Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Illegal alien wins defamation case for being called a 'criminal' – set back for 1st Amendment
Examiner.com Chicago ^ | April 20, 2010 | Kimberly Dvorak

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: aliens; alienscashingin; illegalalien; illegalimmigration; illegals; immigrantlist; immigration; justicenotserved; mexico
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-155 next last
To: bcsco

So someone who has committed a crime and who is, by his very nature, in the continued process of committing a crime, cannot be called a “criminal” until he is found guilty?

Call him an “illegal alien” or a “wetback” and be done with it.


61 posted on 04/20/2010 9:51:51 AM PDT by ConservativeMind (Hypocrisy: "Animal rightists" who eat meat & pen up pets while accusing hog farmers of cruelty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob
hen it became a mis-demeanor, less serious than parking in a handicapped zone.

A misdemeanor crime results in a criminal record, at least in most states.

I can't speak for all states, but here we have three classes of offense. Felony, misdemeanor, and civil infractions. The first two are criminal offenses, and the latter is obviously by its name, not. DUI here is usually a misdemeanor. Parking violations are civil.

62 posted on 04/20/2010 9:52:03 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (I don't look for leaders. I follow my own path, my way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Spok
Access to American courts should be barred by anyone who is not in this country legally. Period.

I find it reprehensible that I don't have standing to sue to determine if my President is qualified, but an illegal alien has standing to sue for defamation against someone who rightfully calls him a criminal.

63 posted on 04/20/2010 9:53:37 AM PDT by Egon (The difference between Theory and Practice: In Theory, there is no difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

I was about to make the same point. The issue turns on falsely accusing someone of robbery, assault, and battery, not on using the word “criminal”.


64 posted on 04/20/2010 9:54:54 AM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
Recently I saw a black pimp with his black hooker get off the taxpayer funded light rail train, walk across the street and pimp his whore out to the day laborers at the taxpayer funded day labor facility. One produced a wad of cash and disappeared with the hooker into the taxpayer funded restroom.

Am I concerned about how my tax dollars are being spent?

You betcha.

65 posted on 04/20/2010 9:55:14 AM PDT by Gabrial (The Whitehouse Nightmare will continue as long as the Nightmare is in the Whitehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

What gets me about this is the fact the plaintiff failed to show up for the trial. The story speculates it’s because the issue of the assault was a straw dog for attacking a SDMM member. But the easiest answer is that the plaintiff knew he could be arrested for assault should he appear. So, why bother? And the judge went along with it.

Yet the guy is supposed to get $2500 because he was called a ‘criminal’ in an email. Dumb, dumb, dumb.


66 posted on 04/20/2010 9:55:16 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob

“Then it became a mis-demeanor, less serious than parking in a handicapped zone.”

In Texas, if you have a certain number and certain types of mis-demeanor, you cannot be a police officer, security officer and several other jobs - so, you do end up with a “criminal” record, so technically, you are a criminal!


67 posted on 04/20/2010 9:56:30 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (Hey Congress: Go Conservative or Go Home!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
The title says it all "Illegal alien wins defamation case for being called a 'criminal'"

Apparently the judge doesn't have a firm grasp of the English language.

68 posted on 04/20/2010 9:56:46 AM PDT by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
The issue turns on falsely accusing someone of robbery, assault, and battery, not on using the word “criminal”.

Read the article before you make ridiculous statements. The illegal DID assault a photographer in 2006 on US soil. He's never disputed that. The story goes on to say there WAS a criminal trial in 2007. If he was falsely accused, then how could that trial have occurred?

69 posted on 04/20/2010 9:59:05 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
Maybe the judge did him a favor . Representing himself is so stupid it hurts my eyes . Would no secure the borders groups lawyers help this guy ? Isn't this the same guy Hannity visited on the border ?

I bet there are a dozen Freeper lawyers who would have represented him if contacted .

David Limbaugh , that would have been great .Rush could broadcast , Court-Radio . With the defendant taking the stand , without the ability to raise proper objections , who knows what admissions he may have made . $2500.00 , What is this ? Small claims night court ? That is like little fine for being stupid .

70 posted on 04/20/2010 10:00:21 AM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truemiester

There’s no right to confront in a civil case.


71 posted on 04/20/2010 10:01:25 AM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: truemiester
The right to face your accuser, out the window.

Civil trial . Defendant should have subpoenaed him .

72 posted on 04/20/2010 10:04:13 AM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

The $2500 is what the court figured the damage to the plaintiff’s character was worth, let’s view it in that light.


73 posted on 04/20/2010 10:06:43 AM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Kimberly GG

“ALL illegal aliens are criminals.”

Not with this muh fuggin judge.


74 posted on 04/20/2010 10:09:03 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops....and vote out the RINOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

Yep. The comments about not going pro-per are on the nose.


75 posted on 04/20/2010 10:10:17 AM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
The $2500 is what the court figured the damage to the plaintiff’s character was worth, let’s view it in that light.

The plaintiff assaulted a photographer in 2006 and went to trial in 2007. When assessing damages, let's view them in that light.

76 posted on 04/20/2010 10:10:42 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Canedawg
Schwilk...also pointed out again that Jimenez was an illegal alien and had obviously broken laws by entering the U.S. illegally.

How did Mr. Schwilk prove that affirmative defense ?

77 posted on 04/20/2010 10:13:02 AM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Unh huh, and when we he convicted of robbery? Or was he ever convicted of anything?


78 posted on 04/20/2010 10:15:57 AM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

There may have been info in the plaintiff’s Complaint that identified where he resided and what his legal standing was to commence the lawsuit.

The defendant may have been able to construct permissible inferences from that.


79 posted on 04/20/2010 10:16:50 AM PDT by Canedawg (I'm not digging this tyranny thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
Unh huh, and when we he convicted of robbery? Or was he ever convicted of anything?

Go look it up. The fact is, the story clearly states he went to trial in 2007: Monti also said under oath that Jimenez had previously testified in his criminal trial in 2007 that he was an illegal alien and had no legal papers to gain employment legally in the U.S.

Criminal trial? Gosh, he must've been considered a criminal. Go figure.

80 posted on 04/20/2010 10:18:20 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-155 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson