Monday, April 14, 2008

Government institutions + Racist organizations

From CAUSABlog:
With more than 100,000 Latinos eligible to vote in Oregon, including thousands of eligible young Latinos turning 18 years-old, the main goal of Voz Hispana is to register young Latino Voters using innovative voter registration methods like the caravan.

Other Organizations participating in today’s voter registration drive include PCUN, Salem-Keizer Coalition for Equality, CAUSA, LUCHA, MECHA, First Congregational Church, St. Patrick Catholic Church Youth Group, Woodburn High School, Guadalajara Restaurant in Woodburn, LUS, Chemeketa Community College, Radio Movimiento, FHDC, and Mano a Mano Family Center.

It's so nice to see that Woodburn is participating in registration drives/voter turnout events that are strictly aimed at one racial demographic. Having their name up their with the racial supremacy group MEChA and every amnesty/open borders coalition in Oregon should be a real source of pride to Woodburn taxpayers.

They are registering those kids who marched out of school waving Mexican flags. They are registering those kids who identify themselves as "Mexican" even if they have never been to Mexico. This is scary stuff because they are registering to vote in America.


Nice Mexican Lady said...


Glad to see such a sudden (and obvious) interest in all things Woodburn!

You should come to WOODBURN HIGH SCHOOL today! Bring your camera! I'll make sure to grab mine before I walk out the door this morning. I will be there, since I teach at WOODBURN HIGH SCHOOL part time. What a happy coincidence! I also teach at Chemeketa, so if you can't make it to the high school, I will be at Chemeketa in the evening.

In today's commentary you write that the voter registration drive is "...strictly aimed at one racial demographic...." That is not accurate Danielito. I can assure you that all ELIGIBLE students will be able to register to vote at the Voz Hispana caravan, regardless of their ethnicity. This fact is well known among the students at WOODBURN HIGH SCHOOL, it has been made very clear to the entire student body.

You also write: "...They are registering those kids who marched out of school waving Mexican flags." I respond: Yes, Danielito, "THOSE KIDS" marched and assembled. "THOSE KIDS" enjoy the same rights as you do to assemble and protest and wave any flag they want. There were also plenty of American flags.

You are identifying yourself as a "constitutionalist" lately, right? What parts of the constitution? All of them, or just the ones you like? "THOSE KIDS" have the same right to assembly as you do. What are you saying? That they don't? How are their demonstrations ANY different from yours? How is exercising their right to assemble any different from when you exercise your right to assemble? Is this all about "do as I say not as I do" for you? You can, but "THOSE KIDS" can't? You, as a former criminal are worthy of rehabilitation, but a Mexican criminal is not? Same shit different day with you, I suppose.

You write: "They are registering THOSE KIDS who identify themselves as "Mexican" even if they have never been to Mexico."

I respond: As for the millions of Irish Americans who identify themselves as Irish as a source of pride in their identity even though they've NEVER been to Ireland, do you have it in for them too? KISS ME IM IRISH. How about the Germans, Poles and Italians? I wonder if all the "proud to be German" Germans in Mt Angel (Oktoberfest USA) have ever been to Germany. I've never known an Italian who hasn't let me know, right off the bat, that they were Italian and proud of it. Who are you to presume you have the right to insist that we all follow your rules when choosing how we identify ourselves? Is it just Mexicans for you? I think it's just Mexicans.

You write: "This is scary stuff because they are registering to vote in America."

I respond: What are you so scared of Daniel? As a group, "THOSE KIDS" from Woodburn High School are probably more acutely informed of the issues that directly affect them and their family than any bunch of high school kids you're likely to meet.

You've made it clear you've been pretty much a "one issue" voter for the last few years. Once again, you want it one way, but every one else has to get it another. Why? Because Danielito is scared. That's why.

The diversity of political thought among "THOSE KIDS" at WOODBURN HIGH SCHOOL is reflective of the country in which they live. Just from my everyday conversations with students, it wouldn't surprise me if half of "THOSE KIDS" are voting for McCain and the other half are voting for the Democratic nominee

You're scared of a bunch of Mexican kids exercising their RIGHT to vote?

How sad. How very, very, very UN-AMERICAN.

Anonymous said...

And will they ask for proof of Citizenship? Of course not. They know that Democrat Sect. of State does NOT check that and IF does they go in a provisional ballot box and can vote anyhow.

Especially since the leader of PCUN-Ramon Ramirez said in public that Gov. Ted let them down with the License order as "they" voted for him and will not next time.

Also a news report on this caravan had a young lady saying that we need more Latino's to vote becuase with all the Immigration issues coming up.
Would it be a stretch to guess they want "the Race" to vote for Amnesty?

We have all witnessed at these rallies that these young people are told that White people hate them and are Racists, so yes we should all be worried when a mostly illegal, laughing at our border, invading force takes control of our laws and leaders.

"Invading and taking over without a shot fired".

Anonymous said...

another mouthy Hispanic female.
if Immigration laws had been strictly enforced in Oregon throughout the 60's, 70' and up, those Mexican anchor babies wouldnt be in Woodburn or Cornelius.
it is my understanding that migrant workers are temporary workers who are not citizens, but since the USA has no borders -geographically or internally, then of course the migrant workers never went home.
Misusing the 14th ammendment which was intended only for former slaves of African origin, to jusify an invasion is not ethical, but then noone expects ethical behavior from Illegal aliens or their anchor babies.

Anonymous said...

sorry for posting such a long article- but I have to compete with Mouthy Mexican Female!
By 1967, more then half of those serving on the migrant worker board( a taxpayer paid program and part of the Great Mistake that began in the 60's)
were migrant workers.
in Woodburn Oregon.
You see, they got the idea they were special back then and didnt have to go home to Mexico and fix their own country.
Now we reap the consequences.
Guide to the Valley Migrant League Records
Print this Finding Aid | Email this Finding Aid
Table of Contents

Overview of the Collection

Historical Note

Content Description

Use of the Collection
Restrictions on Access
Restrictions on Use
Preferred Citation

Administrative Information
Processing Note
Separated Materials
Related Materials

Detailed Description of the Collection

Valley Migrant League and Related Materials

Farm Workers Strikes and Boycotts

Overview of the Collection
Creator: Valley Migrant League (Woodburn, Or.)
Title: Valley Migrant League Records
Dates: 1962-1972 ( inclusive )
Quantity: 2 linear ft. (1 document case, 1 oversize folder)
Collection Number: Coll 30
Summary: Small quantity of records of an organization that worked to improve economic opportunities, housing, health care, and education for migrant farm workers in the Willamette Valley of Oregon.
Repository: Oregon Historical Society
Research Library

1200 SW Park Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-306-5240
Fax: 503-219-2040

Languages: The collection is in English and Spanish.


Historical Note
The Valley Migrant League (VML), which was founded in 1964, was first funded in May 1965 by the Office of Economic Opportunity as part of Great Society anti-poverty programs to serve migrant farm workers in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. It operated programs until the mid-1970s.

The VML established its administrative headquarters in Woodburn, with Area Opportunity Centers in Aumsville, Dayton, Hillsboro, Independence, Salem, Sandy, and Woodburn. Initially, the board and administration was predominately non-farm worker, but by 1967, more than half of the board was composed of seasonal or ex-seasonal farm workers. By 1968, farm workers dominated the VML's operations.

Other Valley Migrant League programs included adult education through evening classes, Winter Day Schools, and existing community schools; publication of a newspaper, Opportunity News (and later Relampago); job development, counseling and placement; housing; and child care centers.

Content Description
The records are composed primarily of printed materials that were separated from the Valley Migrant League Photographs (Organized Lot 74) at the Oregon Historical Society Research Library. The collection provides episodic coverage of VML activities, including its first published annual report to the executive board (1967). The collection also includes materials on the National Farm Workers Association and United Farm Workers Organizing Committee strikes and grape boycott assembled by the Valley Migrant League, 1966-1972. These materials document boycotts and farm worker support events in Portland and Eugene, Oregon. Included is a flier advertising a public rally at Portland State University featuring Cesar Chavez, organizer and leader of the farm worker unions, as well as extensive materials on the strikes and boycotts against Di Giorgio Corporation of California and Safeway stores.

Use of the Collection
Restrictions on Access :
The collection is open to the public.

Restrictions on Use :
The Oregon Historical Society is the owner of the materials in the Research Library and makes available reproductions for research, publication, and other uses. Written permission must be obtained from the Research Library prior to any reproduction use. The Society does not necessarily hold copyright to all of the materials in the collections. In some cases, permission for use may require seeking additional authorization from the copyright owners.

Preferred Citation :
Valley Migrant League Records, Coll 30, Oregon Historical Society Research Library

Administrative Information
Arrangement :
The collection is arranged into the following series:

Series A: Valley Migrant League and Related Materials, 1962-1970
Series B: Farm Workers Strikes and Boycotts, 1966-1972

Processing Note :
After separation from a photographs collection, the Valley Migrant League materials were initially added to the Labor Collection (Mss 1505). They were removed to a separate manuscript collection in 2005.

Separated Materials :
The manuscript collection was separated from the Valley Migrant League Photographs (Organized Lot 74) at the Oregon Historical Society Research Library.

Related Materials :
The Stella Maris House Records (Mss 1585) at the Oregon Historical Society Research Library include approximately one linear foot of Valley Migrant League Records; among these are board minutes and reports, 1965-1970. The Research Library Serials Collection includes bound volumes of the Opportunity News , 1965-1967, and six unbound issues for 1968.


Detailed Description of the Collection
The following section contains a detailed listing of the materials in the collection.

Series A: Valley Migrant League and Related Materials, 1962-1971
Container(s) Description
1/1 Conferences—programs, 1962, 1967
USDA Land and People Conference, Portland, Oregon, 1962 October 1-2
First Western Region Conference of OEO Migrant Projects, Woodburn, Oregon (sponsored by Valley Migrant League), 1967 June 7-9

1/2 Ephemera, circa 1967
Opportunity Card (blank) entitling holder to services at Opportunity Centers (English and Spanish)
Leaflets advertising VML job training and placement programs

1/3 News releases and clippings, 1966, undated
"What Do We Know About the Valley Migrant League?"—typescript release and clippings as it appeared in the Woodburn Independent, 1966 December 29
Handwritten draft of news release, "VML Housing," undated

1/4 Opportunity News—correspondence re. microfilming the newspaper, 1967 January
1/5 VML Project Report, 1967
Annual report to the board covering the period 1966 January 1 through 1967 March 31. Includes board and staff, introduction to the background and funding of the organization, and description of programs. Illustrated with photographs.
1/6 Related publications, 1965, [1971]
Pamphlet, "Su Seguor Social" (in Spanish only). Washington, D.C.: Social Security Administration, 1965 December
Pamphlet, "The Condition of Farm Workers and Small Farmers in 1970." New York: National Sharecroppers Fund, [1971]

^ Return to Top

Series B: Farm Workers Strikes and Boycotts, 1966-1972
Container(s) Description
Oversize Folder National Farm Workers Association (NFWA)—Di Giorgio strike and boycott, 1966
Boycott support cards produced by the NFWA, [1966]
Leaflets and circular letter produced by Citizens Farm Labor Committee (Portland, Oregon), [1966]
University of Oregon Farm Workers' Committee information packet, including bibliography, news release, sample letter to Robert Di Giorgio, and boycott information, including broadside (oversize), [1966]
Newsletter, ILWU 40 Recap, Supercargoes and Checkers Union (Portland, Oregon), special bulletin in support of the NFWA strike, 1966 June 1
Newletters (2), 1965 June

1/8, Over B-1 United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (UFWOC / AFL-CIO), [1966]-1972
Broadside (oversize) re. AFL-CIO boycott of Di Giorgio products, [1966]
Fliers, newsletter, pledge form, postcard, and circular letters—Portland Boycott Committee of UFWOC, 1969. Includes flier advertising public rally at Portland State University featuring Cesar Chavez as speaker.
Letter and receipt from UFWOC, Delano, California, to Harold and Barbara Vatter, Portland, Oregon, recognizing contribution, 1969
Flier, Second Statewide Poor People's Conference, Council of the Poor, Eugene, Oregon (English and Spanish)
Open letter to Senator Mark Hatfield from Oregon Farm Workers asking him to oppose legislation outlawing boycotts.Part of a Good Friday demonstration organized by Catholic clergy at Portland, 1972

^ Return to Top

This collection is indexed under the following headings in the online catalog. Researchers desiring materials about related topics, persons, or places should search the catalog using these headings.

Personal Names :
Chavez, Cesar, 1927-
Corporate Names :
Citizens Farm Labor Committee (Portland, Or.)
Di Giorgio Corporation.
National Farm Workers Association.
United Farm Workers Organizing Committee.
United States. Office of Economic Opportunity.
Valley Migrant League (Woodburn, Or.)
Western Region Conference of OEO Migrant Projects (1st : 1967 : Woodburn, Or.)
Geographical Names :
Aumsville (Or.)
Dayton (Or.)
Hillsboro (Or.)
Independence (Or.)
Salem (Or.)
Sandy (Or.)
Willamette Valley (Or.)
Woodburn (Or.)
Subject Terms :
Hispanic Americans--Oregon.
Migrant agricultural laborers--Oregon.
Occupational training--Oregon.
Strikes and lockouts.
Subject Terms :
Mexican Americans
Form or Genre Terms :
^ Return to Top

Finding aid prepared by Sharon M. Howe.
© 2006

Anonymous said...

Good morning,

Last week Daniel had a "sky is falling" post associated with that Absolut ad that ran in Mexico. If you're interested in a more reasoned analysis of the ad, I would direct you to Gregory Rodriguez's opinion piece in this morning's LA Times ( I guess it's clear why Rodriguez writes for a major national newspaper, and Daniel writes for...well, this thought-provoking blog.

Anonymous said...

As an ex-con, is Miglavs elligible to vote?

Miglavs gets amnesty. Convicted of gang-banging, drug dealing and weapons charges.

No jail time served.

FILED: May 20, 2004



Respondent on Review,



Petitioner on Review.

(CC C000009CR, C000111CR; CA A111137 (Control), A111138; SC S50279)

On review from the Court of Appeals.*

Argued and submitted March 3, 2004.

Garrett A. Richardson, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review.

Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. Julie A. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Riggs, De Muniz, and Balmer, Justices.**


The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.

*Appeal from Washington County Circuit Court, Timothy P. Alexander, Judge. 186 Or App 420, 63 P3d 1202 (2003).

**Kistler, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


The issue in this criminal case is whether a police officer lawfully engaged in a precautionary patdown (1) of defendant in accordance with the officer safety rule set out in State v. Bates, 304 Or 519, 747 P2d 991 (1987). Because there were multiple charges against defendant arising out of separate police patdowns and a subsequent search of defendant's residence, we first set out the procedural history in some detail.

Defendant was charged with two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm based on evidence uncovered during a patdown (the patdown at issue here) conducted in August 1999. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence that the police discovered during that patdown. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress that evidence.

The same indictment also charged defendant with two other counts of unlawful possession of a firearm as a result of evidence uncovered in a patdown that the police conducted in September 1999. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of that patdown, and the trial court granted that motion.

Finally, the police executed a search warrant at defendant's residence in December 1999 and seized evidence that led to defendant being charged separately with seven other weapon and drug-related crimes. Defendant moved to suppress that evidence as well, and the trial court denied that motion.

The court consolidated all charges and tried them at the same time. Defendant ultimately was convicted of two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm seized as a result of the August patdown and three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm seized during the December search of defendant's residence.

Defendant appealed, contending that the police had relied on the evidence that they discovered during the August patdown to obtain the search warrant that led to the discovery of the evidence seized during the December search of defendant's residence. A divided en banc Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings denying defendant's motions to suppress evidence discovered during the August patdown and the December search of his residence. State v. Miglavs, 186 Or App 420, 63 P3d 1202 (2003). We allowed defendant's petition for review. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the August patdown was lawful and, therefore, affirm the trial court judgment and the decision of the Court of Appeals.

We take the following facts from the Court of Appeals majority opinion:

"Just after midnight in August 1999, Officer Brown, who was on patrol alone, saw defendant and another man standing outside a car, talking to a woman seated in the car, in the parking lot of an apartment complex in Beaverton. They were below an apartment overhang, which caused the area to be fairly dark. Because Brown suspected that all three individuals were under 18 years of age and possibly violating curfew, she approached the group. On approaching, she saw alcohol in the car. She asked for identification so that she could determine if any alcohol-related or curfew violations may have occurred. Defendant and the woman in the car gave Brown their identification, which she kept while she ran a records check on them. The other male said that he was 17 years old and gave his name and date of birth in lieu of other identification. The dispatcher reported that defendant was a possible runaway, but defendant told the officer that he had recently turned 18. He also told the officer that he lived in the apartment complex, even though his identification listed a different address. He was unwilling to tell the officer in which apartment he resided.

"Because she was on patrol alone, Brown called for backup while she was checking the ages and identities of the three individuals. Two backup officers arrived within a couple of minutes. By the time they arrived, Brown had determined that the driver of the car was 21 years old and therefore lawfully in possession of alcohol. She also had determined that defendant was 18 years old and therefore not violating curfew. Brown returned defendant's and the driver's identification to them, making no overture to cite or hold them. They were then free to go, but Brown did not expressly tell them that. They remained while Brown continued her investigation of the 17-year-old for a possible curfew violation.

"At that point, Brown was concerned for her personal safety and that of the backup officers. Defendant and his male companion were wearing distinctive clothing commonly associated with a gang called the '18th Street' gang. Typical of that gang, defendant had a shaved head and was wearing baggy tan pants and a baggy black shirt with the term '18th Street' printed on the back in large white letters. Defendant's companion also was wearing baggy gang-style clothes and had a three-dot tattoo under his eye that is associated with gang membership. The baggy style of the clothing concerned Brown because, in addition to signaling gang affiliation, the clothing permitted easy concealment of a weapon. Within the preceding year, Brown had come into contact with a similarly attired gang member in the parking lot of the same apartment complex who, on a patdown search, was found to have a weapon concealed in his waistband under his baggy clothing. Also, based on her training and experience more generally, Brown knew that members of the 18th Street gang commonly carry weapons--in particular, guns.

"One of the backup officers, Officer Cockreham, shared Brown's safety concerns. His concerns arose because of defendant's 18th Street gang-affiliated clothing, as well as the way in which defendant's shirt was draped over his waist. Cockreham had personally removed weapons from several 18th Street gang members in the same general area (i.e., along Allen Boulevard between Hall and King); one such encounter occurred 'just previously to this incident' and the weapon he found on the gang member was a gun. Brown directed Cockreham to patdown defendant for weapons. On doing so, Cockreham found a gun concealed in the waistband of defendant's pants."

186 Or App at 422-24 (footnote omitted).

In affirming the trial court's rulings denying defendant's motion to suppress the gun, the Court of Appeals majority relied on this court's earlier decision in Bates. There, this court held that

"Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, does not forbid an officer to take reasonable steps to protect himself or others if, during the course of a lawful encounter with a citizen, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts, that the citizen might pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury to the officer or to others then present."

Id. at 524. The Court of Appeals majority began its analysis by characterizing the basis for the officers' particularized suspicion of defendant:

"The officers' safety concerns here were not stereotypical in the sense that they derived only from a generalized and oversimplified view of how all members of a broad group behave in all circumstances. Rather, Brown and Cockreham had particular training in and experience with members of a particular gang--the 18th Street gang--and its local activities. The officers, based on training and experience relating to that particular gang, knew that its local members commonly carried concealed weapons. They knew, moreover, that guns were often the weapon of choice for members of the 18th Street gang."

Miglavs, 186 Or App at 427 (emphasis in original). The court concluded that several factors contributed to the officers' reasonable fear for their safety:

"On whole, then, we have this: defendant was a likely member of not just an urban gang but of a particular gang known to operate in the area--the 18th Street gang--whose local members commonly carry guns; he was wearing clothes that could have concealed a gun; the officers had both longer-term and very recent experience with members of the 18th Street gang in the area who were armed with concealed weapons; it was late; it was dark; and defendant chose to protract the encounter with the officers. The totality of what the officers knew and the circumstances with which they were confronted went beyond a generalized understanding of the practices of urban gangs and encompassed a specific and particularized reality as to defendant and the 18th Street gang, of which defendant was a likely member."

Id. at 428. The court thus affirmed defendant's convictions.

Judge Haselton agreed with the majority, but wrote separately to clarify that the court's decision did "not authorize 'officer safety' searches based solely on a citizen's 'suspicious' appearance or possible association with a potentially dangerous group." Id. at 435 (Haselton, J., concurring). He further explained that "our holding does not write a blank check for 'officer safety' patdowns resulting from officer-initiated contacts with young men or women wearing 'gang style' clothing." Id. (Haselton, J., concurring).

Judge Edmonds and Judge Armstrong dissented in separate opinions. Judge Edmonds asserted that the constitutional right to associate requires that the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply equally to "those who belong to gangs, wear baggy gang-related clothing, or identify with groups known to be violent" as they do to others. Id. (Edmonds, J., dissenting). He opined that defendant's decision to remain at the scene after Brown concluded her investigation of him was the only fact that could have contributed to her concern that defendant might pose an immediate threat to her safety or that of others. Id. at 436 (Edmonds, J., dissenting). But that fact, Judge Edmonds asserted, was of little significance in light of defendant's cooperative attitude and the fact that Brown did not tell him that he was free to leave. Id. (Edmonds, J., dissenting). Judge Edmonds further posited that Brown's failure to direct defendant to leave indicated that she did not perceive defendant to be a greater threat at the end of the investigation than she had at the beginning. Id. (Edmonds, J., dissenting). According to Judge Edmonds, the majority's decision would permit the police to patdown "any person dressed in gang attire and present in a mall or other public place * * * even in the absence of individualized suspicion[,]" contrary to Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. (2) Id. at 436-37 (Edmonds, J., dissenting).

Judge Armstrong similarly believed that the officers' knowledge that defendant was a member of the 18th Street gang, and their prior experiences with that gang, were not "sufficient to give the officers a reasonable basis to believe that defendant was a member of the 18th Street gang who, because of that membership, was reasonably likely to be carrying a gun." Id. at 439 (Armstrong, J., dissenting). He also could not discern a difference between the officers' knowledge that defendant was a member of a particular gang that was known to carry guns and their knowledge that members of a particular type of gang carry guns. Id. at 440 (Armstrong, J., dissenting). "In either case" Judge Armstrong observed, "the state seeks to rely on a syllogism that people of a particular group often carry weapons, that the defendant appears to be a member of that group, and that it is therefore reasonable to suspect that the defendant is carrying a weapon." Id. (Armstrong, J., dissenting). He noted further, as did Judge Edmonds, that Brown did not have a reason to fear for her safety because defendant was cooperative and because Brown had not waited for the backup officers to arrive to conduct her investigation of the three individuals. Id. at 440-41 (Armstrong, J., dissenting). In Judge Armstrong's view, defendant's failure to leave when Brown returned defendant's identification was of no significance because Brown should have understood that defendant merely wished to resume his encounter with his friends. Id. at 441-42 (Armstrong, J., dissenting).

In this court, defendant relies on the dissenting opinions by Judge Edmonds and Judge Armstrong and argues that the Court of Appeals majority erred in its application of the Bates rule because Brown did not have a particularized suspicion that defendant was armed and might pose a threat to the officers' safety. He observes that, when Brown had concluded her investigation of defendant, she did not tell him that he was free to leave, from which he argues that his failure to leave should not have contributed to Brown's safety concerns. He notes further that he was "cooperative and unthreatening" and, thus, should not have made the officers feel that he presented an immediate risk to their safety.

The state responds that this court needs to decide only whether "the officers' belief that defendant might be armed and dangerous [was] a reasonable one." In its view, "the officers reasonably believed that this defendant might pose an immediate threat primarily because he had expressly affiliated himself with a particular gang, the local members of which operate in the immediate vicinity and, in the officers' training and experience, often are armed." Further, the state argues, "[t]hat suspicion was sufficiently particularized because it was based on characteristics shared by a narrow and well-defined category of persons with whom the officers had specific experiences and about whom the officers had received training." For the reasons that follow, we agree with the state.

We begin with a review of Bates. In that case, a City of Eugene police officer stopped the defendant for "'excessive vehicle emissions'" at 4:40 a.m. Id. at 521. The stop occurred in a "'high crime'" area and the officer called for assistance. Id. Two officers approached the defendant's vehicle and one officer asked for the defendant's driver license. Id. The officers noticed that there was a "television and a videocassette recorder [VCR]" on the back seat of the defendant's vehicle. Id. One officer also noticed "an object on the floorboard between [the] defendant's feet." Id. The other officer also took note of the object and "'asked [the defendant] if he would reach down and very cautiously pull that item from between his feet," so that the officer could see what it was. Id. The defendant refused and instead "reached under the seat and remained in that position" while the officer repeatedly asked him to pull the item into plain view. Id. The officer then pulled his gun and ordered the defendant to step out of the car. Id. The officer then obtained the bag from under the seat, felt something hard inside, opened it, and discovered "several rounds of live ammunition, drugs, and drug paraphernalia." Id. at 522.

The court began its analysis by noting the state's reliance on the Supreme Court's analysis of officer safety searches in Michigan v. Long, 463 US 1032, 103 S Ct 3469, 77 L Ed 2d 1201 (1983), and this court's own previous analysis in State v. Riley, 240 Or 521, 402 P2d 741 (1965), in which the court had acknowledged that "police officers are entitled to take steps reasonably necessary to their safety." Bates, 304 Or at 523. The court then held, as set out above, that Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution "does not forbid an officer to take reasonable steps to protect himself or others if, during the course of a lawful encounter with a citizen, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion" that the suspect "might pose" a danger to the officer or others. Id. at 524. The court explained that

"it is not [this court's] function to uncharitably second-guess an officer's judgment. A police officer in the field frequently must make life-or-death decisions in a matter of seconds. There may be little or no time in which to weigh the magnitude of a potential safety risk against the intrusiveness of protective measures. An officer must be allowed considerable latitude to take safety precautions in such situations. Our inquiry therefore is limited to whether the precautions taken were reasonable under the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time that the decision was made."

Id. at 524-25 (emphasis added). See also State v. Amaya, __ Or ___, ___ P3d ___ (April 29, 2004) (same).

The Bates court concluded, however, that the officers had exceeded the permissible bounds of the rule. Id. at 525-26. It reached that result by assessing the significance of each factor that the officer identified as contributing to his conclusion that the defendant posed an immediate threat. Id. The officer testified that the vehicle's out-of-state license plates, the time of day, the high crime area, the defendant's appearance, the fact that there was a television and a VCR on the back seat of the defendant's vehicle, and the fact that the defendant did not comply with the officer's instruction to pull into plain view the item that he could not see fully, all contributed to his concern about the defendant's possible dangerousness. Id. at 525.

This court, however, concluded that none of the identified factors, even when considered collectively, supported a reasonable suspicion that the defendant posed an immediate threat to the officers' safety. The court observed that the suspicions of the officer who ordered the defendant out of the car

"may have been an excellent guess–-the kind resulting from a sixth sense that many officers develop over the years. But, again, there is no objective quality to them that entitles them to any weight, either individually or collectively, in the constitutional calculus. Neither the hour nor the 'high crime' nature of the area tells us whether this defendant is likely to be a criminal, unless there is some reason to think that everyone driving in that particular area at that time of night is up to no good[.]"

Id. at 526 (emphasis in original). As in Bates, our inquiry in this case is limited to whether the precautionary patdown was reasonable under the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at that time.

Here, the officers testified that the following factors contributed to their determination that defendant might pose an immediate threat to their safety: (1) defendant "was wearing bagg[y] tan pants and a black bagg[y] shirt that had '18th' written on the back of the shirt in large white letters[,]" (3) which the officers associated with the attire of 18th Street gang members; (2) the young man with defendant also had a gang-related tattoo consisting of three dots in the shape of a triangle that Officer Brown knew meant "'[m]i vida loca'" or "'my crazy life' in English" and his shirt also had the number 18 on it; (3) both defendant and the man with him were wearing, "untucked[,]" "extremely bagg[y clothing that] could easily conceal weapons"; (4) the officers knew that 18th Street gang members operated in the vicinity of the encounter and that they carried guns; (5) Officer Cockreham personally removed weapons from several 18th Street gang members and had, just previously to this incident, had removed a gun from an 18th Street gang member; and (6) neither defendant nor the woman in the car chose to leave after Brown returned their identification.

