View Full Version : 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border. :mad:
Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/
I wonder WTF kind of lawyer would even consider taking a case like this one! :rolleyes:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
The Reaper
02-09-2009, 12:30
There Ain't No Justice.
TANJ.
Might as well use the acronym for this, we are going to be saying it a lot.
TR
An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border. :mad:
And why did these ILLEGALS feel that They could sue?
IMHO, there is a feeling amongst immigrants, that the current administration favors them...and ALL of their countrymen. It is sad and sick at the same time.:rolleyes:
Holly
greenberetTFS
02-09-2009, 13:15
It's incredible that this is happening in our country.....:rolleyes:
GB TFS :munchin
What's even more disturbing is the fact they will probably win.
GANGSTER
02-09-2009, 13:22
Thougth about posting this in the comedy zone but unfortunately it's no joke. This thread warrants it more......
This is tooooooooo weird!
Have you ever noticed that if you rearrange the letters in "illegal immigrants" and add a few more letters, it actually spells out: "F * ck off and go home all you benefit stealing, kid producing, no English-speaking cocksuckers, and take those beard growing, sandal wearing, bomb making, goat f * cking, mutton eating, smelly raghead bastards with you."
How weird is that ??
An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border. :mad:
Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/
I wonder WTF kind of lawyer would even consider taking a case like this one! :rolleyes:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Richard
The scary thing is there are a lot of Lawyers out there that would take this case. Illegal is Illegal and I personally think they should have no rights as they are illegal in our country and should only have the right to exit.
Just my 2 cents.
ZonieDiver
02-09-2009, 13:47
I wonder WTF kind of lawyer would even consider taking a case like this one!
In all probability, it was a lawyer who took a look at Mr. Barnett's bank accounts, land-holdings, and net worth. :mad:
The Reaper
02-09-2009, 13:54
In all probability, it was a lawyer who took a look at Mr. Barnett's bank accounts, land-holdings, and net worth. :mad:
Exactly.
Anyone think we might want to consider a loser pays system?
TR
Interestingly enough the article says nothing about the plantiff's being charged with their admitted crimes here... I wonder if anyone in the new administration has the cajones to go to bat on that one?
One problem is that there is no benefit in suing the illegals. Even if the rancher won, there would be nothing to collect. A loser-pays approach would need to make plaintiff's counsel personally liable. (evil grin).
An additional concern is that juries may favor the plaintiffs - that hints at underlying changes in the way society views property rights, the right of self-defense, and immigration laws.
TANJ = words of wisdom.
It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.
I think that is awesome, way to go, Mr. Barnett. Wish more would do the same!!!
In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.
US District Judge? Are they sure, b/c it looks more like he is working on behalf of Mexico and it's assistance to illegal immigrants into our country. Since when do illegal immigrants have rights under our constitution?
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, I guess MALDEF likes twisting things around.....
http://www.maldef.org/news/press.cfm?ID=474&FromIndex=yes
ARIZONA SUPREME COURT REJECTS APPEAL OF VIGILANTE RANCHER WHO ATTACKED U.S. CITIZENS ON ARIZONA BORDER
Vigilante?
One problem is that there is no benefit in suing the illegals. Even if the rancher won, there would be nothing to collect. A loser-pays approach would need to make plaintiff's counsel personally liable. (evil grin).
An additional concern is that juries may favor the plaintiffs - that hints at underlying changes in the way society views property rights, the right of self-defense, and immigration laws.
TANJ = words of wisdom.
"Nmap,"
I was thinking of the federal charges for entering into our country illegally. If memory serves me correctly this potentially carries federal penitentary time, also possibly in conjunction with state prison time, fines, etc... as well as mandatory repatriation at the time of their release. Since they've admitted to the crime in the process of their civil trial, one would think that the court and the US Atty. would be morally, ethically and legally compelled to prosecute. I could be looking at this wrong though. Perhaps, some of our experts could shed more light on this?
