4um: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher

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.

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."

I wonder what if anything the stalwart Anti-NAU, Pro-Amnesty World Socialists will weigh in with ? haaaaahahahaha !

4um Traitor
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

This would be an excellent opportunity for vigilantes to assist Mr. Barnett in his determined efforts to convince these fucking illegals to stay home. Someone out there should pull the case from the federal court clerk's office, note the addresses of the legal representatives and the plaintiffs, and remove them from the gene pool.

If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood.

The US courts told us over and over that US citizens didn't have "standing" in the US courts to see O'boingo's birth certificate to determine if he was eligible under the US Constitution to be the US president.

Maybe someone can explain to me what "standing" Mexicans have in US courts to sue a US citizen for stopping them from breaking US law on US soil, specifically his US property.

Second Kangaroo: To feed her nightmare.
First Kangaroo: Why did the rabbit go to the doctor?
Second Kangaroo: Because he felt jumpy.
First Kangaroo: What happened to the two bedbugs who fell in love?

Second Kangaroo: They were married in the Spring.
First Kangaroo: Why can't you tell secrets on a farm?
Second Kangaroo: Because the corn has ears, the potatoes have eyes, the grass whispers and the horses carry tails.
First Kangaroo: What did the Cinderella fish wear to the ball?

Second Kangaroo: Glass flippers.
First Kangaroo: What's smarter than a talking horse?
Second Kangaroo: A spelling bee.
First Kangaroo: What did the duck say when it laid a square egg?

Second Kangaroo: Ouch.
First Kangaroo: When is it socially correct to serve milk in a saucer?
Second Kangaroo: When you're feeding the cat.
First Kangaroo: How do you tell the difference between an elephant and a rhinoceros?

Second Kangaroo: The elephant has a better memory.
First Kangaroo: What does a frog say when it washes car windows?
Second Kangaroo: Rub it, rub it, rub it.

That has been abundantly clear since the dawning of the Bush administration. Ramo's and Compean were the punctuation points to make mexicons "Hands OFF!!".

_________________________________________________________________________
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”

Do you think you or I would have the same standing in a mexicon court if 12 Americans trespassed into mexico and had an equal complaint against a mexicon rancher??

Erectus Walks Amongst Us
What is painful about living in England is to see that everything that I like and admire was built by people who are now dead. It is now a kind of ghost world, inhabited by zombies with dyed hair, earrings and tattoos, and the factories and mills have long ago fallen silent, while the bridges rust and the masonry crumbles. -- Ragnar Redbeard

In short, anyone can sue anyone. Cops are sued every day for acts committed in the performance of their duties, and one need not be a citizen to sue an American in American courts.

Otherwise, there would be no foreign owned factories or import or shipping companies operating here because any two bit swindler could rip them off with impunity. (You could never drive a Jaguar or other foreign car for instance because once the cars were in the country some dealers could and probably would simply refuse to pay for them if the foreign manufacturers had no recourse) And, remember the slaves of the two-masted schooner La Amistad would have been considered salvaged property if they were not granted standing as Africans and freed by an American court. (African slavery was illegal so the ship's owner lied and claimed that the slaves were born in Cuba)

There are some officials who have immunity against lawsuits (such as the judge to who you've granted jurisdiction by entering a plea) and prosecutors, unless gross malfeasance or lying to hide evidence or other illegal misconduct is alleged, and then the govt must grant leave for you to sue them.

But, if you or I arrest anyone for any crime as private persons we are subject to direct legal attack and had better be prepared to justify the arrest and any use of force or detention of the arrestees in a civil trial. In this case it was made easier by the fact that MALDEF is representing the Mohados. Suing is what MALDEF does, and they rely on tax deductible donations from wealthy Hispanic (and other white hating ethnics that shall remain unidentified wink wink) to keep their legal machine in high gear.

Unlike police officers who are indemnified by their agencies or by the state (if they don't break the law-or don't get caught at it) a private person had better have homeowners' or some other insurance if they undertake the task of routinely arresting anyone for anything.

All it would take is a really dark and totally sympathetic jury (like OJ's criminal jury) and some Mexicans will end up owning that large ranch.

