Rancher to face charges of violating illegal aliens' rights...This is B.S.!!!

Rancher to face charges of violating illegal aliens' rights


By Howard Fischer
The Capitol Media Services, March 31, 2008

A federal judge has cleared the way for the trial of Douglas rancher Roger Barnett on charges that he violated the civil rights of border crossers and kicked one of them.

Judge John Roll rejected Barnett's efforts to have the charges thrown out. Roll also rebuffed the contention by David Hardy, Barnett's attorney, that the rancher's wife, Barbara, should be dismissed from the lawsuit.

Roll also refused Barnett's request that the plaintiffs be forced to put up some sort of bond to cover his legal costs should he win the case.

The judge said such a move might impair the ability of the 16 men and women who have filed suit to pursue their claim. Roll pointed out the lawsuit was filed in 2005, but Barnett did not express any concern until more than two years later.

Roll did not set a date for a trial.

This is the second legal setback for Barnett. Last month the state Court of Appeals refused to throw out a jury verdict of guilt — and a nearly $100,000 monetary award — against Barnett in another civil case where a jury concluded he falsely imprisoned members of a Douglas family.

Barnett, who has said he has identified 10,000 illegal border crossers in the last decade, did not return a call seeking comment.

The case stems from a 2004 incident where the plaintiffs claim they were captured, assaulted and unlawfully detained at gunpoint by Barnett as part of a conspiracy based on his feelings toward Latinos, and illegal entrants in particular. Barnett's brother, Donald, also is named in some of the allegations.

Hardy argued there was no evidence of a conspiracy, but simply that Roger and Barbara were checking for damage on their 22,000-acre ranch, and responding to barking by their dog. He also said there is no actual evidence of race-based animus — which is covered by the law — but only that the plaintiffs entered the country illegally.

And Hardy said border crossers are not a protected class, particularly because their status 'results from their own conscious choice to break the law.'

Roll, however, said there is sufficient evidence of a conspiracy, that the conspiracy denied the plaintiffs their right to interstate travel, and the actions of the Barnetts were motivated by race to allow the matter to be presented to a jury.

Similarly, the judge rejected Hardy's contention that the Barnetts could not be charged with violating the plaintiffs' constitutional rights of equal protection under the law because they interfered with their right of interstate travel.

'Illegal aliens have no constitutional right of interstate travel,' Hardy argued. And the attorney said the law being used by the plaintiffs — and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund which is representing them — protects individuals only against government action.

Roll said that is a misinterpretation of the law, noting federal law grants certain protections to everyone in the country, regardless of status.

Finally, Roll refused to accept Hardy's arguments the plaintiffs could not be sued for punitive damages because the actions the Barnetts allegedly took were not 'outrageous.'



http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/232090