"Nmap,"
I was thinking of the federal charges for entering into our country illegally. If memory serves me correctly this potentially carries federal penitentary time, also possibly in conjunction with state prison time, fines, etc... as well as mandatory repatriation at the time of their release. Since they've admitted to the crime in the process of their civil trial, one would think that the court and the US Atty. would be morally, ethically and legally compelled to prosecute. I could be looking at this wrong though. Perhaps, some of our experts could shed more light on this?
A new use for gitmo, it would be a shame to let the infrastructure go to waste.
dr. mabuse
02-09-2009, 16:44
Larry Niven fans aside, could TANJ also mean "Trial Attorneys of New Jersey"?
www.tanj.org :rolleyes:
One problem is that there is no benefit in suing the illegals. Even if the rancher won, there would be nothing to collect. A loser-pays approach would need to make plaintiff's counsel personally liable. (evil grin).
An additional concern is that juries may favor the plaintiffs - that hints at underlying changes in the way society views property rights, the right of self-defense, and immigration laws.
TANJ = words of wisdom.
Unfortunately, there is a benefit for illegal aliens to sue American citizens. In 2005, Casey Nethercott lost his ranch to an illegal alien in a case very similar to this one. The illegal aliens involved also received American citizenship.
...In March 2003, Nethercott and Ranch Rescue caught Mancia and Leiva sneaking into the country on a ranch near the Texas border. Even Mancia and Leiva admit that the Ranch Rescue members gave them cookies, water, and a blanket, and let them go after an hour.
But they accused Nethercott of threatening them and hitting Mr. Mancia with a pistol. Instead of trying the illegals for trespassing and kicking them out, Texas prosecutors tried and convicted Nethercott of gun possession by a felon (he previously served time in California for assault), and he is now serving five years in a Texas prison.
It gets worse.
In prison for the gun possession charge, Nethercott was unable to defend himself against a civil lawsuit filed by Dees and his gangster mob of lawyers on behalf of the illegals who claimed post-traumatic stress for their hour of cookies and water.
Dees took Nethercott's ranch to pay the default judgment of $850,000 against Nethercott (in addition to $600,000 garnered against two other men)...
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2005/08/gaza_in_arizona.html
For a more current article on both cases:
Sadly, Illegal Alien Lawsuit Against Rancher Nothing New
...You may have read about the illegal alien lawsuit against an Arizona rancher. The story, written by Washington Times reporter Jerry Seper--who admittedly (in e-mails to me) reads this site and has ripped off (without credit) exclusive stories from this site about ICE--is nothing new.
This isn't the first time nor, unfortunately, the last time that illegal aliens have and will use our legal system to take away the freedoms, rights, and property of American citizens. Fortunately for the rancher in this case, Roger Barnett, he is only being sued civilly.
As I noted on this site several years ago, in "Gaza in Arizona: How 'Civil Rights' Lawyer Morris Dees Seized American Land For Illegal Aliens," Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center helped prosecute secure borders advocates and put them behind bars. Not only that, but the SPLC and the ACLU worked with the U.S. government to seize the Arizona ranch of the anti-illegal alien activists and secure U.S. citizenship for the illegal aliens. That was despite the fact that these activists gave the illegal aliens cookies, water, and warm blankets...
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2009/02/illegal_alien_l.html
Defender968
02-09-2009, 18:04
One problem is that there is no benefit in suing the illegal’s. Even if the rancher won, there would be nothing to collect. A loser-pays approach would need to make plaintiff's counsel personally liable. (evil grin).
An additional concern is that juries may favor the plaintiffs - that hints at underlying changes in the way society views property rights, the right of self-defense, and immigration laws.
TANJ = words of wisdom.
I’m all for a loser-pays approach like you suggest especially with the plaintiff’s counsel being personally liable, that would definitely inject a little personal accountability into the process.
What really bothers me about this case is that they were on HIS property and he had reason to believe they were in fact committing a felony by illegally entering the US. According to Arizona law statute 13-3884. Mr Benett would appear to be well within the law in making a citizen’s arrest which is basically what he did. My guess is the scumbag lawyer who is the plaintiff’s counsel will argue that the Mr. Barnett did not have the right to deny these criminals of their liberty for the time between when he showed up until when the Border patrol agents got there, and will hope to get a jury of Latinos. The fact that they’re seeking 22 Million is utterly ridiculous.
