Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Judge: Rancher must pay punitive damages to border crossers he kidnapped

"Federal Judge Frank Zapata" ?

.....Right, got it,.....no bias here,...no way.

GTC



Judge: Rancher must pay punitive damages to border crossers he "kidnapped"

Link: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/ar...36afd10-9a33-11e1-bc62-0019bb2963f4.html

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services | 5 comments

Cochise County rancher Roger Barnett cannot escape paying punitive damages to border crossers he kidnapped despite a 2011 state law passed specifically to help him, a federal judge has ruled.

Frank Zapata acknowledged that Arizona voters approved a measure in 2006 which constitutionally spells out that anyone not in this country legally is ineligible to collect punitive damages after winning a lawsuit.

That, however, came too late for Barnett who was sued following a 2004 incident when 16 illegal immigrants said the rancher illegally imprisoned them while they were crossing his property. One woman also said she was kicked.

So last year, the Legislature voted to make that ballot measure retroactive to the start of 2004.

Armed with that law, Barnett went back to federal court to void the $60,000 in punitive damages that four of the plaintiffs were awarded two years ago.

Zapata rejected the arguments.

The judge, almost in passing, said in a footnote that he accepted the arguments of attorneys for the plaintiffs that the 2011 law is unconstitutional. But Zapata said he could reject Barnett�s arguments on more basic grounds: If lawmakers were trying to help Barnett, they did not do it right.

The judge pointed out that the constitutional language says those not in this country legally cannot be awarded punitive damages.

But Zapata said that the question of punitive damages � a special award meant to punish a defendant for outrageous conduct or make an example of that person � does not arise until the case is finished and a defendant is found liable.

More to the point, Zapata pointed out that when a different judge awarded punitive damages in February 2009, three of them were lawfully present in the country. And a fourth, the judge said, had returned to Mexico after she was allowed to be present to testify at the trial.

�Therefore, when punitive damages were awarded, none of the plaintiffs were present in Arizona in violation of federal immigration law.�

During the 2011 legislative hearing, Rep. Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, said helping Barnett was exactly what he had in mind.

He said the 2006 constitutional amendment, referred to the ballot by the Legislature, was a direct reaction to the fact lawmakers knew Barnett was being sued.

�We weren�t smart enough at that point to understand that there was going to be a time lapse,� Weiers said at the time, making Barnett unable to take advantage of that change.

Zapata, however, said all that is legally irrelevant. He said that judges are bound to follow the words lawmakers put on paper � and into the statute books.

�If we find no ambiguity in the statute�s language, we must give effect to that language and we may not employ other rules of construction to interpret the provision,� the judge wrote.

Weiers argued at the time that the restriction against punitive damages makes sense.

�How incredibly silly that you�ve got people breaking the law, trespassing, doing this and that on personal property, and then you�re handed punitive damage awards,� he said.

Barnett�s separate efforts to have the entire verdict overturned have proven no more successful. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his arguments that the trial judge should have told jurors they could consider his claim of self-defense.

It's a good thing I don't live and own land on the border.I would just bury their azzes no matter how many were in the group.

That judge, like so many, had his mind made up before he heard any arguements.

Any excuse to send mo' US money to Mexico!

How liberal we are! We just love to give somebody else's money away by the bag, bundle, bale, and bushel.

sss.... sounds like that would be the plan going forward.

So all an illegal has to do any time they are cited is return to Mexico and they aren't illegal anymore and can't be held liable for what they did as an illegal?

Unbelievable! You hold someone for the authorities and it's kidnapping? Got to love where this country is going!

I am sure the rancher's attorney has already filed to have this moved up a notch in the court system.

Hmmmm, might be a good business model to open a store that rents back-hoes...

Hmmm...

I wonder how much SSS is really employed along the southern border.

Who appointed this judge?

Jim

The illegals are about third down the line in level of guilt from my perspective. #1 is the judge, #2 is the plantiff attorneys. Land owner doesn't make the list.

Yes, that is correct. If anyone thinks this is wrong then they should blame the lawmakers, not the judge who followed the law to the letter.

Ah! Sami, another 0bama campaigner!

Zapata - isn't that a Spanish name? Obviously he isn't American.

I'd burn the ranch and go to jail before those wets got a thin dime out of me.

Just logical thinking. No matter what your political views are, I suggest reading the post with some thought. If you disagree with the judge, come back with arguments against his reasoning.

You might start by disproving this:


If that can't be done, then you would need to disprove this:



Even the Republican lawmaker seems to acknowledge their OWN mistake:

It just amazes me that the public is stupid enough to put these people into power.This is the only country in the world that gives Illegals more rights than it citizens .

I doubt he could be a judge if he wasn't American. What is American name anyways? Sitting Bull? Something like Smith is an European name but I am sure you knew that already.

My peers have done a fine job of that, no reason to rehash.

The name Zapata and his location indicates to me that there is a strong possibility that the man has some loyalty to mexico and it's citizens over the US and it's citizens. His actions confirm that suspicion.

If you're supportive of this 'Judicial Decision', I'd steer well clear of Cochise County, or while here, keep my pie hole shut.

You are completely clueless as to what goes on out here, it would seem.

GTC

When I took over the ranch down on the border in the early 1990s, the Hidalgo County Sheriff, whom I had known for several years, warned me not to detain illegal border crossers who were not otherwise breaking the law. He specifically said that the U.S. Attorney would charge me with kidnapping and/or illegal restraint.

Of course, back in those days, we didn't worry much at all about people heading north looking for work. It was the smugglers that were the real headache, leaving gates open, cutting fences and making new roads.

We just thought it was bad, back then--little did we know.