Man sued for $32 million by illegals

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

I never said they were lying, I said they had nothing to lose by doing so and a lot to gain.

Don't try and turn the table by making this about me. I have my opinion and I've clearly stated it. Answer my question, realistically speaking what is this rancher supposed to do? Run away whenever he sees illegals crossing his land out of fear of being sued?

Quit being such a punk, I thought better of you but your true colors are really showing.

I already told you what he's supposed to do. It seems like he has a basis for action against the government. As far as the details of this case, we don't have them. Of course he has a reasonable right to defend his property, so the question is 'is what he did reasonable?' We don't really know what happened, so we can't actually say. The district judge, the one impartial observer that has ruled on the case with all the facts presented to him thought that there was sufficient merit to allow the case to be presented to a jury. In light of our ignorance on the matter, I'm inclined to trust the judge as I have no reason not to.

I'm sorry if you think I'm being a punk, but in my opinion I've been nothing but reasonable to you.

 

[Atheus]

If an American was stuck overseas without a visa, say here in Britain, you people would want them to have all the human rights granted by the local govornment wouldn't you? You would want them to able to begin legal proceedings if they wish. Even if they were an unsavoury character, or a minor criminal, right?

Seems like a very different situation doesn't it. Now why does it seem so different to you? Could it be the way they act, the way they speak, the color of their skin? Be very careful.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

While I am sympathetic with those upset over this, eskimospy is correct in that the Mexicans have the right to sue. Don't confuse what is with what ought to be. The only remedy is for the legislature to define the rights of the property owner. It's possible to grant protection from lawsuits if they so wish. That's the only real recourse.

 

[Wheezer]

Probably are going to find more dead illegals with bullet holes in their heads scattered around the desert.

 

[outriding]

I think this is what the man from Arizona should do.

1) Have the illegals proceed with the law suit. In doing so the illegals need to hire an american lawyer
2) During the trial the Arizonian demands he face his accusers
3) When the illegals show up inform the INS that there are illegals here and have the INS take the illegals away before they are in the court room
4) the Arizonian asks for a mistrail
5) The judge says ok and trial is over

I think this is awesome since it brings money into the US.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

I never said they were lying, I said they had nothing to lose by doing so and a lot to gain.

Don't try and turn the table by making this about me. I have my opinion and I've clearly stated it. Answer my question, realistically speaking what is this rancher supposed to do? Run away whenever he sees illegals crossing his land out of fear of being sued?

Quit being such a punk, I thought better of you but your true colors are really showing.

I already told you what he's supposed to do. It seems like he has a basis for action against the government. As far as the details of this case, we don't have them. Of course he has a reasonable right to defend his property, so the question is 'is what he did reasonable?' We don't really know what happened, so we can't actually say. The district judge, the one impartial observer that has ruled on the case with all the facts presented to him thought that there was sufficient merit to allow the case to be presented to a jury. In light of our ignorance on the matter, I'm inclined to trust the judge as I have no reason not to.

I'm sorry if you think I'm being a punk, but in my opinion I've been nothing but reasonable to you.

How do you know he's impartial? He's supposed to be that doesn't mean he is. I gotta love how your willing to make all the ass umptions that favor your opinion.

Your suggestion that he allow the government to handle this is nothing but ridiculous. It's been 10 years, I say that again 10 YEARS. The goverment is helping him all right, helping him get sued by illegal trespassers. Lord know some poor human being might actually lose his temper after 10 years of this shit and kick some poor disadvantged illegal sneaking across the boarder in the ass. Better sue him for $32 million and wreck his life. Damn US citizens, who do they think they are anyway!!

Frankly, I'm surprised the rancher hasn't shot some one them by now.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

How do you know he's impartial? He's supposed to be that doesn't mean he is. I gotta love how your willing to make all the ass umptions that favor your opinion.

