Search Warrant

Michael MASINTER masinter at NOVA.EDU
Fri Apr 28 20:32:46 PDT 2000


John Eastman's argument might have more force but for the dissolution of
the state court's order and dismissal of the Florida state court lawsuit
on grounds including Lazaro's lack of standing under Florida law as a
great uncle.  The state court decision is on line at
http://www.jud11.flcourts.org/baileyfinal.pdf.

Michael R. Masinter                     3305 College Avenue
Nova Southeastern University            Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314
Shepard Broad Law Center                (954) 262-6151
masinter at nova.edu                       Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel

On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, John C. Eastman wrote:

> On January 20, 2000, the Florida state court granted Lazaro Gonzalez "limited legal
> authority . . . to assert and protect such rights as the child may have under United
> States immigration law."  Temporary Protective Order, Gonzalez v. Gonzalez-Quintana,
> 00-00479 FC 29 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Jan. 10, 2000), cited in Gonzalez v. Reno, 86
> F.Supp.2d 1167, 1171 n.5 (S.D. Fla., March 21, 2000).  Thus, the INS grant of
> temporary custody was not the only relevant order here.  It is hard to see how
> Lazaro can "protect" Elian's immigration law rights when he and the attorney he has
> retained on Elian's behalf are barred from even meeting with their ward/client.
> John C. Eastman
> Chapman University School of Law and
> Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
>
> Edward A Hartnett wrote:
>
> > -----------
> > My question:
> >
> > What I am trying to figure out is on what possible basis the Gonzales family
> > could claim that they were _"lawfully"_ restaining Elian?    It seems to me that
> > the sole source of their legal authority was the INS decision to parole Elian to
> > them.  Once the INS revoked that parole (and his father asked for his return),
> > what is the basis of the legal claim to continued physical custody?  Indeed, how
> > do they have a stronger legal claim than (say) Larry Tribe or Sandy Levinson to
> > continued physical custody?
> >
> > Or is the suggestion that there was no "restraint" until the INS showed up at
> > the door?
> >
> > Ed Hartnett
> > Seton Hall
>
>



More information about the Conlawprof mailing list