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 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-155 next last
To: kbennkc
How did Mr. Schwilk prove that affirmative defense ?

Yeah, good question. And that's an affirmative defense to the issue of the use of the word "criminal". Wouldn't avail you much on the issue of falsely claiming someone was wanted for robbery.

81 posted on 04/20/2010 10:20:37 AM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: bcsco; Black Agnes; AuntB; Joe Brower

This is what you get with Quisling traitor judges.

I don’t miss Cali.


82 posted on 04/20/2010 10:21:03 AM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc
How did Mr. Schwilk prove that affirmative defense ?

See the quote in my post #80. The plaintiff had been tried in criminal court in 2007.

83 posted on 04/20/2010 10:26:02 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

So what is he suppose to be called?
A law breaking Alien?


84 posted on 04/20/2010 10:28:17 AM PDT by Marty62 (marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

This really points up why we’re going to hell. Here we have an illegal alien (a criminal) who can use our courts to file a law suit against an American citizen and gain a monetary amount which will increase his country’s GDP by 10%. PURE INSANITY!!


85 posted on 04/20/2010 10:29:40 AM PDT by kenmcg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canedawg
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

He may have been able to construct a silly paper hat from it too . The plaintiff had a lawyer and the defendant did not , and you want to assume the pleading favored Mr Scwilk ?

His lawyer was smart enough not to have his client show up so Scwilk could not prove his affirmative defense with the plaintiff's own testimony .

Oldest trick in the book prove your case with you opposition testimony . Second oldest , have your client lay low so they can't do that .

86 posted on 04/20/2010 10:29:52 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 79 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Is this a joke. The judge held the trial WITHOUT the Plaintiff? WTH?


87 posted on 04/20/2010 10:32:19 AM PDT by Marty62 (marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Maybe it’s just me, I usually wait until somebody’s actually been convicted of a crime before I call them a criminal. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

You might want to look up exactly who the charges were filed against in this case before you start calling people criminals because they’ve been charged.

You’re still missing the point, the issue here is not the question of whether someone who’s entered the country in violation of our laws can be called a “criminal”. That’s Jeff’s spin, but it’s not the issue that produced the ruling.


88 posted on 04/20/2010 10:33:40 AM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
How did Mr. Schwilk prove that affirmative defense ? See the quote in my post #80. The plaintiff had been tried in criminal court in 2007.

So did Schwilk tell the judge to go look it up ?

89 posted on 04/20/2010 10:34:43 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 83 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

revolution is the solution!!


90 posted on 04/20/2010 10:42:18 AM PDT by angelcindy ("If you follow the crowd,you get no further than the crowd")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kenmcg
PURE INSANITY!!

Yep.

91 posted on 04/20/2010 10:43:28 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

If he had looked it up.....

http://www.alipac.net/bored/index.php?topic=189.0


92 posted on 04/20/2010 10:43:39 AM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
You might want to look up exactly who the charges were filed against in this case before you start calling people criminals because they’ve been charged.

No, you're the one who's interested, you go find it. I said so before. Do it. The plaintiff was identified by the victim as having attacked him. There was a 2007 trial, so the DA apparently felt he had enough evidence to convict. I don't know the outcome, but also am not interested. It's you who are, so you do the work.

If I want to consider him a criminal, I will. He was here illegally, after all. And while not technically considered a criminal offense, I consider it such. And always will.

93 posted on 04/20/2010 10:47:33 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc
So did Schwilk tell the judge to go look it up ?

No, if you look at my post #80, and consider it in context, you'll see that Monti, the victim, testified on behalf of Schwilk, and stated in his testimony that the plaintiff was an illegal alien based on the plaintiff's prior testimony.

94 posted on 04/20/2010 10:51:15 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

Unless of course you’re a terrorist and enemy combatant. /s


95 posted on 04/20/2010 10:54:00 AM PDT by historyrepeatz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

OH, I did go find it. I was trying to give you the opportunity to save yourself some embarassment, but.. oh well.


96 posted on 04/20/2010 10:54:36 AM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

So, where is it?


97 posted on 04/20/2010 10:55:32 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

One link is on post 92, here’s another one

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_771df5ce-bfba-5fff-8cab-d1a30d767310.html

There’s two ways to interpret the sentence, “Monti said that Jimenez testified at his trial”. The word “his” is subject to misinterpretation which is probably what the author intended.


98 posted on 04/20/2010 11:06:33 AM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Blue Turtle
...don’t forget that colleges are allowing illegals in with taxpayer money.

And the DOJ recently blocked an institution from asking applicants for proof-of-citizenship. Said it was "unconstitutional"...

99 posted on 04/20/2010 11:07:58 AM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
BTW, it's me who's chiding you. I saw your link; to ALIPAC.net, no less. ALIPAC stands for 'American-Latino Immigrants Proudly Assisting the Community'. No doubt an illegal support group.

It states there the illegals were the victims in 2006, yet the real victim (IMO), Monti, claims they attacked him after the police left and he had to defend himself. Interestingly, all but the current plaintiff dropped their suit against Monti and Fox News. One has to wonder over that if they indeed were the victims...

Frankly, I'm more than inclined to believe the true victim in this case than I am the 7 illegals. And you're using a pro-illegal website to bolster your argument doesn't do it for me.

I'll stick with the facts of the story I posted.

100 posted on 04/20/2010 11:12:52 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 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