How long is the arm of State law for two felonies?

[CameronNewport]

The 6th Circuit reversed Michigan's asylum and ordered Chance be returned to Alabama in 1996.

And Stiggers' case was in 1971 when he made a reasonable argument that he would be killed if he returned to an Arkansas prison ... even the governor of Arkansas at the time reluctantly agreed that there were problems there.

These are hardly indicative of the OP's roommmate's case, however. He's just frustrated - not something that will compel a governor to protect him.

- Carl

Agreed. I presented those two cases as occasions when a governor refused to extradite. I didn't intend them to be examples of what a federal court would eventually order 15 years after the extradition request, or examples of common practice among governors.

 

[CdwJava]

Sheesh Cameron - ok, maybe someone doesn't actually pick up the phone...it's more like a computer entry now-a-days.

It's both ... you enter the warrant into NCIC indicating extradition, you call the agency where he lives and point out the warrant to them, and they go and pick the suspect up.

It really IS that simple to make the arrest.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Agreed. I presented those two cases as occasions when a governor refused to extradite. I didn't intend them to be examples of what a federal court would eventually order 15 years after the extradition request, or examples of common practice among governors.

Ah ... okay.

Yes, you do read about these cases from time to time, but as the dates and details on these two incidents point out, they are rare and they tend to involve some very extenuating circumstances.

- carl

 

[CameronNewport]

Sheesh Cameron - ok, maybe someone doesn't actually pick up the phone...it's more like a computer entry now-a-days. The effect is the same.
You are "arguing" something that is barely correct. The simple point is that the OP CANNOT hide from this just by being in another state.

I wasn't claiming that the OP could hide. I was stating that extraditing somebody is not as simple as making a call and shipping him off. There are specific procedures that must be followed. Some of those procedures involve the governor (which the OP wrote and was incorrectly told was wrong). If everybody agreed with that (which it seems everybody now does), then why the need to argue? Why not just say "those details are true and I didn't mean to imply otherwise"?

Look who I'm talking to though. Weren't you the guy who thought that a plaintiff would be committing perjury to argue two mutually exclusive causes of action simultaneously?

 

[kiddj2]

Thank you all for your responses.

I think we can agree:

1. There is a procedure in place that must be followed.
2. The cops (both here and there) don't give a damn about the procedure, and will do whatever they want to get their job done and make them look good.

Now for my save-my-own-ass question: Do we also agree that the Federal authorities (FBI or Marshals Service) don't get involved (at least not automatically?)

If my buddy does the stupid thing and stops cooperating, and the Feds are going to be breaking down our door, I want to make sure I'm in a new place by then. Granted, there's probably not much difference between the state police doing it and the Feds, but as much as I don't trust the state troopies, the prospect of the Feds doing it makes me sick.

 

[Zigner]

Look who I'm talking to though. Weren't you the guy who thought that a plaintiff would be committing perjury to argue two mutually exclusive causes of action simultaneously?

I'm the guy who says you can't swear that you turned left and then swear you turned right without committing perjury. (That's an analogy, in case it went over your head)

 

[CdwJava]

Thank you all for your responses.

I think we can agree:

1. There is a procedure in place that must be followed.
2. The cops (both here and there) don't give a damn about the procedure, and will do whatever they want to get their job done and make them look good.

What??! What makes you say that? The "procedure" is as was stated ... the warrant is entered, the arrest is made, and extradition is requested through the issuance of a governor's warrant if the defendant does not waive extradition. THAT IS the "procedure". Nothing unlawful or wrong about it.

If you have a beef about the arrest warrant being issued in the first place, talk to the judge that will be issuing it. Remember, the POLICE do not issue an arrest warrant - a JUDGE does it.

Now for my save-my-own-ass question: Do we also agree that the Federal authorities (FBI or Marshals Service) don't get involved (at least not automatically?)

Typically, that is the case.

If my buddy does the stupid thing and stops cooperating, and the Feds are going to be breaking down our door, I want to make sure I'm in a new place by then. Granted, there's probably not much difference between the state police doing it and the Feds, but as much as I don't trust the state troopies, the prospect of the Feds doing it makes me sick.

If there is a federal angle, then the feds might do it. If your area has a fugitive task force that involves state and federal authorities, it might involve the feds. Note that if he is charged under a federal warrant, the same extradition process would not apply.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

I'm the guy who says you can't swear that you turned left and then swear you turned right without committing perjury. (That's an analogy, in case it went over your head)

Well ... I suppose if he makes the two arguments without actually testifying it is possible. An attorney can lean questioning that way without actually putting the client on the stand to lie. he can ask witnesses, "Is it possible that ..." It occasionally happens in a criminal trial where you have two defendants ... it's odd, and it defies logic, but unless they are being heard by the same jury, the matters CAN be argued that way ... very, very carefully.

- Carl

 

[CameronNewport]

I'm the guy who says you can't swear that you turned left and then swear you turned right without committing perjury. (That's an analogy, in case it went over your head)

And what if a judge ruled that although you thought you turned left, you actually turned right according to the law? Is it then considered perjury to seek legal relief based on turning right? Of course not, and that is analogous to what I suggested.

 

[Zigner]

Well ... I suppose if he makes the two arguments without actually testifying it is possible. An attorney can lean questioning that way without actually putting the client on the stand to lie. he can ask witnesses, "Is it possible that ..." It occasionally happens in a criminal trial where you have two defendants ... it's odd, and it defies logic, but unless they are being heard by the same jury, the matters CAN be argued that way ... very, very carefully.

- Carl

The case that Cameron was referring to WAS about the person testifying to two mutually exclusive causes of action concurrently...

 

[CdwJava]

The case that Cameron was referring to WAS about the person testifying to two mutually exclusive causes of action concurrently...

Then, I suppose, it could be perjury ... though then you come down to another logic-defying part of the law: WHICH testimony was perjurous?

However, I suspect that the contradictory testimony would effectively render ALL testimony on such turns non-credible because one would be a lie.

- Carl

 

[Zigner]

Then, I suppose, it could be perjury ... though then you come down to another logic-defying part of the law: WHICH testimony was perjurous?

However, I suspect that the contradictory testimony would effectively render ALL testimony on such turns non-credible because one would be a lie.

- Carl

Yep - not arguing with you at all. Basically, the person would be committing perjury. I was making no statement as to WHICH statement was perjury...nor did I make a statement as to whether the person would be charged/found guilty of perjury. Just because one isn't caught or prosecuted doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

 

[xylene]

And what if a judge ruled that although you thought you turned left, you actually turned right according to the law? Is it then considered perjury to seek legal relief based on turning right? Of course not, and that is analogous to what I suggested.

Listen Matlock, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove other than this is yet another thread where you are giving obtuse and thick headed 'advice'.

 

[kiddj2]

If you have a beef about the arrest warrant being issued in the first place, talk to the judge that will be issuing it. Remember, the POLICE do not issue an arrest warrant - a JUDGE does it.

My apologies for sounding crass about it. It didn't mean it quite that way. It was the "he doesn't show up, the locals just make a phone call" that I was referencing. The aren't supposed to make the phone call until after the warrant is issued. Wether they do or not is questionable.

If there is a federal angle, then the feds might do it. If your area has a fugitive task force that involves state and federal authorities, it might involve the feds. Note that if he is charged under a federal warrant, the same extradition process would not apply.

As I said, there are no Federal charges, and the original crime happened three years ago. Could they add Federal charges at this point just to get the feds involved?

 

[CameronNewport]

Well ... I suppose if he makes the two arguments without actually testifying it is possible. An attorney can lean questioning that way without actually putting the client on the stand to lie. he can ask witnesses, "Is it possible that ..." It occasionally happens in a criminal trial where you have two defendants ... it's odd, and it defies logic, but unless they are being heard by the same jury, the matters CAN be argued that way ... very, very carefully.

- Carl

We're not even talking about something nearly as complicated. In a different thread an OP had "sold" his car to somebody. IIRC, the deal was not put in writing, money had not exchanged hands, the title had never been transferred, but the buyer did have possession of the car and ended up smashing it.

The OP could certainly sue for breach of contract to get his money, but enforcing the verbal contract would be difficult. Therefore, I suggested to the OP that in addition to suing for breach of contract he should alternately sue for negligently damaging his property. That way, if the buyer successfully defends the breach of contract action and the judge rules that the car still belonged to the OP, he could still possibly collect for property damage. Zigner and a few others claimed that would amount to perjury. It was a nonsensical thread.