← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · jeffersonian
Thread ID: 6584 | Posts: 3 | Started: 2003-05-09
2003-05-09 23:47 | User Profile
Original Article At: [url=http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0509borderlawsuit09.html]AZ Central[/url]
As described in the brief from the article below, attorneys feel that the 42 Million dollar lawsuit against the United States Govenment by the families of ILLEGAL ALIENS who perished committing a crime, is a longshot.
Thank God.
The question is why can the foriegn national famlies of criminals sue the US Gov. when the families of the thousands of men, women, and children who have been raped, brutalized, robbed, and murdered by the Illegal Aliens, who the Government failed to keep out of the country, cannot?
Once again it appears the Illegals have more rights than the taxpaying citizen, who untimately would foot the bill if the lawsuit were successful.
**
Lawsuit in migrant deaths a long shot, lawyers say Susan Carroll and Tessie Borden The Arizona Republic May. 9, 2003 12:00 AM
Constancia Landa Ortiz stands to make a fair chunk of $42 million if a jury sides with the families of 11 migrants who died in the desert in Arizona's deadliest border crossing.
The widow's plans for the money are as humble as her surroundings, a tiny village high in the mountains of southern Mexico with rickety, dirt roads and one community phone.
"I would deposit it in the bank to be able to eat in case there was an illness in the family or an emergency," said Landa Ortiz, who lost her husband and 15-year-old son in the May 2001 crossing.
But the lawsuit against the U.S. government, filed by attorneys for the families of 11 of the 14 men who died in the crossing, has little chance of succeeding at trial, some legal experts said Thursday.
"It's a tragedy, to be sure, but I think it will be a very difficult case, both on the law and the facts," said Phoenix attorney Michael Manning.
Phoenix civil rights lawyer Stephen G. Montoya was more direct: "It's inconceivable" that the families will win, he said.
Attorneys for the family members of the undocumented immigrants declined comment on the lawsuit, filed April 30 in U.S. District Court in Tucson. The U.S. Attorney's Office also declined comment.
**
2003-05-10 19:49 | User Profile
Phoenix civil rights lawyer Stephen G. Montoya was more direct: "It's inconceivable" that the families will win, he said.
There is NO legal basis for the suit. Obviously there is NO DUTY, and the government has SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, et cetera. But the plaintiffs can win if the government (the putative defendant) colludes with them, as was done in California with the lawsuit challenging Prop 187. That is par for the course these days.
2003-05-10 19:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@May 10 2003, 19:49 ** > Phoenix civil rights lawyer Stephen G. Montoya was more direct: "It's inconceivable" that the families will win, he said.
There is NO legal basis for the suit. Obviously there is NO DUTY, and the government has SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, et cetera. But the plaintiffs can win if the government (the putative defendant) colludes with them, as was done in California with the lawsuit challenging Prop 187. That is par for the course these days. **
So much law is made by collusive law suits, as you know.
The whole Griswold line of cases - that created a Constitutional "right to privacy" out of thin air and that lead to Roe v. Wade - was done in close collusion with a tight set of Ivy League law school professors and their connections on the Supreme Court. I remember discussing this in law school - my professor was trying to get some outrage over the point that there was no live "case or controversy" in any of those cases, thus SCOTUS taking them violated the most basic precepts of Common Law jurisprudence - but to no avail.
Judge-made law was fully accepted by the late 1980's, at least.
Walter