Your suggestion that he allow the government to handle this is nothing but ridiculous. It's been 10 years, I say that again 10 YEARS. The goverment is helping him all right, helping him get sued by illegal trespassers. Lord know some poor human being might actually lose his temper after 10 years of this shit and kick some poor disadvantged illegal sneaking across the boarder in the ass. Better sue him for $32 million and wreck his life. Damn US citizens, who do they think they are anyway!!

Frankly, I'm surprised the rancher hasn't shot some one them by now.

How do you know anything in this world? I don't know that he's impartial. I have no reason to believe he isn't however, and so I wouldn't assume judicial bias without some cause. Can you provide any evidence that he is? This is silly.

I can totally sympathize with the rancher's frustration, but it still wouldn't excuse his behavior if he did in fact assault people.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: outriding
I think this is what the man from Arizona should do.

1) Have the illegals proceed with the law suit. In doing so the illegals need to hire an american lawyer
2) During the trial the Arizonian demands he face his accusers
3) When the illegals show up inform the INS that there are illegals here and have the INS take the illegals away before they are in the court room
4) the Arizonian asks for a mistrail
5) The judge says ok and trial is over

I think this is awesome since it brings money into the US.

You know that's not how it works, right?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: outriding
I think this is what the man from Arizona should do.

1) Have the illegals proceed with the law suit. In doing so the illegals need to hire an american lawyer
2) During the trial the Arizonian demands he face his accusers
3) When the illegals show up inform the INS that there are illegals here and have the INS take the illegals away before they are in the court room
4) the Arizonian asks for a mistrail
5) The judge says ok and trial is over

I think this is awesome since it brings money into the US.

You know that's not how it works, right?

Why shouldn't it? Yes, it's a civil trial but you really think it's going to go anywhere if the accusers don't take the stand? If they do testify or show up, why can't/shouldn't they be arrested and deported for committing their crimes? Hell, he should at minimum push his local DA to pursue trespassing charges against them -thus arresting and then deporting them.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: outriding
I think this is what the man from Arizona should do.

1) Have the illegals proceed with the law suit. In doing so the illegals need to hire an american lawyer
2) During the trial the Arizonian demands he face his accusers
3) When the illegals show up inform the INS that there are illegals here and have the INS take the illegals away before they are in the court room
4) the Arizonian asks for a mistrail
5) The judge says ok and trial is over

I think this is awesome since it brings money into the US.

You know that's not how it works, right?

With all the other idiots in this thread I thought I would join them..

:beer:

btw I am on yourside.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Why shouldn't it? Yes, it's a civil trial but you really think it's going to go anywhere if the accusers don't take the stand? If they do testify or show up, why can't/shouldn't they be arrested and deported for committing their crimes? Hell, he should at minimum push his local DA to pursue trespassing charges against them -thus arresting and then deporting them.

They were already turned over to the border patrol, so they have already been arrested I would imagine. Did you read the article?

 

[IronWing]

Of course y'all know this isn't Mr. Barnett's first brush with civil court.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=93

It seems Mr. Barnett likes holding American hunters at gunpoint as well, on state land no less. He lost that case.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Why shouldn't it? Yes, it's a civil trial but you really think it's going to go anywhere if the accusers don't take the stand? If they do testify or show up, why can't/shouldn't they be arrested and deported for committing their crimes? Hell, he should at minimum push his local DA to pursue trespassing charges against them -thus arresting and then deporting them.

They were already turned over to the border patrol, so they have already been arrested I would imagine. Did you read the article?

Uh yes I read it. It does not say if they have been deported or not. If they haven't left, they likely have missed the deadline to "voluntarily" leave.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Why shouldn't it? Yes, it's a civil trial but you really think it's going to go anywhere if the accusers don't take the stand? If they do testify or show up, why can't/shouldn't they be arrested and deported for committing their crimes? Hell, he should at minimum push his local DA to pursue trespassing charges against them -thus arresting and then deporting them.

They were already turned over to the border patrol, so they have already been arrested I would imagine. Did you read the article?

Uh yes I read it. It does not say if they have been deported or not. If they haven't left, they likely have missed the deadline to "voluntarily" leave.