Before evaluating the factors described above, we first address defendant's argument that his cooperative attitude and lack of suspicious behavior was sufficient to dispel any concerns that the officers had for their safety. Defendant is correct that those circumstances must be considered in the overall assessment of the reasonableness of the officers' decision to engage in the patdown. However, defendant's attitude and demeanor are just two circumstances that the officers and, ultimately, this court must consider in determining whether the totality of the circumstances justified the decision to engage in a precautionary patdown. See State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66, 83, 854 P2d 421 (1993) ("totality of the circumstances" are considered in determining whether officer's suspicion was reasonable). As we now explain, those countervailing circumstances, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, are not sufficient to dispel the reasonableness of the officers' particularized suspicion that defendant might have posed a danger to their safety.

Under Bates, a limited precautionary patdown is authorized under Article I, section 9, only when the initial contact between the police and the individual is lawful. Here, defendant concedes that Brown was engaged in a lawful contact with defendant. Brown had approached the vehicle to investigate possible curfew, and later, alcohol violations. She requested defendant's identification and, upon concluding her investigation, promptly returned defendant's identification to him. In other words, as noted previously, the police contact was not initiated solely (or at all) because defendant and his companion were wearing gang attire.

Next, Bates requires an evaluation whether the factors that the officers claim supported their belief that defendant might pose an immediate threat to their safety are sufficiently particularized to defendant as required under Article I, section 9. This court repeatedly has explained that a person's appearance alone never can support a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. See State v. Valdez, 277 Or 621, 628, 561 P2d 1006 (1977) (explaining that "shined shoes, sharp clothes, neat 'Afro' haircuts and people who stand and stare at officers" cannot say much about those people engaging in criminal activity); Bates, 304 Or at 525 (explaining that fact that defendant was "an 'Indian' with long hair and beard" wearing black leather jacket could not support reasonable suspicion to believe that he was dangerous). A police officer's suspicion must be particularized to the individual based on the individual's own conduct. State v. Stanley, 325 Or 239, 245-46, 935 P2d 1202 (1997); Bates, 304 Or at 525; Valdez, 277 Or at 628. Regardless of the officers' belief that gang members wear baggy clothing, that type of clothing alone could not support a reasonable suspicion that defendant posed a risk to the officers' safety. That is, nothing about such attire alone could tell the officers anything about defendant, except that he liked to wear baggy clothing. Nevertheless, a particular style of attire may be a circumstance that, when considered in the overall context or totality of the circumstances of a police-citizen contact, contributes to the reasonableness of an officer's safety assessment.

Similarly, clothing that announces a gang affiliation does not, by itself, give rise to the kind of individualized suspicion of a safety threat required under Article I, section 9. However, officers reasonably may draw inferences about human behavior from their training and experience. See Stanley, 325 Or at 246-46 (in officer's experience, people who commit robberies often are armed); Ehly, 317 Or at 80-81 (in officer's experience, drug users often are armed). In this instance, the officers knew from training and recent personal experience that the gang identified on defendant's shirt operated in the immediate vicinity of the contact and that members of that gang carried weapons. Furthermore, one of the officers recently had removed a gun from one of the members of that gang. Under those circumstances, the officers' safety concerns regarding defendant were not based solely on generalized or stereotypical information about gang behavior but, instead, were sufficiently particularized, based on specific training about and recent personal experience with a narrowly identified group, viz., members of the local gang to which defendant and his male companion proclaimed their allegiance and which operated in the area where the officers encountered defendant.

Finally, in addition to defendant's self-proclaimed gang membership and the officers' training and recent experience with other gang members, there are other factors that contribute to the reasonableness of the officers' safety concerns. First, the contact with defendant and his two companions occurred at a late hour in a darkened area in the general vicinity where one of the officers recently had encountered armed members of the 18th Street gang. Defendant was uncooperative during the initial investigation when he refused to reveal the location of his residence in the apartment complex. See Amaya, ___ Or at ___ (refusal to leave purse-like bag in vehicle when requested to do so was one factor that heightened officer's safety concern).

Second, although defendant was free to move from the immediate area after his identification was returned to him, he chose to remain in the area near where the police were conducting an ongoing investigation. When defendant remained in that close proximity to the officers, the officers' safety concerns reasonably were heightened because the officers needed to focus their attention on defendant's companion and were not able to watch defendant as closely as they could before that time. As this court explained in Bates:

"A police officer in the field frequently must make life-or-death decisions in a matter of seconds. There may be little or no time in which to weigh the magnitude of a potential safety risk against the intrusiveness of protective measures. An officer must be allowed considerable latitude to take safety precautions in such situations."

Bates, 304 Or at 524 (emphasis added).

Here, the combination of factors that the officers identified were sufficient to give rise to a reasonable and individualized suspicion that defendant might have posed a safety threat to them. That individualized suspicion justified the limited precautionary patdown of defendant that occurred in this case and did not violate defendant's protection against unreasonable search and seizure under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.

The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.


1. Our use of the term "patdown" is intended to mean "an external patting of a person's outer clothing," as described in ORS 131.605(3).

Return to previous location.


2. Judge Edmond's concern notwithstanding, this case is not about whether Article I, section 9, would allow the police to patdown a known gang member in a public place for the sole reason of performing a patdown for weapons. Among other differences, the patdown in this case occurred in the context of a lawful police investigation and took place at night in the general area where one of the officers had recently encountered an armed member of the same gang.

Return to previous location.


3. Officer Cockreham testified that defendant's shirt "actually said '18th Street' on it[.]"

Return to previous location.

George said...

Aimed at one race? The students in the caravan came up to me at Chemekata when I was there for a Saturday Class and asked me if I was registered to vote. I would hardly say that I look Latino. I am Eastern Europeon and pretty pale. Some people just like to spin bullshit sweaters. Daniel, you are great at it.

Anonymous said...

good piece today by Ruben Navarrette at

Anonymous said...

Yeah Daniel. Really "scary" stuff. Sends chills down my spine ... just like the tamale dinner you recorded a while back. But it's nice to see you, of all people, expressing concern about racism in society.

Anonymous said...

anon 9:50
you were not gone long enough .
I still think you are an asshole and need to get a life!!!!!!

nice mexican lady aka "mouthy hispanic female" said...

Dammit Danielito!

You sent me on a wild goose chase. The voter registration caravan was SATURDAY, not today! I'm told it exceeded all expectations.

Still waiting to hear how registrants were vetted. I've got some calls out, so I will get back to you on that.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. We're you're worst freaking nightmare: Mexicans with a vote.

Oooh, we so scary, oooh we so scary!!!!!!!!!!!! BOO!

Anthony DeLucca said...

A nice Mexican Lady said:

"You're scared of a bunch of Mexican kids exercising their RIGHT to vote?"

First of all, MEXICAN kids do not have the "right" to vote in American Elections. American adults however, do. Now, are these kids "Mexican"? If so, then we should be scared that foriegn nationals are voting in US Elections.

