It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

16 Illegals Sue Arizona Rancher--Claim violation of "rights."

page: 8
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I know Roger, he is just protecting what is his and his family. They were on his land, trespassing and all he did was hold them there till the BP showed. he was well within his rights, and don't give me that vigilante crap what would you do if every night 20 to 40 people walked through your living room trashing the place? i think the case will not go very far, and if Roger looses i can tell you thay will not get his ranch, ever.




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

I know Roger, he is just protecting what is his and his family. They were on his land, trespassing and all he did was hold them there till the BP showed. he was well within his rights, and don't give me that vigilante crap . . .


I stated fact. There are organized vigilante groups where I live. Period.

Definition of vigilante: : a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime.

Did I say they were right or wrong? NO I didn't. I said the Border Patrol is NOT appreciative of citizens taking law into there own hands.

There have been cases similar to this - - the trespassers did win - - and the rancher lost his ranch.



[edit on 10-2-2009 by Annee]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FewWorldOrder
 


These are hardly viable websites. Any disgruntled employee could of made that info up.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
The fact of the matter is that more stuff like this is going to happen. And the worse the economy gets, the unhappier Americans are gonna get about it. When people can't pay their own bills, they are gonna want to unload the freeloaders.

And they do milk the system for all that it is worth. I know, I work with some of the WIC offices. They collect checks and food stamps and drive off in nicer clothes then I ahve and a new SUV.


The more that happens, the more people are gonna take it into their own hands. This issue needs to be addressed. The government needs to stop hmming and hawwwing and worried about losing the latin vote, and get the situation under control.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Sure they have rights. As Illegals their rights are not (or should not) be protected by the United States, or at least not protected over an American citizen's rights. The fact that they are trying to charge the man for violation of their "civil Rights" (an earlier post already displayed the definition of civil rights) is absolutely absurd. What is to happen if the illegals are to win this case? How many lawsuits would be levied against American people by Illegal Immigrants. How many Americans would be prosecuted by criminals. Yes, Illegal Immigrants are criminals. At least they should be. I mean, Illegal is in the name they are classified by. The direction this county is going does not look too great. Where do we draw the line?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Dienekes
 


No, the PC definition used now is.."UNDOCUMENTED INDIVIDUALS"!! They are no longer reffered to by the true meaning of illegal. Nice how the PC crew makes it sound so innocuous!!
Zindo



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Personally, I think that this is absolutely absurd, I respect the hispanics just as much as any other person, I'm even learning their language, but there are sometimes when they're just *Snip* absurd. I don't mind so much that they're trying to carve out their own little slice of life, because that's how most of our ancestors got here, I don't like that many of them bring their drugs over. I don't like that they're trying to claim civil rights that they don't even have yet(Or ever, maybe).

One of the best boxers I train with is hispanic, he's a hard working, honest guy, there are some good ones, that's true, but some of them, the ones that come here just to bring over the drugs and violence that makes Mexico so bad, are the ones that aren't making anything better for themselves, or anyone else.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 2/11/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I said the Border Patrol is NOT appreciative of citizens taking law into there own hands.


Not responding directly to you, but to the above sentiment.

In my honest opinion, law is meant to be taken into peoples 'own hands'. Only in this delusional, unnatural system of 'citizen' and 'official' mentality, do these types of problems arise.

Natural law dictates that the rancher could have done as he see fit. Who does the authoritative, official based 'law' think they are in taking away a mans ranch for defending himself and his property? He was even nice enough to put a tap on his water tank so they could have easier access to water.

The time for people to reclaim their sovereignty is long past due. While I generally don't agree with the principles of individual land ownership, he still had the right to defend his homestead from what is obviously a continuous nuisance. Guess he should just give up and move, right? Maybe even give away his ranch to the invaders? heh, over his dead body.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Awww. Damn.
Now I’ve got to rant.

