SUPERSTARDJ01's CIMT discussion
May 28th 2009, 2:58 pm
#31
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, a broad overview
No your right but actually states: Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or been controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?"
It does not say have you ever been arrested or convicted. it says: B]Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude .[/B]
I am not trying defraud anyone moron, just seeing where I stand.
It does not say have you ever been arrested or convicted. it says: B]Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude .[/B]
I am not trying defraud anyone moron, just seeing where I stand.
ROFL.
In the law of pleading, this is an example related to the concept called "negative pregnant."
By the device of not using the appropriate ellipses, you are making an argument that is not valid but is also pregnant with an admission.
May 28th 2009, 3:43 pm
#32
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 38
Re: Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, a broad overview
Jun 1st 2009, 12:39 pm
#35
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,415
Re: Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, a broad overview
Come on, you know he wasn't referring to what the meaning of LOL is. Can you translate the legalese into plain English for the non-legal people onboard?
Jun 1st 2009, 5:59 pm
#36
Forum Regular
Joined: May 2009
Location: Duluth, GA
Posts: 76
Re: SUPERSTARDJ01's CIMT discussion
I think Folinskyinla is referring to lack of comma between the words "anyone" and "moron" 
Jun 1st 2009, 11:46 pm
#37
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, a broad overview
Accusation: P was driving in excess of the 65 miles per hour seed limit, to wit 68 miles per hour.
Answer: P denies that he was driving at 68 miles per hour.
That answer in the form of a denial is "pregnant" with an admission that he was exceeding the speed limit, just not at 68 miles per hour. I think this is one of the more plain language explanations of a legal concept that I know of.
Jun 2nd 2009, 8:28 pm
#38
Professional Drama Queen
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,061
Re: SUPERSTARDJ01's CIMT discussion
Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude ?
My understanding is that this question is very specific to crimes of moral turpitude not have you ever been arrested / convicted per see. I am presuming (rightly or wrongly) then that arrests only need be declared if they constitute CIMT's. While it's certainly the case that a fairly large proportion of arrestable offences would no doubt be defined as CMT's there are some that are not. Hence imo the issue rests not with whether you have ever been arrested / convicted but was the offence committed a CIMT. In this respect, a blanket ' if you have ever been arrested / convicted you must declare it' response is again imo incorrect. Happen if all arrests / convictions were required to be declared on the VWP then they would have just posed that specific question or used the much more precise I-485 question, 'Have you ever...Been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, fined or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance, excluding traffic violations?'
My understanding is that this question is very specific to crimes of moral turpitude not have you ever been arrested / convicted per see. I am presuming (rightly or wrongly) then that arrests only need be declared if they constitute CIMT's. While it's certainly the case that a fairly large proportion of arrestable offences would no doubt be defined as CMT's there are some that are not. Hence imo the issue rests not with whether you have ever been arrested / convicted but was the offence committed a CIMT. In this respect, a blanket ' if you have ever been arrested / convicted you must declare it' response is again imo incorrect. Happen if all arrests / convictions were required to be declared on the VWP then they would have just posed that specific question or used the much more precise I-485 question, 'Have you ever...Been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, fined or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance, excluding traffic violations?'
Jun 2nd 2009, 8:41 pm
#39
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Andover, MA
Posts: 1,703
Re: Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, a broad overview
Whatever. I thought I did explain "negative pregnant." OK, sigh -- by way of example:
Accusation: P was driving in excess of the 65 miles per hour seed limit, to wit 68 miles per hour.
Answer: P denies that he was driving at 68 miles per hour.
That answer in the form of a denial is "pregnant" with an admission that he was exceeding the speed limit, just not at 68 miles per hour. I think this is one of the more plain language explanations of a legal concept that I know of.
Accusation: P was driving in excess of the 65 miles per hour seed limit, to wit 68 miles per hour.
Answer: P denies that he was driving at 68 miles per hour.
That answer in the form of a denial is "pregnant" with an admission that he was exceeding the speed limit, just not at 68 miles per hour. I think this is one of the more plain language explanations of a legal concept that I know of.
Motor cyclist was caught by a cop doing 120mph. In court, the motor cyclist showed the specs of his bike and the top speed, which was documented as 118mph.
Now, clearly anything in that range is rather dangerous, but the guy got got away with it
Jun 2nd 2009, 9:00 pm
#40
American Expat
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,598
Re: SUPERSTARDJ01's CIMT discussion
Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude ?
My understanding is that this question is very specific to crimes of moral turpitude not have you ever been arrested / convicted per see. I am presuming (rightly or wrongly) then that arrests only need be declared if they constitute CIMT's. While it's certainly the case that a fairly large proportion of arrestable offences would no doubt be defined as CMT's there are some that are not. Hence imo the issue rests not with whether you have ever been arrested / convicted but was the offence committed a CIMT. In this respect, a blanket ' if you have ever been arrested / convicted you must declare it' response is again imo incorrect. Happen if all arrests / convictions were required to be declared on the VWP then they would have just posed that specific question or used the much more precise I-485 question, 'Have you ever...Been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, fined or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance, excluding traffic violations?'
My understanding is that this question is very specific to crimes of moral turpitude not have you ever been arrested / convicted per see. I am presuming (rightly or wrongly) then that arrests only need be declared if they constitute CIMT's. While it's certainly the case that a fairly large proportion of arrestable offences would no doubt be defined as CMT's there are some that are not. Hence imo the issue rests not with whether you have ever been arrested / convicted but was the offence committed a CIMT. In this respect, a blanket ' if you have ever been arrested / convicted you must declare it' response is again imo incorrect. Happen if all arrests / convictions were required to be declared on the VWP then they would have just posed that specific question or used the much more precise I-485 question, 'Have you ever...Been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, fined or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance, excluding traffic violations?'
Jun 2nd 2009, 9:34 pm
#41
Professional Drama Queen
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,061
Re: SUPERSTARDJ01's CIMT discussion
We are in agreement regarding the OP's case, the point I am making is a general one i.e. that the question as posed on the VWP is specific to arrests / convictions for CIMT's. Hence any arrest / conviction not pertaining to a crime of that nature does not ( as I understand it) require a 'yes' response.
Jun 3rd 2009, 8:01 am
#42
Forum Regular
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 209
Re: SUPERSTARDJ01's CIMT discussion
We are in agreement regarding the OP's case, the point I am making is a general one i.e. that the question as posed on the VWP is specific to arrests / convictions for CIMT's. Hence any arrest / conviction not pertaining to a crime of that nature does not ( as I understand it) require a 'yes' response.
Jun 3rd 2009, 10:02 am
#43
American Expat
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,598
Re: SUPERSTARDJ01's CIMT discussion
Are you refering to an arrest for say "Drunk and Disorderly" or "Simple Assault" where in most text appear to be non CIMT crimes, where the person arrested was released without charge, caution or conviction - What does the person answer to that question on the ESTA form - good question!
Jun 4th 2009, 10:44 am
#44
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 38
Re: SUPERSTARDJ01's CIMT discussion
hi,
Well I managed to get in to the US no problems at all.
Well I managed to get in to the US no problems at all.