Secondly, the name you use to post here, as well as the name you chose to describe the voters (MEXICAN kids) just goes to prove Daniel's point: You identify yourself as a "Mexican" and not as an American. This shows where your loyalties are placed.

And lastly, MEXICAN isn't a race or an ethnic group, it's a country. As a part time teacher, you should know that.

I was born in a foriegn country, and immigrated into the U.S. (legally) with my family as a child. I identify myself as an American..not an Italian or even as an Italian-American. My loyalty is to the country that I call home. To the country whose founding fathers have given me the opportunity to succeed. I have siezed that opportunity and do not take it lightly.

You're a typical liberal hypocrite. You'll never admit it, but you are. You admonish Daniel for selecting parts of the Constitution when it comes to his writings. What about you? What is your stance on gun control? How about your stance on "being secure in one's papers?"

It's pseudo-intellectual snobs like you that have made politics in this country as divisive as it is.

Anthony DeLucca said...

A nice Mexican Lady said:

"You're scared of a bunch of Mexican kids exercising their RIGHT to vote?"

First of all, MEXICAN kids do not have the "right" to vote in American Elections. American adults however, do. Now, are these kids "Mexican"? If so, then we should be scared that foriegn nationals are voting in US Elections.

Secondly, the name you use to post here, as well as the name you chose to describe the voters (MEXICAN kids) just goes to prove Daniel's point: You identify yourself as a "Mexican" and not as an American. This shows where your loyalties are placed.

And lastly, MEXICAN isn't a race or an ethnic group, it's a country. As a part time teacher, you should know that.

I was born in a foriegn country, and immigrated into the U.S. (legally) with my family as a child. I identify myself as an American..not an Italian or even as an Italian-American. My loyalty is to the country that I call home. To the country whose founding fathers have given me the opportunity to succeed. I have siezed that opportunity and do not take it lightly.

You're a typical liberal hypocrite. You'll never admit it, but you are. You admonish Daniel for selecting parts of the Constitution when it comes to his writings. What about you? What is your stance on gun control? How about your stance on "being secure in one's papers?"

It's pseudo-intellectual snobs like you that have made politics in this country as divisive as it is.

pseudo-intellectual snob said...

We're not the ones who invaded Iraq, asshole.

Anonymous said...

Delluca - What year did your parents immigrate? From what region in Italy do they hail?

Moondoggie said...


Daniel calls the 18 year old adults you speak of as "those kids" on today's comment. Maybe you and Daniel need to get on the same page. I don't know about "nice Mexican lady," but I think most of us who are a little long in the tooth would call any 18 year old a kid (affectionately, of course). If you're old enough to vote then I suppose you are officially an adult. I think you're getting a little petty on that one. But that's usual for you.

As far as American citizens who prefer to identify themselves as Mexican-American, African-American, Native American, etc...? I agree with nice mexican lady. It simply isnt' for you to say, Delucca. As Americans we are all free to decide our identity for ourselves. Is there a law? Nope. Again, you and Daniel need to get on the same page on this one too.

Daniel doesn't call brown people Americans. He calls them Latinos. You need read no further than today's comment to verify that. In fact, most of you who post here call Mexican-Americans all kinds of stuff: Latinos, Hispanics, Spanish, Spanish speakers, legal latinos, legal immigrants, anchor babies, but NEVER just "Americans." Not on this blog. Who you trying to fool Delucca?

Moondoggie said...


I even recall a guy who used to visit here who called Mexican-American citizens "wannabes." That pretty much summed it up. Americans with brown skin and hispanic surnames will always be "wannabes" to people like you. You must think Latinos are so stupid that they're going to just "take your word for it" that they're regular "Americans" in your eyes and the eyes of many people who frequent this blog. BULLSHIT. Blogs like this (and the people who comment on them) tell the story. Mexican Americans are never going to be plain old regular Mexicans in your eyes. Not unless and until they change their names to something like Mike Jones, Mary Smith and Tim Williams. Otherwise they're just "legal or illegal," to you guys and you know it.

Moondoggie said...

error -- regular Mexicans should read regular Americans.

Anonymous said...

Just got off the phone with Causa. They'll be posting pictures of Saturday's Voz Hispana voter registration caravans on their blog very soon.

By all accounts, the caravan was a great success. Many people representing a definite cross section of the Willamette Valley registered to vote. Democrats, Republicans, brown people, white people, Asian people, young people (KIDS), old people, short people, tall people, Independents, black people, bald people, Latino people, fat people, skinny people, blind people, hairy people, and even a few Italians.

Once again, Daniel purposefully misrepresents events by telling us that something's going on and its "JUST FOR LATINOS," NO WHITES ALLOWED. When are you going to start telling the truth about these so called "exclusive" events, Daniel?

More beans and tamales....

Anonymous said...

AMERICAN isn't a race or an ethnic group either, Delucca. You should know that. It's a country.

Some Poor Schmuck said...

Looking at Causas blog looks like they have white people helping to me. Besides, I thought Mexicans were "caucasions", that is what Delucca said, so how could the organizations registering voters be racist? Against who? They have white people in the photos! Wait! What is going on here? I am confused. Thanks alot, Danielito!

Stuart Tally said...

It appears that Daniel is suffering from guilt about his own organization: Oregonians for Immigration Reform. You will notice that in all the pictures from each and every event OFIR holds, there are nothing but white folks in attendance. Why is that? Maybe cause it is a white, organization for white people hating non-whites.

In the words of the great Stuart Smally, "Everytime you point the finger at someone else, there are three pointing back at you".

Anonymous said...

One of the reasons there are so many mexicans in Woodburn etal- is the 1986 amnesty which allowed anyone in to become legal residents- one of them bombed the trade center
SAW, Social Security The Seasonal Agricultural Workers program attracted 1.3 million applications from foreigners who said they did at least 90 days of farm work in 1985-86 as unauthorized workers. The SAW program was written so that, once an unauthorized foreigner asserted that he qualified for legal status, the burden of proof shifted to the government to disprove the alien's claim. The government was not prepared to question the work histories submitted by SAW applicants, and the SAW program allowed 1.2 million to become immigrants. Two of the foreigners who obtained immigrant status under the SAW program were the Egyptian brothers Mahmud and Mohammed Abouhalima. Both entered the US on tourist visas before 1986 and stayed in the US, working as a cab drivers. Both receive immigrant status under the SAW program. Mahmud was convicted for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, and Mohammed was convicted of being an accessory after the fact for helping his brother escape to Egypt

Anonymous said...

that's odd- I protested the Mexican consulate with OFIR and Daniel, and I spoke with a Mexican american whose grandmother came here legally. He was deeply ashamed of the goings on at the consulate.
go to and send a fax

Robert said...

Got any pictures Anon 3:44pm? Didn't think so. The only Mexican American you saw were the ones you were pointing your camera at. You people are such phonies that it is pathetic.

As for comment the "one of them bombed the trade center" by anon 2:56pm , what are you even talking about. You racist losers are all the same decade after decade. And you never seem to know what you are even talking about.

Good that you stay anonymous, really because chickenheads like you are so anonymous that your own mothers coundn't even recognize you after squeezing you out in the back alley toilet.

Rick Hickey said...

We have members who are of Latin ethnicity, from Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Central & South America.

