• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

16 Illegals Sue Arizona Rancher After Crossing His Land

BPSCG

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
17,539
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.
Click to expand...
Link
 
The Washington Times, and other publications owned by the Unification Church usually care more about offering their bias than objective facts.

It appears the case is not only about false imprisonment (for which he was found guilty of having done before with a family living in his city), but kicking someone and detaining them based on race.

Barnett's attorney says they are illegal and shouldn't have the same rights as others seemingly showing that had he done it with a U.S. citizen he'd be in court.

It seems the Washington Times omitted those details.

Civil-rights trial starts for migrant-detaining rancher
Arizona Daily Star, AZ - Feb 2, 2009

The latest suit against the controversial rancher stems from a 2004 incident in a wash near Douglas when Barnett approached a group of illegal immigrants while he was carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs — five women and 11 men who were trying to cross into the U.S. illegally — say that Barnett held the group captive at gunpoint, threatening that his dog would attack and that he would shoot anyone who tried to escape, a press release from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said.

The group says Barnett also kicked one of the members of the group. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund is representing the 16 people.
The federal lawsuit charges Barnett, his wife, Barbara Barnett, and his brother, Donald Barnett, with conspiring to violate the plaintiffs' civil rights, the release said.

In March 2008, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected Barnett's efforts to have the charges thrown out. Roll ruled that there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy — that the conspiracy denied the plaintiffs their right to interstate travel and the actions of the Barnetts were motivated by race — to allow the matter to be presented to a jury.

Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants didn't have the same rights as citizens. That setback came on the heels of another judgment against Barnett in February 2008. At that time, the Arizona Court of Appeals refused to throw out a jury verdict of guilty from November 2006 — and a nearly $100,000 monetary award — against Barnett in another civil case in which a jury concluded he falsely imprisoned members of a Douglas family.
...
Click to expand...

Arizona Daily Star, AZ


This report says the person he kicked was a woman on the ground:

Trial Begins For Rancher Who Detained Immigrants
KPHO
POSTED: 8:45 am MST February 3, 2009
UPDATED: 10:02 am MST February 3, 2009


TUCSON -- The trial is now under way in a civil-rights lawsuit against a southern Arizona rancher accused of holding a group of illegal immigrants at gunpoint near Douglas.
...
The group also said Barnett kicked one of the women in the group when she was on the ground.
...
Roll's ruling came on the heels of another judgment against Barnett in February 2008.

At that time, the Arizona Court of Appeals refused to throw out a jury verdict from November 2006 -- and a nearly $100,000 monetary award -- against Barnett in another civil case where a jury concluded he falsely imprisoned members of a Douglas family.
...
Click to expand...

KPHO-TV
 
Last edited:
Un Freaking Believable.
If this comes to trial, I think it will be very,very,hard to find a jury that will find for the plantiffs.
 
Questioninggeller, no doubt there's more to it, but in what world is that worth $35million?
 
tkingdoll said:
Questioninggeller, no doubt there's more to it, but in what world is that worth $35million?
Click to expand...

Where'd you get the $35 million figure?

I don't know enough about the case, but am looking for more details. Does anyone have a PDF of the lawsuit?

What I do know is the report the above people based their outrage on left out relevant facts, including that he illegally detained residents in his city and has to pay them $100,000 in another case.

Also I do note the defendant says this is part of a large pattern (he claims to have done this to "thousands"). If the sheriff hasn't done enough to stop rights violations then he should also be punished to uphold people's rights. (I assume that's the bulk of money sought since the county likely has more money than the individual.)

But I can say I am not willing to put a price tag on the rights of 16 people, illegal or not. If abuse is part of a large, continual pattern then that should equate with paying large damages.
 
Last edited:
Questioninggeller said:
Where'd you get the $35 million figure?

I don't know enough about the case, but am looking for more details. Does anyone have a PDF of the lawsuit?

What I do know is the report the above people based their outrage on left out relevant facts, including that he illegally detained residents in his city and has to pay them $100,000 in another case.

Also I do note the defendant says this is part of a large pattern (he claims to have done this to "thousands"). If the sheriff hasn't done enough to stop rights violations then he should also be punished to uphold people's rights. (I assume that's the bulk of money sought since the county likely has more money than the individual.)
Click to expand...

My mistake, it's a mere $32million.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Here's more detail:

Cochise sheriff, rancher face suit
Mar 10, 2005
By Michael Marizco
Arizona Daily Star, AZ

Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever is being sued for a share of a $32 million lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court.

The suit alleges the sheriff has done nothing to stop a Cochise County rancher from apprehending illegal entrants on his own property east of Douglas.

Filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the suit alleges rancher Roger Barnett held a group of illegal entrants at gunpoint on his property one year ago , shouted obscenities at the group, kicked one of the women twice and threatened to shoot anybody who tried to leave. It also lists 10 un-named co-conspirators who have known of Barnett's actions in the past and did nothing to prevent them.

Calling the group "racist liars," Barnett says he doesn't recall the incident ever taking place and said he hasn't been served with a lawsuit.
...
The suit alleges that on March 7, 2004, 19 illegal entrants were resting in a wash near Douglas when Barnett pulled up on an all-terrain vehicle with a large, barking dog. It claims that Barnett waved his cocked gun at the group, and yelled obscenities at them.
...
The suit mentions that Barnett, his brother Donald and his wife, Barbara, have admitted to turning over 12,000 illegal entrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.
...
The civil rights group hopes to send a message to vigilantes that they cannot operate with impunity, Perez said.
...
She said MALDEF has the Border Patrol reports proving the entrants reported their treatment to the arriving agents but did not share them with the Arizona Daily Star when asked to.
...
"They're trying to destroy the United States like this," Barnett said.
Click to expand...

