Thread: Border Patrol Agents fired for wrongful testimony

http://www.sbsun.com/ci_5199815
San Bernardino, CA, 2/10/2007
VIEW OUR BEYOND
BORDERS BLOG
Two Border Patrol agents who testified against two co-workers convicted of shooting a drug smuggler will be fired for changing their stories about events surrounding the shooting, according to documents obtained by The Sun's sister newspaper, the Ontario-based Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.
Sources inside the Border Patrol also say Oscar Juarez, a third agent who testified against Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, resigned from the agency last month shortly before he was to be fired.

All three agents gave sworn testimony against Ramos and Compean for the U.S. Attorney's Office, which successfully prosecuted the shooting case in March. The three agents were given immunity in exchange for their testimony despite changing their accounts of the incident several times.

"When you give deals to witnesses like immunity, the government usually gets the testimony (it wants)," said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, a former judge and prosecutor. "This case is a perfect example."

Documents for their proposed removal were issued to Border Patrol agents David Jaquez and Arturo Vasquez on Jan. 29, and were signed by both agents.

Jaquez and Vasquez could not be reached for comment.

Their terminations take effect Feb. 28.
The removal document for Vasquez shows that the agents changed their stories several times between their original interviews with investigators from the Homeland Security Department's Office of Inspector General and their appearances in court.

According to the removal document, Vasquez originally told investigators that Compean made a radio call warning of a possible narcotics suspect who had tripped sensors at the Texas-Mexico border while driving a van toward Fabens, a small town 30 miles southeast of El Paso.

"On March 18, 2005, and on May 11, 2005, you provided different statements to DHS OIG investigators regarding your knowledge of the February 2005 shooting incident," Vasquez's proposal for termination states.

"Specifically, you said in the March 18, 2005, statement that you heard radio traffic by (Border Patrol Agent) Jose Compean that there was a 10-46 (apprehended narcotics case) in progress in the area. You testified in court on February 24, 2006, and admitted that your March 18, 2005, statement regarding a 10-46 in progress was inaccurate."

Compean said he was watching an area along the Rio Grande at about 11 a.m. Feb. 17, 2005, when sensors on the border went off. When the van driven by smuggler Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila eventually tripped the sensors again just before 1 p.m., he said he radioed for backup.

The termination proposal also noted Vasquez told prosecutors that Compean used an expletive to describe Aldrete-Davila when the smuggler threw dirt in his eyes during a tussle before the shootings. Vasquez's sworn statement of March 18, 2005, contains no mention of an expletive.

Vasquez also said that when he opened the door to the van, he couldn't smell the nearly 800 pounds of marijuana in the vehicle, contradicting statements made by other agents on the scene, according to trial testimony.

In trial transcripts of Vasquez's testimony obtained by the Daily Bulletin, Vasquez tries to explain why he lied to investigators.

"So this statement, your March 18 statement, would be inaccurate," asked Stephen Peters, co-counsel for Ramos, on Feb. 24, 2006.

"On that part, yes," Vasquez replied.

He explained that he wasn't sure why he thought Compean called for backup while pursuing a narcotics suspect, and did not directly answer Peters' question as to why other agents went to Compean's aid.

Jaquez's original statements to investigators and his testimony at trial also contain several contradictions.

"On April 15, 2005, you provided false statements during your interview with DHS (Office of Inspector General) investigators regarding the February 17, 2005, shooting incident," his removal document reads.

"You told DHS OIG that when you asked (Agent) Compean what had happened, he never mentioned the shooting incident to you. On February 27, you testified in court and admitted that you gave two different statements to DHS OIG investigators."

According to DHS Office of Inspector General investigation memos written less than a month after the shooting, all nine of the agents at the shooting scene, including two supervisors, knew about the shooting and failed to report it.

However, a Homeland Security Report of Incident written in November and released this week contends the nine agents were unaware of the shooting and were not responsible for reporting it.

Ramos and Compean were convicted of shooting Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks, violating his civil rights, and attempting to cover up their actions by tampering with evidence at the shooting scene.

In October, Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 and 12 years, respectively, in federal prison. They began serving their sentences last month, Ramos in Mississippi, Compean in Ohio.

The plot thickens

Originally Posted by mkfarnam

http://www.sbsun.com/ci_5199815
San Bernardino, CA, 2/10/2007


Ramos and Compean were convicted of shooting Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks, violating his civil rights, and attempting to cover up their actions by tampering with evidence at the shooting scene.

I did not know that those illegally present in the country had civil rights.
I can see human rights, but civil rights?

They don't have civil rights.

That's a false statement. Only persons governed by the Constitution of the United States are intitled to civil right protections under the Constitution.

Illegals aliens are not governed by our Constitution.

They don't vote, they are not a citizen and they have no civil rights.

Dixie

"When you give deals to witnesses like immunity, the government usually gets the testimony (it wants)," said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, a former judge and prosecutor. "This case is a perfect example."

That was the intent wasn't it?

I still can't get over the aggressiveness of our government to go after two of our agents like they did.

Yep, the plot thickens!

It is beginning to resemble a bog full of quick sand for sure...I wonder if they got paid like the drug smuggler

Well now, hold on. Everything depends on which definition of "civil rights" you employ.

The rights that are the subject of the Bill of Rights and of the "self-evidence" described in the Declaration of Independence are "natural rights." The premise is that such rights are imbued by the Creator Himself. All human beings are meant to be protected by their natural rights.

The term "civil rights" applied to a concept fully realized in the old Roman Empire. These were protections provided by the state, and they accrued only to those to whom the state extended them (in the case of Rome, this was Roman citizens). In European constitutions we can plainly see that the rights guaranteed are those civil rights and not natural rights, because they are more often than not revocable by the states and are contingent on the carrying out of certain responsibilities and obligations to the state.

Since the successful establishment if the British Bar in every state of the United States, the terms have been increasingly and probably intentionally intermingled. While they are not synonymous, they are increasingly treated as though they are. This would appear to be a clear attempt to extinguish the concept of inalienable natural rights unique to this country and to replace them with amlleable "civil rights."

There is an operable theory (to which I subscribe) that Amendment XIV did not confer upon the freed slaves and naturalized citizens the same citizenship status as had been enjoyed by the sovereigns of the several states, but rather that it created a second class of citizen/subjects of the "United States," which has been defined by Black's as the federal entity over which Congress has exclusive jurisdiction. The Slaughterhouse decisions appear to support that claim and the idea that self-identified "citizens" or "residents" of that entity accrue only civil protections and not the natural rights preserved by the Constitution.

If the federal entity chooses to extend "civil rights" to illegals entering this country, it is free to do so. If it wishes to extend federal privileges to those people, it is free to do so. And there is little question that if they claim to be foreign sovereigns they would accrue full natural rights as well. But as Mexico's government (for example) is set up, the citizens are not sovereign, and so the most they could enjoy would be civil rights.

Now, if you're still reading, here is the important part: If you are still in possession of your natural rights, the civil rights of invading foreigners cannot trump you natural rights to defense of self, family and property. Your sovereign right to self-defense along with other rights cannot be compromised by privileges and immunities (which is what civil rights are) extended by the federal entity. However, the federal entity may limit the conduct of its own officers to protect those privileges and immunities it has conferred to others.

The more you understand the nature of rights, privileges and immunities the better you will understand how they affect our disposition of the invaders crossing our borders and the limit and extent of your own ability to to act to protect yourself and your country.

Added to Home Page

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... e&sid=1927

Here is another article about the fired agents.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=54196 - did


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INVASION USA
Witnesses against Compean, Ramos
to be fired for changing testimonies
2 agents face dismissal, 1 resigns – all 3
given immunity despite altering accounts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 10, 2007
5:50 p.m. Eastern



© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean (KFOX-TV, El Paso, Texas)
Three Border Patrol agents, who were given immunity to testify against fellow agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean in the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting of a drug-smuggling suspect as he fled across the U.S.-Mexico border, are no longer with the agency because they changed their accounts of the incident several times.

Removal documents for the proposed firing of agents David Jaquez and Arturo Vasquez were issued on Jan. 29, the Ontario Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reported. A third agent, Oscar Juarez, reportedly resigned from the agency last month shortly before he was to be fired.

Jaquez and Vasquez have signed their termination papers and are officially dismissed as of Feb. 28.

As WND reported, a Department of Homeland Security memo filed April 12, 2005, indicates Jaquez, Vasquez and Juarez were closely linked to the shooting for which Ramos and Compean were prosecuted and sentenced to 11 and 12 years, respectively:

Investigation disclosed that the following BP agents were at the location of the shooting incident, assisted in destroying evidence of the shooting, and/or knew/heard about the shooting: Oscar Juarez; Arturo Vasquez; Jose Mendoza; David Jacquez; Lance Medrano; Lorenzo Yrigoyen; Rene Mendez; Robert Arnold; and Jonathan Richards.


Of the nine listed agents, two were supervisors, Arnold and Richards. Arnold was a supervisory Border Patrol agent and Richards was a field operations supervisor, the senior BP officer on the field that day. Agents Vasquez, Jacquez and Juarez, were given immunity for their testimony by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's office. All three were called as witnesses by the prosecution to testify against Ramos and Compean at trial.

(Story continues below)



Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila

According to the termination documents, obtained by the Daily Bulletin, Vasquez originally confirmed Compean's claim he had made a radio call asking for backup after a van driven by suspected drug smuggler Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila twice tripped border sensors. In court, however, Vasquez changed his story.

"On March 18, 2005, and on May 11, 2005, you provided different statements to DHS (Office of Inspector General) investigators regarding your knowledge of the February 2005 shooting incident," Vasquez's termination document charges.

"Specifically, you said in the March 18, 2005, statement that you heard radio traffic by (Border Patrol Agent) Jose Compean that there was a 10-46 (apprehended narcotics case) in progress in the area. You testified in court on February 24, 2006, and admitted that your March 18, 2005, statement regarding a 10-46 in progress was inaccurate."

The removal document also says Vasquez told prosecutors Compean described Aldrete-Davila with an expletive after the smuggler threw dirt in his eyes as the two struggled prior to the shooting, even though he did not include that detail in his sworn statement of March 18, 2005.

At trial, Vasquez contradicted the statements of other agents present at the scene when he said he was unable to smell nearly 800 pounds of marijuana when he opened the door to Aldrete-Davila's abandoned van.

On cross examination, Vasquez explained the discrepancy between his post-incident statement and his testimony by saying he wasn't sure why he had thought Compean called for backup while pursuing a narcotics suspect, and, according to the Daily Bulletin, failed to directly answer the defense attorney's question as to why other agents went to assist Compean.

Jaquez's termination document charges him with discrepancies between statements to investigators and testimony given at trial.

"On April 15, 2005, you provided false statements during your interview with DHS OIG investigators regarding the February 17, 2005, shooting incident," it read.

"You told DHS OIG that when you asked (Agent) Compean what had happened, he never mentioned the shooting incident to you. On February 27, you testified in court and admitted that you gave two different statements to DHS OIG investigators."

The DHS memo of April 12, 2005, clearly identifies Jaquez as one of nine agents who "were at the location of the shooting incident, assisted in destroying evidence of the shooting, and/or knew/heard about the shooting."

A November DHS Report of Incident, released this week, said the nine agents at the scene had been unaware of the shooting.

Andy Ramirez, who has closely followed the case as chairman of the group Friends of the Border Patrol, charged that Sutton gave immunity in exchange for favorable testimony.

"Arturo Vasquez, David Jacquez and Oscar Juarez were given immunity because they were willing to tell the story to the jury that Sutton needed told," Ramirez told WND. "They all lied. Juarez even contradicted himself on the stand, changing his lies as he went along.

Why were none of the other agents charged with crimes," Ramirez continued, "when the DHS memo clearly states that others assisted in destroying evidence of the shooting?"

"When you give deals to witnesses like immunity, the government usually gets the testimony (it wants)," Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, told the Daily Bulletin. "This case is a perfect example."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

these three agents should be in jail. hopefully they cannot ever get another job in the US. If there is not enough evidence for the verdict to be overturned, then justice has completely left the US. Where is the UCLA? The convicted border agents have had their civil rights violated. the drug smuggler should be in jail and the agents that gave false testimony should all go to jail immediately.