Decision Upholding Ramos and Compean Convictions a Farce

Decision Upholding Ramos and Compean Convictions a Farce
Contact: Don Swarthout, President, Christians Reviving America's Values (CRAVE), 859-219-1222, 859-619-2811 cell

WASHINGTON, July 29 /Christian Newswire/-- The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has completely mishandled the Appeal Case of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean when they upheld the conviction of these two Border Agents. They are serving 11 and 12 year sentences for the shooting of an illegal alien drug smuggler as he fled back into Mexico.

Attorney Johnny Sutton's office convicted these agents for assault, discharging a weapon in the commission of a crime and violating the civil rights of the known drug smuggler. Ten years of their sentence is because of Section 924(c) which was thought to be used to punish criminals for using a firearm in the commission of a crime.

Don Swarthout, President of Christians Reviving America's Values (CRAVE) said, "These agents were just doing their job. The problems began when the known drug smuggler, who was also an illegal alien, brought 743 pounds of marijuana into the United States not when Ramos and Compean shot at him."

"This is the most ridiculous application of the law our government has ever perpetuated against anyone who is in law enforcement. This decision means any law enforcement agent can be convicted for firing his weapon in what the Attorney General says is a crime. Whether the agents committed a crime is apparently of absolutely no consequence."

"This decision may also mean that we will have a great deal of difficultly in getting qualified people to fill the position of law enforcement agents because they can be wrongly convicted and given prison sentences," Swarthout said.

"Why we choose to believe an illegal alien who is a known drug smuggler instead of two well thought of Border Agents is a question that is truly beyond my comprehension. This decision is truly about attorneys playing mental games and twisting the facts in order to get a conviction," Swarthout said.

Congressman Ted Poe said he plans to introduce legislation to clarify section 924(c) and Don Swarthout agrees with him that this clarification is badly needed.

Swarthout had asked the Texas Bar to investigate Attorney Johnny Sutton for willful neglect of the facts in this case. Now it appears that may not go anywhere unless the U.S. Supreme Court changes the outcome of this case against Ramos and Compean.

http://www.earnedmedia.org/crave0729.htm

The office of the Presidency is corrupt

The Senate is corrupt

The Congress is corrupt

and now the

Federal Judiciary has become corrupt through influence; there is no way they could have came to the conclusion they did without meddling from outside sources or other branches of the government

RAMOS AND CAMPEON WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. THEY PROBABLY DID NOT EVEN KNOW THEY HIT THE GUY. IN FACT THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE. WHERE IS THE BULLET? HOW DO WE KNOW HE WAS NOT SHOT BY SOMEONE ELSE AFTER THE FACT? THIS CASE HAS DEFINITELY BEEN MISHANDLED.

RedPony wrote

Quote:

---

WHERE IS THE BULLET? HOW DO WE KNOW HE WAS NOT SHOT BY SOMEONE ELSE AFTER THE FACT? THIS CASE HAS DEFINITELY BEEN MISHANDLED.

---

You're absolutely right, Redpony, had this been any other crime, they'd want that bullet.

Quote:

---

Attorney Johnny Sutton's office convicted these agents for assault, discharging a weapon in the commission of a crime and violating the civil rights of the known drug smuggler. Ten years of their sentence is because of Section 924(c) which was thought to be used to punish criminals for using a firearm in the commission of a crime.

Don Swarthout, President of Christians Reviving America's Values (CRAVE) said, "These agents were just doing their job. The problems began when the known drug smuggler, who was also an illegal alien, brought 743 pounds of marijuana into the United States not when Ramos and Compean shot at him."

---

What is it going to take 80% of Americans hitting the streets to veto our government on this action against these two border control Americans?