Skip to comments.Illegal alien wins defamation case for being called a 'criminal' – set back for 1st Amendment
Posted on 04/20/2010 9:07:43 AM PDT by bcsco
An illegal-alien day laborer who attacked a U.S. photographer at a notorious San Diego day labor site in 2006, was awarded $2,500 in damages for "defamation per se" by Judge Ronald Styn in a non-jury trial in San Diego Superior Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
“... 55,322 criminal aliens were arrested a total of at least 459,614 times, averaging over eight arrests per alien.”
The Department of Justice expressed its surprise at the extremely high rate of re-arrests for criminal aliens when it found that that 73 criminal aliens in a study group were arrested a total of 429 times. ...quoting a Government Accounting Office (GAO) study.
Reflect on those numbers for just a minute. This GAO study is only counting the number of arrests! And that should bring two questions immediately to mind: How many actual crimes did these 55,322 criminal aliens actually commit? How is it even conceivable that each of these illegal aliens could be arrested on average a total of almost nine times?
To at least partially answer the second question, you only need to look at so-called sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities are localities across the United States where liberal mayors and local legislators have instituted policies that prohibit law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration agents and prohibit them from even questioning the immigration status of anyone they arrest.
But to add more insult to injury, many American cities even allow illegal aliens to obtain free health care, food stamps and a whole assortment of government goodies without having their immigration status questioned.
don’t spend it all in once place, crimialien dirtbag.
The real problem isn’t the illegals...
Access to American courts should be barred by anyone who is not in this country legally. Period.
correct a mundo....
It is pretty easy to spot Progressive Judges. They always seem to ignore the Constitution and rule of law when they make their ridiculous interpretation of the law or redefine existing laws.
I agree — makes sense.
Access to American courts should be barred by anyone who is not in this country legally. Period.
...don’t forget that colleges are allowing illegals in with taxpayer money.
Setback for sanity and the rule of law.
Without the rule of law, what do you have? Arbitrary chaos.
The right to face your accuser, out the window.
He's in violation of the law simply by being here illegally. 'Nuff said...
The fix was in. The judge should be kicked off the bench.
I wonder what government union this judge belongs to?
Time to sue the journalist who wrote this headline too. Isn’t the headline equivalent to the complaint? The judge is a moron, but that’s common for lib judges. The criminal alien should be locked up until deportation and then permanently barred from re-entry and from citizenship. Actually all illegal aliens should be permanently barred from legal entry and from citizenship the first time they are caught. i have no problem with legal immigration, but I don’t want criminals in my country or becoming citizens ahead of those who follow the rules.
Unfortunately not unbelievable.
NOW, I would agree that America is TOO FAR GONE! I never felt that way before. After reading this, now I do.
Maybe we could just call them THUGS!!
Got this from your Facebook post. I left a comment there that I was posting this here. Thanks for the heads up...
Please see my tagline!
American citizens have been attacked at almost all anti illegal alien rallies. Now, they’ll feel they have free reign to continue their violence .... and get rewarded for it.
The world is upside down.
Even though mostly the left tends to use ‘immigrant’ rather than ‘illegal’ immigrant, I’ve heard both left and right politicians differentiate between “criminal” illegal aliens and non-criminal illegal aliens. Looks like the progressive left was successful in deciding the conversation language for all of us.
ALL illegal aliens are criminals.
Next he attacks a photographer.
Wouldn't those 2 things qualify him as a criminal?
They want to attack me, they'll get rewarded for it. Not the way they want, however. I'll give 'em a little lead, a little brass, to go along with the silver in their buckle.
So any criminal can now sue his victim if he is accused?
Somebody needs to the next time a conservative is labeled ‘racist.’
He assaulted a man and then resented being called a criminal. Then he found a trial lawyer.
John Edwards lives!
How does a defamation law suit affect free speech?
It is pretty easy to spot Progressive Judges. They always seem to ignore the Constitution and rule of law.
These judges are becoming absurd. I think in order to be judge you need psychological testing to see if you are sane or not. But it is San Diego and most who live there need testing.
You will just love this.
Wonder if the judge would feel the same about someone who broke into his house and assaulted him?
Why live in a gated community in a nation with open borders?
Open ALL borders, you man in a dress!
This is the type of ruling that destroy respect for the legal system. Even the left should be concerned if large numbers of citizens decide that justice cannot be obtained through the courts.
1. There are statutes against illegal immigration.
2. Those who violate penal statutes are commonly referred to as "Criminals"
3. Calling someone a "criminal" can also be used as an insult which usually isn't covered by defamation law.
The verdict is outrageous, but the article provides fair coverage of this circus:
“After a lunch break the defense called Jimenez to the witness stand, but Jimenez still had not arrived in court 4 1/2 hours after the start of the trial.
Gilleon then claimed that Jimenez’ wife was having surgery and he could not attend the trial that day. Judge Styn was clearly tired of the excuses, however he allowed the trial to continue. It became clear the real reason Jimenez could not come to the trial was because he was not eligible to enter the country legally from his home in Tijuana, Mexico.
Schwilk again asked Judge Styn for a directed verdict, but again the judge declined...
Schwilk said, I knew at that point the fix was in. This was so obviously a charade by Dan Gilleon and his La Raza employers...Judge Styn played right along with La Raza’s devious plan.”
Schwilk...also pointed out again that Jimenez was an illegal alien and had obviously broken laws by entering the U.S. illegally.
Asked about the verdict, Schwilk said, “Judge Styn not only ruled against our protection of free speech, he is attempting to de-criminalize illegal aliens and the crimes they commit on American soil. Styn is yet another example of a bad judge attempting to legislate from the bench.”
Fellow San Diego Minuteman Barry Shipley observed the entire 5-hour trial and agreed.
“The judge completely ignored the court testimony that Jimenez was a criminal illegal alien and that the truth is a defense in a defamation case. Judge Styn should be removed from the bench,” Shipley explained. “He is a danger to our American Constitutional rights”.
2. Defamation Per se
Some statements are so defamatory that they are considered defamation per se; and the plaintiff does not have to prove that the statements harmed his reputation. The classic examples of defamation per se are allegations of serious sexual misconduct; allegations of serious criminal misbehavior; or allegations that a person is afflicted with a loathsome disease. The historical examples of loathsome diseases are leprosy and venereal diseases. Allegations that a person is afflicted with AIDS may well constitute a modern variation on this form of defamation per se.
When a plaintiff is able to prove defamation per se, damages are presumed, but the presumption is rebuttable.
However, the questionable judgment aside, this has nothing to do with the first amendment which has never covered defamation.
Public “servant” unions should be ILLEGAL!
You agree to serve a purpose for the “good” of the people when you sign up as a public servant (i.e., city hall, police, military, fire department, etc...). Therefore, you should not be allowed to blackmail the taxpayer into paying you more and more and more - by threatening to with-hold the tasks that you agreed to provide in exchange for being given the rights and privileges of your position!
What is the difference between mafia enforcers threatening to “not protect” your company from the local thugs and your local police department threatening a walkout?
“Schwilk, who is a retired Marine, says he will fight until America’s borders are fully secured and the country returns to an orderly system of legal immigration. He believes most Americans strongly oppose amnesty for the approximately 20 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S. “
Yet the GOP continues to support and force on us OBL Republican candidates who’ll push “path to citizenship” AMNESTY.
They are not called criminaliens for nothing.
“The real problem isnt the illegals...”
They are part of the real problem. To pretend they aren’t is counter productive.
attack ALL parts of the problem
I used logic to explain the situation. A week later, my wife furiously told me that her friend had backed away from the illegal community and wouldn't help them anymore. I talked to the guy and he thanked me for straightening him out.
I divorced her before she beat our son to death.
Well, all us terrorists, as Janet Napolitano/HS calls us, should file a class action suit.
On what grounds? The email was sent to law enforcement officials, and the plaintiff acknowledged having attacked the photographer; the act this poster represents.
Prior to the 1920s there was no such thing as an illegal alien. Then it became a mis-demeanor, less serious than parking in a handicapped zone.
Tancredo’s HR4437 tried to change it from a mis-demeanor to a felony. HR4437 failed.
So technically an illegal alien is not a criminal.
Of course many use bogus IDs which might be a felony. And some (but not most) rape, rob, murder, etc. which is clearly a felony.
But to call a person a criminal who is only guilty of a mis-demeanor is clearly freedom of speech, even if not technically true.
For example I’ll here and now call CRIMINAL the 26 year old son of our IL Senate President. He has never been convicted of a crime. He even beat the multiple DUI raps prior to his current DUI rap. Never the less he is criminal and I’m exercising my free speech to call a misdemeanor violator a criminal. And if he sues me he will not win in court ... not even in IL courts where his daddy picks the judges.
It is a matter of free speech.