“get out of my country.”

[de officiis]

So that would apply to someone that immigrated illegally, committed some infraction, then left the area, but returned to attend s summons, and was arrested correct?

Like I said, "this has nothing to do with criminal procedure."

so then, by 'civil proceedings', you mean lawsuits?

Generally yes, although the term could also be considered to include administrative proceedings.

[clubgop]

It's been awhile, but I believe there are restrictions in civil proceedings with regard to the service of process on someone found within the jurisdiction of the tribunal solely because they were summoned into the jurisdiction to give testimony in a separate legal proceeding. As one might imagine, a basic due process consideration underlies the rule. Of course, this has nothing to do with criminal procedure or entrapment.

So that would apply to someone that immigrated illegally, committed some infraction, then left the area, but returned to attend s summons, and was arrested correct?

Look at you trying to justify the stupid.

Fucking pathetic and adorable.

[de officiis]

So that would apply to someone that immigrated illegally, committed some infraction, then left the area, but returned to attend s summons, and was arrested correct?

Like I said, "this has nothing to do with criminal procedure."

so then, by 'civil proceedings', you mean lawsuits?

I was able to track this down...

The general rule that witnesses, suitors, and their attorneys, while in attendance in connection with the conduct of one suit are immune from service of process in another, is founded, not upon the convenience of the individuals, but of the court itself. As commonly stated and applied, it proceeds upon the ground that the due administration of justice requires that a court shall not permit interference with the progress of a cause pending before it, by the service of process in other suits, which would prevent, or the fear of which might tend to discourage, the voluntary attendance of those whose presence is necessary or convenient to the judicial administration in the pending litigation.

Lamb v. Schmitt, 285 U.S. 222, 225 (1932) (citations omitted).

[clubgop]

Like I said, "this has nothing to do with criminal procedure."

so then, by 'civil proceedings', you mean lawsuits?

I was able to track this down...

The general rule that witnesses, suitors, and their attorneys, while in attendance in connection with the conduct of one suit are immune from service of process in another, is founded, not upon the convenience of the individuals, but of the court itself. As commonly stated and applied, it proceeds upon the ground that the due administration of justice requires that a court shall not permit interference with the progress of a cause pending before it, by the service of process in other suits, which would prevent, or the fear of which might tend to discourage, the voluntary attendance of those whose presence is necessary or convenient to the judicial administration in the pending litigation.

Lamb v. Schmitt, 285 U.S. 222, 225 (1932) (citations omitted).

DeO, I see what you are doing. And its giving me a raging hard on.