Arizona’s Constitution VS. Illegal Aliens, The Case of Robert Barnett

180px-flag_of_arizonasvg I love Arizona.  Since coming here it has had some really wonderful things about it.  The smell of the orange blossoms, the warm winters, and lots of blue sky.  One of the problems I have with it is the light pollution.  There is so much sky up there, so many stars unseen because of the lights.

Another thing that gets to me are the illegals who think this is their back yard.  Who bring their trash and live in such mess that no one can possibly live in a place they have used.  I don’t know if it is the fact that they are here illegally or just that they are slobs, but they really mess the place up.  And you can find them almost everywhere standing on street corners looking for day labor jobs.  Why aren’t they rounded up and deported?  It makes me VERY uncomfortable to go to Walmart with them standing around there.

And that brings me to the subject of this post, the court case where the rancher, Robert Bernett held the illegals at bay.  First, that any Sovereign Citizen in this Sovereign State would be held responsible for the illegal doings of illegal aliens is beyond me.  With the laws on the books here in Arizona I find it difficult to see where the rancher was doing anything wrong, and in fact, could  have shot them all, but didn’t.  I think he would have been better off had he done so than gone to court.

According to Arizona’s Constitution:

35. Actions by illegal aliens prohibited
Section 35. A person who is present in this state in violation of federal immigration law
related to improper entry by an alien shall not be awarded punitive damages in any action
in any court in this state.

Now, according to the news, the court said Roger Barnett was liable for $77, 804.00.  This is in direct violation of the State’s Constitution. And while I do not blame the jury for this inaccurate decision, I do blame the judge for not instructing the jury properly in Arizona law…

But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.

Barnett declined to comment afterward, but one of his attorneys, David Hardy, said the plaintiffs lost on the bulk of their claims and that Barnett has a good basis for appeal on the two counts on which he lost.

I want to know how this court can have ruled like this?  I’m sending this information to KPHO, KFTU, KNAZ, KCFG, KDTP, KMOH, KTVK, KAET, KSAZ, KPNX, KASW, KAZT-TV, KVOA, KUAT-TV, KGUN, KMSB-TV, KOLD-TV, KTTU-TV, KUAS-TV, KHRR, KUVE-TV, KWBA, KVYE, KECY-TV, KYMA, KSWT, and KAJB and CNN’s Lou Dobbs.

According the the Arizona Legislature, Arizona has declared its Sovereignty, HCR 2024.  That means that the federal government is secondary to any laws here in Arizona and the courts HAVE been notified.  According to Mr. Barnett’s attorney who I personally contacted:

Thanks, we raised that argument and may raise it again on appeal. It was ratified in … I forget the year, but recently, after the events at issue in the lawsuit took place. The court ruled that it shouldn’t have retroactive effect, and apply to events that had already taken place. (Our counter was that punitive damages don’t become a vested right until the jury awards them, so applying them to this case is not applying them retroactively).

united States code is clear in the fact that all illegal aliens and those who help them, etc., are breaking federal law.  If these people are breaking the law just being here, how then does a judge award them anything???  Mr. Barnett was only doing what the law states in protecting his property…

Now, I find it very odd indeed that I cannot find a record of this proceeding on U.S. District Judge John Roll‘s docket search.  I’ve done it several times now and it just doesn’t come up even with the correct dates inserted, names, etc.  Hummmmmm, why not??? Nor will doing a google search find them when asking for court transcripts.  And remember, there were 16 of them and only 1 of him.  I’d feel threatened if I were Mr. Bernett!

According to the Arizona Legislature, they passed SB-1145 in 2006.  This bill states that:

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904, or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using PHYSICAL FORCE OR deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if he THE PERSON is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

D. THIS SECTION IS NOT LIMITED TO THE USE OR THREATENED USE OF PHYSICAL OR DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE IN A PERSON’S HOME, RESIDENCE, PLACE OF BUSINESS, LAND THE PERSON OWNS OR LEASES, CONVEYANCE OF ANY KIND, OR ANY OTHER PLACE IN THIS STATE WHERE A PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO BE.

<SNIPPED>

This act is an emergency measure that is necessary to preserve the public peace, health or safety and is operative immediately as provided by law.

APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR APRIL 24, 2006.

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE APRIL 24, 2006.

As far as I can tell, Mr. Barnett did NOT violate any Arizona law, BUT, it appears that the Judge in this case has made a mockery of those same laws.  This U.S. District Judge John Roll should be recalled from office!  I thought all this might be a tad bit difficult to understand so I looked for a source which could put this all in plain English.  Here it is:

(1) Previously, “justification” defenses, including self-defense, were affirmative defenses. The defendant (or self-defender) had to prove them by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., proof of “more likely true than not). Under SB 1145, if the defense presents “evidence” (quantum undefined) of justification, the prosecution must disprove justification to a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. This change is not limited to defense of home or car, but applies anywhere.

(2) No duty to retreat before using force to prevent certain serious offenses, including aggravated assault. Again, this applies anywhere, any place a person has a legal right to be, in the language of the law.

(3) A person is presumed to be justified in using force or deadly force if he/she reasonably believes they or another person are in imminent peril and the attacker has entered or is trying to enter a residence or occupied auto. Once again, there is no duty to retreat.

(4) A person is generally presumed to be justified in use of force if the attacker has unlawfully forced his way into residence or car or is trying to do so (with certain exceptions, such as if the person forcing in had a legal right to be in there). This means that justification is automatically presumed when a person uses physical or deadly force against an intruder. It is now the prosecutor’s job to prove there was no justification, which once again falls within our legal system’s concept of innocent until proven guilty.

(5) If the aggressor is foolish enough to sue, and the defender wins, the defender recovers attorney fees and lost income (presumably, lost while at the courthouse). This not limited to the home invasion situation.

All of this is not limited to either a structure nor a car.  So a property owner should have been protected and the Illegal Alien Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) should have been shown the door and deemed to have NO STANDING under Arizona law.  See the Castle Doctrine definitions here:

Also, just in case you are wondering, there are trespass laws here in Arizona.  At this website the following are grounds for criminal trespass:

Before a suspect can be arrested for trespassing, they must – by state law – be given a warning.
That warning can be in the form of a no trespassing sign. Another form is the verbal warning
by a Police Officer, owner or agent if there is no sign. If the suspect leaves and returns after
the verbal warning (which is documented), OR refuses to leave, then an arrest can be made.
If you have any questions please contact your CAT Team at (623) 930-3380

And there is also this in the Arizona criminal code:

13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.

2. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the right-of-way for tracks, or the storage or switching yards or rolling stock of a railroad company.

B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.

Now, even the biggest moron can understand that  FENCED OFF land means DO NOT ENTER, even if the sign or whatever fencing isn’t in Spanish.  Only a lawyer would argue these Mexican Nationals didn’t understand the simple fact of a fence, that the OWNER of the property caused THEM distress instead of the other way around.  Mr. Bernett’s property has been trashed, his cattle killed and damage done to his home by these illegals breaking in.  How, in God’s name, did MR. BERNETT become the source of these Mexican Nationals distress when they are here illegally???

So, what I would really like to see is some serious investigation of this action which directly circumvents Arizona Sovereignty, Arizona Laws and Robert Bernett’s rights as a landowner and see how the Judge can award ANY illegal alien anything under this State’s statutes.  I believe there has been a serious miscarriage of justice with full intent to defraud in regards to this case and challenge the Judge’s ability to perform his duties as pertains to State and federal laws.

Advertisements

~ by justmytruth on March 5, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: