• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Man sued for $32 million by illegals

This is the bullshit we put with in Arizona. This dude's property is RIGHT on the border, and he was simply protecting his own property. Notice in the article how many illegals he has turned over in 10 years...How an illegal can sue an American is beyond me. Dont want the hassle of private citizens hassling you when you cross ILLEGALLY, STAY THE FUCK OUT and come here LEGALLY! Then we will welcome you with open arms!

UGH!

16 illegals sue Arizona rancher...Claim violation of rights as they crossed his land

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.

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.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."

In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

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.

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.

He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.

ASSOCIATED PRESS DEFENDANT: Roger Barnett said he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.

His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.

"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."

 
You have to prove in court that the person you are sueing actually damaged you or your business in some way. Calling the police about illegal activity is not enough reason to sue someone.

I dont see how this is different from a person robbing a liquer store who gets turned in when the electronic alarm goes off or some informant tells the police when someone is robbing a store. All kinds of businesses have electronic alarms.

This is a case of the courts being a bunch of broken hearted liberals.

What is stopping him from putting up signs that say trespassers will be shot on sight?

This man should be given a medal for bravery by the President.
 
Uhmm, anyone can sue anyone they want? Surely you could see the MASSIVE potential for abuse if illegal immigrants (or anyone else) suddenly had no avenue for redress of grievances?
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
You have to prove in court that the person you are sueing actually damaged you or your business in some way. Calling the police about illegal activity is not enough reason to sue someone.

I dont see how this is different from a person robbing a liquer store who gets turned in when the electronic alarm goes off or some informant tells the police when someone is robbing a store. All kinds of businesses have electronic alarms.

This is a case of the courts being a bunch of broken hearted liberals.

What is stopping him from putting up signs that say trespassers will be shot on sight?

How the hell are the courts being 'liberals'? All this says is that a lawsuit was filed... and anyone can file a lawsuit about anything.

These stories are silly, because all they do is rile people up for no reason. Everyone sees a lawsuit filed and somehow they think that it means a court has ruled in favor of the plaintiff... leading to some sort of anti court freakout. (and of course it is frequently blamed on the libruls)
 
You dont know much about civil law do you? Under civil law there must be damages to file the suit. You cant trespass on private property and claim you were the one damaged. Nothing illegal about calling the authorities and reporting a crime.

The rancher even installed a water faucet so they would quit damaging his water tank. This is not the action of a criminal.

This is a case of the Federal Law Officials not enforcing the law. This is a foreign invasion.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
You dont know much about civil law do you? Under civil law there must be damages. You cant trespass on private property and claim you were the one damaged. Nothing illegal about calling the authorities and reporting a crime.

You can trespass on private property, fall and get injured, and win a huge lawsuit against the property owner. It has happened before. This is no more than an extension of that same ideology.
 
What standing do they have to bring an action in a US court? They're already criminals that are trespassing on private property but illegally crossing the border makes their very presence a crime.

Why the lawsuit wasn't thrown out immediately is totally beyond me ..
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmm, anyone can sue anyone they want? Surely you could see the MASSIVE potential for abuse if illegal immigrants (or anyone else) suddenly had no avenue for redress of grievances?

And what avenue of redress does the landowner have?

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

I suppose he's just supposed to just grin and "bare" it?
 
Are the immigrants involved in this lawsuit being charged with criminal trespassing?

That would be my first question.. of many.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
You dont know much about civil law do you? Under civil law there must be damages to file the suit. You cant trespass on private property and claim you were the one damaged. Nothing illegal about calling the authorities and reporting a crime.

The rancher even installed a water faucet so they would quit damaging his water tank. This is not the action of a criminal.

This is a case of the Federal Law Officials not enforcing the law. This is a foreign invasion.

Uhmm, yes you can. There are three basic classifications of person on your property under premises law. An invitee, a licensee, and a trespasser. The amount of care and protection you owe the person on your property is the highest with someone you invited, and the lowest with a trespasser, but there is always a minimal duty of care. ie: If you had a tiger pit in the middle of your lawn you would still need to exert some care to warn people of it, as even if they are walking across your lawn without your permission they don't deserve to be eaten by a tiger for it.

This guy happened to round up some people, arrest them, and threaten them with death if they resisted. I personally imagine this lawsuit will be thrown out of court pretty damn quickly, as scooping up trespassers on your property seems pretty legit to me, but we don't have very much information on it.

nobodyknows: the avenue of redress for the homeowner is the police. These people presumably have been arrested, thrown in jail, and deported. If he wants to try and recover specific damages from them he is more than welcome to. (good luck on that one though). The homeowner's inability to recover damages for bad things that happened to him are absolutely no reason to deny others the right to recover damages for bad things that happened to them though.
 
Originally posted by: woodie1
Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
Well from now on just start shooting, dead illegals cant file lawsuits.

Seems like the best solution.

That's fine. Then he will go to jail for murder, and rightfully so. Shockingly enough you can't slaughter anyone unfortunate enough to be walking on your lawn.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy

This guy happened to round up some people, arrest them, and threaten them with death if they resisted. I personally imagine this lawsuit will be thrown out of court pretty damn quickly, as scooping up trespassers on your property seems pretty legit to me, but we don't have very much information on it.


Originally posted by: Ocguy31
It will be tossed out.

you two need to read the article:

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.


Originally posted by: racolvin
What standing do they have to bring an action in a US court? They're already criminals that are trespassing on private property but illegally crossing the border makes their very presence a crime.

Why the lawsuit wasn't thrown out immediately is totally beyond me ..
they were being threatened in the US. that's standing.



Originally posted by: Citrix
fricken illegals have more rights than a citizen of this country. total bullshit.
if you were being threatened at gunpoint you could sue too.
 
This could be huge!

If the illegal?s win then they would basically have access to any private property and pretty much walk though your yard, hell even your house, the owner could only stand back and watch or loose said property to them.
 
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmm, anyone can sue anyone they want? Surely you could see the MASSIVE potential for abuse if illegal immigrants (or anyone else) suddenly had no avenue for redress of grievances?

And what avenue of redress does the landowner have?

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

I suppose he's just supposed to just grin and "bare" it?

I guessing you just don't care about the property owner?
 
Back
Top