Arizona Daily Star, AZ


tkingdoll said:
My mistake, it's a mere $32million.
Click to expand...

A little more about the money:

Cochise sheriff, rancher face suit
Mar 10, 2005
By Michael Marizco
Arizona Daily Star, AZ

...
The suit asks a jury to reward a total of $16 million in actual damages and $16 million in punitive damages against all the defendants, she said. The money sought is not broken up among the defendants in any particular way but lists the Barnetts, Dever and the 10 unidentified defendants.
...
Click to expand...

Arizona Daily Star, AZ

So this would mean, if the allegations are true and the jury agreed, each person illegally detained would get $1 million for actual damages and $1 million punitive paid by 14 individuals in their private or government capacity.

Do you think $2 million is worth rights violations/abuse? Or $2 million a person sends a message in preventing abuse from continuing? (If equally divided that is $142,857.14 each defendant pays to each plaintiff.)
 
Last edited:
tkingdoll said:
Questioninggeller, no doubt there's more to it, but in what world is that worth $35million?
Click to expand...

Punitive damages. Which by definition are a punishment designed to deter repeated conduct.

He was already fined $100,000 and that wasn't enough to stop him.

Maybe he'll learn his lesson if he's fined $32 million.

The lesson being, among other things, that assault with a deadly weapon is a no-no.
 
drkitten said:
Well, he demonstrably didn't get the message at only $100,000.
Click to expand...
drkitten said:
Punitive damages. Which by definition are a punishment designed to deter repeated conduct.

He was already fined $100,000 and that wasn't enough to stop him.

Maybe he'll learn his lesson if he's fined $32 million.

The lesson being, among other things, that assault with a deadly weapon is a no-no.
Click to expand...


Read the above article I posted. The first line says, "Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever is being sued for a share of a $32 million lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court." Plus the "10 un-named co-conspirators."

In fact, this suit named 14 people, including the sheriff, for the damages. It is not a matter of one man being "fined $32 million" or one man/family being sent "a message."
 
Last edited:
What "rights" do illegal immigrants have, other than a free peanut butter sandwich on their free trip back to the border they crossed illegally?
 
LTC8K6 said:
I hope the suit is thrown out, and I hope he is allowed to continue to protect his little section of our southern border, since no one else is.
Click to expand...

What does kicking an unarmed woman laying on the ground have to do with protecting property?

I Ratant said:
What "rights" do illegal immigrants have, other than a free peanut butter sandwich on their free trip back to the border they crossed illegally?
Click to expand...

For one, the right not to be assaulted when laying on the ground unarmed.
 
Last edited:
I Ratant said:
What "rights" do illegal immigrants have, other than a free peanut butter sandwich on their free trip back to the border they crossed illegally?
Click to expand...

Yeah, they ain't got no right.

Hanged me a few of dem illegals myself. Kicked a pregnant woman while I was at it. It's fun!
 
So you think that illegal aliens have a "right" to interstate travel and that a landowner should not be allowed to hold trespassers at gunpoint until law enforcement arrives. I agree that he had no right to kick the woman but that hardly amounts to the damage award sought. This is obviously an attempt by MALDEF to discourage anyone from exercising their right to protect their property by stopping illegal immigrants from using their land. MALDEF (mexican american legal defense and education fund) is a radical pro-unfettered immigration group that has an agenda to protect illegal aliens in every situation.

He alleges that after the INS started concentrating on blocking illegal aliens in the surrounding towns that they started using his property as regular transit and that "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." I am sure that his claims are somewhat overstated but even if it is only partially true a person ought to have the right to protect one's own property from trespassers.

I really don't have a problem with illegal immigrants coming to work in our county but I still think that a person should have the right to stop trespassers on their land without worrying if they will come back and sue them out of house and home.
 
Questioninggeller said:
Read the above article I posted.
Click to expand...

I did. I stand by my writing.

By his own admission, the primary defendant has abused, including assaulted, "thousands" of people. This is illegal conduct, regardless of the immigration status of the victims.

He's already been fined $100,000, and yet he continues to do it.

The county sheriff is aware of this illegal conduct and yet has done nothing to stop it. This isn't just abuse of discretion or malfeasance in office, this is outright deprivation of civil rights.

(And, yes, illegal immigrants do have rights. If you murder an immigrant, it's still murder.)

The first line says, "Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever is being sued for a share of a $32 million lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court." Plus the "10 un-named co-conspirators."

It is not a matter of one man being "fined $32 million" or one man/family being sent "a message."
Click to expand...

No, it's a matter of one man and the co-conspirators who aid and abet being sued for millions, including a large enough sum in punitive damages to keep the behavior from recurring.
 
ScanningFool said:
I still think that a person should have the right to stop trespassers on their land without worrying if they will come back and sue them out of house and home.
Click to expand...

Well, we're in agreement, then. You, I, and the courts all agree that you have the right to stop trespassers.

However, apparently we may be in disagreement over whether you have the right to assault them with deadly weapons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom