On July 11, 2006, Neighbor appealed our permit before the Commissioners Court, and her motion was denied. On July 18, 2006, Commissioner Ingalsbe entered a motion to deny our permit, but that too was defeated. Shortly after that, the TCEQ issued two rulings, both supporting the legality of our permit and safety of our system.
At this point, Neighbor’s appeals had been exhausted, and no one could find merit to her claim that our system was in any way unsafe or would result in any losses to her property or livestock as she kept insisting. Two examinations by the Commissioners Court and two reviews by the TCEQ had ruled that we are entitled to the land rights as they existed when the parcel was platted, and the system we are permitting is safe. It was designed to handle with ease the 1400 gallons per day allowed us under the law. (See Not About Public Safety for more details.) Her fears of loss were just that—unsubstantiated fears with no technical basis in fact! We hoped that after the second examination by the Court and the two reviews by TCEQ that we were finally through this nightmare of harassment. Sadly, we were not.
In January of 2007, the Commissioners Court reconvened with two newly elected members—Judge Sumter and Commissioner Ford, replacing Judge Powers and Commissioner Molenaar. Right away, Neighbor and O’Dell went to work on the new Court members to lobby their cause. Having failed first to find a legal reason and then to find a health/environmental reason to revoke our permit, Plan C was to launch a character attack against Nick himself. On January 6, 2007, Neighbor sent an e-mail to Judge Sumter and Commissioner Ford via O’Dell, the subject of which is “background on ramus.” Though she never uses any explicit racial epithets in the letter, she nevertheless equates Nick with people she clearly considers beneath her in social status, namely low income Hispanics. Here’s what Neighbor wrote:
“He moved here from “Redwood” in Caldwell County. Redwood is in Hays, Caldwell and Guadalupe counties, not far from here. It is known as being worse than a border Colinas. … Time has proved that Nick Ramus just brought Redwood with him.”
In this day of political correctness, most people know to avoid racial slurs. Instead, Neighbor used subtle code words that conveyed her point. Redwood is known as a low income Hispanic area, and a “border Colinas” is a reference to a Hispanic neighborhood catering to immigrants from Mexico. Neighbor is saying that Nick brought a low income Hispanic way of living to her neighborhood.
Nick is actually Blackfoot Indian, not Hispanic; however, Juana, who also lives on the property, is a dark skinned Hispanic. Having established his non-white ethnicity and lowly social status, she attacks Nick’s character through a series of accusations. Analysis of these accusations reveals a subtle racial bias.
After insinuating that he is a low class Hispanic with her “Redwood” comments, she accuses him of trafficking in illegal aliens.
“. … one could regularly see illegals occupying them [mobile homes on the property.] It was rumored that Ramus was in the business of trafficking illegals & providing them a place to stay as they were being moved to their final destination…”
How could Neighbor possibly know from a distance that any Hispanics visiting the property were in the country illegally? Nick has never been convicted of any crime, nor to our knowledge, has he been under investigation for any crime. Nor have Nick and Juana had illegal aliens staying on the property. So that means that Neighbor saw Hispanics on the property, and she decided they were “illegals” and that Nick was involved in trafficking. Think about that leap of imagination and what it implies about Neighbor and her motives. It’s defamatory of Nick, and derogatory to Hispanics, subtly insinuating that Hispanics have no right to be there and that if they are, they’re probably involved in criminal activity. Where is the evidence? Where is the email from the Court asking for the evidence?
Neighbor’s email also refers to Nick’s “dis-abled vet lie.” Nick is a veteran of the Vietnam era. He served temporary duty aboard the USS Tripoli, a helicopter assault ship off the coast of Vietnam, before being transferred into the Navy’s nuclear program. He was honorably discharged from the Navy due to problems with cataracts. Why would Neighbor seek to discredit someone’s military status?
Neighbor also tells the Judge and Commissioner that Nick was under investigation by the FBI for drug related crimes.
“…the FBI obtained permission … to set in cars in front of his [Other Neighbor’s] house. …[Other Neighbor] felt it was drug related…”
Even a small knowledge of law enforcement shows this is another lie. The FBI is a federal law enforcement agency and does not investigate local drug-related crimes. We feel the subtle implication here is that all minorities are involved with drugs.
The false accusations go on and on. Basically, Neighbor accuses anyone in the county EHD who does not support her position of conspiracy and cover-up. She ends her email by stating:
“Ramus is just a con-artist & criminal type, what ever he thinks needs to be said at the moment he says but [name omitted—EHD employee] in his official duty has violated the peoples trust, his office and he is disgusting in all of his arrogance.”
Nick has never been convicted of a crime, but Neighbor obviously feels free to say anything she wants about him, and it receives no response from Judge Sumter or Commissioner Ford as to appropriateness or accuracy. Besides smearing Nick’s name to achieve her own ends, Neighbor also casts accusations at the staff of Hays County, who have done nothing but try and administer their jobs in a professional, consistent and legal manner throughout our ordeal.
In an email dated February 1, 2007, O’Dell advised Judge Sumter and Commissioner Ford to become a part of this corruption of justice by appointing an engineer hand-picked by himself, even though he said in this same email, “…I suspect other members of the court will recommend someone they feel will be more suitable...” (See No Impartiality and Sumter Exposed for more details.) They followed his advice!
Why would a governing body act on the opinions of Neighbor, who is obviously biased against Nick? Why would they similarly follow the advice of a political activist who has so clearly aligned himself with Neighbor? Why do they feel safe in going after Nick with little or no factual or legal basis? Why does Neighbor feel free to voice one false accusation after another? Why does this majority in the Commissioners Court not look for proof before acting against Nick?
Put yourself in Nick's shoes. Imagine having a neighbor send an e-mail to people in power, behind your back, asking them to destroy your livelihood, your property rights, your civil rights, and your dream.
Why have they done this? Regardless of the motive, we feel that one possible answer stands out above the others—because they think they can. Whether it’s because he and Juana are minority citizens, or because it’s obvious from the state of his property and his old, beat up pick-up truck that he’s cash poor, we don’t know. But lacking money and power makes him an easy target for people who have both. Neighbor and O’Dell have been in communication with Commissioner Ingalsbe on a regular basis for over a year, but when Nick called the Commissioner to defend himself against accusations of stealing that had ALREADY BEEN PROVEN FALSE, Commissioner Ingalsbe insisted he was using stolen parts and hung up! (See Ingalsbe Exposed for more details.) Does it sound to you like the justice in this Commissioners Court is blind?
Don’t let this happen in your community! Don’t let the Commissioners Court steal our property rights because your own rights may be in jeopardy next. (See What You Can Do for more details.)