The problem here is not the rancher or even the illegal aliens he stopped. The criminal trespassers are just taking advantage of what is a corrupt system.

The problem lies in the hands of the US government.

They are using any and every tool at their disposal to invalidate the term "C I T I Z E N".

They want you and me to know that we mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

By placing born and naturalized taxpaying, law abiding, contributing members of society below the rest, they remove our rights from us without any recourse.

We are forced to defend ourselves from predation by illegal aliens, criminals, litigious fraud, corrupt local state and federal authorities, politicians, special interests, foreign interests, wasteful taxation, intentional inflation by the fed, serious financial usury by the banking industry, wage fixing by big business, attacks on out health by the FDA and big food and pharma...the list goes on.

This defense of our rights is out of our pockets. It is not supported at any level of legal establishment. Meanwhile we are further stripped of our rights as free citizens by law enforcement, activist judges and huge special interest funds that employ high priced lawyers whose sole purpose is to drain us dry as examples of what happens when we demand OUR rights. .

The powers that be WANT a huge illegal population to water down the power of the CITIZEN and prevent us from stopping what is becoming a new serfdom.

Our government wrote us off a long time ago.
They do not have any problems with selling America to the highest bidder.
These illegal aliens and their lawsuit is just another US supported attack on the citizens of what used to be a free republic.

If a Mexican found an American illegally trespassing on their soil and turned him over to the cops, he’d probably be in jail until he was dead. Or he would find himself in a shallow grave out in the desert.

Not quite right.


[edit on 11-2-2009 by badgerprints]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Ionized

Your opinion is noted.

I did not say anything was right or wrong. I just stated fact as it was presented to me.

Living on the border we get local news & stories every day.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
it's no different than the man who Sued God for crimes against humanity

It does two things in my opinion:

It points out the staggering flaws with our judicial system

and

proves that anyone can sue anyone else for anything - but does not mean that they'll win.



[edit on 11-2-2009 by Fremd]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
This shows why the tort system in this country needs to changed. If you sue someone you had better have real standing and not be throwing stones to see how far you can get. If you sue and loose, you should have to pay both parties legal bills. It would literaly end the frivolous suits we see cloging the courts over nothing but outlandish claims of damage!

Zindo



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
if you/d read the link you'd see it is in trial

it has gone far

deny ignorants

jw



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by psyko45
reply to post by fiorano
 

So what law says you can shoot and kill five people for cow tipping?


Here in florida, Farmers would pak salt rock into their shotguns and YES shoot at people who are trespassing on private property.. And yes shooting at them for Cow tipping.. Did you know it theres a chance the cow can die doing such a joke?

Now to the topic at hand here.. I think everyone has said what needs to be said here.. Its a damn shame this even gets to the courts..
This man was well in his rights to detain these trespassers!
People of America are within rights to take matters into their own hands when our own systems have falled apart and no longer function as they are meant to work..
Let them sue.. They will lose if there is justice left in this backwards system we have.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints


The powers that be WANT a huge illegal population to water down the power of the CITIZEN and prevent us from stopping what is becoming a new serfdom.



Maybe, but i think it's more a case of govt officials being bribed by illegal-alien profiteers like walmart and mcdonalds.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


There have been gun battles over seized drug shipments 5 miles across and into the U.S. between law enforcement and drug cartels. The murders of Mexican journalists and the bombings of their newspaper offices indicates Mexico is falling apart.

Mexican citizens are fleeing border towns due to the violence. American tourists are being murdered. Police officers are being threatened and murdered. They have been threatened over their own police channel radio's and later have been found dead.

The U.S. is blaming it on drug cartel's, but I think it is much more than that. It is no secret that certain elements in Mexico have threatened to take back portions of America like "The Plan of San Diego".

I feel our Government is staging and helping along a Mexican insurgency right next door to America since the powers of American fear with terrorism are fading due to the economic crisis and the lack of proof that Al CIAda is planning anything or even in the U.S.

