AZMEX Barnett case 31-3-08

TUCSON REGION
Rancher to face charges of violating entrants' rights
By Howard Fischer
CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 03.31.2008
advertisement

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."