After The Feds REPEATEDLY Violate Man’s Rights And Property, He SUES

by | Feb 22, 2018 | Headline News | 55 comments

Do you LOVE America?

    Share

    An elderly man is suing two federal government agencies for Constitutional rights violations. The rancher claims that both agencies trespassed on his property and installed cameras on his trees without his permission – but the icing on the cake was when they threatened to arrest him.

    According to ARS Technica, last November a 74-year-old rancher and attorney was walking around his ranch just south of Encinal, Texas, when he happened upon a small portable camera strapped approximately eight feet high onto a mesquite tree near his son’s home. The camera was encased in green plastic and had a transmitting antenna. The rancher removed the camera, and that’s when the trouble began for the feds involved in this property violation.

    Soon after, Ricardo Palacios, the rancher, received phone calls from Customs and Border Protection officials and the Texas Rangers. Each agency claimed the camera as its own and demanded that it be returned. Palacios refused both, and they threatened him with arrest. Palacios saw the camera as the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. So he sued. He sued both CBP and the Texas Rangers for continued violation of his property and Constitutional rights.

    “My client is 74 years old, he’s a lawyer, been practicing for almost 50 years, he has no criminal history whatsoever, law-abiding citizen, respected lawyer, and senior citizen,” Raul Casso, one of the attorneys representing Palacios, told Ars. “To have put him in jail would have been—forget the indecency of it—what a way to end a career.”

    In court filings, Texas officials have claimed qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects law enforcement officials.

    The camera now remains in Palacios’ attorneys’ possession while they are attempting to ask the case’s judge to allow them to formally introduce it in court as evidence. This federal lawsuit has raised thorny questions about the limits of the government’s power to conduct surveillance on private property, without the landowner’s permission.

    “As a matter of policy, CBP does not comment on pending litigation,” Jennifer Gabris, a CBP spokeswoman, emailed Ars Technica.  The Texas Department of Public Safety similarly declined comment.

    Nothing makes freedom lovers happier than seeing others stand up to the abusive rights violations of the federal government. Godspeed, Palacios!

    URGENT ON GOLD… as in URGENT

    It Took 22 Years to Get to This Point

    Gold has been the right asset with which to save your funds in this millennium that began 23 years ago.

    Free Exclusive Report
    The inevitable Breakout – The two w’s

      Related Articles

      Comments

      Join the conversation!

      It’s 100% free and your personal information will never be sold or shared online.

      55 Comments

      1. Wile e. Coyote

        What purpose did the cameras serve? Was it to catch illegals? Being this guys a lawyer which I despise I don’t really care. If they were trying to catch illegals then some wetbacks stole some shit he’d still be bitching. They should’ve asked him first if they could install but maybe they did. There’s always 2 sides to every story. I know if I lived along the border they could stick all the cameras up they wanted.

        • Menzoberranzan

          I think I’d shoot the cameras with the deer rifle.

          • CrackerJack

            Or the wetbacks.

            • Menzoberranzan

              Yeah! Them too.

          • The Deplorable Braveheart

            Menzo, I’ve heard somewhere that cameras can be disabled with a .22LR. When the revolution comes I may just try that out.

            • tony

              In Europe they use spray paint. Vaseline is great to make a fuzzy picture.

          • littlebit

            That is what I would do. I would wait a couple of days and shoot it from the side. When they came knocking I would just say. Damned it I know who shot it.

        • mary

          No, there aren’t always two sides to every story. This is childish nonsense parroted by the unthinking. Clearly, the owner didn’t give permission for the camera since he’s suing over it. sheesh

          • Jacknife

            No Mary, there are 2 sides to every story. There’s something missing in this one. If the guy took the camera down, then why not just give it back? He claims to be an atty, he could easily file an injunction to cease and desist but he’s fighting for something else. Maybe he’s providing safe conduct for traffickers? Who knows because we don’t know THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY.

            • moishe mendez

              offer evidence to back up your claim or stop defending these government thugs. babbling about 2 sides to every story is not evidence.

              • Jacknife

                I’m not defending anyone. I said there are 2 sides to every situation and there’s only 1 given here. Something about this story just doesn’t sound right. Get your facts straight and stop defending the unknown, you sound like an ignorant fool

                • k3nw

                  Well then, Jacknife, it appears the govt officials will have their opportunity to give their side of the story.

                  Private property is private property. Show your warrant or get off, including your property. What’s so hard to understand? Stop being foolish yourself.

            • ???

              Give it back???

              Is that like “turn the other cheek”?

            • mary

              BS. How about the cameras are what’s called evidence. Infantile thinking…

            • Paul the cab driver

              Finders keepers.

        • Henry

          It’s a lot like sex — it’s great fun and all, but a gal wants TO BE ASKED.

        • Texas Jack

          So it’s ok if they violate your rights.

        • Orion

          Purple paint on every fence post… nuff said.

        • Gruic

          The guy is 40 miles from the border…not exactly the best place to look for illegals.