Perhaps they will claim Al CIAda has infultrated Mexican drug cartels and is funding them and helping to stage a war against us.

With 20,000,000 illegals (low estimate) are here in America and most of them are young teen gang members and older men ready to fight, you could say that we already have a foreign army within our Nation.

Now they are enlisting illegals into "our" military to train and fight in the Middle East. When these illegal troops come home and Mexico starts pushing us into a war with them, where do you think that military training is going to go? Mexico is on the verge of collapse, just another phase in the already powerful NWO/NAU plan unfolding before us.

Wake up people before it is too late



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45
 



Maybe, but i think it's more a case of govt officials being bribed by illegal-alien profiteers like walmart and mcdonalds.


I think it is government using this issue to divert attention. While your worried about places like McDonalds and Wal-mart, the good paying manufacturing jobs are being outsourced overseas. Government does little to stop this trend and of course many people support these companies that are moving their operations overseas.

Did anyone notice how quick politicians started complaining about illegal immigrants and the southern border shortly after 9/11? Amazing how they weren't calling for the overhaul of the US visa since many of the terrorist had entered legally and overstayed their visa. Amazing that they didn't hold anybody responsible for the biggest intelligence, leadership, and military blunder in US history.

Just something to think about. From 1986(last amnesty) to 2001 politicians had no concern about illegal immigration or securing the border.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by arizonascott
 


Heres just some of whats been going on at the border for the last few months!:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Zindo



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Thank you for the link.

EVERYONE: We must be reminded that in 2006 hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens moved into the city streets of America demanding rights they do not have - all while waving the flag of a foriegn nation, in "OUR" streets.

That in itself was an act of war and an act of intimidation towards our government who did nothing!

As long as we all sit complacent, do nothing and sit in our corporate slave cubes, the road of socialism and tyranny deepens to the very roots of our blood soaked earned freedom and sovereignty!

Every American needs to ask themselves this question

If our economy is failing and over 500,000 "American" people lost their jobs just in January, why are the illegals still coming?

Welfare?

Companies still willing to hire them even though they could be fined?

What is the real goal of coming to America at this point and time. I doubt they are going to find a better life right now. Either they are drug runners, gang members or they are fleeing Mexico in fear of being killed.

Whatever the reason, it is not good. I personally believe that they are prepping for an all out war with the well established gangs and illegals that are here, and more will come across the border fully armed when the fighting starts to reclaim the States and land that they claim is theirs.

This rancher had enough and got no help from the Feds, so he took it into his own hands. It is his property and his right to defend it. Tons of garbage, old clothes, live stock killed and land ruined. At what point do you stop depending on the government and just do it yourself.

That is the problem, we are all sitting around waiting for the government to help with everything with the economy, help the border situation, help the job situation.

We need to act for ourselves in our own States and make our voices be heard.

Up to this point the Federal Government has not helped and is only making things worse.

Sorry about the rant, but I live in Arizona and this border/illegal crap ticks me off to no end.


[edit on 11-2-2009 by arizonascott]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 




Where's the Americans' 'rights watchdog?" Shouldn't the ACLU be defending this American family's rights? The federal lawsuit seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog. Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.



There are human rights and legal rights. Anyone inside the boundaries of the United States, legally or illegally, is under its jurisdiction. AND ITS PROTECTIONS. And are entitled to certain rights spelled out in the US Constitution. No doubt about that. Those are within the inherent powers of any sovereign state.

The problem arises because most of the general public is unfamiliar with the US Constitution. The writers used the words, “people” and “persons” and “citizens.” I take it for granted the writers knew the difference and carefully chose their words to convey precise meanings.

Although “people” appears several times in the US Constitution, it is among the very first words written: Preamble: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union . . “ This is a very inclusive term, “people” and no doubt includes all the humans residing in the 13 colonies.

Next comes the word “person.” Again, it appears often in the US Con and its Amendments. The first instance is here: Article II, Section 2. Clause 2. “No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.”

