A tale of two potheads

I suppose I should say "two foreign-born, resident alien potheads, one of whom has political clout..."

The story begins for all intents and purposes, when Charlie Castillo, a Canadian-born man of Maltese descent who had lived here virtually his whole life--long enough to raise a family, work for and retire from General Motors--got arrested ten years ago for possession of marijuana.

(Full and rather long story here.)

Charlie Castillo was ordered deported, arrested by ICE this past December (just before Christmas), and tossed out of the country--probably forever--despite having a wife, kids, home and pension here.

Wow. Tough break. But if that's the way it's supposed to work, one would expect it to work that way in every similar case, right? Apparently not, though, at least not if you are a foreign-born British citizen who is also an HIV-positive homosexual and a staunch public critic of the American Conservative movement, particularly Governor Sarah Palin. Andrew Sullivan, political commentator and blogger who has faithfully carried the Democrats' water for years despite not even being eligible to vote in our country's elections, has managed to get a marijuana case against himself dismissed on the grounds that the conviction would harm his efforts to become a US citizen.

(That story here.)

As you can see, even the judge was irked by the blatant special treatment that Sullivan got, apparently due to some back-room deal between the US Attorney's office and Sullivan’s attorney, Robert Delahunt Jr. Notably, this Delahunt is the cousin of U. S. Rep. William D. Delahunt, who as a District Attorney in Massachussetts dismissed Amy Bishop's murder case without explanation after she shot her brother to death in 1986. Clearly the special favors don't fall far from the tree where Delahunts are concerned.

Welcome to America, post-Obama, where the politically-connected are protected and allowed to break our laws with impunity while mere proletarians are subject to the full weight of those same laws. As it stands today, two potheads were arrested. One who has been here since he was a small child has now been separated from his family and booted out of America forever. The other, a man who came here as an adult and has no wife or kids to provide for, gets to stay and continue his petition for permanent residency and eventual citizenship despite having a contagious terminal disease that should have been grounds for barring him from our shores or forcing him out once it was discovered. But this guy has friends in the form of grateful Democrats, so he gets a pass from the Justice Department which is currently run by Obama Appointee Eric Holder, a man with a long history of questionable political pardons and dismissals.

I wonder what Charlie Castillo and his family think about that? I know what US Magnistrate Judge Robert Collings thinks, because he wrote it in his 12-page opinion.

In the Court’s view, in seeking leave to dismiss the charge against Mr. Sullivan, the United States Attorney is not being faithful to a cardinal principle of our legal system, i.e., that all persons stand equal before the law and are to be treated equally in a court of justice once judicial processes are invoked. It is
quite apparent that Mr. Sullivan is being treated differently from others who have been charged with the same crime in similar circumstances.

If there were a legitimate reason for the disparate treatment, the Court would view the matter differently. But the United States Attorney refused to allow the Court to inquire into why, in the circumstances of this case where Mr. Sullivan had already been charged with the crime, either a forfeiture of collateral or an adjudication would make a difference in the immigration
application.

But there is more. If, in fact, a determination that Mr. Sullivan had possessed marijuana is a factor which, under immigration law, the immigration authorities are legally charged with taking into account when deciding Mr. Sullivan’s application, why should the United States Attorney make a judgment that, despite the immigration law, the charge should be dismissed because it would “adversely affect” his application?9 If other applicants for a certain
immigration status have had their applications “adversely affected” by a conviction or a forfeiture of collateral for possession of marijuana, then why should Mr. Sullivan, who is in the same position, not have to deal with the same consequences?

In short, the Court sees no legitimate reason why Mr. Sullivan should be treated differently, or why the Violation Notice issued to him should be dismissed. The only reasons given for the dismissal flout the bedrock principle of our legal system that all persons stand equal before the law.

Welcome to Obama's America, where all are equal, but some are more equal than others.