Thread: Vicente v Barnett: the appeal

Ninth Circuit Calendar

DECEMBER (and late November) 2010 CALENDAR: Listed below are selected cases deemed by the Court to be of significant interest. Many more cases are argued during oral argument sessions. NOTE: Occasionally calendars are modified close to the time of argument; check the legal newspapers for the most current information.

Vicente v. Barnett, 09-17522
Roger Barnett appeals the district court's judgment, following an eight-day jury trial, in favor of Ana Maria Vincente and others in their action alleging federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1981 concerning deprivation of constitutional rights, and various state law claims, in connection with an encounter between Barnett and a group of illegal entrants, including plaintiffs, on his ranch near the Arizona-Mexico border. The jury awarded plaintiffs $70,000 in damages.

http://www.uchastings.edu/court-time/9t ... t-cal.html

Ninth Circuit Court site

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/?m_mo ... e=50&m_p=2

Hear the argument: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_ ... 0000006685

Recordings appear on this site by 12:00 p.m. PT the day after argument.
Windows Media Player is required to listen to audio oral arguments.

Use this page to sort and search for Oral Arguments (audio, video) by case name, case number, panel, hearing location or hearing date. To search, click on the Advanced Search button. To find a case by its number, enter the case number (Example: 01-57131) and click the Search button. To find a case by hearing date, enter the 8-digit date (Example: 01/05/200. For cases heard before an en banc panel, type the case number followed by EB. (Example: 06-54321EB).

Earlier posts when trial began:
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-145018.html
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-203677.html

"Vicente v. Barnett, 09-17522
Roger Barnett appeals the district court's judgment, following an eight-day jury trial, in favor of Ana Maria Vincente and others in their action alleging federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1981 concerning deprivation of constitutional rights, and various state law claims, in connection with an encounter between Barnett and a group of illegal entrants, including plaintiffs, on his ranch near the Arizona-Mexico border. The jury awarded plaintiffs $70,000 in damages. "

Does this say what I think it does???????? Did they rule in favor of some illegals that were trampling on the rancher's land???????

Originally Posted by thedramaofmylife

"Vicente v. Barnett, 09-17522
Roger Barnett appeals the district court's judgment, following an eight-day jury trial, in favor of Ana Maria Vincente and others in their action alleging federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1981 concerning deprivation of constitutional rights, and various state law claims, in connection with an encounter between Barnett and a group of illegal entrants, including plaintiffs, on his ranch near the Arizona-Mexico border. The jury awarded plaintiffs $70,000 in damages. "

Does this say what I think it does???????? Did they rule in favor of some illegals that were trampling on the rancher's land???????

yes the illegals were awarded damages for trespassing and being held for border patrol

They're just lucky that the rancher didn't do what a rancher south of the border would have done to them!!!!! They are not doing themselves any favors, the other ranchers will get wind of this and do worse things than holding them for border patrol!

This decision is problematic for me because I do not condone racism and prejudice acts. The Barnett family has long been known to be horribly racist so in a way they are getting what they deserve. But also I know that foreign interests are trying to win border lands with court decisions that force long-time ranchers out with excessive financial punishments if nothing else. In other words, there will still be an invisible line separating US from Mexico but foreign interests will legally own the lands in the US adjacent to the border. And they will just work their way up.

The racism that the Barnett family is known for (and that is just hearsay from the townspeople nearby) may well be a result of the incursions they have constantly suffered causing them financial loss and emotional heartbreak so we should not be so quick to judge them even for that. If you are trying to do business and have a life and a certain people constantly cause you harm and you never have any option of cessation or restitution due to their nebulous status and your limited resources and no government support - you get a Barnett. We are all in danger of becoming Barnetts. We here on this forum are here trying to find answer that allows us to remain civilized and not get to that point. But hey, I can stop wasting my time, get a gun and go there.

its not racism to stop people from trespassing on your property, or destroying your personal belongings.
they have a right to protect themselves and their property...

Agreed jamesw62 but their is always more to the story. I am not going to post hearsay on this forum. The Barnett family has been there a long time. So have the Mexicans and their racism. hatred and politics of victimization and entitlement.

It is appalling that an illegal has access to our court system at all. The world is laughing. The US is being killed with our own values of fairness. imho the illegals who filed the suit should have been told NO STANDING!

The thing is to find the trial transcript. The facts will be there. The other thing is to find out the composition of the jury because sometimes the facts "be damned." What is the composition of the townspeople doing the talking?

It once was a mixed race town, pretty large but too small to have segregated schools. There was always prejudice on both sides but there also always was a core group that tried to get along despite racial and cultural variations and I have newspaper clippings from the '50's to prove it. Now even the Mexican descent people who have been citizens for multiple generations feel outcast in their hometown. Having any kind of education, speaking English as well as you speak Spanish, owning a home, having one of the few better jobs, not being part of the criminality - all these are criteria for serious discrimination by the new residents from south of the border. It's all about "brown power" now. I would love to see the current demographics of the town in terms of racial/ethnic composition, longevity in this nation, linguistic ability, education levels - all of it.

Very complex situation. Due to low wages here in the US there are citizens of Mexican descent for many generations who choose to live south of the border because the cost of living is enough cheaper that they can meet their financial obligations by living south of the border and commuting to their US jobs.

Like many US towns, it held much more promise at the turn of the last century that it has since. The Phelps Dodge mine closed up, the rich executive class left, the Jewish main street left and now the town is populated largely by people whose lifestyle (such as it is) cannot be accomplished with the wages of their jobs so even a casual glance will tell you that all is not right and things do not add up.

I never heard alot of talk or stories - it was just repeated as a known fact. Don't go there because that's the way it is. Just as you warn a child not to put their hand on the hot stove. There was some talk of the nature that what goes around comes around type when the suit was initiated but I think everybody's viewpoint has matured since then.

It is true that too many will perceive any type of no as prejudice and nothing is going to change their mind.

There will always be racism. All I'll read into this is that a Judge went on the side of illegals who were criminally tresspassing on US Soil and on someone's private property.

When other southern ranchers here of this next time border agents will be comming to carry away dead bodies rather then living illegals. After all there are many defenses left out for a rancher if he just shoots them thinking cattle thieves or he saw weapons thinking they meant bodily harm.

Rulings like this will just escalate the problem rather then comming to a conclusion. Do we want ranchers out there with long range rifles picking them off? Or would we rather be as civilized as we have tried to be and pick them up and toss them back across the border. Push people to hard and it will become extreme.

Still I doubt the judge even understands what sort of message he's sending to other ranchers because it surely isn't "just let them in".