Even an armed robber or his surviving spouse can sue if you shoot and cripple or kill him, even though he was breaking the law! Remember, he was a crook but his wife and poor innocent babies are victims and a jury could look at your deep pockets (or 7-11 stores for instance-which is why they don't allow their clerks to carry guns-it's cheaper if the clerk is murdered than if the clerk kills or wounds the robber) and decide that if you want to play Dirty Harry and shoot armed robbers for fun and get away with it, then you can pay to support those left behind after the cops draw chalk lines around your endless string of criminal bodies. (A store owner could protect himself behind bullet resistant glass and have automatic locking doors in case of robbery, but some would really rather not have the protective barrier then claim their lives were in danger and just shoot the bastards! And, that looks really bad in court when the wife and kids are crying their eyes out because their only means of support was needlessly killed by the gringo with the big gun!)

Dash cams in police cars serve two main functions-they often show the extreme state of an arrestee's inebriation and every time a cop arrests a woman she claims that he felt her yums yums in the course of the arrest. The cams have repeatedly disproved the allegations and prevented many frivolous lawsuits intended as retaliation by people who will lie to get even with that "bastard cop" for arresting them.

Perhaps the property owner should video record his future detentions of Mexican illegals for the same reason-it would no longer be his word against 16 others and a legal defense NGO with years of experience at picking sympathetic juries.

It seems that citizens who are aware of jury nullification never actually make it onto a jury.

My brother was on a jury in VA years ago and he tried to explain to his fellow jurors the power to judge the law as well as the facts and he mentioned the facts as explained in the Jurors Handbook. (that I gave him) One woman said, "Oh, that's not for us!"

Presumably those laws were in effect when people wore tri corner hats but now we're supposed to do exactly what judges order us to do. The woman refused to hear his "heresy" and stubbornly shut his arguments out of her little head.

As luck would have it my brother stood his ground and offered the stubborn state worshiper two choices-either vote for a reduced charge and sentence or he would single-handedly hang the jury.

She did. (For reasons that I don't understand those types can't stand the idea of being "hung" and would rather convict of a lesser charge or they feel they "let the judge down"-this just proves that the judge signaled his/her desire for them to convict and their desire to please him or her)

Americans are so programmed by TV to believe in the infallibility of the courts that so far the only jury that seems to have figured it all out is the OJ jury-they ignored the evidence and freed him for all the wrong reasons, and it's growing increasingly difficult for prosecutors to convict obviously guilty blacks with any blacks on juries now.

Although several courageous juries have upset the DOJ's annual publicity income tax trials and exonerated the "victims" they are all actually doing so in response to excellent defense arguments so it really isn't jury nullification, i.e. freeing the defendant because they examined the law and found it unconstitutional. (You or I could ignore all the evidence and go straight to "not guilty" for instance)

Whites will still be dutifully convicting other whites for income tax "crimes" and crimes against blacks (and browns) long after blacks have stopped convicting each other of murdering honkies, no matter how compelling the evidence.

We can expect this to continue until it's impossible for the courts to impanel a single jury without at least one courageous and/or pissed off juror with a family member or acquaintance who has been victimized by the war on drugs, or on taxpayers, or gun owners, or motorists, etc.,.

Most Americans have opted out of the Constitutional Arena by contracting with "federal" (not constitutional) agencies such as the FDIC, Social Security etc., the Mexicans haven't and have standing that U.S. citizens have forfeited.

Jurors are drawn from "voter registration or driver license lists" which should immediately disqualify them as bona-fide idiots. (hahahaha ... having either of the forementioned items, voter registration card or driver license is prima facie evidence that one is a federal serf).

I know their dirty little secret. Although they've threatened people who were uncooperative they don't dare make good on the threat and have people arrested because of the adverse effect it would have on those who still show up. AND, if I'm threatened I'll show up but with the promise to vote against the state (or the insurance company or other govt friendly) if seated on a jury.

Why would any court clerk waste his time or mine ever again after I made that statement? And, what if I tell others to do the same?

A serious campaign could really hurt the lawyers who push us around in their quest for the dumbest among us, and the pay for jury duty is ridiculous, unlike judges and lawyers' and corrections officers and every other beneficiary of the system.

The juror is arguably the most important component of the trial system and yet they treat us like children and threaten and bully us in the courthouse. Well, they can kiss my ass because I'm done with it.

If you want to get off the list forever just call the clerk and volunteer, explaining that you want to educate others about the FIJA.

I like going to jury duty just to piss off the other jurors and the court! Show up in shorts and crocs some time...........

That's too funny ... the flip side is that when we end up on the defendant's side of the courtroom, it'd sure be nice to have a resistor on the jury.