They have come to our events but they are yelled at more than anyone and called names like "Coconut", brown on the outside but white inside, a reminder of who focuses on the race card(them) and not the truth.

They are, instead of dealing with the extreme harrassment, helping us on the inside, #112 signature gathering, donating money and faxes and phone calls.

People that understand our cause the most are the ones that waited thier turn, paid their money and have enough respect for America to come here LEGALLY.

These Legal immigrants are the most upset when considering all the hoops they jumped thru that there are others jumping to the front of the line and therefore resources are wasted on dealing with the 25-32 million Illegals instead. They are wasting time & money discussing Amnesty several times instead of enforcing current laws which would solve the problem.

Hey I registered a bunch of people to vote this weekend that will vote for our cause and not for the idiots that ignore Legal immigrants, of all ethnicities. And they were also of all colors, political parties, etc.

And yes the World Trade Center has been Bombed twice by Immigrants, all who cheated the system.

OFIR wants the system secured so that and other horrendous crimes stop happening.

What is wrong with that?

Anonymous said...

Yes a Politician that understands how simple it can be to solve this problem...

Dallas Morning News -- April 14
Lamar Smith: Why not use the tools Congress already passed?
In 1996, Congress passed comprehensive immigration reform to put an end to the growing problem. Unfortunately, both Republican and Democratic administrations refused to enforce the law. So Congress spent the past decade passing more laws to try to quell the flood of illegal immigration. These too remain largely unenforced.
For example, in 2006 Congress called on the administration to secure one-third of the border with a fence. The Secure Fence Act authorized the Department of Homeland Security to build more than 700 miles of fencing along the southwest border. To date, only 167 miles of fencing have been constructed.* [...]
No new tools are required. No new laws are needed. We simply need the administration to enforce the immigration laws that Congress has already passed.

Nice ScottishEnglishDutchIrishScandnavianFrenchFlemishGermanWelshMaybeItalianwoman said...

note the racism against white people.did the poster address the issue that 99.9 percent of the May Day marchers were brown skinned people with Mexican flags? how racist is that?
oh I forgot - only white people can be racists or haters.
each and every event OFIR holds, there are nothing but white folks in attendance. Why is that? Maybe cause it is a white, organization for white people hating non-whites.

Anonymous said...

Daniel has an interesting approach to life. Let's see if I've got this figured out:

1) If some service or event is intended for, or likely to be used/frequented primarily by Latinos/Mexicans, then it is:

a) ONLY for Latinos/Mexicans and,
b) NO ONE else will or is supposed to use it.
c) In fact, ANYONE else will be prohibited from using it, and therefore it is,
d) Racist.

Once you've got that fantasy drilled into your head, you must accept the proposition that:

2) All Latinos and Mexicans are illegal aliens.

Welcome to Miglavia.

Moondoggie said...

Tricky Rick Hickey --

Just two things:

Why does the number of illegal immigrants keep going up? First it was 11 million, then 13, then 20. Now, months after 20 seemed to be the "new normal," you pull 25-32 out of your arse.

Im stunned. One minute Miglavians boast, "Our diligence is paying off! Thanks to our heroic efforts to stop the invasion, illegals are leaving in droves! All hail us!" The next minute the number has jumped dramatically from 20 million to 25-32 million.

Rick, pick a story and stick to it. Pick a credible, reliable, verifiable source and refer to their estimates. You guys look silly when you bleet new magic numbers every week.

And here's a simple rule of thumb to avoid looking like a drooling hamster on a spinning wheel:

Success: illegal immigrant numbers go down

Failure: illegal immigrant numbers go up

Second: Why do you call your ethnic members "legal immigrants?" Get on the same page as Delucca! Miglavian talking points don't circulate very quickly, do they?

By woyal decwee, Anthony "I decide who you are" Delucca demands that they no longer be identified as legal immigrants anymore. They're AMERICANS. Just plain old Americans, nothing less, nothing more.

Delucca omnipotently contends that all people of ethnicity naturally desire to shed any reference to their heritage or history.

Self determination is a silly concept that needs to go. I mean, it's not like there's anything about it in the Constitution, right?

Like a benevolent dictator, Delucca knows what's best for all and he will decide for you from now on.

Therefore, Delucca decrees that anyone who refers to their heritage or ethnicity in the process of self determination are obviously disloyal traitors and are therefore suspect.

Anonymous said...

Daniel: I assume you would object on similarly (ahem) "principled" grounds to a voter-registration drives in churches that target Christians for the purpose of getting an anti-gay initiative on the ballot? Or maybe it would be "bigoted" against Christians if it wasn't circulated in churches ...?

Nice Lady sounds like a hoot and kick in the pants ... kudos to you, miss, for calling out Daniel's bigoted punk ass.

Anonymous said...

funny how many people who hate Daniel and love illegal aliens, hang on his every word.Indeed, they haven't the intelligence to
write their own blog. They just come here and kick Daniel. Now who is the asshole and who needs to get a life? Send them some money! they stopped amnesty

Anonymous said...

"Nice Illegal Mexican lady gets arrested at her own wedding"
Port Chester bride picked up by immigration officials
Fabiana Reyes, the newlywed whose wedding reception allegedly drove her to violence, was in the custody of federal immigration authorities today, which is why she missed her village court appearance on a felony criminal mischief charge, according to a law enforcement official. Reyes, 41, was accused of damaging drums belonging to the band hired to play at her wedding reception April 5. Investigators said she lashed out in a dispute about the music being played at the St. Peter's Episcopal Church parish hall. The wedding melee resulted in the arrest of Reyes, her groom Elmo Jesus Fernandez, 42, and their daughter, Helen Fernandez, 21.
14 Apr 2008 @ 06:17 pm

From Anonyma - 14 Apr 2008 @ 06:46 pm
I suppose if this mamacita is such a nut, her daughter may not sponsor her, being happy to let her stay far away in whatever the home country is. We can hope.
From Anonyma - 14 Apr 2008 @ 06:42 pm
Hey, now that they have a kid aged 21, an anchor doubtless, they have to get married so both sides of the extended, loveable, vibrant family can be imported to become our problem.
From Sick Of Working With Illegals - 14 Apr 2008 @ 06:31 pm
what about this article doesn't scream "illegal puta douchebag"?

1) the fact that she acted the fool and ruined her OWN wedding reception over a choice of music that incited police involvement
2) they are only barely getting married now that one of their children is 21
3) that the entire family got arrested at once, including the puta daughter
4) that she already f*cked up and missed a court date
5) that her new husband's name is Elmo.

btw, i thought you couldn't get married legally if you were "undocumented". once again, another example of how this lot couldn't stay in "the shadows" if they tried. every time i turn around they are pulling some stupid shizz like this and getting themselves arrested and in the papers.

Anonymous said...

Daniel --

We all want to know: Are you a felon and can you vote? It's a legitimate question I think all of us deserve an answer to.

You put out this blog and we support it with the hits we generate for you.

I think those of us who want to know deserve a response.

Thank you.

fatputamexican said...

If you want to know if he is a felon then search the records yourself.
The trolls that hang out here don't deserve answers of a personal nature.
perhaps you should ask yourself why you dont put yourself out into the world and take a stand on something, rather then follow Daniel around insulting him .

Anonymous said...


