Illegal aliens awarded Arizona ranch?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jsalcedo

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
3,683
Here are two stories about the same incident.

Can anyone shed more light on this?





Earlier this year two illegal aliens from Central America were
apprehended while trespassing on a U.S. citizen's property. The U.S.
citizen then, they admitted in court, provided them with food,
refreshments and a blanket before sending them on their way.

Shortly thereafter the foreign national lawbreakers retained the
services of a U.S. attorney and sued the U.S. property owner in a U.S.
court, accusing him of having beaten them as well as of having used
racial slurs against them. A French journalist who was filiming a
documentary about U.S. border issues at the time, and who had
witnessed the entire incident firsthand, emphatically denied that the
American had done any of the harmful things attributed to him by the
illegal aliens.

Nonetheless, the U.S. court then awarded the U.S. citizen's entire
70-acre ranch to the illegal aliens as compensation for the illegal
aliens' claim that the American had given them "post-traumatic stress"
because they thought he was going to kill them rather than give them
cookies, drinks and warm blankets as they admitted he had actually
done. (Even wealthy U.S. real estate tycoons, still jubilant after the
Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo vs. New London, Connecticut that ok'd
seizing ordinary Americans' land and ancestral homes even if only to
build a minimall, could only dream of being able to get away with such
a land grab versus American citizens as the illegal alien foreign
nationals did in this case.)

Here is another Article:


DOUGLAS, Ariz., Aug. 18—Spent shells litter the ground at what is left of the firing range, and camouflage outfits still hang in a storeroom. Just a few months ago, this ranch was known as Camp Thunderbird, the headquarters of a paramilitary group that promised to use force to keep illegal immigrants from sneaking across the border with Mexico.

Now, in a turnabout, the 70-acre property about two miles from the border is being given to two immigrants whom the group caught trying to enter the United States illegally.

The land transfer is being made to satisfy judgments in a lawsuit in which the immigrants had said that Casey Nethercott, the owner of the ranch and a former leader of the vigilante group Ranch Rescue, had harmed them.

“Certainly it’s poetic justice that these undocumented workers own this land,” said Morris S. Dees Jr., co-founder and chief trial counsel of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., which represented the immigrants in their lawsuit.

Mr. Dees said the loss of the ranch would “send a pretty important message to those who come to the border to use violence.”

The surrender of the ranch comes as the governors of Arizona and New Mexico have declared a state of emergency because of the influx of illegal immigrants and related crime along the border.

Bill Dore, a Douglas resident briefly affiliated with Ranch Rescue who is still active in the border-patrolling Minuteman Project, called the land transfer “ridiculous.”

“The illegals are coming over here,” Mr. Dore said. “They are getting the American property. Hell, I’d come over, too. Get some American property, make some money from the gringos.”

{snip}

Mr. Mancía, who lives in Los Angeles, and Ms. Leiva, who lives in the Dallas area, have applied for visas that are available to immigrants who are the victims of certain crimes and who cooperate with the authorities, Ms. Bruner said. She said that until a decision was made on their applications, they could stay and work in the United States on a year-to-year basis.

Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva were caught on a ranch in Hebbronville, Tex., in March 2003 by Mr. Nethercott and other members of Ranch Rescue. The two immigrants later accused Mr. Nethercott of threatening them and of hitting Mr. Mancía with a pistol, charges that Mr. Nethercott denied. The immigrants also said the group gave them cookies, water and a blanket and let them go after an hour or so.

The Salvadorans testified against Mr. Nethercott when he was tried by Texas prosecutors. The jury deadlocked on a charge of pistol-whipping but convicted Mr. Nethercott, who had previously served time in California for assault, of gun possession, which is illegal for a felon. He is now serving a five-year sentence in a Texas prison.

Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva also filed a lawsuit against Mr. Nethercott; Jack Foote, the founder of Ranch Rescue; and the owner of the Hebbronville ranch, Joe Sutton. The immigrants said the ordeal, in which they feared that they would be killed by the men they thought were soldiers, had left them with post-traumatic stress.

