need to read beyond the first paragraph.
They were actually charged with more than what you are saying.
The Ngo couple were charged with a four-count indictment returned in August last year, charging them with inducing aliens to reside in the United States; knowingly employing illegal aliens; knowingly harboring illegal aliens; and counseling persons to engage in marriage fraud. Sarabia was charged with inducing aliens to reside in the U.S. and knowingly hiring illegal aliens.
It goes on to add the following...
A-Plus Senior Planning Services is a private health care agency that provides basic care to the elderly in assisted-living facilities in Orange County since January 2005. It has 200 employees, half of them are said to be undocumented. It has 65 employees, 20 with non-immigrant visas, with denied political asylum, engaged in fraudulent sham marriage or had been previously ordered deported.
Then addresses the plea agreement...
The agency was originally named Better Care Solutions. When the company was audited, it changed its name to A-Plus Senior Planning Services. When they were arraigned by US Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman last August 25, 2008, the Ngo's and Sarabia pleaded not guilty of the charges against them. In the 13-page plea agreement, for the Ngo couple, in order for them to plead guilty of count one for violation of “Title 8, U.S. Code, Sec. 1324 (a) (1) (A) (iv), “the following must be true: 1) there was an alien; 2) defendant encouraged or induced that alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States in violation of law; and 3) defendant knew or was in reckless disregard of the fact that that alien’s coming to, entry into, or residence in the United States would be a violation of the law.”
The maximum sentence that the court imposes for violation of Title 8 for each “alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs, is: five years imprisonment; three-year period of supervised release; a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting from the offense, whichever is the greatest; and mandatory special assessment of $100."
The agreement said because the violation involves 43 aliens, the couple is going to be sentenced to 215 years imprisonment; three year supervised release; a fine of $10,750,000 or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting from the offense, whichever is greatest; and a mandatory special assessment of $4,300.
Please, do read that part carefully.
the 13-page plea agreement, for the Ngo couple, in order for them to plead guilty of count one for violation of “Title 8, U.S. Code, Sec. 1324 (a) (1) (A) (iv), “the following must be true:
1) there was an alien;
2) defendant encouraged or induced that alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States in violation of law; and
3) defendant knew or was in reckless disregard of the fact that that alien’s coming to, entry into, or residence in the United States would be a violation of the law.”
I made no statement concerning what they were charged with. I pointed out that your post showed what they were convicted of and the penality.
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3300503
Now, why is the previous part so important? ( for those following along because thompson will never admit he was wrong). In the court document i supplied about Ruth's Steak House, the following was given as part of the ruling of the court.
Besides this post where have you mentioned "Ruths Steak House"?
If an employer
hires 10 or more illegal aliens with knowledge that they are unauthorized aliens
who have been illegally brought into this country, § 1324(a)(3)(A) applies and the
employer may be fined, sentenced to as much as 5 years in prison, or both. And
that crime would be a RICO predicate act. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(F). By
contrast, if an employer knowingly hires aliens not authorized to work in this
country, without knowledge that they were brought into this country illegally, only
§ 1324a would be violated. For a violation of § 1324a only civil penalties are
available, unless there is a “pattern or practice” in which case a conviction may
result in a fine and a sentence of up to six months. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(f)(1).
And that crime would not be a RICO predicate act. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(F);
see also United States v. Zheng, 306 F.3d 1080, 1085 (11th Cir. 2002) (“The
criminal sanctions prescribed for a violation of § 1324a are much less stringent
than those prescribed for a violation of § 1324.”).
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200911699.pdf
An employer may know that it hired illegal aliens without
knowing how they made their way into the United States. As the district court
recognized in this case, “Individuals who enter this country legally may overstay
their welcome and become unauthorized to work without ever having been brought
in illegally, whether by others or by themselves.” Edwards v. Prime, Inc., No. 08-
1016, at 12 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 4, 2009). Likewise, they may have entered this
country illegally on their own instead of having been “brought into” it. See
Nichols, 608 F. Supp. 2d at 534 (noting that some illegal hires “walk[ ] across the
border themselves, or arriv[e] on a visitor’s or student visa and overstay[ ] their
welcome”). Because the “brought into” element is essential to § 1324(a)(3)(A),
plaintiffs who do not allege it have not alleged a predicate act under that provision.
They may have alleged a violation of § 1324a(a)(1)(A), but that is not a predicate
act for RICO purposes.
Same source.
Is it your position that 1324 (h)(3) is not law in this country and can be ignored by an alabama court?
Is it your position that all an employer has to say is that they thought the illegal alien was a tourist who had overstayed their visa and that negates all of the criminal penalities?
Try reading a little bit closer.
Well there was this at the end of the pdf.
"We REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of Count 1 of the amended
complaint and AFFIRM its dismissal of Counts 7, 8, and 12. We DISMISS the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction insofar as it concerns any other claims or rulings."
Count 1 was the part where the employers claimed they did not know that the illegal aliens were not just tourist who had overstayed their visas. Which is the part you wish to make your case on. The alabama court dismissed that count and the federal appeals court reversed the alabama court. So it would appear that your cite substantiates my position.
|
RE: Immigrant farm workers' challenge: Take our jobs - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread