Comments for Invisible Man

Comment on Martin Luther King Jr. Day 2013 by indytony

indytony — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 01:02:08 +0000

This is a very nice tribute on a day honoring King’s legacy. I chose to write today on the racism that was a still is prevalent among some white Midwesterners. It’s called “Was He Only Dreaming?: Hoosier Perspectives on Martin Luther King”. I’d love for you to check it out and tell me what you think.

Comment on Akinsade: Strickland Prejudice Survives District Court Admonishment by Florida Supreme Court Rules Padilla Not Retroactive | Invisible Man

Florida Supreme Court Rules Padilla Not Retroactive | Invisible Man — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:37:56 +0000

[...] form or another in the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Akinsade (see my prior blog post); namely, whether a court’s admonishment at a plea proceeding regarding immigration [...]

Comment on Memorial Day 2012 Padilla Retroactivity Update by Florida Supreme Court Rules Padilla Not Retroactive | Invisible Man

Florida Supreme Court Rules Padilla Not Retroactive | Invisible Man — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:37:53 +0000

[...] out against retroactive application of Padilla. The case, which I have written about here and here, is Gabriel Hernandez v. State, SC11-941. Before reaching the question of Padilla retroactivity, [...]

Comment on Issue of Padilla Retroactivity Heating Up In State Appellate Courts by Florida Supreme Court Rules Padilla Not Retroactive | Invisible Man

Florida Supreme Court Rules Padilla Not Retroactive | Invisible Man — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:37:51 +0000

[...] has come out against retroactive application of Padilla. The case, which I have written about here and here, is Gabriel Hernandez v. State, SC11-941. Before reaching the question of Padilla [...]

Comment on SCOTUS Oral Argument in Chaidez v. United States Tomorrow by Albert Wan

Albert Wan — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:59:44 +0000

Gracias, Jorge, for your comment. My proficiency in Spanish is limited at best so I plugged your comment into Google Translate. This is what it thinks you said in your post (feel free to reply Jorge if any of it is inaccurate or incorrect, which I am sure it is):

My remark about where Padilla and Chaidez is, that most of the lawyers in criminal cases are not guilty or responsible for plea negotiations between the state and the accused on the ground that they did legal work for the benefit defended, and that at that time posed no danger to stay in the country. But who is really guilty of many abuses that have been committed for decades against legal noncitizens, is the government itself, through the INS and BIA. These departments took advantage of the large volume of people (hundreds of thousands … or millions) that through the years (until 1996) had been convicted of various crimes, to initiate a process of massive deportations CASE retroactively. – So, now that the Court has recognized these failures of the state and has also been applying brakes to many abuses of these agencies (INS-BIA), that is where we must support the retroactivity in the application of constitutional rights violated by those departments. The Supreme must sustain its rules of Padilla vs. Kentucky, Chaidez Holder Vs. JUSTICE IS simply will AFFAIR!

Comment on SCOTUS Oral Argument in Chaidez v. United States Tomorrow by Jorge Villalona

Jorge Villalona — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 19:13:11 +0000

Mi observación concerniente a los casos en Padilla y Chaidez es, que la mayoría de los abogados en casos criminales NO SON CULPABLES NI RESPONSABLES de las negociaciones de culpabilidad entre el estado y el inculpado, por entender que éstos hicieron su trabajo en beneficio legal para su defendido, y que en esos tiempos no representaban ningún peligro a la permanencia en el pais. Ahora bien, quien es verdaderamente CULPABLE de los tantos ABUSOS que se ha cometidos, POR DÉCADAS, contra no-ciudadanos legales, es el gobierno en sí, a traves del INS y BIA. Estos departamentos SE APROVECHARON del gran volumen de personas ( cientos de miles…o millones) que a traves de los años (hasta el 1996) se habia declarado culpable por diferentes delitos, para iniciar un proceso de masivas deportaciones con RETROACTIVIDAD DE CASOS.– Entonces, ahora que La Suprema ha reconocido esas fallas del Estado y tambien ha venido aplicando frenos a los tantos abusos de esas agencias gubernamentales ( INS-BIA), es ahi donde debemos apoyar la RETROACTIVIDAD en la aplicacion de los derechos constitucionales violados por esos departamentos. La Suprema DEBE sustentar su reglamento de Padilla Vs Kentucky, en Chaidez Vs Holder. ES SENCILLAMANTE ASUNTO DE JUSTICIA !!!

Comment on SCOTUS Oral Argument in Chaidez v. United States Tomorrow by elvin lopez

elvin lopez — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:12:58 +0000

Thank you for the up date. Will be waiting for tomorrow for more information

Comment on About Me by Albert Wan

Albert Wan — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:16:08 +0000

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the heads up. I am aware of the Akinsade case but have not had a chance to formulate a post on it. I will try and do so soon, as well as offer some other commentary on developments with the body of law that is Padilla retroactivity.

Albert

Comment on About Me by Peter Bell

Peter Bell — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:36:57 +0000

There is a recent case from the the 4th circuit court of appeals that I think your audience might find to be of interest and that you might want to read when you come back from break. The case is Akinsade vs US

Comment on To Protest is a Sin by Albert Wan

Albert Wan — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:10:23 +0000

Thank you for your comment and for your service as a juror.