Thread: Outrageous: Jury orders rancher to pay $77,804 to IA's

Jury: Rancher didn't violate illegal immigrants' rights

TUCSON, Ariz. — A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn't violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who said he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.

The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn't liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.

But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.

Barnett declined to comment afterward, 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 two counts on which he lost.

"They won a fraction of the damages they were seeking," Hardy said.

All six plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico, five of whom are living in the United States with visa applications pending, and the sixth resides in Mexico but was allowed into the U.S. for the trial, said Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She declined to say where in the U.S. they're residing.

Perales called the outcome "a resounding victory that sends a message that vigilante violence against immigrants will not be tolerated."

David Urias, attorney for the plaintiffs, said, "Obviously we are disappointed with some aspects of the verdict. But I think that overall this was a victory for the plaintiffs."

For years, Arizona has been the busiest point along the Mexican border for illegal immigrants entering the United States.

For more than a decade, Barnett has been a controversial figure in southern Arizona. He's known for aggressively patrolling his ranch property and along highways and roads in the area, often with his wife and brothers, on the lookout for illegal immigrants.

The plaintiffs alleged that Barnett threatened them with his dog and told them he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

Barnett's lawyers argued that his land was inundated with illegal immigrants who left trash on his property, damaged his water supply and harmed his cattle.

Barnett's wife and a brother were dismissed as defendants; in addition, 10 more people initially named as plaintiffs were dropped from the proceedings.

Barnett has been known to wear a holstered 9-mm pistol on his hip and upon coming across groups of migrants, to flash a blue and gold badge resembling that of the highway patrol, with the wording "Barnett Ranch Patrol. Cochise County. State of Arizona."

The Barnetts detain and turn over those whom they encounter to the U.S. Border Patrol. In 2006, Barnett estimated that he had detained more than 10,000 illegal immigrants in 10 years.

His actions have resulted in formal complaints from the Mexican government against what it considers vigilante actions, and in several other lawsuits, including one stemming from an October 2004 incident.

In that case, a jury awarded a family of Mexican-Americans on a hunting trip $100,000 in damages, later upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court.

Barnett's 22,000-acre ranch, about five miles north of the Mexican border, includes private and federal lease holdings in addition to nearly 14,000 acres of state-leased land.

I think this rancher should turn around and sue those who are responsible for our wide open borders in the first place. That jury must be braindead. What were they consisting of, a bunch of MALDEF lackies?

I hope at least this guy turns around and sues MALDEF and the ACLU.

He should declare bankruptcy. Under no circumstances should he have to pay one dime to these invaders.

The good news is I believe I read somewhere ( in an other post?) that Arizona passed a law in 2006 which prevents illegal invaders from being awarded punitive damages. Wouldn't that mean the bulk of this judgement is not enforceable? Let's hope so! Still, over $17,000 to illegal invaders who had no right to be in this country to begin with is an outrage!

Perhaps he will appeal this joke and get the rest of the judgement tossed out! His attorney seems to think he has a shot!

Originally Posted by NoBueno

The good news is I believe I read somewhere ( in an other post?) that Arizona passed a law in 2006 which prevents illegal invaders from being awarded punitive damages. Wouldn't that mean the bulk of this judgement is not enforceable? Let's hope so! Still, over $17,000 to illegal invaders who had no right to be in this country to begin with is an outrage!

Perhaps he will appeal this joke and get the rest of the judgement tossed out! His attorney seems to think he has a shot!

Arizona Proposition 102 Denying Civil Lawsuit Awards For Illegal Aliens {Update]
By Digger


Arizona Proposition 102 states that:

A PERSON WHO IS PRESENT IN THIS STATE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW RELATED TO IMPROPER ENTRY BY AN ALIEN SHALL NOT BE AWARDED PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN ANY ACTION IN ANY COURT IN THIS STATE.
There is a difference between compensatory and punitive damages. This boils down to is the following analysis.

