Skip to comments.Arizona Rancher Will Fight Court Order To Pay Damages to Undocumented Immigrants
Posted on 02/10/2011 5:31:32 AM PST by La Lydia
An Arizona rancher who was ordered to pay nearly $90,000 in punitive damages to undocumented immigrants he confronted, with a gun, is going to request a rehearing, his attorney said. Well be filing a motion for a rehearing, said David T. Hardy, who is representing Roger Barnett. He feels he got screwed. I have some sympathy for that view.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld a lower court verdict ordering Barnett to pay the damages for the 2004 incident, in which the plaintiffs claimed that he approached them with his dog and said hed shoot them if they tried to leave. The court said that an Arizona law permitted a person to threaten to use or actually use physical force against someone else when that person believes it is necessary for protection against the others use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.
But the court said that Barnett held them at gunpoint even after becoming aware that no one in the group of 16 men and women was armed, and so he could not use the argument of self-defense....
Hardy took exception at MALDEFs description of Barnett as a trigger-happy vigilante.
He said Barnett has been swamped by the impact of undocumented immigrants and drug smugglers coming onto his property. Hardy said "the FBI twice told him his life was in danger."
Whole areas of his land have been covered in trash left behind by people crossing on it illegally, Hardy said. Some are parties of illegal entrants, sometimes there are groups of 40 or 50. He has drug smugglers come through too. They take vehicles and plow through his fence....
(Excerpt) Read more at latino.foxnews.com ...
A group of 16 can certainly overpower a man and a dog. No need for the “they were not armed defense”.
‘Barnett held them at gunpoint even after becoming aware that no one in the group of 16 men and women was armed, and so he could not use the argument of self-defense....’
16 on 1 is a cause for armed self protection.
What was the rancher suppose to do, hold a drum circle and sing kumbaya??
Did he strip search each one?
While the numbers of illegal aliens crossing the ranch where we live is down, we still carry at least a side arm daily and whenever we see illegals we add at least one 12 gauge shotgun. Most illegals stop when confronted but I have had some take off running. The border patrol collects the ones who sit and wait but the runners get away for at least a while.
No dog! That’s unfair. He should have brought a cat.
I gather the issue was he kicked one woman and he was yelling and cussing and they were afraid of his dog and he was waving his gun around. Well, he shouldn’t have kicked the woman but, the yelling and cussing I can understand. He’s probably tired of it. The dog scaring them is to darned bad. He can have whatever dog he wants to, it’s a free country. Or at least it use to be. The only thing he should be charged with is kicking the woman. The other stuff needs to be dropped I don’t care if the illegals were scared or not, to bad. Stay out of our county and off private property, if your coming here illegally and you won’t be scared.
Let’s put those bastard so called judges on this man’s property without gun alone at night...see how threatened those cowards feel.
If he had not had the gun and the dog, would they have attacked him? Who knows, but 16 on 1, they could have beat him to death easily.
The Arizona Rancher should use this procedure to protect his property.
In 1996, Congress expanded the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to include violations of federal immigration law.
1 While this expansion may not have received much publicity, it could potentially change the face of U.S. immigration law enforcement. Under the new RICO provisions, a violation of certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) meets the definition of racketeering activity, also known as a "predicate offense,"
2 and an entity that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity for financial gain can be held both criminally and civilly liable.
3 Among other things, the INA makes it unlawful to encourage illegal immigration or employ illegal aliens,
4 which violations were included as predicate offenses under RICO.
The 1996 law changes in the INA made hiring illegal aliens a predicate act of racketeering activity under RICO, but illegal hiring wasnt the only violation of the INA made a predicate act. Other INA prohibitions made RICO predicate acts were encouraging or inducing illegal immigration, smuggling, and harboring illegal aliens.10 Together, these additions make the RICO Act potentially a very strong new tool in the hands of private parties against persons and companies that profit by violating U.S. immigration law.
Additionally, the RICO provision regarding the unlawful encouragement of illegal immigration could justify a suit against a private entity, such as a bank, that accepts foreign-issued identification cards that are only needed by illegal aliens. One example of this, of course, is the matricula consular issued by the Mexican consulates in the United States.
Since both the supporters of the matricula and those who oppose its acceptance agree that only illegal aliens have need to rely on the card, acceptance of the card knowingly encourages illegal immigration. Part of the legislative intent of the RICO laws in general was to afford private citizens a remedy for lawbreaking when authorities normally charged with such enforcement became derelict in their duties.
For example, in a town in which political corruption and racketeering activity have combined to the detriment of law-abiding citizens and the rule of law, the RICO Act was intended to provide private citizens the ability to initiate court action to compel enforcement and respect for the law.
“But the court said that Barnett held them at gunpoint even after becoming aware that no one in the group of 16 men and women was armed, and so he could not use the argument of self-defense....”
How did he “become aware” of that? No No Senior. No weapons here. We are all American ceetizens out for a walk.
The world is upside-down.
Welcome to Aztlan.
He captured foreign agents invading our nation. He should have gotten a medal
Remember back in the day when our govt was on the side of honest, land owning American citizens rather than trespassing foreigners entering the country illegally?
Of course not, that would be ridiculous.
He is supposed to pull out a guitar and sing "La Bamba".
But it’s a good thing that Sarah Palin and other republican leaders are so passionate about defending ordinary Americans in such cases... /s
We don’t need a US Atty or a private atty.
ANYBODY can file a RICO case——even private citizens.
A good bet is to file the RICO case against deep-pocketed mexico——b/c the litigant gets a share of the financial damages.
After the Ninth Circuit Courts ruling, MALDEF released a statement that said: Today’s ruling sends the strong message that “vigilantes will not be tolerated in Arizona.
I guess that means that only people breaking the law are tolerated.
Good for him!!!! This judgment was really insane....
The legislators who pass the laws and the Presidents who appointed the judges were all elected by the people. One would therefore assume the government is representing the wishes of the people. If not, the people should stop electing the representatives and Presidents responsible for the conduct of the bureaucracy and the courts.
How many federal judges are impeached and removed by Congress each year? Very few if any. Impeachment is the Constitutional check on the power of runaway judges. Since Congress is not removing judges one must presume Congress is satisfied with their behavior. If Congress isn’t removing judges one must also presume the people who elect the representatives are satisfied with the rulings of the judges.
In addition the people have the ability to check the power of the courts through a Constitutional convention or Constitutional amendment. There is no popular movement underway to amend the Constitution or call a convention to reign in the judicial branch. Therefore, the majority of the people must be either satisfied with or indifferent to the actions of the judiciary.
The point I am making is until the people rise up and change the government, we will have status quo.
Hopefully this will lead to more victims like this rancher reverting to the “shoot, shovel and STFU” method of dealing with property violence committed by illegals.
“”The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld a lower court verdict ordering Barnett to pay the damages for the 2004 incident””
Wasn’t the judge in the lower court the judge who was killed in Tucson at the same time the congresswoman was shot?
The institution? I wish——well, maybe individual lawmakers.
Once, when I was a kid, I was trespassing on Old Mr. Williams’ farm and he approached me with his dog and his shotgun and told me he would shoot me with rock-salt if he saw me on his property again.
I never considered suing him, I just (quickly) left his property and never trespassed there again...
...and hoped he didn’t tell my parents.
To this day, for some reason, the song ‘Mr. Charlie’ always makes me think of that old man...
Yes, I think so.
The judge needs to be arrested.
Shoot, shovel and shut up.
That will be the result if he is forced to pay the invaders; the next guy will know what he’s up against and act accordingly.
The judge is dead.
That's what most Americans want, the status quo, and the promise of liberalism.
As soon as I typed out that thought, this came to mind. This is how the anti-christ is going to enter and take over the world.
Stuff like this makes my blood boil.
*biting my tongue*
Amen to that brother!
When I was about 10 a group of us were up in the apple trees of a neighboor when he came home and caught us and sent us packin...he wasnt packin but we were...
Boy those were good apples...but the whipping my Dad gave me for trespassing and stealing made me forget about them...
“.....But the court said that Barnett held them at gunpoint even after becoming aware that no one in the group of 16 men and women was armed, and so he could not use the argument of self-defense....”
Fer cryin’ out loud there were 16 of them.
Please note that Pres BO and his AG Holder have sided against American citizens by sueing the state of AZ in order to defend criminal aliens. This is BO’s way of undermining the value of US citizenship and tearing down our borders. When will people realize this sick little man we call a leader is a hate-filled anti-american.
David Hinojosa, southwest regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund (aka: MALDEF), which represented the plaintiffs in the suit against Barnett,
After the Ninth Circuit Courts ruling, MALDEF released a statement that said: Today's ruling sends the strong message that vigilantes will not be tolerated in Arizona.
So Barnett is a "vigilante"? Oh really. I guess Señor Hinojosa never heard of Property Rights. Like 'Private Property, No Trespassing, KEEP OUT'.
And I have news for Señor Hinojosa, there's a Warning sign I saw that I've been meaning to get which would apply to these illegals, or any 'trespassers'. It goes something like:
Warning! If I Find You Here TonightWe have allowed to have these enemies within like this MALDEF and the SPLC working to destroy the USA and the centuries old concept of Property Rights. Per these traitors all land that adjoins OUR southern border is 'free range'. Open for anybody to do anything they want. And I assume that if the illegals find a spot on someone's ranch and liked it, they could build a cabin and SQUAT there and let the Gringo pay the taxes and clean up costs. And even provide indoor plumbing Free of Charge! (not that any of these people would know what to do with it)
You'll Be Found Here In The Morning
I guess defending your own property is now being a vigilante.
It's not private property. Barnett owns 360 acres there and has a grazing lease on 22,000 acres of federal and state land. These events were on the the leased land.
This is not the first suit that Barnett has lost and had to pay damages. The first one was by a Mexican American family who was hunting on the leased land who were held at gunpoint. In that trial there were witnesses testifying that they also had been held at gunpoint by Barnett.
It was only after Barnett lost the first suit that this suit was filed.
How to file a RICO suit.
But as to the 'leased property'. If he's paying the G for the leased land, then only the owner, 'Lessor' (Gubmint) has the Right To Enter without the consent of the Leese.
It's just as if you're leasing an Apartment. You still have Private Property Rights, or a Right to Privacy under the lease. And one Right would be No Unauthorized Entry (Trespassing).
This guy may be a Flake, or maybe not. But if he's paying to use this land he's responsible for it. Like cleanup after these 'immigrants' who trash it.
Sainted Judge Roll presided over the original trial.
He’s dead.....the Tucson January 8 incident...and now he’s a saint.
He’s dead.....the Tucson January 8 incident...and now he’s a saint.