Illegal alien wins defamation case for being called a 'criminal' – set back for 1st Amendment

Examiner.com Chicago ^ | April 20, 2010 | Kimberly Dvorak

[ConservativeMind]

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.

[Darren McCarty]

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.

[Egon]

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.

[ArmstedFragg]

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”.

[Gabrial]

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.

[bcsco]

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.

[ExTxMarine]

“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!

[RockyMtnMan]

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.

[bcsco]

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?

[kbennkc]

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 .

[ArmstedFragg]

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

[kbennkc]

The right to face your accuser, out the window.

Civil trial . Defendant should have subpoenaed him .

[ArmstedFragg]

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

[stephenjohnbanker]

“ALL illegal aliens are criminals.”

Not with this muh fuggin judge.

[ArmstedFragg]

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

[bcsco]

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.

[kbennkc]

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 ?

[ArmstedFragg]

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

[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.

[bcsco]

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.