3 ms·

> I've been seeing this fallacy a lot lately in these times. If you're ever in this situation: the longer you're held without a lawyer, the higher the liability

> I've been seeing this fallacy a lot lately in these times. If you're ever in this situation: the longer you're held without a lawyer, the higher the liability on your captor becomes. Period. This is where million dollar lawsuits by the ACLU and jail time for corruption begins. This itself is actually the fallacy. Take a look at this: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-immigration-for-3-years-denied-compensation-by-appeals-court https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038... > Watson was correct all along: He was a U.S. citizen. After he was released, he filed a complaint. Last year, a district judge in New York awarded him $82,500 in damages, citing "regrettable failures of the government." > On Monday, an appeals court ruled that Watson, now 32, is not eligible for any of that money — because while his case is "disturbing," the statute of limitations actually expired while he was still in ICE custody without a lawyer.

tropdrop 7y ago
This is astounding. It seems that there is actually an incentive to keep a person claiming to be a citizen imprisoned, since if they keep them imprisoned long enough, then any financial debt owed for the injustice will magically disappear thanks to statute of limitation. "Flessner, Watson's lawyer, says the ruling "turns false imprisonment statute of limitation claims kind of on their head." It means a person in custody for an extended period of time would have to file a false-imprisonment claim while detained, "before it's been determined that they've been falsely imprisoned," he said. "I mean, this is not only applicable to immigration cases ... there's lots of citizens that are falsely or wrongly imprisoned."
- zackmorris 7y ago
  Thank you devicetray0, I hadn't heard of that case, I agree with tropdrop that that is _astounding_. A few thoughts comes to mind: * Corrupt public officials are hacking our legal system through thin cracks like differences between citizen and non-citizen rights and the statute of limitations to commit injustice. * This case needs to be appealed and go all the way to the Supreme Court, because it's pretty self-evidently an infringement of Davino Watson's rights. * The Supreme Court as it stands now would likely make an unjust decision in that case, because it has been packed with judges that lean more towards libertarianism/corporatism than justice. Mitch McConnell blocked Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, which opened the door to Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-2020 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/mitch-mcconnell-supr...

tropdrop 7y ago

This is astounding. It seems that there is actually an incentive to keep a person claiming to be a citizen imprisoned, since if they keep them imprisoned long enough, then any financial debt owed for the injustice will magically disappear thanks to statute of limitation. "Flessner, Watson's lawyer, says the ruling "turns false imprisonment statute of limitation claims kind of on their head." It means a person in custody for an extended period of time would have to file a false-imprisonment claim while detained, "before it's been determined that they've been falsely imprisoned," he said. "I mean, this is not only applicable to immigration cases ... there's lots of citizens that are falsely or wrongly imprisoned."

zackmorris 7y ago
Thank you devicetray0, I hadn't heard of that case, I agree with tropdrop that that is _astounding_. A few thoughts comes to mind: * Corrupt public officials are hacking our legal system through thin cracks like differences between citizen and non-citizen rights and the statute of limitations to commit injustice. * This case needs to be appealed and go all the way to the Supreme Court, because it's pretty self-evidently an infringement of Davino Watson's rights. * The Supreme Court as it stands now would likely make an unjust decision in that case, because it has been packed with judges that lean more towards libertarianism/corporatism than justice. Mitch McConnell blocked Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, which opened the door to Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-2020 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/mitch-mcconnell-supr...