Posted on 02/22/2009 1:12:39 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Arizona rancher Roger Barnett initially faced the possibility of paying $32 million to compensate several illegal immigrants he stopped at gunpoint on his land. He walked away instead with a verdict that rejected any notion he violated the trespassers' civil rights and affirmed that U.S. citizens can still detain aliens crossing the border.
What remains to be seen, though, is what impact the $77,800 in damages that a jury Tuesday ordered Mr. Barnett to pay will have on America's larger immigration debate and the efforts of some illegals to get compensation from a country they aren't even allowed to enter.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), an immigrant-advocacy group that helped bring the lawsuit, had claimed Mr. Barnett violated the civil rights of 16 illegal immigrants he stopped crossing his border property after they had illegally sneaked into the United States. MALDEF sought $2 million in actual and punitive damages for each of the plaintiffs.
The outcome fell far short of the advocacy group's wishes.
U.S. District Judge John M. Roll, for starters, dismissed the claims of 10 of the illegals because they did not testify at trial. He then tossed related conspiracy complaints against Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, and his brother Donald, saying illegal immigrants had no constitutionally protected right to travel in the United States.
Judge Roll said the Barnetts, who live in close proximity to the border, could reasonably assume that large groups of people they encountered hiding or trespassing on their property were doing so with the aid of smugglers.
He said entering the United States illegally was a federal felony, for which a citizen's arrest was authorized under Arizona law.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com:80 ...
The Rio Grande doesn’t make it to the Gulf does it? It wasn’t before I came to Virginia
District court decisions don't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Appellate decisions, though, are used to guide future legislation and case law. The 2006 law barring illegals from receiving punitive damages may be unsupported by jurisprudence (thus far). Therefore, it's possible that the judge wanted the "pay the illegals" issue to be appealed, and gave the jury "enough rope".
I hope that is where this is going. I’m getting tired of the courts making criminals rich. It’s making me start to rethink my current occupation and just become a criminal.
I feel the same way.
The first shot of the next American revolution/societal breakdown will be along our southern border; it will be made by American citizens who cannot tolerate, among other things, pressing “2” for English any longer.
It’s about transferring wealth from those who earned it through the sweat of their brow to those who vote democrat.
How much “emotional damages” is Roger Barnett owed for these illegals trespassing on his land and causing him to fear for the safety of his family?
If he doesn’t get all the damages erased on his appeal, we should set up a donation fund to cover his costs.
This man is an American hero, and he’s still being treated like a criminal.
I still say there are still a couple hundred-thousand land mines waiting for dismantling that could be put to use.
Well! If you must . . . go ahead.
The Terry Anderson Show...
Terry’s guests tonight will be ....
GLENN SPENCER - Founder of the American Border Patrol and the American Patrol Report
ROGER BARNETT - Arizona Rancher who was recently sued by a bunch of Mexican invaders with the help of MALDEF and the miserable SPLC
Call Terry LIVE 9-10 PM PST at (866) 870-57521
LIVE stream at http://krla870.townhall.com/
http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=listenliv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2191683/posts?page=2
Ping
Ping! Ping! Ping!
According to earlier articles, the damages were awarded for assault and mental distress.
The trial was in Federal Court, I don’t think our State law applies...
I’ll ping this when I get home to my copy of the ping list...I’ve been on travel this weekend.
Looks like I have a lot of articles to catch up on.
I have been on several juries in trials where scammers, IMO, were trying to hit the jackpot. In those cases the plaintiff's claims could not be justified but sometimes there were bleeding hearts who think they should be given at least something just in case we were wrong. That contradicted and watered down our main decisions but the rest of us conceded just to avoid a hung jury. I think many personal injury lawyers, ambulance chasers and others, depend on that when they bring these frivolous lawsuits.
Maybe that was the case here.
I was just reading this article:
Going to Mexico for spring break? Read this first
It warns about the dangers in Mexico and their laws, which AMERICANS must obey. This one really caught my eye:
“, or making obscene or insulting remarks are all considered criminal activities by Mexican authorities. “
If our laws were like Mexico’s, every illegal alien would be in jail. Obscene and insulting remarks is what they do best...no wonder they left Mexico.
Anyway, a couple of items here, did the judge give the jury some flawed instructions or is Barrett's lawyer blowing smoke? The "incident" occurred in 2004 and the constitutional amendment barring illegals from receiving punitive damages wasn't approved til 2006. Did the judge point this out -- maybe???
Article within an article Ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.