So why would you ask if they would 'show up' at the trial and be arrested if you knew they were already in federal custody?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Of course y'all know this isn't Mr. Barnett's first brush with civil court.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=93

It seems Mr. Barnett likes holding American hunters at gunpoint as well, on state land no less. He lost that case.

You must not have the right article linked because it doesn't say anywhere that the incident was on state land.

Out here in the boondocks I know of landowners who have pulled guns on people who were trespassing (hunting) on their land (we call them slob hunters). I've also known landowners who have had trespassers pull guns on them. Hell, I know of a game warden who pulled his gun on a couple of guys who were legally ice fishing.

And guess what. Nobody sued anybody. But apparently the "neighborhood" is going to go to pot.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

How do you know he's impartial? He's supposed to be that doesn't mean he is. I gotta love how your willing to make all the ass umptions that favor your opinion.

Your suggestion that he allow the government to handle this is nothing but ridiculous. It's been 10 years, I say that again 10 YEARS. The goverment is helping him all right, helping him get sued by illegal trespassers. Lord know some poor human being might actually lose his temper after 10 years of this shit and kick some poor disadvantged illegal sneaking across the boarder in the ass. Better sue him for $32 million and wreck his life. Damn US citizens, who do they think they are anyway!!

Frankly, I'm surprised the rancher hasn't shot some one them by now.

How do you know anything in this world? I don't know that he's impartial. I have no reason to believe he isn't however, and so I wouldn't assume judicial bias without some cause. Can you provide any evidence that he is? This is silly.

I can totally sympathize with the rancher's frustration, but it still wouldn't excuse his behavior if he did in fact assault people.

Answer one simple question. If in fact he did lose it and kick the lady does that justify a $32 million lawsuit?

If I were reviewing this case, based on the facts I can see I would have thrown it out just based on the amount they were suing for.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Why shouldn't it? Yes, it's a civil trial but you really think it's going to go anywhere if the accusers don't take the stand? If they do testify or show up, why can't/shouldn't they be arrested and deported for committing their crimes? Hell, he should at minimum push his local DA to pursue trespassing charges against them -thus arresting and then deporting them.

They were already turned over to the border patrol, so they have already been arrested I would imagine. Did you read the article?

Uh yes I read it. It does not say if they have been deported or not. If they haven't left, they likely have missed the deadline to "voluntarily" leave.

So why would you ask if they would 'show up' at the trial and be arrested if you knew they were already in federal custody?

This happened a year ago I thought? Are they still in federal custody? I highly doubt it.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: babylon5
Next, drug runners will sue for access for his property lol

They can sue him for anti-trust, demand access to his land for payment!



Of course the usual suspects are out being apologists. lulz.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

How do you know he's impartial? He's supposed to be that doesn't mean he is. I gotta love how your willing to make all the ass umptions that favor your opinion.

Your suggestion that he allow the government to handle this is nothing but ridiculous. It's been 10 years, I say that again 10 YEARS. The goverment is helping him all right, helping him get sued by illegal trespassers. Lord know some poor human being might actually lose his temper after 10 years of this shit and kick some poor disadvantged illegal sneaking across the boarder in the ass. Better sue him for $32 million and wreck his life. Damn US citizens, who do they think they are anyway!!

Frankly, I'm surprised the rancher hasn't shot some one them by now.

How do you know anything in this world? I don't know that he's impartial. I have no reason to believe he isn't however, and so I wouldn't assume judicial bias without some cause. Can you provide any evidence that he is? This is silly.

I can totally sympathize with the rancher's frustration, but it still wouldn't excuse his behavior if he did in fact assault people.

Answer one simple question. If in fact he did lose it and kick the lady does that justify a $32 million lawsuit?

If I were reviewing this case, based on the facts I can see I would have thrown it out just based on the amount they were suing for.

It would justify a lawsuit if the person were so inclined, but of course not a $32 million reward. That's not really important though, as the amount they are asking for is pretty well meaningless. The jury decides the award, there's no way in hell they would give $32 million for a kick, and even if somehow they did that award is very much something that can be appealed. (usually whenever you hear about some monstrous award, you never hear about how an appellate court chops it down to half, a tenth, whatever, of what was awarded)

Finally, judges aren't supposed to throw out cases because they think someone is asking for too much, they are supposed to throw them out for lack of merit, things like that.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

This happened a year ago I thought? Are they still in federal custody? I highly doubt it.

Well even if they aren't, there are frequently ways you can get people into the country to appear in court proceedings, and even if there were not there are other ways for them to submit their testimony.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

This happened a year ago I thought? Are they still in federal custody? I highly doubt it.

Well even if they aren't, there are frequently ways you can get people into the country to appear in court proceedings, and even if there were not there are other ways for them to submit their testimony.

Can't the "accused" demand to question them in person? This is a 32 million dollar lawsuit here you know.

BTW, you must have missed this question I asked earlier:

Answer one simple question. If in fact he did lose it and kick the lady does that justify a $32 million lawsuit?

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: ironwing
Of course y'all know this isn't Mr. Barnett's first brush with civil court.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=93

It seems Mr. Barnett likes holding American hunters at gunpoint as well, on state land no less. He lost that case.

You must not have the right article linked because it doesn't say anywhere that the incident was on state land.

Out here in the boondocks I know of landowners who have pulled guns on people who were trespassing (hunting) on their land (we call them slob hunters). I've also known landowners who have had trespassers pull guns on them. Hell, I know of a game warden who pulled his gun on a couple of guys who were legally ice fishing.

And guess what. Nobody sued anybody. But apparently the "neighborhood" is going to go to pot.

Here ya go, state land.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/...frontation0923-ON.html

Barnett doesn't own the land where the Morales family had been crossing, though he leases it from the state. Lawyers for the Morales family said they were in the area legally.

Arizona State Trust Land grazing leases do not give lessees the right to keep others off the land.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

This happened a year ago I thought? Are they still in federal custody? I highly doubt it.

Well even if they aren't, there are frequently ways you can get people into the country to appear in court proceedings, and even if there were not there are other ways for them to submit their testimony.

Can't the "accused" demand to question them in person? This is a 32 million dollar lawsuit here you know.

BTW, you must have missed this question I asked earlier:

Answer one simple question. If in fact he did lose it and kick the lady does that justify a $32 million lawsuit?

I didn't miss it, it was the very first sentence of my response.

EDIT: Oh, and the 6th amendment only applies to criminal trials, so no as I understand it he cannot demand to question them in person for a civil procedure.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

This happened a year ago I thought? Are they still in federal custody? I highly doubt it.

Well even if they aren't, there are frequently ways you can get people into the country to appear in court proceedings, and even if there were not there are other ways for them to submit their testimony.

Can't the "accused" demand to question them in person? This is a 32 million dollar lawsuit here you know.

BTW, you must have missed this question I asked earlier:

Answer one simple question. If in fact he did lose it and kick the lady does that justify a $32 million lawsuit?

Maybe, that would be up to the jury. It would certainly justify jail time for battery.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Why shouldn't it? Yes, it's a civil trial but you really think it's going to go anywhere if the accusers don't take the stand? If they do testify or show up, why can't/shouldn't they be arrested and deported for committing their crimes? Hell, he should at minimum push his local DA to pursue trespassing charges against them -thus arresting and then deporting them.

They were already turned over to the border patrol, so they have already been arrested I would imagine. Did you read the article?

Uh yes I read it. It does not say if they have been deported or not. If they haven't left, they likely have missed the deadline to "voluntarily" leave.

So why would you ask if they would 'show up' at the trial and be arrested if you knew they were already in federal custody?

Hello? Where did I suggest they were in "federel custody"? Do you have any idea what catch and release is? We don't know where these people are but they damn well better not still be in the US and if they are and show up - they should be immediately arrested(taken into custody) and driven across the border and dumped off.