Mr. Sutton settled for $100,000. Mr. Nethercott and Mr. Foote did not defend themselves, so the judge issued default judgments of $850,000 against Mr. Nethercott and $500,000 against Mr. Foote.

Mr. Dees said Mr. Foote appeared to have no substantial assets, but Mr. Nethercott had the ranch. Shortly after the judgment, Mr. Nethercott gave the land to his sister, Robin Albitz, of Prescott, Ariz. The Southern Poverty Law Center sued the siblings, saying the transfer was fraudulent and was meant to avoid the judgment.
 
default judgment; not the same as a jury awarding them. Nearly all courts will screw over the guy who refuses to defend himself.
 
And did our President have any comment about this situation? The silence is deafening.

Morris Dees apparently doesn't realize that illegal trespass is itself a form of violence. He is another do-gooder who is reliving, in old age, in a warped form, the glorious & golden days of Mississippi and Vietnam. Talk about a Lost Generation.

We have Mr Dees to thank for the most poetic description of illegal aliens to date: "Latino travelers."
 
:confused:

Stupid ass liberals.

Politically correct that. :cuss:

Maybe beating people up for crossing the border is not good (even thought there is still doubt it happened), but seizing a whole ranch for doing so is beyond appropriate punishment.

Besides, they WERE trespassing!

Also, if you're crossing country's borders illegaly, be prepared to face "soldiers that are going to shoot". How is that any more traumatic than breaking into someone's home and expecting to be faced with a homeowner?

I'm so mad.. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

I'm an immigrant myself, I didn't come here illegaly though... even if I had to come here illegaly, I'd be prepared to face "armed soldiers" and others that are protecting their homeland and their property.
 
Why would he comment?

He might want to give voice to what the majority of Americans are thinking about situations like this one?

This case is a travesty of justice and underscores the growing division between "government" and "We the People."

No, I don't expect Bush to comment--and that's my point. He's on the wrong side. For me this case is about intimidation--of citizens, by the government.
 
Maybe beating people up for crossing the border is not good (even thought there is still doubt it happened), but seizing a whole ranch for doing so is beyond appropriate punishment.

Besides, they WERE trespassing!

Yeah, I read about this case. The border patrol testified that one of the plaintiffs had a knot on his head "the size of a fist", the "Ranch Rescue" people were run by a felon who had been convicted of assaults in the past, and they refused to defend themselves.

The default judgment and the award were standard. If they had done the same to anyone, they'd have faced the same result. It's been long established in America that you can't intentionally do harm to trespassers, and there're well settled criminal and civil penalties for doing so. I really don't see the injustice.
 
I get it. We are now being instructed that defense of our property and our country against illegal trespass will now cost us our fundamental civil rights? If that is the case then you can kiss the hallowed rule of law goodbye. The Government won't defend us and they won't let us defend us. Beautiful.

How long do you think this abuse of power, masquerading as law, is really going to continue?
 
shootinstudent said:
Yeah, I read about this case. The border patrol testified that one of the plaintiffs had a knot on his head "the size of a fist", the "Ranch Rescue" people were run by a felon who had been convicted of assaults in the past, and they refused to defend themselves.

The default judgment and the award were standard. If they had done the same to anyone, they'd have faced the same result. It's been long established in America that you can't intentionally do harm to trespassers, and there're well settled criminal and civil penalties for doing so. I really don't see the injustice.

Right, like I said, assault by itself wasn't right. However, how is state justified in seizing property from an individual?

It was not a felony assault, rather simple assault. Nobody got shot or severly incapacitated. In case you get into a fight, should we confiscate your house?

The guy was dumb for not defending himself in court though.
 
longeyes said:
How long do you think this abuse of power, masquerading as law, is really going to continue?

Until it reaches the breaking point and we are forced to say "Molon Labe" to the "authority".

Now let's hope it doesn't happen by being involved into legislative process.
 