        • living on the border

          The problem is Border patrol did not ask, they never do. That is trespassing. BP has been told by the Obama administration that the only law that applies to them is federal law and even that is iffy. They are constantly trespassing on private property tearing it up and on a semi regular basis stealing from said properties. They deny doing so even when video taped, and will attempt to confiscate tapes while pressing charges for taping federal agents. Most of the ground level agents are generally nice honest guys. The problem is the higher up’s who have been complying with Obama for years. They are no longer really concerned with illegals because they are too busy trying to find anything they can to make a bust. The grunts just know what they are told. Federal agencies generally hold prior law enforcement/legal training against applicants to keep it like that. I have noticed an improvement over the last year but real change will take time.

      2. Heartless

        Same issue is already present if you are being tapped or surveilled. Try using a cellphone jammer on your property. You’ll see.

        • Philosopher Deplorabilis

          See what? I get that you can’t use one in a public place, like a theater, but on your own property? Too fricken bad.

          • Heartless

            yep PD – if any signal is cutoff and reported, all the person filing the complaint has to say is that my/your jammer prevented them from being able to make a 911 call. I usually offer a couple of Dixie cups and some kite string; but, for some reason, I’ve never had any takers.

      3. william smith

        I wish this man well. When i took the irs to court, the court never even commented on the law(s) the irs is breaking. This man will be fortunate to even get “due process” unless they keep it in the national news. There is no lawful legal doctrine that protects the corrupt law enforcement agencies. These people allegedly have a fiduciary type relationship with citizens. As usual the courts will not apply this or hold them accountable.

      4. Brian

        Many ranchers along the border have complained about illegals crossing their property. Had they asked the rancher, he probably would have said yes. Had he said no, then they should have taken it to court. This is the same obstacle to putting up a wall or its equivalent.

        • Plan twice, prep once

          This guys ranch is 35 miles from the Mexican border. There is a regulation that allows Border Pratrol free access to property up to 25 miles from the border. So he is within his rights to fight this.

          The fly in the ointment is these Midwest areas were heavily targeted by Obama in his judicial appointments. The progressives want conservative Anerica under their dominion. Cases like this display the problem. Crooked Federal law enforcement backed up by crooked prosecutors and judges results in citizens ending up like LaVoy Finicum.

          There are two sides, some ranchers along the border are on drug cartel payrolls, they may have had a warrant for the camera. Some ranchers are simply sympathetic to illegals crossing their property. Surprises may come out during the law suit.

          • living on the border

            The law give them 25 miles from the border. Obama has been telling them 100 mi from the border or any international airport.
            I agree some ranchers may be on payroll but most of us hate illegals on our land because they have a really bad habit of destroying fences and property, and stealing anything not nailed down, particularly tools and water.

      5. Ron Ahrens

        Suing Lucifer’s criminal treasonous psychopath controlled United States Corporation Government from the bowels of the pits of hell in Washington DC….Thank you today’s hearty laugh in the Police State hell on earth of damned and doomed New Babylon America

      6. the blame-e

        This guy has more going on for him than 90-percent of us do, and his chances of receiving justice in this case are moot.

        At best he will win but will never know why.

        Most likely the government will keep this matter tied up in the courts until this 74-year-old codger kicks.

        The legal system in the United States has been completely corrupted by professional politicians, corporate oligarchs and “special interests.”

        There is no “rule of law” anymore. The United States has reverted from a republic to an oligarchy, where “what pleases the prince has the force of law.”

        And things will only get worse when Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, the Soros’ get back in power.

      7. JoeSmoe

        “Qualified immunity,” what an abortion of justice.

        • Ketchupondemand

          Yeah, reminds me of “no controlling legal authority” courtesy of Al Gore.

        • The Deplorable Braveheart

          joe, NOBODY is immune to bullets or even 00 buckshot.

      8. john stiner

        Where they recording the rancher or were they recording illegals running across his property?

      9. swinging richard

        Near his son’s place?

      10. DeplorableBitterClinger

        Note that 2 ‘agencies” claimed the camera, and both threatened him with arrest, but neither has done so. They know he has them dead to rights, and were hoping to be able to bully him. The lawsuit probably has some people worried, and will probably outlive him. He may not live to see the end of this, but the lawsuit can probably keep going after he’s gone.

        • 41MagMan

          “He may not live to see the end of this, but the lawsuit can probably keep going after he’s gone.”

          Yes, and they will, too, if they want to make an example of someone who is foolish enough to demand their legal rights rather than just knuckling under to their “authority”. Remember: they have infinite resources to use against us and we do not. One can win in court and still lose their financial @$$e$ to these jackals.

      11. watching and waiting

        The real belief that we think we live in a free country
        is unfounded.

        I am under the belief if any of the founding fathers were to come back today they would not recognize our form of government.

        The New World order is still unfolding as I write this post. Trump is a speed bump slightly hindering that process.

        In the end you and I may be dead from age or sickness but the generation that follows will feel the boot of complete suppression and oppression on their necks.

