Search Warrant

[John C. Eastman]

Mea culpa.
I have been out of town and still plowing through the hundreds of e-mails.  I learned
about the April 13 dissolution of the state court order only moments ago.
JCE

Michael MASINTER wrote:

> 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
> >
> >