Thread: Rancher's civil trial UPDATE 12/5 Crim. charges to be filed?

Published: 11.14.2006

Rancher's civil trial to open today in Mexican-Americans' threats case
By Arthur H. Rotstein
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Immigrant rights advocates who have campaigned against abuses of migrants hope a civil trial starting today in Bisbee will hit the pocketbook of a man who is accused of threatening Mexican-Americans on his ranch.
A lawsuit against rancher Roger Barnett alleges that he threatened a hunting party of Mexican-Americans from Douglas with an assault rifle after Barnett accused them of trespassing on his Douglas ranch on Oct. 30, 2004.
Barnett, who has said he has detained more 10,000 illegal immigrants in the last 10 years, has denied threatening the hunting party. He said he took out his gun only because the adults in the hunting party were carrying rifles.
Barnett has been targeted for lawsuits because of his activities in apprehending illegal immigrants. Most have been caught on ranch land that he owns or leases and patrols with his wife and brother, then turned over to the Border Patrol for removal to Mexico.
Groups including the Border Action Network, the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund — known as MALDEF — and the Southern Poverty Law Center have encouraged immigrants and Mexican-American citizens alike to come forth to document alleged abuses by Barnett and others that could lead to lawsuits.
Two other lawsuits against Barnett, also with the assistance of the Border Action Network, have been dismissed, while one filed by MALDEF is pending. That lawsuit names Barnett, his wife and brother and Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever, alleging conspiracy to violate migrants' civil rights.
In the latter case, Barnett was accused of kicking a woman lying on the ground and of threatening to have his dog attack anyone in a group of illegal entrants that he stopped who tried to leave.
In 2003, the Border Action Network said that it was looking for entrants victimized by armed individuals or civilian groups who were patrolling the border, and began investigating for records and interviewing people.
The lawsuit going to trial on Tuesday claims that Barnett's actions during the 2004 confrontation constituted assault, false imprisonment, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
A claim of battery was dismissed in April, and earlier this month a judge dropped charges against Barnett's wife and brother. The lawsuit seeks more than $200,000 and punitive damages.
Superior Court Judge James Conlogue in Cochise County denied additional defense motions for dismissal and noted that hunters have rights to cross a property as long as no signs are posted prohibiting hunting.
But John Kelliher, Barnett's lawyer, said Conlogue ruled in Barnett's favor on several pretrial motions to limit the scope of testimony and evidence.
Among material precluded will be hundreds of pages of Border Patrol and Cochise County sheriff's reports dealing with Barnett's apprehensions of illegal immigrants on his property, Kelliher said.
Barnett is being sued by Ronald Morales of Douglas, claiming that Barnett pointed an AR-15 assault rifle at him, his father, two young daughters and one of the girls' friends while on an outing to hunt deer.
The lawsuit contends that the Morales party was legally crossing land near Douglas — which Barnett leases from the state — when he allegedly threatened them and used abusive, racist language.
At the time the lawsuit was filed, Morales said, "I didn't serve six years in the United States Navy so that my family's civil rights could be violated."

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/155832

Most have been caught on ranch land that he owns or leases and patrols with his wife and brother, then turned over to the Border Patrol for removal to Mexico.

this will be most interesting to watch how the judge rules in this case particularly with regard to ownership property rights.

Mapwife please keep us posted if you find the follow up on the trail.

Testimony begins in Roger Barnett's trial

By Jonathan Clark/Wick News Service
BISBEE - Arturo Morales began to sob as he told jurors how he tried to console his young granddaughter and her friend as a furious Roger Barnett, handgun holstered at his side, told them to get off his property or he would start shooting.

"They were asking, 'Why does he want to kill us?' and I just held their hands," said the 59-year-old Morales, one of the plaintiffs in a civil trial accusing Barnett of terrorizing a hunting party during an incident in 2004.

"I could not stop them," Morales continued, "honest to God, I could not stop them, they were crying so much."

Morales told the Superior Court jury that he and his son, Ronald Morales, were taking his two granddaughters, ages 9 and 11, and an 11-year-old friend on their first hunting trip when he encountered Roger Barnett's brother, Donald Barnett, in an undeveloped area northeast of Douglas.

"I tried to explain to him that we had permission, that we had a pass (to be on the land)," Arturo Morales said. "But he said I was in the wrong place."

Donald Barnett told Arturo Morales to leave the property, which he said belonged to the Barnetts. But Morales explained that his son and one of the girls had gone off looking for deer, and that he couldn't leave until they returned.

Donald Barnett then drove off to examine an access gate that the elder Morales told him had been left open. A few minutes later, as Arturo Morales waited for the two hunters to return, Roger Barnett drove up.

