1 Lone Star

Well, well, well.  The United States Supreme Court's majority of five men/women has totally distinguished itself again.  The group that brought you acceptance of slavery in the 19th century, acceptance of white supremacy at the turn of the 20th, the sanctioning of legalized murder--i.e. abortion, 32 years ago, the refusal to allow God to have a place of non-coercive, non-sectarian recognition in our schools 42 years ago, and the group that thinks that we should look to international law to decide what our Constitution says on whether gay people should have an equal right to marry (in opposition to the understanding of marriage for 7,000 years by every culture and religion known to man), have done it again.  They have decided, in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, that if a city wants to do a city revitalization project, all it has to do is say they'll create jobs with it, and they can throw people out of nice residential homes that their families have owned for 80 years and even more, and use the land to build a shopping mall.

The only comfort is that four justices of the Court, led by Sandra Day O'Connor, saw the insanity and total unconstitutionality , not to mention the horrid violation of the human right of private property, and condemned it properly.  A 5-4 decision of the Supremes definitely sets itself up for reversal at a later time.  And that may change soon, given that probably two of the justices, and possibly three, are going to announce retirement next week.  So, who knows?

Well, there are no new messages on what, or whether, Gail and I are going to get capital in the near future.  I hope to know tomorrow.  Oops!  That's today.  I'll be online more tomorrow.  Got plenty to do.  Just need some sleep first.  Was gorgeous here in San Diego, again.  I'm ready to move from the South Bay to the North Bay.  Just too many gangbangers around.  Plus, the wife needs to be closer to both her children and her doctor.  That's another subject, though.  Well, adios for now. 

There are things going on, which I can't introduce yet, but it will make this blogging that I'm on much more worthwhile to all the people I am trying to befriend.  I have to do a few more things to refine it, but it's happening.  So, in the meantime, I have to fulfill a few promises I made. 

First, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Gonzales v. Raich, which involved the matter of the use of medical marijuana, was just decided on Monday.  A very long and interesting story about the High Court's decision was published in Law.com on Tuesday the 7th.  This is more than about the basic facts of the federal government's ban on possession of marijuana for commercial purposes with the state of California's law allowing medically-prescribed use of marijuana.  This was about the clash of the U.S. federal system and the interests of its states, and about the conflict of the values held by Americans.  It's a conflict between those Americans who believe, irregardless of what they believe about the nature of government in the United States, in a Judeo-Christian-based traditionalist set of mores, and those who embrace a European, secularist model of morality, that is if there is any such thing.  (And the truth is:  under relativism, there is no such thing as morality, it's as fluid and changeful as water.). 

Here's what I mean.  The Controlled Substances Act is a very long list of prohibited hallucinogenic drugs, which a more tradition-based society has long ago decided were not only harmful to the individual's own health, but a harm to the very fabric of society itself.  It goes to the very concept that an autonomous individual is not answerable to society in the areas of personal pleasure/self-gratification, and rejects it.  The prohibitions in the CSA are the essence of the expression of a Judeo-Christian idea that "no man lives to himself, no man dies to himself."  The passage by 10 states, led by California, that a doctor's prescription, which is pretty badly monitored by anybody's honest estimate, can give carte blanche to anyone with a medically definable illness to not only use, but grow marijuana, is the essence of a utilitarian, relativist attitude toward such drug use.  That philosophy is straight out of Europe's own changing society, shaped by the ideas of the whole European philosophical establishment from Rousseau and the Enlightenment to Marcuse and Camus in the 20th century.

And for those who say that this California law is about those who suffer from painful and degenerative diseases I reply that the notion that marijuana is the only effective painkiller or that any number of nutritional and herbal programs of treatment can't be equally or even better for these victims, I have oceanfront property in Arizona or in the Sahara I would like to sell you.  The problem is, as the Court's majority opinion of Justice John Stevens, said, to ignore the open door to public commercial distribution of marijuana would have been irresponsible.

For the Supreme Court to have held that California's law trumped the CSA's prohibition of marijuana possession would have struck at the very raison d'etre of the drug laws and 'drug war' of the United States.  The end of such drug laws as unconstitutional would be an inevitable later end result.  The Netherlands may be able to handle such a state of moral chaos, but I doubt that they ultimately will.  There is no way that the United States, bordering Mexico, with huge immigrant populations easily reachable from all over the world, especially from Latin America, with a highly diverse and urbanized population of over 300 million souls, would be able to tolerate its plunge into a charnal house that would result.

