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 ...
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.”
-snip-
Schwilk...also pointed out again that Jimenez was an illegal alien and had obviously broken laws by entering the U.S. illegally.
-snip-
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.
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.