However, renunciation of US citizenship to avoid paying taxes, military obligation or avoid prosecution will have no effect. Uncle Sam will still come after you.
Only if you forget to say no do-overs when you renounce your citizenship.
I’m sure our OP knows that along with that stuff about fringed flags in courtrooms and Admiralty law.
You’ve assiduously avoided the actual charge, and glossed it over by referring to it as a $300 property issue. I didn’t notice you referring to the state in which this benignly described alleged crime is a felony v. misdemeanor.
I trust the irony is not lost that you want the protections and freedoms that a US passport affords, yet ultimately rant about the evil nature of the country that issues it. I too don’t understand the fuss: either you get a replacement passport or you don’t; either you get a document allowing you to travel to the US only or you don’t. Even if someone believes X is supposed to happen thusly, as we know, X may not ultimately happen. Have you even reported the damn thing lost or stolen locally and gotten a police report? Rhetorical question.
“… will not turn myself in since I had my legal and constitutional rights violated while in the initial custody of the police.”
I’m not sure what your point is here. The response to someone else breaking the law should not be “I will not subject myself to the law,” but to (in this case) use whatever facts (or, rather, alleged facts) in defense of yourself to beat the charges. (One uses what one can in terms of diversionary and deflective information.) That you unfortunately (and supposedly) suffered the effects of SAS (shitty attorney syndrome) means you need to do a better job of screening and checking out attorneys *before *hiring them, and having an explicit representation agreement. There will be few criminal attorneys who’d have personal experience with this particular issue, and the attorneys you call aren’t running free information enterprises. If you’d always work for free, fine; others do not. You’re free to say “I want a flat fee arrangement for Y scope of work. If you establish by time entry descriptions that it takes more than X hours’ worth of work to accomplish Y, we’ll revisit.”
Lost At Sea, same situation 99% any outcome? Help a brother out if you’ve figured things out. Thanks
Lost At Sea hasn’t logged into the board since this thread was active - 18 months ago.
So I took a quick look at the CFR – which are regulations or “administrative laws” as opposed to statutory laws, by the way, the distinction being that they are made by the authority of the Administrative Procedures Act passed by Congress but written by the various executive departments and agencies of the federal government.
My first comment is that this is not intended to be legal advice – the OP, if he’s still around after two years, and anyone else needing legal advice should consult an attorney licensed to practice in the relevant jurisdiction. This is a general comment on the CFR’s limits only, for purposes of discussion here on the board, and not in any way advice to an actual or prospective client. I am not your lawyer. You are not my client.
That said, the CFR’s reach seems to be limited. 22 CFR § 51.60(b)(1) covers anyone subject to a federal arrest warrant, including a warrant for the felony of international travel to avoid prosecution.
The OP’s description, however, merely lays claim to a state failure to appear warrant. The underlying state charge is an unspecified felony. But so far as I can discern, the OP has not been charged with any federal felony, including international flight to avoid prosecution (of which he may well be guilty).
22 CFR § 51.60(b)(2) may be applicable. It provides that anyone who “is subject to a criminal court order, condition of probation, or condition of parole, any of which forbids departure from the United States and the violation of which could result in the issuance of a Federal warrant of arrest” may be refused issuance of a passport, except of course a passport for direct return to the United States.
But it’s not clear to me whether this failure to appear was subsequent to a bail condition that included a condition that forbid departure from the United States. That is, our guy is charged with a felony. He’s served with a summons, or perhaps arrested pursuant to a warrant based on that felony charge. If he was released on bail, and one of the conditions of the bail was that he not leave the United States, them I think the CFR applies. But if he simply had a summons to appear in court, or bail conditions that did not include a prohibition against departure, then he’s not within the ambit of 22 CFR 51.60.
In my opinion.
Sounds like you gave exactly the answer the guy was looking for. It sure seems odd to me to flee the country over a matter of $300 though. Would that generally be enough to get you a felony or was that just a problem due to his repeated failure to appear?
It’s possible, depending on the jurisdiction. In my home state, theft of property valued at $200 or more is a felony.
Maybe the OP ran foul of a three strikes rule.
I like how the OP simultaneously believes that:
-
The US system of government is corrupt and arbitrary, and will let certain people off with no consequences while it viciously punishes others for the slightest offense.
-
That there is a way to determine, with only very vague information, how the system will treat a particular individual prior to an encounter.
In my mind he got his passport and then used it to escape all the corruption… and now lives in North Korea but can’t post about his experiences … because he’s in North Korea.