Exclusive Guest Post For Polipundit: Free Compean And Ramos By Duncan Hunter

PoliPundit ^ | 3/5/07 | Duncan Hunter

[pissant]

I would like to thank Polipundit and Michael Illions, who has been helping out my campaign, for giving me the opportunity to write a guest post about the injustice that has been done to two of our border guards, Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, both of whom have been sentenced to jail for more than a decade each.

Now certainly our border patrol agents are not above the law and it is not acceptable for them to abuse or mistreat illegal aliens. That being said, the Border Patrol is America’s first line of defense against the terrorists, drug smugglers, and gangs who try to illegally enter the United States. Acting as the first line of defense for our country, the men and women of the Border Patrol are in a very dangerous position. Every day they risk their lives guarding our borders.

I have read the relevant portions of the trial transcript. Agents Ramos and Compean have a version of the facts that is different than the drug smuggler’s. However, it is not necessary to determine whose testimony is more believable (although I find the Border Agents’ testimony more credible than the drug smuggler’s) for this reason: even if you believe the drug smuggler’s testimony that he was slightly wounded while escaping to Mexico, his wounding cannot, by the greatest stretch of criminal justice, justify the 11 and 12 year prison sentences given to Ramos and Compean. The average convicted murderer in America spends less than 8 1/2 years behind bars. That means that Ramos and Compean have been given murder sentences for the slight wounding of a drug smuggler. Thus, the prison sentences of these two agents represent a severe injustice.

For those who point out that the agents picked up the expended brass from their pistols after the incident and did not report it to their superiors, the answer is simply that picking up brass and failure to report is not murder and does not justify a murder sentence in the federal penitentiary. As a member of the Armed Services Committee for 26 years, I have never seen a Marine or soldier treated as severely as Ramos and Compean.

We cannot turn our back on Agents Compean and Ramos or the rest of the public servants in the U.S. Border Patrol and that’s why I urge George Bush to pardon both agents. I intend to keep attention focused on this case to insure their safety while they are in prison and to secure their release as soon as possible so they can return home to their families. That is also why I introduced H.R. 563, which would pardon Compean and Ramos. The bill already has more than 85 sponsors in the House. If that bill fails and President Bush does not do the right thing, I pledge that if I’m elected President, one of my first acts will be to grant pardons to both agents.

[erton1]

There is no requirement for premeditation or conspiracy. Theoretically, you are correct. I would surmise, based on how the USA office operates, that they probably threatened Juarez with the same charges if he didn't cooperate. Practically, prosecutors take the individuals most involved and connected to the episode and charge them with the most serious charges.

[Bob J]

Okay, the ten years came with the 18.924C.F.

If they were found guilty of shooting at OVD without justification, a crime of violence, then the use of the gun makes this charge understandable.

What's weird is they were found not guilty of attempted murder. Several agents testified they are trained that whenever they shoot they shoot to kill. The jury must have believed they were never intending to kill OVD, maybe just "push him back" as I have stated.

Unfortunately, once Ramos hit OVD, everything changed.

[AndrewC]

And this is an example of the testimony that AC thinks makes Compean a great witness.

Do you know the difference between Ramos and Compean? Your difficulty telling the difference between Juarez and Vasquez does give you a ready excuse though. I don't remember stating that Compean was a "great witness" please show me that post? I've shown you your posts when you contradicted yourself.

[calcowgirl]

It doesn't matter what they are running over because they are both running over the same terrain making all things equal.

Please read my post again. I said... "if either lose their footing while running up the levee, it would change their relative distance." If one slip, it does not follow that the other would slip so one cannot say that they would maintain equal distance, a distance that appears to be near nil from the start of the chase.

As to Compean being "portly", he looks perfectly capable of carrying his weight in this photo.

As to BPA's testifying that OAD was "quick and wiry", check the testimony again. Juarez says he moved quick while in the ditch but testimony from Compean did not confirm that (despite the words coming from PROSECUTOR's mouths trying to say that).

Juarez testifies Compeon falls head first into the ditch

Bob... look at the photo of the ditch. If one believes that Compean fell head first, OAD would have been in Mexico before Compean could have gotten out of the ditch! Come on, guy... think about it!

Compean says he only falls to one knee, which again to me is not credible because he drops his shotgun.

No. Juarez says he dropped the shotgun--into the bottom of the ditch. Compean says he did not drop the shot gun at that point, but put it on the ground after getting up and starting to chase OAD (that is why it was not in the bottom of the ditch as but on the side of the ditch when he retrieved it). Juarez also says that he didn't fear for Compean when he was on the vega because Compean had his shotgun with him. The guy is simply not believable.

If you take a swing and drop to one knee, there is no reason to drop your shotgun.

You point out yet another demonstration of Juarez is lying.

[Bob J]

Ahhh, more hearsay from unnamed sources and the MSM. You don't think the Daily Bulletin might have been trying to sell newspapers, do you?

And yes, "mules" do drive that kind of pot so the real drug cartel members are not caught. They are followed and watched the entire way to make sure they don't skip out with the booty.

BTW - It's those that are watching the mules that may be armed in case of the hijacking. If the mule gets caught by US agents they let it go. Also, everyone keeps harping on it being a million dollar load. It's only a million dollar load once it gets sold to the potheads in the US. The cost to the cartel of growing, bundling and transporting that amount is very small in comparison. They don't want to lose it but if they do there's plenty more where it came from and plenty of mules willing to drive it for a big payday for a poor Mexican.

IMO opinion that drop was probably replaced within 48 hours.

[Bob J]

So you think Ramos was a great witness and Compean a bad one?

[calcowgirl]

Ah, Yes... Nolan Blanchette. That's the memo that was given to Chris Sanchez who--instead of investigating--proceeded to turn it over to Rene Sanchez!

Also curious is the bench conference implying that Rene Sanchez had been indicted (or at least, that is my take on the person they are referring to).

C. Sanchez - Cross by Ms. Stillinger (vol 12, 66ff)

18 MS. KANOF: You haven't made a ruling, Judge, on the
19 admissibility of the Nolan Blanchette memo. That's what she's
20 going into, that Nolan Blanchette told his supervisors that
21 Rene Sanchez had information about horse trailers being used to
22 traffic.
23 MS. STILLINGER: I don't think you have made a ruling
24 because there hasn't been an objection before the Court yet.
25 THE COURT: I understand. You did provide me with
1 the -- the memo. I have reviewed it.
2 And where are you going with all of this? What's the
3 relevance?
4 MS. STILLINGER: He just said -- I think Rene
5 Sanchez's credibility is relevant. I think his evaluation --
6 THE COURT: How are you impeaching his credibility
7 with that?
8 MS. STILLINGER: Well, Ms. Kanof had him testify a lot
9 about who he believed and who he didn't believe and the steps
10 he took in his investigation, based on what he believed and
11 what he didn't believe. This guy gets a memo in July, where
12 somebody is saying -- not terrible, but saying, I have concerns
13 about Rene Sanchez. And it's not terrible, but he seems
14 unusually well informed.
15 This witness does -- instead of investigating it, he
16 turns the memo over to Rene Sanchez, so Rene Sanchez can call
17 Blanchette and say, Why are you writing these things about me?
18 It's not normal behavior.
19 It's not normal behavior, I don't think, for an OIG
20 agent to turn over an investigatory memo within hours of having
21 received it, turn it over to the subject of the memo. And I
22 think that shows his bias in this investigation.
23 THE COURT: I guess my concern is, this guy has
24 already been indicted, has he not?
25 MS. STILLINGER: Right. But this -- this is the same
1 time period when he was yelling at other agents and getting
2 them to come clean because he doesn't believe them.
3 THE COURT: That memo is dated July of '05?
4 MS. STILLINGER: Yes.

[calcowgirl]

Ramos bumped Juarez off the lead position then told him to turn off his lights. Jaurez let it happen for the only reason I can think of...it's SOP.

Did you find Juarez's allegation about this credible? Ramos said he had his lights on and couldn't have made the gesture indicated while holding a radio in one hand and chasing the suspect at 60 mph (or so). Mendoza says he saw the lights on at least one vehicle. Vasquez says he saw all their lights on.

Why is it that you believe the one person that is contradicted by all other testimony?

[calcowgirl]

The prosecution was getting creative. It was in the 2nd ss indictment on September 28 that they added "Aiding and Abetting" to the murder and assault charges. I think you're right... they probably threatened Juarez and Vasquez with this same charge.

Nothing like being indicted for murder to make one's story change to make those prosecutor's happy.

[erton1]

I used "assume" in a sarcastic manner. I think "cover up" is an apt description of the actions of the bp agents. Or maybe "tampering with evidence" or "obstruction of justice." I believe it was the totality of the testimony and evidence that convinced the jury of the defendants guilt. You seem to be hung up on minute details which are not going to prove guilt or innocence. You need to look at the bigger picture. My experience with jurors is that they may disagree about specific evidence but in the end they look at the entire case when determining guilt or innocence.

In this case it appears from the investigative reports, that DHS did the primary investigation, prepared their report with recommendations for prosecution, and then turned it over the USA office for prosecution. Normally the UASA investigators will do their own investigation, usually reporting to an AUSA, to verify the facts in the report.

Now that I have answered your question, could you answer mine as why do you think the defendants agreed to the stipulation of evidence that Ramos shot and wounded OAD, other than going off on that they stipulated to being at the scene. Did Ramos' father in law say why they stipulated when you talked to him?

[erton1]

Yes it can be very persuasive, or should I say coercive.

[AndrewC]

So you think Ramos was a great witness and Compean a bad one?

I asked you to back up what you stated. So I guess you admit by the question that I never said Compean was a great witness. Well, now you can add to your knowledge the fact that I never said Compean was a bad witness. I think I even said he was a good witness. So my answer to your question would be, No.

[calcowgirl]

I'd love to see a copy of the jury instructions on how they presented the 924(c) charge.
Unfortunately, they are not among the court documents available online.

[calcowgirl]

Yeah... the Daily Bulletin made it up. Uh-huh.
And what great source to you use for the profound knowledge that it is ordinary for "mules" to drive million dollar pot loads to stash houses?

[erton1]

Here in So. Texas it is common for mules to transport million dollar Loads of drugs. The higher ups never touch the stuff. the only way they get caught are on wire taps and trying to get them show up at a big buy which is almost impossible. They mules also transport the money. I just got hired on case where the mule got caught with $650,000 in cash in his car. His crime, Illegal Investment. This is not to say that there are "minders" in the vicinity.

[AndrewC]

You seem to be hung up on minute details which are not going to prove guilt or innocence.

They are not minute details. They are testimony. A minute detail is whether Juarez was afraid or not. It is not a minute detail to state that the prosecution's description of a point in the scenario is inconsistent with their description of another point in their scenario. Davila cannot be on the lip of the ditch with Compean face down in the ditch, Juarez halfway in the ditch on the other side, Ramos at the scene, and Vasquez a reasonable distance from the scene(I'm not finished yet so don't stop here). That particular picture painted by the prosecution followed by: Davila midway in the vega, Compean on the top of the levee, Ramos at the scene, Juarez at the north edge of the ditch, and Vasquez at the scene missing seeing Compean shooting and getting to his position.

I want to make sure I understand your answer to my question on when a prosecutor would be assigned to a case. You seem to indicate that an investigation must be completed, it does not have to be in depth, but it must be done prior to the assignment of a prosecutor(and it should have recommendations). Is that correct?

The defendant Ramos had criminal lawyers representing him. Why should he not follow their advice? Ramos never denied shooting at Davila. He never knew he hit him. And I really doubt that attempting something requires that you complete that something.

Please remember to answer my question above, thanks.

[erton1]

Btw, these guys never carry a firearm. They know with a firearm in their possession, that the sentence will be 5 times higher. The user driving around getting high, yes, the mules with a large amount, no.

[calcowgirl]

I have difficulty with the broad definitions. Are you saying that you consider everyone involved in drug smuggling, who is not "higher up", is a mule? What do you mean by "higher up?" I wouldn't think a lieutenant in a drug cartel would be driving a stash across the border, but most references I've seen of "mules" is in relation to those carrying heroin in their bellies or toting bundles of marijuana on their backs across the river. Someone entrusted with a full million-dollar load (as delivered by mules) I would put in a higher category of trust. Don't you?

[superfries]

Is Fabens really that far from El Paso? I went to HS there (El Paso) and we played them in football and basketball.

[calcowgirl]

And if driving a million-dollar marijuana load constitutes the level of "mule," what does one do to reach the level of "smuggler" or "trafficker"?

Since you also believe that "mules" don't carry weapons, do you also believe that the Daily Bulletin made up their coverage from OAD's family members that he always carried a gun??