Cskin Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Two illegal aliens, two men who have broken the law when crossing our border, are awarded the property of the man who captureed them. They claimed the capturer pistol whipped one of them... then later gave them cookies and water. :doh: Absolutely amazing... this country is effed!!!!! Two Illegal Immigrants Win Arizona Ranch in Court Fight http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/n...agewanted=print By ANDREW POLLACK DOUGLAS, Ariz., Aug. 18 - Spent shells litter the ground at what is left of the firing range, and camouflage outfits still hang in a storeroom. Just a few months ago, this ranch was known as Camp Thunderbird, the headquarters of a paramilitary group that promised to use force to keep illegal immigrants from sneaking across the border with Mexico. Now, in a turnabout, the 70-acre property about two miles from the border is being given to two immigrants whom the group caught trying to enter the United States illegally. The land transfer is being made to satisfy judgments in a lawsuit in which the immigrants had said that Casey Nethercott, the owner of the ranch and a former leader of the vigilante group Ranch Rescue, had harmed them. "Certainly it's poetic justice that these undocumented workers own this land," said Morris S. Dees Jr., co-founder and chief trial counsel of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., which represented the immigrants in their lawsuit. Mr. Dees said the loss of the ranch would "send a pretty important message to those who come to the border to use violence." The surrender of the ranch comes as the governors of Arizona and New Mexico have declared a state of emergency because of the influx of illegal immigrants and related crime along the border. Bill Dore, a Douglas resident briefly affiliated with Ranch Rescue who is still active in the border-patrolling Minuteman Project, called the land transfer "ridiculous." "The illegals are coming over here," Mr. Dore said. "They are getting the American property. Hell, I'd come over, too. Get some American property, make some money from the gringos." The immigrants getting the ranch, Edwin Alfredo Mancía Gonzáles and Fátima del Socorro Leiva Medina, could not be reached for comment. Kelley Bruner, a lawyer at the law center, said they did not want to speak to the news media but were happy with the outcome. Ms. Bruner said that Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva, who are from El Salvador but are not related, would not live at the ranch and would probably sell it. Mr. Nethercott bought the ranch in 2003 for $120,000. Mr. Mancía, who lives in Los Angeles, and Ms. Leiva, who lives in the Dallas area, have applied for visas that are available to immigrants who are the victims of certain crimes and who cooperate with the authorities, Ms. Bruner said. She said that until a decision was made on their applications, they could stay and work in the United States on a year-to-year basis. Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva were caught on a ranch in Hebbronville, Tex., in March 2003 by Mr. Nethercott and other members of Ranch Rescue. The two immigrants later accused Mr. Nethercott of threatening them and of hitting Mr. Mancía with a pistol, charges that Mr. Nethercott denied. The immigrants also said the group gave them cookies, water and a blanket and let them go after an hour or so. The Salvadorans testified against Mr. Nethercott when he was tried by Texas prosecutors. The jury deadlocked on a charge of pistol-whipping but convicted Mr. Nethercott, who had previously served time in California for assault, of gun possession, which is illegal for a felon. He is now serving a five-year sentence in a Texas prison. Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva also filed a lawsuit against Mr. Nethercott; Jack Foote, the founder of Ranch Rescue; and the owner of the Hebbronville ranch, Joe Sutton. The immigrants said the ordeal, in which they feared that they would be killed by the men they thought were soldiers, had left them with post-traumatic stress. Mr. Sutton settled for $100,000. Mr. Nethercott and Mr. Foote did not defend themselves, so the judge issued default judgments of $850,000 against Mr. Nethercott and $500,000 against Mr. Foote. Mr. Dees said Mr. Foote appeared to have no substantial assets, but Mr. Nethercott had the ranch. Shortly after the judgment, Mr. Nethercott gave the land to his sister, Robin Albitz, of Prescott, Ariz. The Southern Poverty Law Center sued the siblings, saying the transfer was fraudulent and was meant to avoid the judgment. Ms. Albitz, a nursing assistant, signed over the land to the two immigrants last week. "It scared the hell out of her," Margaret Pauline Nethercott, the mother of Mr. Nethercott and Ms. Albitz, said of the lawsuit. "She didn't know she had done anything illegal. We didn't know they had a judgment against my son." This was not the first time the law center had taken property from a group on behalf of a client. In 1987, the headquarters of a Ku Klux Klan group in Alabama was given to the mother of a boy whose murder was tied to Klansmen. Property has also been taken from the Aryan Nations and the White Aryan Resistance, Mr. Dees said. Joseph Jacobson, a lawyer in Austin who represented Mr. Nethercott in the criminal case, said the award was "a vast sum of money for a very small indignity." Mr. Jacobson said the two immigrants were trespassing on Mr. Sutton's ranch and would have been deported had the criminal charges not been filed against Mr. Nethercott. He criticized the law center for trying to get $60,000 in bail money transferred to the immigrants. While the center said the money was Mr. Nethercott's, Mr. Jacobson said it was actually Ms. Nethercott's, who mortgaged her home to post bail for her son. Mr. Nethercott and Mr. Foote had a falling out in 2004, and Mr. Foote left Camp Thunderbird, taking Ranch Rescue with him. Mr. Nethercott then formed the Arizona Guard, also based on his ranch. In April, Mr. Nethercott told an Arizona television station, "We're going to come out here and close the border with machine guns." But by the end of the month, he had started his prison sentence. Now, only remnants of Camp Thunderbird remain on his ranch, a vast expanse of hard red soil, mesquite and tumbleweed with a house and two bunkhouses. One bunkhouse has a storeroom containing some camouflage suits, sleeping bags, tarps, emergency rations, empty ammunition crates, gun parts and a chemical warfare protection suit. In one part of the ranch, dirt is piled up to form the backdrop of a firing range. An old water tank, riddled with bullet holes, is on its side. A platform was built as an observation post on the tower that once held the water tank. Charles Jones, who was hired as a ranch hand about a month before Mr. Nethercott went to prison, put up fences and brought in cattle to graze. He has continued to live on the property with some family members. But now the cattle are gone, and Mr. Jones has been told that he should prepare to leave. "It makes me sick I did all this work," he said. Ms. Nethercott said she was not sure whether her son knew that his ranch was being turned over to the immigrants, but that he would be crushed if he did. "That's his whole life," she said of the ranch. "He'd be heartbroken if he lost it in any way, but this is the worst way." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingtiger1013 Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 That is so stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Makes me want to pistol whip some lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted August 19, 2005 Author Share Posted August 19, 2005 Now, I'll give you that the defendant has prior arrests for gun violations and other legall problems..... but allowing illegals to sue for pain and suffering and collect nearly $500K worth of property as a reward???? This Moriss Dees Jr. guy is the classic Liberal attorney. I'm quite sure he's a proud card carrying member of the ACLU. Google him... and read about is other TREASONOUS activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Big business on one side and Lawyers on the other. Makes someone like me stay in the middle. Concerning this case, it would have been easier for the peolple to have shot and killed the illegals. However, you did not hear me say that or see me write that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Originally posted by Cskin This Moriss Dees Jr. guy is the classic Liberal attorney. I'm quite sure he's a proud card carrying member of the ACLU. Google him... and read about is other TREASONOUS activities. Ooh, a liberal and an ACLU member? Get a rope. Now, I'll give you that the defendant has prior arrests for gun violations and other legall problems..... Um, he's a convicted felon who, the article implies moved to that location for the purpose of setting up a militia training compound and becoming self-appointed police officers. but allowing illegals to sue for pain and suffering and collect nearly $500K worth of property as a reward???? Now, there I agree with you. The defendant should be in jail on a weapons charge. (I don't think I'd go for five years, but I don't know the details, either.) But the illegals shouldn't be profiting from their crime, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 What dumbassed judge made this ruling? How in the hell can someone that is here illegally, breaking the law to get here, even have a legal standing in our courts? WHat the hell is the matter with people? And people wonder why we don't want terrorists tried in some of these courts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFunky1 Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Originally posted by Sarge What dumbassed judge made this ruling? How in the hell can someone that is here illegally, breaking the law to get here, even have a legal standing in our courts? WHat the hell is the matter with people? And people wonder why we don't want terrorists tried in some of these courts? It is because you hate freedom and democracy. I think these illegals should have been packed up and sent back to Mexico. If the claims were correct that the guy pistol whipped the illegals, he should be tried for his crime, but to award the illegals his land is absolutely ridiculous. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 So they came to america illegaly And they were trespassing on his property So fo assault and battery that turned into milk and cookies ... He lost his house and 90 acres.... Seems a little extreme.... While the people that were there illegally and trespassing on his property were rewarded with his property to sell... Plus citizenship for cooperating in describing how he caught "THEM"? I thought that statute was for when they helped stop a crime or solve one... Not describe their own??? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Just so I get this straight let me use an analogy. I'm driving down the road doing 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. Another driver sees this, cuts me off, pulls me out of my car, and pistol whips me. Now it just so happens that the dude who takes the law into his own hands by stopping me is also a known and previously convicted drug dealer who has repeatedly avoided serving time. From what I'm gathering from your responses, the judge in this case should treat the incident as a simple assault and battery and not take the opportunity to create any additional hardships for the known drug dealer. Am I getting this straight? Forest for the trees people. Obviously the judge and prosecutors are making a call on which of the two crimes is the greater evil. You people seem to share the opinion that illegally entering this country is a far worse crime than that commited by people who take up arms in the name of vigilantism and declare themselves judge, jury, and sentencers. The judge has simply used the leeway given to him by law to punish what he believes to be the bigger criminal here. I agree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 "The judge has simply used the leeway given to him by law to punish what he believes to be the bigger criminal here. I agree with him. " That is exactly what is wrong imo. applying laws vs using leeway Property rights USED to mean something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Originally posted by twa That is exactly what is wrong imo. applying laws vs using leeway Property rights USED to mean something. [/b] Even for convicted felons who break the law again, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Originally posted by TheKurp Just so I get this straight let me use an analogy. I'm driving down the road doing 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. Another driver sees this, cuts me off, pulls me out of my car, and pistol whips me. Now it just so happens that the dude who takes the law into his own hands by stopping me is also a known and previously convicted drug dealer who has repeatedly avoided serving time. From what I'm gathering from your responses, the judge in this case should treat the incident as a simple assault and battery and not take the opportunity to create any additional hardships for the known drug dealer. Am I getting this straight? Forest for the trees people. Obviously the judge and prosecutors are making a call on which of the two crimes is the greater evil. You people seem to share the opinion that illegally entering this country is a far worse crime than that commited by people who take up arms in the name of vigilantism and declare themselves judge, jury, and sentencers. The judge has simply used the leeway given to him by law to punish what he believes to be the bigger criminal here. I agree with him. Nope, He should punish the guy for assault and battary and if a gun is involved he should be charged with probation violation etc... In VA there are mandatory laws... You should be charged with Reckless driving as a video camera caught you.. (Illegal immigration is easy to figure out so you would have to equal that by being on camera)... ***to make it more equal: He caught you Taking the radio out of his car*** At no point should he have to give you his Hummer3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Originally posted by Thiebear Nope, He should punish the guy for assault and battary and if a gun is involved he should be charged with probation violation etc... In VA there are mandatory laws... You should be charged with Reckless driving as a video camera caught you.. (Illegal immigration is easy to figure out so you would have to equal that by being on camera)... ***to make it more equal: He caught you Taking the radio out of his car*** At no point should he have to give you his Hummer3. So the fact that the guy who committed assault and battery on me is a convicted drug dealer, and is known to still traffic in drugs, should not be a consideration in the judge's handing down of a decision, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Originally posted by TheKurp So the fact that the guy who committed assault and battery on me is a convicted drug dealer, and is known to still traffic in drugs, should not be a consideration in the judge's handing down of a decision, right? Example: You break into a convicted drug dealers cars to sleep. He catches you and beats your arse with a gun.. Should you get the car? Or should he be convicted on what they have for him. And you convicted on what they have on you.. You are seperate cases... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Originally posted by TheKurp Even for convicted felons who break the law again, eh? The man was tried and convicted for his actions. Where is the justification for siezing his property? Oh yeah, the judge did not agree with his beliefs:rolleyes: Looks like a dangerous path too endorse:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Originally posted by Thiebear Example: You break into a convicted drug dealers cars to sleep. He catches you and beats your arse with a gun.. Should you get the car? Or should he be convicted on what they have for him. And you convicted on what they have on you.. You are seperate cases... The convicted drug dealer is found guilty for beating me. Because of over-crowded jails and sentencing guidelines, the drug dealer will not serve any or will serve minimal time. The drug dealer has no known assets because his income is not only illegally derived, but unreported to the IRS. In essence, the drug dealer will walk with only another line added to his rap sheet. You're damn right I get his car if the judge so deems it's the only way to make him pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Originally posted by TheKurp The convicted drug dealer is found guilty for beating me. Because of over-crowded jails and sentencing guidelines, the drug dealer will not serve any or will serve minimal time. The drug dealer has no known assets because his income is not only illegally derived, but unreported to the IRS. In essence, the drug dealer will walk with only another line added to his rap sheet. You're damn right I get his car if the judge so deems it's the only way to make him pay. So the judge thought it was o.k. for you to break into his car? or should he then take your newly aquired vehicle and give it to a charity because... This is your first breakin and you don't have alot.. based on your breakin in the first place... In essence, You the thief will walk away with a new car for doing a crime... Edit: In virginia there is a 5 year law using a gun in a crime.... Doesnt seem like another line on a rap sheet.... The flaw in your logic here is that both are criminals for what they did.. yet one is SLAMMED and the other is rewarded... You cant have it both ways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 No Thiebear, there is no flaw in my logic. When a person has an unlawful act committed against them while in the act of committing a crime themselves, it does not mean that the crime against them is any less important, especially when committed by a convicted felon. Two crimes are being committed. Each is punishable. The two illegal immigrants will be punished for the crime of entering this country illegally and trespassing. The convicted criminal who now practices vigilantism will also pay for his crime. The fact that he committed his crime upon individuals also committing crimes has no bearing. In this case, to do otherwise is sending a message condoning vigilantism. The only way there would be flaws in my logic is if the two illegal immigrants had the charges against them dropped for no sensible reason. In this case they were allowed to plea out in return for cooperating in the investigation of the previously convicted felon. Justice was served for the greater good. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 You obviously have a different notion of JUSTICE. How is dropping charges and allowing them to live here while deciding whether to grant them legal immigration combined with awarding them property justice? One is jailed and his property confiscated and the other gets rewarded:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Originally posted by twa The man was tried and convicted for his actions. Where is the justification for siezing his property? Oh yeah, the judge did not agree with his beliefs:rolleyes: Looks like a dangerous path too endorse:2cents: The guy bought the property for the specific purpose of breaking the law, which he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Some folks may be getting off their positions, here. I don't think anybody is saying the vigilante should get off scot free. I don't think anybody is claiming that it's impossible to think of a situation in which having his property siezed would be justice. The disagreement is: Should the illegal immigrants and trespassers recieve a free ticket for their crime, and a reward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Why did these guys just "let them go after an hour or so?" Seems the smart to do would have been to call Immigration, a citizens arrest kind of thing. What they did didn't accomplish anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Originally posted by GSF The guy bought the property for the specific purpose of breaking the law, which he did. Uh, the incident happened on Mr. Suttons property not the man accussed of pistol whipping the ilegal alien. Which cost him 100,000 dollars, to the people tresspassing and entering the country ilegally. " Mr. Sutton settled for $100,000. Mr. Nethercott and Mr. Foote did not defend themselves, so the judge issued default judgments of $850,000 against Mr. Nethercott and $500,000 against Mr. Foote." How is this NOT rewarding ilegal activity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.