Can You believe This? Illegal Immigration is Taking over!

Fox news story at FOXNews.com - Arizona Rancher Who Stopped Illegal Immigrants at Border Now Fighting $32 Million Lawsuit - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Unbelievable!

 

THAT'S totally insane!!! And you know what, I bet some f&&&&&g get-rich-quick-slimy-sack-of-rotten-vegetable-matter-lawyer, is behind this scheme. >:-((

 

32 million ????? That's got to be set up by a lawyer.

 

Of course, there is!

Probably some ACLU alumnus who fancies him/herself an "activist lawyer" fighting for "civil rights".

The inalienable right to trespass on private property, and destroy said property while committing felony violations of US immigration laws.

Any judge in his right mind would dismiss this case, severely reprimand, the lawyer and fine him/her for filing a frivolous action.

 

Surely the rancher has some right!!!??

 

The locals are enraged for the most part. Read some of the commentary here:

Trial begins for rancher who detained immigrants

 

So you have no rights to defend your own property from trespassers now, huh?

People here illegally have rights to sue citizens defending their land? Wotta crock of s##t.

 

Now, without knowing all (or really any) of the circumstances in this goofy sounding case, I have a suggestion inside of which I fail to see the flaw.

That is reinstate the ancient laws of Greece wherein if a civil (not criminal) case is brought against another man, and the instigator of the case fails to PROVE his assertions, then HE (only men in ancient Greek society remember) or those he represent are liable for the same amount of damages asked for.

That might cut down on the "just in case we can win" filings a tad. If one is actually wronged, harmed, or otherwise embarassed in society and can prove your case then you win the amount asked for. If you can't prove the case, then you pay the amount asked for to the accused party.

Hmmmm, might limit the "take it on contingency" lawsuit cases somewhat n'est pas? Ya file for 32 million and loose, yikes that ain't gonna help pay the law school tuition now is it!

 

...On the other hand, wouldn't that make it harder for the average person to take a case against more powerful entities (say, corporations)? Where bigger money, shady ethics (on both sides), and slimmer prospects of success is the norm?

That, and simply losing a court case is a valid way to open debate on something. Though they weren't civil cases, Scopes*, Korematsu**, and McLibel*** come to mind. Well, Mclibel might have been a civil case, I'm not sure how courts in Britain work...

This would be a civil case that would have suffered from this action: Anne Anderson, et al., v. Cryovac, Inc., et al. It involves a tannery, several cases of leukemia, and a lost case. The EPA hears of the case, and proceeds to own said tannery after the prosecution loses.

Unfortunately, I can't think of a way that would allow people to file meaningful, high-risk cases that would prevent others from filing the ridiculous. I can only hope that this case will get dismissed rapidly.

*not overturned
**overturned, Government (or members thereof) withheld/destroyed document(s).
***this was a funny case, any way you look at it. It's like the first two mentioned cases, only twisted in a meaningful, satiric way that owned Macdonalds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Restaurants_v_Morris_%26_Steel

Basically, Macdonalds files suit for libel against two environmental activists for posting propaganda against Macdonalds. Macdonalds wins the case. Unfortunately, the activists manage to successfully prove some of their propagandist points. Did I mention that said defendants had limited-income jobs, were denied legal aid, and that Macdonald illicitely obtained information from Scotland Yard?

Basically, a media circus. It's also completely unrelated to the original topic, so I'll stop here.

 

How 'bout this concept then? Exclude publicly or privatly owned corporations or companies from the reverse responsibility? Make it only applicable to individual persons or groups of private persons suing each other.

 

Sure he does, in this country he has the right to be sued. The justice system in this country is soooo pathetic, that I would rather take the law into my own hands and risk going to jail. At least as a criminal, I get more priviledges than if I had put my 'trust' in the law.

 

we get them coming through the chunnel,my mum says they should be put on a bloody island up in the hebredies somewhere,with some fishing line,cheers.

 

ORRRRRR one simple thing SHOULD have been done to keep this crap from happening-and that thing ISSSSSS-to enforce our fragging Laws. WHat good are laws-if they aren't enforced? >:-((

@#%*$)*@$%^&(_(*^%%%@#@!@(&%$

 

Speaking of not enforcing laws..
Just take a look at our new secretary of the treasury....he owed back taxes and only paid them when he came up for the position. He claimed his software package didnt tell him he owed money. (D'oh!)

If that had happened to any of us , the IRS would have us by the short hairs...but a different rule for the "big people". Disgusting!

 

As evil as this may sound I am becoming more convienced that the best thing this guy could have had in addition to a gun was not a lawyer but a backhoe.....If you follow my meaning.....

The courts will ruin him in costs fighting this even if he wins completely. But, there is that old pirates addage "Dead men tell no tales."

 

Sadly, all too true.

So far the """""rock star""""" hasn't done much of anything but strike out. Now he's trying to "buy" loyalty from the other half of this Country-by giving more to one end-while stealing more from the other. Boy this is going to be a rather interesting next 3 years and appx 1 week :headbash:

PS, im spending my money on militaria-from an American delaer-so I KNOW where MY money is going.

 

Looks like a kind of "mixed" verdict here, according to this from the AP this morning.

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — A federal jury on Tuesday rejected several claims by a group of illegal immigrants who claimed a southern Arizona rancher detained them at gunpoint, but found the rancher liable for assault and infliction of emotional distress

The eight-member civil jury found that Roger Barnett didn't violate the immigrants' civil rights in 2004, and it rejected claims of battery and false imprisonment. For the remaining claims Barnett was ordered to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.

Barnett declined to comment, but one of his attorneys, David Hardy, said the plaintiffs lost on the bulk of their claims and that Barnett has a good basis for appeal on the counts he lost.

For the rest goto:

Mixed verdict in lawsuit by illegal immigrants who say Ariz. rancher held them at gunpoint -- Newsday.com

 

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS?!?!?!?! Every male member of that jury should get their gonads kicked as hard as possible. Same for the other members of that jury-had they had any to begin with that is? :headbash: :headbash: Grrrrr!

 

as a kid on xbox live say's "THAT'S BS!!!"