CtCer Gets Visit from Homeland Security

[webhick]

Does anyone have any knowledge of ICE, Homeland Security and whether a business owner is required to answer any questions by a visiting ICE/Immigration official?

ICE has been to my business twice, the first time I asked the to leave as part of their documents were missing information.

They returned the same day, with a Subpoena signed by an "Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Boston, MA".

Their attorney in talking with ours is now saying they are returning to ask questions.

Obviouosly, our attorney is a bit sheepish, and said just to be polite and answer the questions. He has suggested that we speak to a Criminal Defense Attorney, but as of yet, we have not

I prefer not to answer any questions posed verbally and am asking them for the questions in writing, but they have so far been unwilling to provide such questions.

I am expecting a visit from them today.

Where can one go to verify if a Subpoena from the Department of Justice, Immigration & Naturalization Service requires the signature of a judge and a seal?

Source: http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1405

Three things say to me that this is going to end badly for him.

1. That they came back with a subpoena same-day.
2. That the lawyer is talking "criminal defense"
3. That he doesn't mention actually having any I-9s.

Random I-9 audits sound sexy, but this has got to be targeted.

[jkeeb]

Three things say to me that this is going to end badly for him.

1. That they came back with a subpoena same-day.
2. That the lawyer is talking "criminal defense"
3. That he doesn't mention actually having any I-9s.

But the big reason it will end badly is that he is asking for information from LostHeads.

[Judge Roy Bean]

He's confused. They don't need a subpoena to ask questions. They need one to compel an appearance for testimony and to obtain evidence. A fairly long list of INS personnel can issue them. But IMHO (this not being legal advice), he doesn't have to personally answer questions without benefit of counsel.

I'll bet the answers he gets at LH are compelling.

[Dezcad]

The Crackheads are also trying to apply CTC in other areas:

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1403

gringobonk

Post subject: Border Patrol outside of Federal Jurisdiction as per CtC

Guys I wanted to post what I think may be a big find. As many of you know there are border patrol random searches setup no where near the border harassing people within the States and engaging in obedience training.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OydW39DZzc

Off of a hunch and knowing that it is a Federal agency I looked up what I believe is the code dictating authority.


TITLE 6 > CHAPTER 1 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Part A > § 202

This subchapter appears to be what sets up the purpose for the Border Patrol. Yet the following definition for TITLE 6 > CHAPTER 1 > § 101
indicates that:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html


Quote:
In this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(1) Each of the terms “American homeland” and “homeland” means the United States.

(16)
(A) The term “United States”, when used in a geographic sense, means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the United States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the United States.

(14) The term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States.



Folks, is this not the same reiterative, self-referencing, non-sense that Pete pointed out to us which is meant to fool us? It appears to me that it is. Some one please corroborate this. I would expect the following for jurisdiction to include all 50 states....

SAMPLE FROM OTHER CODE
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html
Quote:

TITLE 49 > SUBTITLE IV > PART B > CHAPTER 131 > § 13102

(21) State.— The term “State” means the 50 States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

[webhick]

It wold help to know how many possible illegals he has working at his meat processing plant/farm/construction company/what ever business he runs.

rfishman, per his own first post on LH, is Billie Schofield. It was revealed in a previous thread (here) that he's a lobster fisherman with four boats.

[grixit]

Illegal canadians? Or is he suspected of smuggling? Either way, this is another example of why i personally think the Department of Homeland Security is a bad idea. I mean seperate from my kneejerk liberal aversion to the governmental use of the term "homeland". We already have agencies to cover those situations (Customs and INS), and assuming DHS finds something, those will be called in anyway. We already have The Justice Department to coordinate law enforcement, and the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc for intelligence. Adding another organization that's not only supposed to oversee the others, but also to employ agents of its own, isn't helping. It creates more procedural roadblocks, increases the potential for civil rights abuses, and adds the kind of complexity that a really smart or organized intruder could find a hole in.

[webhick]

Either way, this is another example of why i personally think the Department of Homeland Security is a bad idea.

I'm still upset with them for making the I-9 impossible to find on their site for like...months after Immigration said it wasn't their problem anymore.

[webhick]

Thank you.

ICE might be concerned that a lack of 1040s or 1099s being isued by a company with 4 boats means the woner is payin people under the table who are here illegally (damned French-Canucks ), Homeland Security because such activity triggers a knee-jerk terrorism response.

In any instance, he will have some explaining to do.

I'm 1/4 Canuck. It's more likely they were smuggling Canadian lobsters across the border and calling them Maine lobsters. Don't argue that there's no difference, either. Canadian lobsters drive 90 mph over sheets of ice while Maine lobsters just stand there and debate on how thick the ice may be and how long it'll take to melt. I'm sure they taste different, too, but I'm not a fan of paying extra money to wrestle with my dinner. Unless he's hot.

[Gregg]

Thank you.

ICE might be concerned that a lack of 1040s or 1099s being isued by a company with 4 boats means the woner is payin people under the table who are here illegally (damned French-Canucks ), Homeland Security because such activity triggers a knee-jerk terrorism response.

In any instance, he will have some explaining to do.

I'm 1/4 Canuck. It's more likely they were smuggling Canadian lobsters across the border and calling them Maine lobsters. Don't argue that there's no difference, either. Canadian lobsters drive 90 mph over sheets of ice while Maine lobsters just stand there and debate on how thick the ice may be and how long it'll take to melt. I'm sure they taste different, too, but I'm not a fan of paying extra money to wrestle with my dinner. Unless he's hot.

that's it, next time I go to New England, I'm taking you to dinner

[Agent Observer]

Grixit said:

I mean seperate from my kneejerk liberal aversion to the governmental use of the term "homeland". We already have agencies to cover those situations (Customs and INS), and assuming DHS finds something, those will be called in anyway.

Uh, Grix, Customs and INS don't exist anymore. Around 2002, Customs, INS, Border Patrol and various other components in that arena were combined into Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Both agencies fall under the Department of Homeland Security. It sounds like he might have been visited by ICE. So you see, the right agency is involved and it probably won't require contacting another agency to resolve whatever they're looking at...