Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Thor on February 18, 2009, 08:11:04 PM

Title: A Question for the Lawyers??
Post by: Thor on February 18, 2009, 08:11:04 PM
How the heck does a person, here in this country illegally, trespassing, vandalizing property, even have STANDING to bring forth a lawsuit against a citizen defending his property??
Title: Re: A Question for the Lawyers??
Post by: vaskidmark on February 18, 2009, 08:15:46 PM
Crap!

I was going to say something in answer to the "standing" question as asked, but decided it is a waste of time to discuss politics in the roundtable.

stay safe.

skidmark
Title: Re: A Question for the Lawyers??
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 18, 2009, 08:17:12 PM
Silly skidmark.  It's not politics.   :angel:
Title: Re: A Question for the Lawyers??
Post by: RevDisk on February 18, 2009, 09:05:13 PM
How the heck does a person, here in this country illegally, trespassing, vandalizing property, even have STANDING to bring forth a lawsuit against a citizen defending his property??

The argument is that the "crime" occurred in the US, therefore the case has standing in the US.  Most likely. 

The Mexican government pressuring our government had absolutely nothing to do with the situation. 
Title: Re: A Question for the Lawyers??
Post by: crt360 on February 18, 2009, 09:20:28 PM
Without going into great detail, "standing" basically requires that you have been or will be harmed by something that the court you have chosen has jurisdiction over and that a decision by such court in your favor will redress your harm ("fix your problem") to some degree.  In most cases, standing is easily satisfied, but can be tricky in constitutional challenges.  I'll let the current law students discuss it more, if they want.

I'm not sure if you have a particular case in mind, but to answer what I think you're asking about, filing a civil suit against someone in, say, a Texas District Court, is generally not affected by being an illegal immigrant or having been accused of, arrested for, or even convicted of a crime.  As long as you have an "injury", one or more causes of action that fit, meet the amount in controversy, venue and any bond requirements, you're probably good to go.

Being here illegally has nothing to do with it.  Bringing up the issue as the defense is a good way to get your ass slapped on appeal, should you win at trial.
Title: Re: A Question for the Lawyers??
Post by: Thor on February 18, 2009, 10:13:58 PM
I was referring to the case in Arizona, Barnett, the rancher, getting sued by the illegal aliens and them winning, at least to a small extent. They were awarded some $78K for "assault" and I think "false imprisonment". Just don't seem "right" to me that these criminals could bring a suit against someone merely protecting their property and holding them until the police/ border patrol arrived.
Title: Re: A Question for the Lawyers??
Post by: Boomhauer on February 18, 2009, 11:14:06 PM
Oh, it isn't "right". But right and reality are two very different things these days.

Title: Re: A Question for the Lawyers??
Post by: Balog on February 19, 2009, 12:32:27 AM
I did a little work with Chris Simcox before the whole Minuteman hoopla. We were not legally allowed to tell the illegals we caught to stop. Because telling them to stop would be imprisoning them. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: A Question for the Lawyers??
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 19, 2009, 06:05:47 AM
did he lose his most recent case?  or are you refering to the last time? when the jury found him guilty of 14 of 15 counts. and the folks were citizens of the usa?
Title: Re: A Question for the Lawyers??
Post by: MicroBalrog on February 19, 2009, 06:17:57 AM
did he lose his most recent case?  or are you refering to the last time? when the jury found him guilty of 14 of 15 counts. and the folks were citizens of the usa?

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/02/roger_barnett_c_1.php