You're stinkin up the place...

Don't you have some UHauls to follow? Your meth is waiting for you at Young St. Market.

Anonymous said...

Rick Hickey,
Shut the F up with your lies. You and OFIR have no members that are latino or anything other than white. No photos of these presumed members exist anywhere, here or elsewhere. Quite the bushit double talk. Hey, wasn't your buddy Bruce the Barber molesting children? Where is the Respect for Law act when you need it. How bout respect for children you pedophile loving piece of human waste.

Anonymous said...

snick at nite - whose real identity is on record with the Cornelius police is back with loving words.

as To Daniel-
being arrested is not the same thing as being a felon a convict or a criminal.
It's not about Daniel ,it's about the United States having no borders- really, anyone can come here- and stay and do whatever they like.
perhaps you would like to post more about the Illegal aliens who murdered Dani countryman by stomping on her neck?

Rick Hickey said...

Since I am being called a liar again...

Diana Hull, PhD.- "The L.A. times, which I read in the morning, whenever it mentions illegal aliens, quotes the 8-12 million figure, as it did during all of 2006 and still is in the summer of 2007." "This figure was generated by the U.S. Census Bureau."
"As of July 1, 2006, the California Department of Finance reported a million more people in the state than did the Census Bureau."
"...There may be actually 20 to 30 million(illegal aliens) or more."
"In 1986, it was thought that about 1.2 million illegals would apply for the amnesty being offered at that time." "Yet more than twice the number, 2.7 million, were legalized."
"...In 1996 (10 yr.s after amnesty), Doris Meissner, then head of former INS, admitted that the number of illegal aliens living in the U.S. had increased to 10 million." "That result confirms legalization of illegals is not a solution, but rather an illegal alien population "force multiplier"."

Diana Hull, Ph.D.-She is a Behavorial Scientist trained in Demographic and a retired Clinical Associate Professor from the Baylor College of Medicine's Department of Psychiatry in Houston TX. She is a member of the University of California at Santa Barbara Foundation Board of Trustees (emeritus). A graduate of CUNY, she earned a mater's degree from the University of Michigan and a Ph.D from the University of Texas School of Public Health.

Philip J. Romero-"The size of the population of illegal immigrants is subject to dispute, with credible estimates varying by more than a factor of two." "A recent entry into the debate has been work by Bear Stearns, which makes a persuavise case that the consensus estimate of 10 to 12 million within the U.S. may be a gross underestimate." "The authors concluded (3 years ago) that 20 million may be a more realistic estimate."
"Because immigrants on average generally have a significantly lower incomes than natives (according to the National Research Council, about 1/2 as much), they participate much more frequently in government programs directed to those with low incomes." "for example, foreign-born households receive Medi-Cal at more than twice the rate of native-born households (30.7 percent vs. 14.3 percent." "Other programs that are disproportionately utilized are SSI, subsidized housing, food stamps, and General Assistance."
"An estimated 25.2 percent of immigrant households utilize subsidized school lunch programs, vs. 5.6 of native-born households."
"(Note that because of data limitations these figures compare natives to all immigrants, legal as well as illegal." "The disparities would be even MORE STRIKING for illegal immigrants alone.)"

Philip J. Romero- He has been a Professor of Business Administration at the University of Oregon's Lundquist College of Business since the summer of 1999, he holds the Miller chair and served as Dean of the College from 1999-2004.
In 1991 Romero was tapped by newly-elected Gov. Pete Wilson to become California's chief economist on business and economic operations. As Chief Deputy Cabinet Secretary, he oversaw all state agencies that regulated or promoted business; comanding a $5 billion budget and directing 40,000 plus employees.
In 1994, he did an analysis of the cost of illegal immigration to California. Gov. Wilson summarized his role: "If it's big and complicated, we give it to Romero and he fixes it."
source;, Vol. XVll, No. 4 Summer 2007.
(Read it as their is MUCH more proof from very credible people).

So YES their could be many more illegals here than Census or Pew think there is and it is NOT good for the economy.

Hispanics in OFIR? Our Treasurer, A gal that was in the Cornelius Day labor protest and every event including Capitol testimony(look it up at CCTV), a State Legislator whose Dad is from Mexico, another State Legislator who is married to a Hispanic and many many other donaters via names on the check and our E-mail alert system.

3 million a year? Hard to beleive but even Time magazine said this 4 years ago as well, "Who left the door open?", Time, Sept. 20, 2004.
Using U.S. Border Patrol figures.

And yes many are now leaving Arizona, Ohklahoma, Georgia, Colorado and even Oregon, as the Newspapers have reported.
No JOB? (AZ.OK.GA) No Benefits(AZ. OK.CO.) even No Licenses(Esme Burmudez, Oregonian,OR.UT.) and they leave, at their expense, not ours.

You can blindly disagree but, I am NOT a liar.

Anonymous said...

"So YES their could be many more illegals here than Census or Pew think there is and it is NOT good for the economy."

Whatever you want to believe Rick. Jeff Passel's method has been developed over the past 20 years, and has been submitted numerous times for peer-review by the most prominent demographers in the country. The other methods have not been peer-reviewed. If these researchers are so confident in their estimates, why not submit them for peer review to a journal like "Demography", which is the most respected demographic journal, and holds the most sway over public policy concerned with matters of population? Are they not that confident in their estimates? Do they have some political agenda?

Anonymous said...

Another trick by Trickey Rick Hickey: talking out of both sides of his mouth.

They're leaving! They're leaving!

They're coming! They're coming!

Hickey: You still haven't provided any sort of credible source for your new magic number of 25 - 32 million. That's a specific number Rick. What organization is asserting this? You just posted 8 paragraphs of nonsensical mumbo jumbo and your claim of 25 - 32 million illegals appears no where within it!

Verify your specific number! Or have you decided to just make alarmist shit up and join Anthony "Imaginary Numbers Are My Friend" Delucca?

Anonymous said...

Hicky, 2 is that all you got? The nutty white woman said she was from Puerto Rico and testified that she was an abused by her husband and was moving to Florida to escape him and to get free services? The woman that said she knew first hand about and ageed that there are jobs that Americans won't do? For anyone that wants to view the transcript of her loony testimony the state capitol has the transcripts on file.

If 2 people is all OFIR has, that is sad. There are more white anglo pro-undocumented immigrant activists at the coffee shop I went to for lunch. Buddy, you are a complete ass.

MAX Redline said...

Mexican Americans are never going to be plain old regular Mexicans in your eyes. Not unless and until they change their names to something like Mike Jones, Mary Smith and Tim Williams. Otherwise they're just "legal or illegal," to you guys and you know it.

That'd be simply amusing, if it wasn't directed at a guy named Delucca. Then it becomes hysterically funny, and a perfect example of just how deranged Leftists can be.

Anonymous said...


Thank you for commenting on my post. However, I did make an error, which I corrected, and the sentence should have read "....plain old American."

Delucca is an anomaly. I can't speak for all, of course, but most Italian-Americans I know identify themselves as Italian readily. Their pride is evident. As I said earlier, I have never met an Italian-American who didn't let me know that that was exactly what he was shortly after meeting him/her. Delucca apparently disdains this. So I must say, I am a bit surprised he hasn't changed his surname to something homogenously "American."