A federal judge has cleared the way for the ttrial of Douglas rancher Roger Barnett on charges that he violated the civil rights of border crossers and kicked one of them.
|
|
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 ultimately 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. And Rol pointed out that 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 actually the second legal setback for Barnett. Last mont the state Court of Appeals refused to throw out a jury’s 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 detailed 10,000 illegal border crossers in the last decade, did not return a call seekin comment.
The case stems from a 2004 incident where the plaintiffs clai they were captured, assaulted and unlawfully detained at gunpoin by Barnett as part of a conspiracy based on his feelings abou Latinos and illegal immigrants 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 Roger and Barbara, checking for damage on their 22,000 acre ranch, 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 t interstate travel, and that the actions of the Barnetts was 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 plaintiff’s constitutional rights of equal protection under the law because they interfered with their right of interstate travel.
“Illegal aliens have no constitutional right of interstat travel,’’ Hardy argued. And the attorney said the law being use by the plaintiffs — and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund which is representing them — protects individuals only against government action.
That, said Roll, is a misreading of the law.
And Roll pointed out that federal law grants certain protections to ``all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.’’
Finally, Roll refused to accept Hardy’s arguments that the plaintiffs could not be sued for punitive damages because the actions the Barnetts allegedly took against them were no “outrageous.’’ The judge said that the allegations, includin holding them at gunpoint, threatening them with both a weapon an a dog and even physically attacking them “could be characterized as outrageous.’’
Comments
RobertMD900 wrote on Jun 6, 2010 7:03 PM:
jm wrote on Feb 10, 2009 2:39 PM:
Barnetts neighbor wrote on Apr 4, 2008 9:50 PM:
wake up wrote on Apr 4, 2008 9:40 AM:
gh wrote on Apr 3, 2008 4:47 PM:
gh wrote on Apr 3, 2008 4:43 PM:
Jodie wrote on Apr 3, 2008 9:13 AM: