Border group members face felony charges

HEBBRONVILLE, Texas – A pair of Ranch Rescue volunteers arrested here Wednesday are facing two felony charges each, Texas Department of Public Safety officials say.

As WorldNetDaily reported yesterday, Casey Nethercutt of California and Hank Conner of Louisiana were arrested by Texas Ranger Sgt. Doyle Holdridge and charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a weapon and two counts of unlawful restraint for allegedly pistol-whipping and detaining a Salvadoran man and his wife early Wednesday morning.

Nethercutt and Conner were part of a four-man detachment from Ranch Rescue – a property-rights activist group – which was led by Texas chapter head and national spokesman Jack Foote. The four-man contingent, at the request of rancher Joe Sutton, was here to prevent criminal trespassers from crossing Sutton's property.

Law enforcement and other sources say the men are being held in a detention facility in nearby Falfurrias. Officials said yesterday that bond for each man had been set at $200,000. The men were expected to be arraigned in Hebbronville this morning.

Holdridge told WorldNetDaily that the Salvadoran couple – a man and woman described as being in their mid-20s, but whose names have not yet been released – bore some visible physical signs of injury. After Nethercutt and Conner were apprehended, the Salvadoran couple picked the men out of a photo array, said the arresting officer.

Foote said the charges are bogus. He said he and his team "never touched" the couple, "except to pat them down and search them for weapons" after discovering them lying down in brush early Wednesday morning around 1 a.m. He says he has pictures to prove it, although they weren't available at publication time.

After Nethercutt and Conner searched the two Salvadorans, said Foote, they "were taken by van" to the front of Sutton's property, which is guarded by a heavy, steel, sliding gate that remains locked along Hwy. 16.

In the interim, said Foote, the U.S. Border Patrol – which mans an inspection station about seven miles north of Sutton's ranch – was notified to come pick up the Salvadorans. But after waiting around 45 minutes, Sutton grew impatient and ordered his detachment to simply open the front gate and release the Salvadoran couple, said Foote.

The Border Patrol arrived about 10 minutes later, said Foote. Sources told WND the Salvadoran couple eventually turned themselves in to Border Patrol officers, but agency officials would not confirm that.

Border Patrol spokesmen in Hebbronville and Laredo had no comment, except to say the case was being handled by Texas authorities.

It was unclear how the Salvadorans' testimony was obtained; neither Holdridge nor Jim Hogg County Sheriff's Department officials would say. Holdridge did say Wednesday, however, that the Salvadoran couple did not swear out a complaint.

In addition to legal problems, Nethercutt, who is in his mid-30s, and Conner, who was described as being nearly 60, have experienced health problems since being incarcerated. Officials say Nethercutt is suffering complications from pancreatitis, while Conner is suffering from chronic high blood pressure.

Authorities allowed volunteers to bring Conner medicine early yesterday, but refused to allow them to visit Nethercutt. Officials were also unclear as to whether Nethercutt had been taken for treatment to an area hospital or whether he was being treated on-site at a detention center health facility.

Foote says he is confident the men will be exonerated, but believes they will have to endure a lengthy court battle to prove their innocence. He also said he is having difficulty raising bail money and that he asked Sutton to help, but that he refused.

Although the current "mission" on Sutton's ranch is over, Foote pledges that the incident won't permanently damage Ranch Rescue.

"We just have to pick our battles," he said. "Right now, I just want to get these guys out of jail."

A legal defense fund has been set up to raise funds to gain the release of our fellow RR volunteers. You can contribute at www.ranchrescue.com. Please give what you can for attorney's fees and for the release of Mr. Nethercott's impounded vehicle.

It has come out that the sheriff did NOT want to file charges but was pressured to do so by the TX Ranger. We expect our men to be released and all charges dropped.

I will be calling the offices of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and demanding a full investigation of the TX Rangers and the sheriff. Please call your representatives and do the same. The attempted railroading of innocent men cannot be allowed to just fade into history. These corrupt officials must be made to pay the price for their treacherous acts.

Every day the people living on the southern border are subjected to assaults, robberies, rapes, kidnapping and murder by criminal aliens crossing into the U.S. "Americans" stand by and so nothing. AMERICANS stand up and defend their neighbors even in the face of corrupt LEO's and government thugs.

I am proud to be associated with Casey Nethercott and Hank Conner!!!

David Cheney

C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if he is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

I did a lot of research into the Arizona statutes myself and found this particular item. I also discussed this with Marine Inspector, who is a INS agent in Arizona, and we basically agreed that you could not legally perform a citizens arrest on someone upon the observation of their illegally crossing the border, as you could not be sure that it was a felony in commission - and a poster affiliated with one of the border groups in Arizona agreed that they only observe and report crossings, and save citzens arrests when they observe illegals breaking into a building and removing belongings, which raises the bar to a felony in progress. It's your choice whether you decide to confront and search someone who is a possible illegal - but IMO the safest, most legal approach would be to report them to the Border Patrol as the Arizona groups currently do.

BTW, I didn't see anything in Texas law that allows you to search someone trespassing on private land, but there's a lot of statutes to search and their search engine isn't too hot - can you provide a cite of that statute?

Arizona Ravised Statute 13-1503: A person commits criminal trespass in the second degree by knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in or on any nonresidential structure or in any fenced commercial yard.

ARS 13-3884: A private person may make an arrest: 1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.

David Cheney

As per request from Jack Foote I have been asked to pass along the following information at this time...
he has been apprised that one of our jailed members has gone on a hunger strike but not told which.

An attorney has been retained on behalf of our volunteers. The RR members had not been allowed to speak with an attorney since being arrested nor had one been appointed for them by the court.

The RR members were not allowed their medications (one requires insulin twice per day and the other has two meds for HBP) for the first 48 hours of incarceration.

Sage (wife of David Cheney, RR N.AZ Coordinator)
"Courage is fear that's said its prayer"

Last I noticed, those cruise missiles weren't being launched against locations in El Salvador or Guatemala, nor were Mestiszos trying to blow up North American infrastructure.

I have a different take on this, Chancellor.

Here was a property owner whose rights have been constantly ignored by the authorities to whom he pays taxes. Rather than starting a rebellion, he asks private contractors to protect his property for him.

When the authorities get there, they arrest the private parties which were contracted -- apparently on bogus charges! We will know for sure when the documentarty footage is released.

As it stands, it looks like the powers that be not only want continued illegal immigration by lack of enforcement, but they will go so far as to trump up charges against those who attempt to do their job for them.

Where does that leave the rancher? Where does that leave those of us who have to try to earn a living by working, against unfair competition from illegals?

Last I noticed, those cruise missiles weren't being launched against locations in El Salvador or Guatemala, nor were Mestiszos trying to blow up North American infrastructure.

Welcome to Aztlan, amigo.

§ 30.05. Criminal Trespass

(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on property, including an aircraft, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or

(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

(b) For purposes of this section:

(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.

(2) "Notice" means:

(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;

(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;

(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;

(D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:

(i) vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width;

(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground; and

(iii) placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than:

(a) 100 feet apart on forest land; or

(b) 1,000 feet apart on land other than forest land; or

(E) the visible presence on the property of a crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time of entry.

(3) "Shelter center" has the meaning assigned by Section 51.002(1), Human Resources Code.

(4) "Forest land" means land on which the trees are potentially valuable for timber products.

(5) "Agricultural land" has the meaning assigned by Section 75.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

(6) "Superfund site" means a facility that:

(A) is on the National Priorities List established under Section 105 of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. Section 9605); or

(B) is listed on the state registry established under Section 361.181, Health and Safety Code.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor at the time of the offense was a fire fighter or emergency medical services personnel, as that term is defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty under exigent circumstances.

(d) An offense under Subsection (e) is a Class C misdemeanor unless it is committed in a habitation or unless the actor carries a deadly weapon on or about the actor's person during the commission of the offense, in which event it is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if:

(1) the offense is committed:

(A) in a habitation or a shelter center; or

(B) on a Superfund site; or

(2) the actor carries a deadly weapon on or about his person during the commission of the offense.

(e) A person commits an offense if without express consent or if without authorization provided by any law, whether in writing or other form, the person:

(1) enters or remains on agricultural land of another;

(2) is on the agricultural land and within 100 feet of the boundary of the land when apprehended; and

(3) had notice that the entry was forbidden or received notice to depart but failed to do so.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 1114, ch. 530, § 3, eff. Aug. 27, 1979; Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 2385, ch. 596, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1981; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 139, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 308, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 24, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1229, §§ 1, 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 161, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 169, §§ 1, 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 765, §§ 1, 2, eff. Sept. 1,

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.