If you want to read more about the case, there is also another really good review of the case in the blog The Volokh Conspiracy, by Orin Kerr, a respected lawyer and law professor from George Washington University in Washington, D.C.  And of course, the case can be accessed here.  They will take a different view from mine, but their arguments are quite interesting and challenging. 

Well, away I go.  Tomorrow (today) I try to make myself useful and get clients downtown.  Because I'm not so well-capitalized, I have to do it the hard way, but oh well. 

God bless, and adios.

Hi, this is another day of having to do things that have little to do with what I really want to do and a lot more of what I really don't want to do.  Just having to be responsible, or is it?  I can't say more, because I don't want some of my very good, and well-meaning friends to be hurt by what my total opinions are.  And I'm not in a position to be a jerk with them, either.  So, we do what we must do.  Ambiguous to the point of absurdity?  Yes.  That's the way it goes, Ms. Graham....(reference to old high school teacher who to this day wins the "Witch of the Century" award).

Well, this is what I have found out.  First, the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. CIS approving of it I hope, have just announced on May 19th that, effective June 20th, those who are in the country on J-1 research and special study/teaching visa will have their visa stay increased from 3 to 5 years.  It will make it easier for these individuals to find suitable employment in the private sector, and remain.  To learn more about that new change, click here.   Second, those who are nurses, physical therapists, and other similar kinds of health care workers below the rank of a doctor have been moved up, through another 50,000 places set aside by the U.S. CIS to have admission as EB-3 medical (employment-based green card for permanent residency) immigrant visas.  That will help, though there is a shortage of more than 100,000 places for nurses alone.  More on that?  Click here.

Well, that's the start of what I think will be a beautiful relationship with all you guys.  I'll talk more with you all about more of how to 'do' immigration, and maybe some other things.  I am really interested in the case of Ashcroft v. Raich, the new Supreme Court medical marijuana case.  To those of you in countries where marijuana is legal, oh well, what can I say, it's a big deal here in the states.  It not only affects the issue of illegal drugs and medicine, but it is a huge clash affecting the U.S. Constitution:  on the issue of privacy rights, on the important separation of powers in our federal system between the federal government and the states, and on the issue of the proper exercise of judicial power as opposed to democratic vote to make policy on matters involving public health, morals, privacy, etc.  I'll chat on that a little tomorrow, Lord willing.

My wife is doing great work on our new website for our import business.  More on that when we're ready to load up.  For now, adios and God bless.

I am happy to be able to work on something as varied as the Internet.  It gives me so many opportunities to learn more things about the law than I would have imagined when I first entered the profession in law school more than 20 years ago.   I want to share some things that I have learned just recently concerning the field of U.S. immigration law that I am still developing skill in.  In particular, section 245i of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows a large number of people the ability to apply for and obtain legal status in the USA who may have come here illegally, that is without coming through a regular port of entry via the legal immigration process.  The law was passed originally in 1994, and has helped many people come into the light of legal status whose only crime was to have come to the USA to jobs noone else would do.

Here it is, the law allows people who may have come illegally, but who had a parent or close family member, or an employer, sponsor them on a legal application for permanent residency or another visa, to come and file an "adjustment of status" petition to the government to gain permission to live in the USA based upon another visa petition.  A fine of $1,000 has to be paid, but the opportunity to become a legal resident is available.  The time cutoff is that the person filing the original application for the now-illegal must have done so by April 30, 2001, and the individual now seeking the legal resident status adjustment must have been in the States by December 21, 2000.

Seems confusing?  Yeah, and that's why so many illegal immigrants keep hiding, because the confusion in the law, which was supposed to help people along.  And they are afraid to show their faces to CIS for fear of deportation anyway.  But a proper understanding of the law may reveal that living illegal may not be one's only option.  Other immigration lawyers I've read have said the same thing.  For more on the story, click here for this article.  The Immigration Service just put out a statement last month to clarify common questions about section 245i, you can read it here.  And if you want to know more of how you, or a loved one trying to come here in the USA, can get help with their problems, just  e-mail me at the following e-mail address:  FJ.Fernandez@gmail.com .

Well, I'll be back on intellectual property tomorrow.  I'll see you guys, bye for now, God bless..