From what I saw when I looked this guy up is he's no saint but he's in the right here IMO and this lawsuit is crap, but I'm not a lawyer or a judge. I personally think he deserves a medal for keeping 12000 illegal’s out of our country.
Arizona Statute found here: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03884.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
13-3884. Arrest by private person
A private person may make an arrest:
1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.
Unfortunately, there is a benefit for illegal aliens to sue American citizens. In 2005, Casey Nethercott lost his ranch to an illegal alien in a case very similar to this one. The illegal aliens involved also received American citizenship.
I was just googling that soup sandwich of a case.
Everyday I fear more and more for what my country is becoming.
[I]It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.
:eek:
That is just plain sad. To think that with all the tax dollars that the states send to washington every year that the federal government cannot accomplish this most basic of missions.... securing our borders. Sure there are lots of ways to get in, but just like I know the sun will come up tomorrow... a big damn wall, ground sensors and some mines would prevent alll this b.s. down on our southern border once and for all.
Puertoland
02-09-2009, 21:07
I can't even believe that I just read all this.
Civil rights....for illegal citizens?
That's such a ridiculous oxymoronic sentence.
I'm following an RVing blog by a Canadian couple who, Friday, settled into a ranch near this guy's ranch near Douglas to "ranch-sit" for a few months. Looking back over their previous entries, it's interesting to see how their opinion of our "wild west" ways have softened. Now that they are going to be in the thick of it for awhile, I reckon it's going to get even more interesting.
BTW, Ft. Huachuca was built there for a reason. ;)
Pat
This is tooooooooo weird!
Have you ever noticed that if you rearrange the letters in "illegal immigrants" and add a few more letters, it actually spells out: "F * ck off and go home all you benefit stealing, kid producing, no English-speaking cocksuckers, and take those beard growing, sandal wearing, bomb making, goat f * cking, mutton eating, smelly raghead bastards with you."
How weird is that ??
You now owe me a keyboard.....:boohoo
Hah!
Kudos Mr. Barnett....if only there were 10,000 more like him....;)
Mr Barnett's big mistake was in forgetting to honor that bit of age old Western philosophy which says, "Dead men tell no tales." ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I'm not big into the legal system of what you can or can't do but wouldn't they haft to be US Citizens to sue (I guess not) and can you sue someone while you are commiting and illegal act? (I guess so). Wow... Only in America and we wonder why we are in the shape we are in.:munchin
The Jury just came in with the verdict.
"Thousands of aliens have crossed my property," Roger Barnett has told The Washington Times. (AP Photo)
A federal jury on Tuesday ruled that an Arizona rancher did not violate the civil rights of 16 Mexican nationals he detained at gunpoint after they had snuck illegally into the United States in 2004, but the jury awarded $78,000 in actual and punitive damages to six of the illegal immigrants on claims of assault and infliction of emotional distress.
After a nine-day trial, the eight-person jury -- four men and four women -- returned the verdict Tuesday afternoon in U.S. District Court in Tucson, Ariz., after a day and a half of deliberation, also tossing charges of false imprisonment, battery and conspiracy against Douglas, Ariz., rancher Roger Barnett. Most of the award, about $60,000, was for punitive damages.
Mr. Barnett's attorney, David T. Hardy of Tucson, described the decision as an "80 percent victory," adding that he wished he and his client "would have gotten the other 20 percent." But he said he would appeal the decision, citing what he called "solid grounds." He also said U.S. District Judge John M. Roll had been "scrupulously fair" during the landmark trial.
Mr. Barnett owns the Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., where he maintains cattle on 22,000 acres of private and leased land. A $32 million lawsuit, brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), sought damages for civil rights violations and the infliction of emotional distress. It also accuses Mr. Barnett of assault, battery and false imprisonment.
Also named were Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, and his brother, Donald, although the jury dismissed the allegations against both the wife and the brother.
The trial was based on a March 7, 2004, incident in which Mr. Barnett approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by his dog.
Glad he got off on the 80% just wish they did not find against him for the money...... Counter suit for his damages and on and on and on..... The Lawyers are the only ones that win...
Lucky I wasn't on that jury...they'd have gotten a swift kick in their arses. If they weren't here illegally they wouldn't have supposedly "suffered assault or emotional distress". :rolleyes:
But he said he would appeal the decision, citing what he called "solid grounds."
Does this mean we'll have to change the thread to "Arizona Rancher Sues 16 Illegals" or something? ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Defender968
02-17-2009, 18:54
What a crock, now I understand this guy is no boy scout, but 60K for punitive damages for what?...Calling them names?...or Enforcing our Federal law and for calling the authorities when these scumbags were trespassing on HIS property after illegally entering OUR country, what were those jurors thinking? You know if calling people names is enough to get 60K I really need to call a lawyer, middle school was brutal on me, I’m sure some of those kids have money now…..as a matter of fact when I was a LEO I used to get called all kinds of names, (normally right after slapping those pretty silver bracelets on), hell they almost hurt my feelings a couple of times:rolleyes:. Oh wait they taught us in legal’s that people have a right to call our LEO’s lots of awful things, that’s protected by their 1st amendment rights, how does that work….criminals can say whatever they want but those enforcing the law have to just bite their lips?:mad: I’m really not understanding the thought process here maybe I should ask those criminals lawyer to explain it to me?
You know in the mean time I guess those folks don’t really have anything I’d want anyway so I won’t call a lawyer after all….man I thought I had struck gold there for a second! :cool:
Does this mean we'll have to change the thread to "Arizona Rancher Sues 16 Illegals" or something? ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
One can hope...
I'm following an RVing blog by a Canadian couple who, Friday, settled into a ranch near this guy's ranch near Douglas to "ranch-sit" for a few months. Looking back over their previous entries, it's interesting to see how their opinion of our "wild west" ways have softened. Now that they are going to be in the thick of it for awhile, I reckon it's going to get even more interesting.
BTW, Ft. Huachuca was built there for a reason. ;)
Pat
Follow up:
Well, I'm really stuck for something to blog about to-night. Haven't even come up with any photos yet & it's getting dark. I can hear the neighbor's dog barking so that suggests we are probably going to have another noisy night. My theory is that this warmer weather has brought out.....the night walkers. The Border Patrol refers to the illegal aliens crossing the border from Mexico as "walkers." Last night the dogs once again heard the walkers, & so did I.
We are only about 20 miles from the Mexican border here at the ranch & between two mountain ranges which makes this flat valley a natural walk way north for people heading for Tucson or Phoenix from around the Douglas area. We have also found out a popular pick up point is a mere 2 or 3 hundred yards down the road from us here. We sometimes see slow moving vehicles in the dark. Earlier last night Kelly saw a flashlight beam in that area. The ranch dogs Gleason & Pearce plus the neighbor's dog started running & barking around 10. This went on for awhile so I quietly slipped outside & walked up along the fence line to the road. Both dogs were focused on a spot just south of the gate but I couldn't see anything. However, I heard the footsteps. Someone was walking down the road & it wasn't a neighbor out for a leisurely stroll. Because of the warmer night temperatures & basically moonless nights right now, I figure there are probably a lot of walkers out there these nights in the desert making their way north. The dogs have really been barking up a storm for about the last 4 nights. A neighbor said there are also a lot of deer in the area that make the dogs bark as well. And, there are coyotes nearby because we hear them at night all to well.
Link: http://thebayfieldbunch.com/2009/02/we-got-us-some-night-walkers.html
Welcome to our Southern border, Northern neighbors. ;)
Pat
Welcome to our Southern border, Northern neighbors.
Don't forget that our Northern border is just as leaky as our Southern one...it just doesn't have the overt violence right now which garners the notoriety the MSM manages to focus on in their 'fair and balanced' reporting of such matters. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Don't forget that our Northern border is just as leaky as our Southern one...it just doesn't have the overt violence right now which garners the notoriety the MSM manages to focus on in their 'fair and balanced' reporting of such matters. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Copy that! I'm just pointing out that, perhaps, our Northern border brethren don't realize it.
