Skip to content

Judgement Day

29 July 2010

Besides Susan Bolton’s ruling on the Arizona law (which only affects part of the law, and only covers three of the seven federal lawsuits seeking to enjoin enforcement) is only a temporary reprieve, as is yet another court decision, this one by the Costa Rican Supreme Court:

Jamie Way (Narco News), via Bananama Republic:

The Costa Rican Supreme Court last week agreed to take a case challenging the constitutionality of a US-Costa Rican agreement that would allow for a massive US military presence. The agreement cannot go into effect until the Supreme Court rules, thus postponing the arrival of US forces.

On July 1, Costa Rica’s unicameral Legislative Assembly, with 31 votes out of 57, approved the US Embassy’s request to open the country to 46 US warships, 7,000 US soldiers, 200 helicopters and two aircraft carriers. This permission was granted through at least Dec. 31 of this year, officially justified by the necessity of fighting drug-traffickers, providing humanitarian services and providing a place for US ships to dock and refuel.While most reports have put a Dec. 31 expiration date on the agreement, the Nicaraguan media last week reported that Costa Rican Foreign Minister Rene Castro, in a meeting with Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Samuel Santos, said that the agreement is for five years.

Prior Joint Patrol bilateral agreements between the countries allowed only US Coast Guard presence with Costa Rican law enforcement aboard. The US Coast Guard was permitted to follow vessels into Costa Rican waters while in pursuit and awaiting Costa Rican officials. Thus, the new agreement represents a substantial increase in the allowance of US military presence in Costa Rica, a country that abolished its army in 1948 and has a policy of neutrality.

And, in Fremont, Nebraska, where the city council had passed an ordinance written by Kansas City suburban attorney Cris Kolbach, which would have which would have created sanctions for housing or hiring “illegal” aliens, .the city council has voted to “suspend” the ordinance on the advice of Kolbach — and the realization that “”There are both sound legal… and economic reasons to suspend the ordinance at this preliminary stage,” as City Attorney Dale Skokan worded it.

The sound reasons being that there’s no legal way the city could win the expected lawsuits, and the city’s insurers already warned Fremont that its policies didn’t cover lawsuits resulting from bone-headed ideas, like listening to Kolbach.

Kolbach was instrumental in drafting the flawed Arizona law and the Fremont ordinance. He claims to be one of “five or six” specialists in “illegal immigration law”. The dirty half-dozen’s specialty, being unknown to any bar association or to any court in the United States.

No comments yet

Leave a reply, but please stick to the topic

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s