"He said, 'Get the (expletive) out of here or I'm going to start shooting," Arturo Morales said. "He accused me of taking down his (no trespassing) sign, and he said that I was an (expletive) ignorant Mexican."

Arturo Morales said he told Roger Barnett that he was waiting for his son and granddaughter, and he began honking the horn of his truck to get their attention. When they finally arrived, Ronald Morales asked Barnett what his name was.

At that point, according plaintiffs' attorney Jesus Romo Vejar, Barnett ran to his truck, took out an AR-15 assault rifle, chambered the weapon, and said: "My name is Roger (expletive) Barnett and I'm going to shoot you."

The family then left the area, called 911 and later filed a complaint with the Cochise County Sheriff's Office. When the county attorney decided not to press charges in the case, the Morales', with the help of the Tucson-based civil rights group Border Action Network, filed a civil claim against Barnett.

The suit accused Barnett of assault, false imprisonment, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and asked for $200,000 in damages.

Arturo Morales testified Tuesday that since the run-in with Roger Barnett on Oct. 30, 2004, he has suffered loss of sleep, sexual dysfunction, an aversion to guns and a general sense of anxiety. He said his granddaughters continue to live in fear of Barnett and refuse to hunt again.

During cross-examination, however, defense attorney John Kelliher asked the elder Morales why, if the episode had affected his life so adversely, he had never sought medical or psychological treatment. And he pointed out that while Arturo Morales testified that he was now afraid of guns, he acknowledged he had gone on hunting excursions since the 2004 incident.

Kelliher also noted that Morales had made previous statements that his 9-year-old granddaughter started crying not because she thought Barnett would shoot her, but because she was afraid her grandfather was going to be arrested.

And the attorney hammered away at the fact that Morales, an experienced hunter with a long history in the area, was never certain as to whose land he was on.

During his opening remarks to the jury, Kelliher said only one member of the Morales party had a valid license to hunt on Oct. 30, 2004. He noted that the date marked the first day of hunting season, and that Roger Barnett has a long-established history of not allowing hunters to use his land without written permission.

Furthermore, Kelliher said Arturo Morales had had a previous encounter with Roger Barnett in which he was cited by a sheriff's deputy for hunting on Barnett's property. Therefore, the attorney said, Morales knew well before the 2004 confrontation that Barnett restricted hunting on his ranch.

Arturo Morales, however, testified the incident prior to 2004 had involved a Barnett sibling and not Roger Barnett himself. And the Morales' claim asserts that the land in question was not the rancher's private property, but state-leased land, which made it permissible for them to hunt there.

Both parties have promised to present evidence proving their interpretation of the land's status.

As for the confrontation between Roger Barnett and Arturo and Ronald Morales, Kelliher acknowledged the situation became heated and that it involved people carrying guns. But he said evidence would show the dispute was a two-way exchange that did not incriminate his client more so than the Morales adults.

"I don't doubt that there were words exchanged," Kelliher said. "What I do doubt is that Roger Barnett threatened to kill anybody."

One issue auspiciously absent from Tuesday's proceedings was illegal immigration.

Roger Barnett estimates he has made citizen's arrests of more than 12,000 illegal border-crossers who have trespassed on his ranch since 1996. In the process, he has become both revered and reviled in the border issues debate.

Starting in 2003, the Border Action Network and other civil rights groups began targeting Barnett with civil claims such as the Morales suit in an effort to drain the rancher's coffers and expose what they say is a pattern of racially motivated vigilantism.

But in a pre-trial ruling, Judge James Conlogue precluded from evidence hundreds of pages of law enforcement reports dealing with Barnett's apprehensions of illegal immigrants. Romo Vejar may only present the documents to impeach contradictory statements by witnesses.

The Morales-Barnett trial continues today at 9 a.m. at the Cochise County Superior Courthouse in Bisbee.
http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles ... /news4.txt


Attorney Jesus Romo Vejar is probably the same one that I know as Jesus Romo. He just happens to be Isabel Garcia's ex-husband.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Morales cross-examined in Barnett trial

By Jonathan Clark/Herald/Review
BISBEE - The principal plaintiff in the ongoing civil trial of Roger Barnett acknowledged during a tense cross-examination Friday that he drove through Barnett's private property before reaching the site of a confrontation with the rancher.

Ronald Morales told defense attorney John Kelliher that he knew it was illegal to cross private property to access state-trust land, but was unaware he had driven through approximately 1/2 miles of Barnett's own ranchland because the area was not gated or marked appropriately.

Morales also acknowledged he did not read site-specific state hunting and trapping regulations prior to taking his father, his two young daughters and their friend on a hunting trip in the Saddle Pass area of Douglas on Oct. 30, 2004.

"So are you saying that ignorance of the law is OK for you?" Kelliher demanded.

Judge James Conlogue sustained an objection from plaintiffs' attorney Jesus Romo Vejar before Morales could answer.

Earlier in the day, a surveyor testifying for the plaintiffs presented maps showing the Morales party was on state land leased by Barnett at the time the rancher confronted the group with an AR-15 assault rifle and accused them of trespassing.

Morales has argued that because the land was state owned and not signed as off limits, his group had a right to be there.

The surveyor's maps also showed the Morales party had crossed through Barnett's private land, and questioning from Kelliher suggested the group may have been hunting on another parcel of private property when they were first spotted by Barnett's brother, Donald.

Even so, two co-plaintiffs who testified Friday insisted the issue of property rights is secondary to their case.

Ed English, father of one of the girls in the hunting party, and Morales' wife, Renee Morales, said they filed a civil suit against Barnett because he had traumatized their children. They said they wanted to show the girls there is justice for people who commit crimes, even though the Cochise County attorney had declined to prosecute the case.

"This is about three children who were assaulted," Renee Morales said. "We're suing because our girls have been through so much."

Renee Morales then turned and spoke directly to Barnett, telling him that she didn't want him punished, she just wanted him to take responsibility for what he had done.

Kelliher also has made responsibility an issue in the trial, though he suggests the two Morales men bear responsibility for bringing their hunting party to an area they did not properly investigate beforehand.

The plaintiffs in the suit accuse Barnett of assault, false imprisonment, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Barnett, however, has filed a countersuit accusing Ronald Morales of trespassing, and the land access issues could play a role in determining that charge. Barnett also alleges that Morales threatened him with a high-powered hunting rifle during the confrontation and has countersued him for assault.

Alleged victim testifies

One of the child members of the Morales party took the witness stand Friday and told jurors she feared for her life during the altercation with Barnett.

Emma English, who was 11 at the time of the incident, said she was with 9-year-old Angelique Morales and Angelique's grandfather, Arturo Morales, when Barnett pulled up in a truck with his wife and his two dogs and began to shout at the elder Morales.

"He told him, 'You dirty Mexican, you probably took down my (no trespassing) sign. You better get the (expletive) out of here,' " she recalled. "And me and Angelique started to get scared."

Once Ronald Morales and 11-year-old Venese Morales arrived at the scene, Barnett got even angrier, she said.

When Ronald Morales asked Barnett his name, he went to his truck, let out the dogs, picked up his rifle and pointed it at the group.

"We were really scared the dogs were going to get us, too," Emma English said, "and we thought we were going to die."

During cross-examination, Kelliher asked the girl why she hadn't mentioned Barnett's use of racial slurs in written statements she made shortly after the event or during an interview last summer with a defense-hired psychologist.

"I didn't know we were going to have to do it all in detail," she said of her written statements. She said she did not recall what she told the psychologist.

Prior to Emma English's testimony, the psychologist told the jury he didn't believe it was a good idea for any of the girls to testify during the trial.

Dr. Richard Hinton said that by testifying, the girls would be forced to relive a traumatic event under intimidating circumstances, and he said children who testify in court often feel especially responsible for the outcome of a trial.

He suggested it might have been better for the jury to have seen a videotaped interview with the girls.

And while Hinton said the girls were no longer suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder when he saw them in June - a psychologist hired by the plaintiffs had diagnosed all three with chronic PTSD 14 months earlier - he confirmed the incident with Barnett had been deeply traumatic for them.

The sheriff's deputy who responded to the incident also testified Friday, telling jurors that after an investigation into the matter, he filed a report with the county attorney suggesting that Barnett be charged with eight felony counts of aggravated assault and five misdemeanor counts each of disorderly conduct and threatening and intimidating.

But Deputy Timothy Williams said the prosecutor never indicted Barnett.

Kelliher pointed out that the county Attorney's Office is staffed with trained lawyers who know and understand Arizona criminal law.

But Ronald Morales said the prosecutor's office told him they didn't want the case because no jury in Cochise County would convict Barnett.

The trial resumes Tuesday at 9 a.m. in Cochise County Superior Court.

http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles ... /news1.txt

It all seems so staged in order to get Barnett into court! He was probably interfering with smuggling. These people are dispictable.

"So are you saying that ignorance of the law is OK for you?" Kelliher demanded.

I think that there may be about 33 million people that think that.

Jury finds Arizona rancher responsible in vigilante trial
Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:52 PM ET

By Tim Gaynor

BISBEE, Arizona (Reuters) - A jury found a rancher responsible for holding a Mexican-American family at gunpoint in a civil trial in a small Arizona town on Wednesday in what their attorney said was a historic victory over vigilantism.

The jury at Cochise County Superior Court in Bisbee, 90 miles southeast of Tucson, found Roger Barnett responsible for false imprisonment, assault and inflicting emotional damage. It awarded two local families nearly $100,000 in damages for the incident, which occurred during a hunting trip.