It's fun to see how surprised they are to see Americans with side arms. ;)
Pat
greenberetTFS
02-28-2009, 03:11
I was just googling that soup sandwich of a case.
Everyday I fear more and more for what my country is becoming.
Gypsy is dead on when she said what is becoming of this country...I'm afraid to say we have lost it... Every thing we stood for is now passe....We are more concerned about the "bad guys" rights than our own Americans. Our fore fathers would turn over in their graves if they saw what this country is turning into.........:mad::(:rolleyes:
GB TFS :munchin
6.8SPC_DUMP
02-28-2009, 05:46
IMHO it would be nice if the illegal plaintiff would be held accountable to law along with the legal defendant.
Verdict:
Defendant has a right to prevent a crime from being committed on his property.
Plaintiff was in violation of the law and is to be deported. All assets seized at the crime scene wil be paid towards Defendant's legal fees or Government cost if legal aid was used.
If I dispute a traffic ticket and a vile of crack falls out of my jacket in front of the Judge and LEO - maybe my defense should be "This is Traffic Court, not Criminal Court!" :rolleyes:
Defender968
02-28-2009, 08:21
Gypsy is dead on when she said what is becoming of this country...I'm afraid to say we have lost it... Every thing we stood for is now passe....We are more concerned about the "bad guys" rights than our own Americans. Our fore fathers would turn over in their graves if they saw what this country is turning into.........:mad::(:rolleyes:
GB TFS :munchin
GB TFS for what it's worth I've been feeling exactly the same way, I'm trying to maintain hope, but day by day it gets harder, between the actions of our politicians and the inaction by much of our populace I fear where we are headed as a nation.
Guys,
Your fears are part of the reason I chose to settle in Texas upon retirement from the US Army. Here's an example of how 'justice' occurs here in the Lone Star State.
A man near Houston discovered that his neighbor's house was being burglarized while they were away. He went outside with his shotgun and phone, calling 911 to report the crime in progress while he headed to protect his neighbor's property. The call was monitored and you can hear the guy calling to the burglar's to halt or he'll shoot and the 911 Operator telling him in the phone not to shoot. You can hear the shots, the guy yelling at the burglar's to stay down, and the request for an ambulance to the address. The guy was guarding the now wounded burglars when the police and ambulance arrived. The local DA wanted to prosecute the guy and it went to trial, mainly because he was told by the 911 Operator not to shoot. The jury basically said WTF is all this crap and he was found not guilty. :lifter
I'm a born again Texan (my great grandfather settled here near Comanche Peak in 1838) and I'm staying here. :)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Longstreet
02-28-2009, 11:08
Check out the crap that Canada has gone through. It is one thing to take immigrants in - our country was built and thrived on this idea - but when these people want to start having a seperate set of laws for their own groups . . .
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/shariah-law.html
Will the madness never end?
Canada is going down the same path as England with this. It is not going to end well. You give them an inch and they want the whole country.
Shariah is just the first part of their long term goals.
Check out the crap that Canada has gone through. It is one thing to take immigrants in - our country was built and thrived on this idea - but when these people want to start having a seperate set of laws for their own groups . . .
LS - without reading the link, it would sound as if Quebec is acting up again, n'est pas c'ainsi? :rolleyes:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Longstreet
02-28-2009, 14:49
LS - without reading the link, it would sound as if Quebec is acting up again, n'est pas c'ainsi?
Sacrebleu! Not even the Québécois would stoop to this level. This group of so called 'Canadians' takes it to a new level of low.
Canada is going down the same path as England with this. It is not going to end well. You give them an inch and they want the whole country.
Shariah is just the first part of their long term goals.
B,
My brother married a wonderful canadian woman, and enjoys flying the holy trinity of flags at his house in Canada: American, Canadian, and OU Sooners!
It will be interesting to see if Canada truly does mirror England.
Holly:munchin
alright4u
03-01-2009, 04:09
In the early 50's in upstate NY I remember my grandfather's camp was trashed almost every summer by French Canucks. My uncle's son still has one of the largest apple orchards in upstate NY. Sadly, the migrant workers who picked the apples for my late uncle and those who trashed my granfather's camp now own land and plenty of it there.