A person who wins a civil lawsuit may receive two types of damages-compensatory and punitive. Compensatory damages are awarded to compensate the injured party for the injuries sustained by making good or replacing the loss caused by the injury. Punitive damages are awarded in excess of compensatory damages to punish the person sued for a serious wrong and to discourage others from engaging in similar wrongful conduct.
Proposition 102 would prohibit a person who wins a civil lawsuit from receiving punitive damages if the person is present in this state in violation of federal immigration law related to improper entry.


I'm of a mixed mind on this Proposition. First off I am in favor of compensatory damages if someone is injured, even an illegal alien. As for punitive damages, I am for them but against illegal aliens receiving them. However, in the case of a business that hired an illegal alien they should be punished. The illegal alien in no way should benefit though. So I'm against punitive damages if illegal aliens receive the funds. So in essence I am in favor of Proposition 102.

If an illegal alien comes on your property and is injured you could end up facing both types of damages, both for their injuries and as punishment if you are at fault. This is not fair as the illegal alien is not even supposed to be here in the first place and the incident wouldn't have occurred if they weren't.

It's unfair to place this burden on the American people, both citizens and legal residents.

Businesses who hire illegal aliens though need to be punished severely. Maybe we should allow punitive damages, but the awards have to be given to a fund to combat employers who hire illegal aliens. Seems like a fair deal to me since it would be a self correcting situation. As more punitive damages are awarded there would be less employers hiring illegal aliens and therefore less lawsuits.

I do have to state that in the end I would vote against Proposition 102. Not because of the intent of the Proposition - which is to ensure that illegal aliens don't profit from the punitive damages - but because the damages should still exists and be awarded, but be given to the government organization that combats the related fault.

That is not declared in Proposition 102 and therefore I cannot support it.

Let's take a little look at those both for and against this proposition over at the Arizona Secretary of State Website (I have bolded some points). First those in favor of Proposition 102.

It makes no sense for a person who breaks the law by illegally entering and remaining illegally in the United States to profit from a civil proceeding. Plain and simple: courts of law should not reward lawbreakers. We discourage illegal immigration when it is broadly known that the courts of Arizona will not overlook any person's illegal status. By enacting this referendum we discourage illegal aliens from suing American citizens with the expectation of receiving big rewards.
The Honorable Russell Pearce, Arizona House of Representatives, Mesa
Paid for by "Russell Pearce 2004"



Pretty cut and dry there. Don't reward illegal aliens.

We have had occasion in this state where an activist judge has taken the private property from a citizen - who took reasonable strong action to protect that property from illegal incursion - and actually given the property to the illegal alien. This type of action by activist judges should be an affront to all Arizonans. It is obvious that we must enact Constitutional protection against this outrageous judicial action. This ballot measure is a reasonable protection for private property rights in Arizona.
**Paid for by Goldwater for Governor Committee.**
Don Goldwater, Goldwater for Governor, Laveen



If it takes an amendment to the constitution to stop activist judges from giving property of the citizens of this country to illegal aliens, then I am all for it and you should be to. Activist judges piss me off.

Let's take a look at those against Proposition 102.

Proposition 102 is misguided and mean spirited. It may sound good at first, but careful review shows its flaw: It would protect wrongdoers, like drunk drivers. We use punitive damages to send a message that Arizona will not tolerate certain behavior.
... it would undermine the purpose of awarding punitive damages by demonizing the victim. If Proposition 102 passes, a drunk driver with a long history of unsafe driving could hit an undocumented immigrant and essentially get off easy by avoiding punitive damages... Making sure that drunk drivers avoid punitive damages will not make the community safer.

State Rep. Steve Gallardo, District 13, Phoenix



OK, nobody likes drunk drivers. Rep. Gallardo is trying to appeal to our general distaste for drunk driving incidents. He does show that he is pro illegal alien though with his use of the term "undocumented immigrant" and he stands against other Propositions on the ballot that crack down on illegal immigration.

What would I do in the case above? The illegal alien would receive general medical care and compensation and then be immediately deported. The drunk driver would be put behind bars and fined punitive damages that would go towards government drunk driving awareness programs and other things that fight against drunk driving like law enforcement and highway safety.

I don't think the illegal alien should get a dime in punitive awards.

Rather than rewarding the illegal alien we should still punish the drunk driver, but at the same time try to end the cause. Maybe tougher jail sentences for drunk driving incidents which injure people could be put in place as well. With this solution the drunk driver receives the same punishment Rep. Gallardo is so worried he will avoid, but at the same time we don't reward illegal aliens for breaking our laws.

Punitive damages are only awarded when the court finds by overwhelming evidence that a person or company "acted with an evil mind, an evil heart and an evil hand". ...
Those [Prop 102] will protect? The worst of the worst, those proven to be acting with an evil heart, mind and hand!

Jon Hinz, Director, Fairness and Accountability in Insurance Reform, Phoenix
Paid for by "FAIR"



I have to agree that the way Proposition 102 is written now that those who knowingly put illegal aliens at risk won't be monetarily punished.

If this doesn't pass maybe legislators can come back with a better Proposition next time which still awards the punitive damages for illegal aliens, but specifies where the funds will go rather than into their hands.

* * *

Update

Arizona Proposition 102 passed!
[/b]

I hope he wins on his appeal. I'm glad most of the claims were disregarded and once MALDEF gets the message that these people aren't going to get millions from US juries for violating our laws, then their frivolous lawsuits will die a soon and swift death.

And you know they lied like dogs on the witness stand and had their mopey pitiful looks on for the jury. And I'm sure they cried and whimpered like the spineless thieving pond scum they are, too.

To me, this is a huge victory for this rancher and sends a great message to the Illegales and their Aiders and Abetters ... NO MILLIONS HERE IN THE USA FOR VIOLATING US IMMIGRATION LAW!

Great job Worried American getting the info posted regarding Prop 102! Prop 102 was a huge victory in Arizona... as this case so aptly demonstrates!

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Great job Worried American getting the info posted regarding Prop 102! Prop 102 was a huge victory in Arizona... as this case so aptly demonstrates!

Thanks for the tip NoBueno!
I love to search for things on the Internet...

I do have to state that in the end I would vote against Proposition 102. Not because of the intent of the Proposition - which is to ensure that illegal aliens don't profit from the punitive damages - but because the damages should still exists and be awarded, but be given to the government organization that combats the related fault.

Does this mean you still pay, but the illegals don't get it but the agency that caught them does?

The rancher caught them because the agency WON'T!!! So does HE get the money back?

Originally Posted by WorriedAmerican

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Great job Worried American getting the info posted regarding Prop 102! Prop 102 was a huge victory in Arizona... as this case so aptly demonstrates!

Thanks for the tip NoBueno!
I love to search for things on the Internet...

I do have to state that in the end I would vote against Proposition 102. Not because of the intent of the Proposition - which is to ensure that illegal aliens don't profit from the punitive damages - but because the damages should still exists and be awarded, but be given to the government organization that combats the related fault.

Does this mean you still pay, but the illegals don't get it but the agency that caught them does?

The rancher caught them because the agency WON'T!!! So does HE get the money back?

LOL! That statement is a brain teaser( atleast for my limited capacity) isn't it WA! Your analysis makes sense to me! Sure, that case could be made... why not! The rancher deserves this money based on his willingness to risk life and limb in order to defend himself as well as our country-in large part because our own government refuses to do the job for which they are OBLIGATED to perform!

LOL! That statement is a brain teaser( atleast for my limited capacity) isn't it WA! Your analysis makes sense to me! Sure, that case could be made... why not! The rancher deserves this money based on his willingness to risk life and limb in order to defend himself as well as our country-in large part because our own government refuses to do the job for which they are OBLIGATED to perform!

I saw the rancher on TV but he and his lawyer just repeated the judgement and nothing about if they will pay.
I think it was like $70,000.