Note that also, the third word, “citizen” also appears here. There is a very important distinction between “PERSON” and “CITIZEN.” “No person” means exactly what everyone who speaks English knows. I shall not try to add to that. The next word “citizen” is also well known to MOST of the people living inside the boundaries. I think I can assume that, too.

So what have we learned up to this point? That “people” and “person” are probably synonyms for humans or human beings. In every instance of the usage of either word, there is no distinction between the two words. I tend to regard “person” to be the more direct or explicit term than “people” which I regard as broader but that is me. It is sure though, that all persons are people and that all people are persons. That cannot be denied.

And now we get to the meat of this posting. Article IV Section 2. “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice . . “

Note here in Article 4, the two terms, “citizens” and “person” are used in close proximity and on the same general subject. Rights. The first sentence grants a citizen of New Jersey, for example, the same rights as a citizen of Maryland should he find himself in Maryland. He does not take his New Jersey rights to Maryland but neither can Maryland discriminate against him because he is from New Jersey.

The second sentence is the FIRST sentence to apply to the illegal immigrants who are the subject of this thread. And what does it say? “A person” which means MORE than a citizen. Most of the humans on the planet are NOT citizens of the US, but all the inhabitants of the planet ARE persons. Therefore, what followed above applies to everyone who is UNDER the jurisdiction of the United States.

Let me move on. To keep it straight just WHO is in charge here, let me reprint Article VI of the US Constitution. Article VI Clause 2. “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

The above is referred to as the SUPREMACY CLAUSE. That part which says “ . . shall be the supreme law of the land . . ” I remind that “land” as used there means all the land over which the United States exerts control. (AG Gonzales advised Pres. Bush that was not the meaning [of land] and that Guantanamo Bay was not covered by the term "land" although no one had ever disputed that the Canal Zone in Panama was not covered by the term “land”. Or Guam, Wake or Midway Islands and etc).

But I think people of good will can read that and understand what the Founders meant when they chose those words. Note: When the US Con was written - 1787 - the Continental Congress had already obtained jurisdiction over the Northwest Territory (1785) which went on to become the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and most of Minnesota. So the Founder's choice of “LAND” had a good reason to be used there. Land to include states and other territories under the control of the United States.

More Con Law further spelling out the supremacy of the Federal government and the duties on all state officials. Article IV, Clause 3. “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution . . “ This provision together with the first provision or Supremacy Clause, spells a NO NO to the claims of state’s rights.

Note: Under certain conditions allowed under the Federal power to regulate in interstate commerce, the Supreme Court permits states to regulate unless the Federal law PREEMPTS the states in which case, Federal law is supreme. See Article I, Section 8. Clause 3. "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes . . " as a power granted to the Congress.

Finally, two more very pertinent examples. The famous Fifth Amendment. “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury . . “ This protection applies not just to CITIZENS but also and equally to PERSONS who find themselves under United States jurisdiction and its protection.

Amendment V continues: “ . . nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . “ Every person under American control and jurisdiction has these SAME protections.

Icing on the cake: Amendment VI. “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

This amendment is not limited to CITIZENS but applies to ACCUSED whether citizen or person. Just to be an ACCUSED and you have these rights guaranteed to you. Including a FREE lawyer to represent your interests. Like the ACLU. Actually, more like the Public Defenders. The ACLU takes cases where they see a constitutional issue involving civil liberties.

Another provision that applies to everyone. Amendment VIII. “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed . . ”

And last, the best Amendment of all which explains the two categories succinctly, persons and citizens. Read it and weep, the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The most important single section of the US Con and its 27 amendments, IMO. Re-read those restrictions placed SQUARELY on the STATES!

Now you know why those lawyers are suing anyone who violates the rights of any PERSON inside the boundaries of the United States. REGARDLESS how they got here.


[edit on 2/11/2009 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join