Ronald Morales and his wife Renee said Barnett loaded an assault rifle and leveled it at their two daughters, and the daughter of another family, then harangued and abused them during the deer hunting trip on October 30, 2004.

The trial, which began November 14, highlighted the issue of vigilante violence in the rugged county on the Mexico border, which is a major thoroughfare for illegal immigrants and the place where the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps began civilian border patrols last year.

The Morales' family's attorney, Jesus Romo, hailed the verdict as a "historic victory" for rights groups seeking to combat vigilantism in southeast Arizona.

"We are delighted ... It sends out a clear message that there are consequences for vigilantism," he told Reuters outside the courthouse.

The jury awarded damages after apportioning responsibility between the plaintiffs and defendant in the suit.

Barnett, who runs a gas and tow-truck business, denied the allegations and contended the Morales' party was trespassing.

BLOW TO VIGILANTISM

Many incidents of vigilante violence have been reported on the U.S.-Mexico border, including one in which Hispanic voters were harassed by men in combat gear in Tucson during the November 7 elections.

But rights activists said the Barnett case was disturbing because the Morales are U.S. citizens and Ronald Morales is a veteran who served in the U.S. Navy for six years.

At the start of the trial on November 14, the Tucson-based Border Action Network said the lawsuit demonstrated that border vigilante violence had not been limited just to immigrants crossing the Arizona border but also to Mexican-Americans.

Barnett faces another suit alleging violence against illegal immigrants which has yet to come to trial.

He claims to have detained more than 10,000 people who crossed the border illegally from Mexico and handed them over to the U.S. Border Patrol.

The suit named two other plaintiffs: Edward and Ana English, whose daughter Emma, was also traveling in the car stopped by Barnett, along with the Morales' two daughters Venese, then aged 11, and Angelique, aged 9.

Barnett faces another suit brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund last year, alleging that he held a group of illegal entrants at gunpoint on his property.
http://link.toolbot.com/reuters.com/24775

This is another absurd finding that reflects a crippling mandate for political correctness. Our courts must consider the alternatives or our nation could be lost. In other words, what would our misguided judiciary recommend border ranchers do with trespassers. Seems the alternatives are few. They can let poachers kill their game, despoil their rented land and generally treat it as their own, as this creep Morales did. Or they can call the Border Patrol whose ability to respond is less effective than city police. Or they can arrest and hold them for authorities as occurred here. Or they can...well, let's just leave that last alternative to your imagination since writing it violates the rules of this forum. The bottom line is it seems this Mexican scourge has successfully created a mind-numbing sympathy that makes it a crime even to threaten trespassers, even when they're still on one's land. It's an absurd trend that will end badly.

Nov 23, 3:25 PM EST

Jury Orders Rancher to Pay Hunting Party

SIERRA VISTA, Ariz. (AP) -- An anti-illegal immigration activist accused of threatening to shoot a Mexican-American family of hunters with an assault rifle and using racial slurs against them was ordered to pay them $98,000.

A civil jury held rancher Roger Barnett only partly responsible, saying some of the blame lay with the man who sued and the man's father.

Ronald Morales and his father, Arturo, were with his two young daughters and their friend when Barnett confronted them near his Douglas-area ranch and accused them of trespassing Oct. 30, 2004.

Morales' lawsuit claims they were legally crossing land Barnett leases from the state. The Moraleses are U.S. citizens of Mexican descent.

Barnett, who claims to have detained more than 10,000 migrants in the last 10 years, denied threatening the hunting party. He testified that he only took out his AR-15 rifle because the adults in the group were carrying rifles.

Morales, a Navy veteran, said he felt justice had been served by the verdict.

"We came to court and spoke the truth, and the jury heard that truth," Morales said. "Hopefully this sends a message that you can't point a gun at little kids - or anybody for that matter - and then threaten to shoot them."

Barnett declined to comment, saying his lawyer advised him against speaking. His brother, Donald Barnett, expressed disappointment.

"In the Morales family, the father taught the son to trespass, and now the father's teaching the daughters how to trespass in blatant disregard for the law," said Donald Barnett, who was initially named in the suit but later dropped as a defendant. "I guess in this country, private property and a person's rights don't mean much any more."

The lawsuit was sponsored by the Border Action Network and the Southern Poverty Law Center, civil rights groups that have accused Barnett of acting as a vigilante and abusing illegal immigrants he detains on his ranch.

The family sued Barnett for assault, false imprisonment, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury found in favor of all five plaintiffs Wednesday.

Morales said he asked the Cochise County Attorney to press criminal charges against Barnett, but was told no jury would convict him.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/ ... SECTION=US

(Note the difference in reporting between Reuters and the AP)

He needs to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court!