We are now being instructed that defense of our property and our country against illegal trespass will now cost us our fundamental civil rights? If that is the case then you can kiss the hallowed rule of law goodbye.

There has never been a time when, in english or American law, it was legal to beat trespassers solely because they were trespassing. The civil case didn't deprive these folks of any "fundamental civil right"...what it did was assess damages to be paid, and, since they didn't show up to bond or pay, the court took property (as has always been standard in cases like this) in order to settle the account.

If you breach your legal duties to other people, you can end up owing money. Nothing new under the sun about that. Indeed, refusing to assess damages for intentional assaults on trespassers would be a total rejection of our common law tradition.

This isn't new. This is following long practiced and well settled law.


Edit:

It was not a felony assault, rather simple assault. Nobody got shot or severly incapacitated. In case you get into a fight, should we confiscate your house?

Pistol whipping someone is a felony assault. I believe he's serving five years in prison right now for possessing a weapon illegaly (he was a violent felon), and yes...if I hit someone over the head with a pistol, I should surely have to pay damages for that. You should probably put me in jail too.
 
The idea here was to send a signal: Hands off on illegals. Mess with them at your own peril, serfs.

I also don't propose we assault illegals, but I also aver that WE are being assaulted as citizens on so many levels, a good deal of it under the alleged color of law and authority.

PTSD? The people with "PTSD" are the citizens who are being strongarmed by those who want this wave of illegal immigration to continue and expand.
 
I also don't propose we assault illegals, but I also aver that WE are being assaulted as citizens on so many levels, a good deal of it under the alleged color of law and authority.

Maybe so, but it's a different kind of assault and it's one that's hotly debated. Some people want illegals to come, some people don't care, others really care. Not the same thing as being pistol whipped.

My only point is that, if true, what these folks did on the ranch was clearly illegal, and something for which they could be sued regardless of who the person on the property was. They should've followed the law. The law doesn't evaporate because the other people you're dealing with are breaking one or even a number of laws...police can't beat petty thieves with batons for fun, citizens can't go pistol whipping trespassers. There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with this, and they chose the wrong way....IMO, they ended up paying for it.
 
This is a legal case that has to be viewed within the context of a much broader social and cultural crisis. We all know what's really going on here, let's not be naive, and we know who's behind it. The rest is rhetorical games and raw, brute power.

To have to turn over the defendant's ranch for this alleged offense remains, for me, a travesty.

I think we are all mocked by court decisions like this.
 
shootinstudent said:
There has never been a time when, in english or American law, it was legal to beat trespassers solely because they were trespassing. The civil case didn't deprive these folks of any "fundamental civil right"...what it did was assess damages to be paid, and, since they didn't show up to bond or pay, the court took property (as has always been standard in cases like this) in order to settle the account.

If you breach your legal duties to other people, you can end up owing money. Nothing new under the sun about that. Indeed, refusing to assess damages for intentional assaults on trespassers would be a total rejection of our common law tradition.

This isn't new. This is following long practiced and well settled law.


Edit:



Pistol whipping someone is a felony assault. I believe he's serving five years in prison right now for possessing a weapon illegaly (he was a violent felon), and yes...if I hit someone over the head with a pistol, I should surely have to pay damages for that. You should probably put me in jail too.

Hmm.. are you implying that trespass onto your property does not justify non-deadly assault (or rather, defense)? Would you offer cupcakes to someone who's trespassing into your house? Would you simply stand there watching people on your property outside your house? Would you confront them? What would you do if they refused to leave?

I'm not implying you can beat up anyone who might accidentally trespass into your property, I'm just saying the punishment should fit the crime. Couple of hits to the head with a pistol as means to deter the trespasser that is obviously not running away should not justify giving away whole ranch. Make him pay for the guys' medical bills, that's all.
 
Hmm.. are you implying that trespass onto your property does not justify non-deadly assault (or rather, defense)? Would you offer cupcakes to someone who's trespassing into your house? Would you simply stand there watching people on your property outside your house? Would you confront them? What would you do if they refused to leave?

Yes. Not only is that the law now, but it's always been the law. You can't beat people with potentially deadly weapons just for standing on your property, or passing through it illegaly.

Couple of hits to the head with a pistol as means to deter the trespasser that is obviously not running away should not justify giving away whole ranch. Make him pay for the guys' medical bills, that's all.

Well, that might be a more limited regime...but that's certainly not how we've dealt with these incidents in the past. Physical contact is the classic basis for emotional damages....which is something everyone who thinks about assaulting other people should consider before they go pistol whipping some trespasser or anyone else.

This is a pretty standard case and outcome, if you ask me. Nothing special about it, except that the relationship between illegals and landowners is in the spotlight right now. The rest is pretty standard stuff.
 
longeyes said:
I get it. We are now being instructed that defense of our property and our country against illegal trespass will now cost us our fundamental civil rights? If that is the case then you can kiss the hallowed rule of law goodbye. The Government won't defend us and they won't let us defend us. Beautiful.

How long do you think this abuse of power, masquerading as law, is really going to continue?

Until the American citizens' cost of compliance with the law exceeds the cost of noncompliance -- translated, that means it will reach the point where SSS is the citizen's least-risky course of action.

The transition to that state is accelerated when the citizens see how little respect government has for the law. When the lawmakers and law-enforcers have no respect for the law, then why shouldn't the lawabiders become lawbreakers?
 
NEWS FLASH !!!!! NEWS FLASH!!!!

Head to the hills the Republic is dead!!!!!!!!!!!!
Grab the ammo box on the way. Only one way to restore the Republic now!!

Shame but oh so true!
 
The Federal Gov't is the primary enabler of this problem. Any and all "violence" that springs therefrom can be laid at the feet of those in power at the highest levels. They are counting on adherence to the law, passivity, and fear to enforce their will.

The illegals have a corps of professionals on this side of the border working tirelessly to promote their "rights." They've learned how to scam the system, how to play the "civil liberties" game against our own interests.

I can't predict when the flashpoint will occur but I know there will be one. I have no doubt at all, looking around me in Los Angeles, that any serious attempt to stop illegal immigration will be met with violence--and NOT from the citizens' side.

It will be interesting to see exactly what happens, and on what timeline, when the American citizenry begins to understand that their own government is on the side of the illegal aliens.
 
Hmmm... having your ranch siezed and given to illegal immigrants that you found, fed, and released is the new law of the land. Funny that even though a French journalist denied any beating had taken place, the illegals win the ranch. This is insane.

How long will it be before ranch owners start catching, shooting, and burying illegals in shallow, unmarked graves to avoid legal hassles of this sort?

Illegals are illegal. This sickens me.
 
How long will it be before ranch owners start catching, shooting, and burying illegals in shallow, unmarked graves to avoid legal hassles of this sort?

I've heard that old time border patrol agents on horseback carried shovels with them for this very reason.

I believe Skeeter Skelton referred to it in one of his books (my apologies if I'm wrong)
 
Does anyone else see the irony in blasting illegals for breaking the law, when what these Ranch Rescue folks was itself illegal as well?

"Darn these illegals...we should break the law to stop them because they are breaking the law."

???
 
Frankly, if I was him, I'd barricade inside the ranch and demand national media attention, justice and a fair trial.

Evil will prevail if good men do nothing.
 
shootinstudent said:
Does anyone else see the irony in blasting illegals for breaking the law, when what these Ranch Rescue folks was itself illegal as well?

"Darn these illegals...we should break the law to stop them because they are breaking the law."

???

Nobody said they were shot at. By all accounts they weren't even assaulted at all.

Did you ever hear of citizen police officer? In some states you can shoot a person who's commiting a felony in progress. Not that I say we shoot illegal immigrants or beat them up, I'm saying the judgement at the court of law was illegal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top