0 votes

Judge John McCarthy Roll shot in Arizona faced death threats circa 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCarthy_Roll
"In 2009, Roll ruled that the case Vicente v. Barnett could go forward. The $32 lawsuit brought by MALDEF against Arizona rancher Roger Barnett on behalf of 16 Mexican plaintiffs charged that the plaintiffs were assaulted, threatened, and held at gunpoint by Barnett and members of his family. After Roll's ruling and prompted by several talk-radio programs, he was the subject of hundreds of complaining phone calls and death threats and he and his family were under the protection of the U.S. Marshalls Service for a month.[3][4][5]"

Lou Dobbs covers rancher Roger Barnett story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSx_8vadGIE

Beck interviews rancher Roger Barnett
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc6-HbqtjSc

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I must admit

I'm a bit confused! This comment from an article at the Washington Times says:

"...on February 17 a federal jury in Tucson REJECTED NEARLY ALL of the substantive claims brought by MALDEF against Arizona rancher and immigration reform activist Roger Barnett. Earlier, on February 10, federal district judge John M. Roll threw out related conspiracy complaints against his wife Barbara and his brother Donald Barnett, and dismissed the claims brought by ten illegal aliens who did not testify in court. Judge Roll explained that illegal aliens have no constitutionally protected right to travel in the U.S..."

---AND---
"...The jury became aware that the poor and uneducated plaintiffs were being used by the Mexican government in a crude attempt to discourage border enforcement efforts.

Jurors awarded four female plaintiffs small punitive damages for emotional distress. However, it is unlikely that damages will ultimately be paid. The jury instructions, which did not conform to Arizona standards for emotional distress awards, and a 2006 Arizona constitutional amendment bars awards of punitive damages to illegal aliens. Most significantly, when the jury unanimously denied the civil rights, conspiracy, and false imprisonment claims, they not only rejected MALDEF's decision to play the race card in court, but provided the family members the opportunity to seek recovery of attorneys fees. The risk of liability for fees and costs will be an important deterrent to spurious civil rights-based legal attacks on immigration reform activists and law-abiding communities in the future..."
-----------
It appears there wasn't much that "went forward", imo.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-...

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond
BAN ELECTRONIC VOTING!!