        From the article: The camera now remains in Palacios’ attorneys’ possession while they are attempting to ask the case’s judge to allow them to formally introduce it in court as evidence. This federal lawsuit has raised thorny questions about the limits of the government’s power to conduct surveillance on private property, without the landowner’s permission.—and they don’t

        From the article: “As a matter of policy, CBP does not comment on pending litigation,” Jennifer Gabris, a CBP spokeswoman, emailed Ars Technica. The Texas Department of Public Safety similarly declined comment.
        —- means screw you, we do as we please, we make the laws.

      12. Hunter

        all of you are nothing more than slaves so why not stfu

      13. cranerigger

        Libtards don’t believe in a citizen’s property rights. They need to ask permission to install anything on a citizen’s property. If they want to claim imminent domain (property rights infringement supposedly for the “greater good”) then they need to go through the legislative & legal process to secure that type of confiscation. This citizen is an attorney, they might have a serious battle on their hands.

      14. Anonymous

        Depending on the law as written, the government may have the legal right to do this.

        If so, it will surely come out in court.

        But I doubt there will be any followup stories showing the final outcome and the reasons for it, stories like this usually don’t generate enough interest for a followup story.

      15. Doc

        The camera was placed on the man’s private property without his permission – it therefore becomes his. Keeping it as evidence makes nothing but sense.

      16. 2isone

        So, let me get this straight. The camera was mounted onto a tree on this guy’s property. Sounds like a gift to me.

        • 41MagMan

          @2isone

          Yes, it does to me too. Like when a company sends us something by mail that we did not order and then demands payment. The law sees that as a GIFT and not as a purchase. One can keep such gifts if they choose or they can return it.

          I once ordered a computer modem from a company. But they double shipped 2 modems to me, only one of which required payment. In a generous mood, I wrapped up the 2nd modem and sent it back to them. But they got all pi$$y because I did not have an RMA number, so returned the modem to me. So, I just kept it and to heck with them.

      17. southside

        They should have asked permission. It is private property,and I don’t believe qualified immunity will work. A publuc relations disaster

      18. heff

        looks like somebody wrote this ‘story’ with about 5 extra minutes on hand while they were pumping gas. It’s so vague and bereft of information that it makes no sense.

      19. Anonymous

        A bedroom is private property too so I wonder if someone in government thinks it has the right to put a camera in anyone’s bedroom ?

      20. PB

        I live along this border that Mr Palacios’ ranch is near. There is no jurisdiction for the Border Patrol to do what they did and are still doing. The whole case deals with on going harassment not just a single incident. Everyone who lives or travels near the border gets the same treatment. If everyone would take the time to read and use a legal dictionary then you would already know the “other side of the story”. Obviously, most Americans have never read the organic laws of the country or their state. Take the time to sit and study just one evening a week and you would be surprised at what you will learn.

      21. Ray Zorback

        There are actually three sides to every story. Side “A”, Side”B”, and the “Truth”.

      22. Hubert Reiter

        Reading this Nonsense, I can’t help feeling sorry for America. There seems to lurk more Danger within than without. If those Contributors to this (whatever it is supposed to be) Nonsense are an Example of the Average American, one can only fear for the Future of the Rest of the World. Is it possible for so many stupid People to live in one Country?

      23. ronna

        The camera at least should have had a label on it, “Property of US government. Do not remove. Call 123456 for information.” Without any label (if that is the case) he had every right to remove the camera. He didn’t at the time know who it belonged to.

      24. Think aboout it

        Only one side
        The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

      25. Think aboout it

        only one side
        The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
        Enough Said

      26. Marcus

        I’ve taken hunting cameras and treestands off my property for years and sold them on craigslist. Great little moneymaker. You put it up on my property, its mine, I dont care if you are joe dumbass, or the feds.

      27. Paul the cab driver

        Were I to find one of these things on my property there are a number of things I could do. A tiny bit of vaseline on the lens, for example.
        Ignore it for now, shoot it with a Winchester 30-30 later…
        But the best idea I’ve come up with is to carefully take it down, take it to a local topless bar, and leave it on one of the tables, pointed at the stage.

      28. True Patriot

        The tyrannical overreaching on private farms, ranches and land is completely out of control. Its time for Fedzilla to be Bitchslapped into non existence, preferably eliminated by Trump. Im writing and getting others to write, call Congress, Senate and WH to shut down BLM, ATF, FBI & since the Texas Rangers have destroyed any credibility they once had shut them down as well. Greg Abbott might do it since he is a Conservative. This will not stop until we stop it.

      Commenting Policy:

      Some comments on this web site are automatically moderated through our Spam protection systems. Please be patient if your comment isn’t immediately available. We’re not trying to censor you, the system just wants to make sure you’re not a robot posting random spam.

      This website thrives because of its community. While we support lively debates and understand that people get excited, frustrated or angry at times, we ask that the conversation remain civil. Racism, to include any religious affiliation, will not be tolerated on this site, including the disparagement of people in the comments section.