Posted on 04/09/2007 10:25:31 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
More claims brought closer to witness in Ramos-Compean prosecution
An arrest in a drug case involving thousands of pounds of marijuana brought from Mexico into the U.S. is raising anew questions about the prosecution of former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who shot at a fleeing drug smuggler in a confrontation in 2005, then were convicted for that shooting and now are serving prison terms of 11 and 12 years.
According to authorities, Cipriano Ortiz-Hernandez, suspected of running a Texas "stash house" where multiple loads of marijuana from Mexico were delivered into the United States, has been arrested and is being held pending trial.
As WND has reported, Cipriano Ortiz-Hernandez already was under indictment on federal drug charges stemming from about 5,000 pounds of marijuana allegedly delivered to his home, mostly in 2005.
Ortiz-Hernandez also has identified Ramos-Compean case witness Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila as the man who delivered 750 pounds of marijuana to that location in October 2005 – while Aldrete-Davila was under a grant of immunity for an earlier drug smuggling operation when he encountered Ramos and Compean, and ended up with a bullet wound.
Those agents chased Aldrete-Davila while he was trying to smuggle a load of hundreds of pounds of drugs into the United States in February 2005, and Aldrete-Davila was injured when the officers fired at him.
He later was granted immunity for that episode by federal prosecutors, and returned to the United States to give testimony that helped convict the border agents, who now are in prison. However, during his testimony, he portrayed himself as someone who had tried to smuggle drugs only the one time because of his financial situation, and the jury never was told that he had been implicated in the second smuggling operation.
"What is the government going to do now?" Joe Loya, father-in-law of Ramos, asked WND. "According to the criminal complaints WND has already published, Ortiz-Hernandez has admitted being involved with Aldrete-Davila in the second drug incident."
"Now the government is in a dilemma,” Loya said. "Is the government going to give Aldrete-Davila immunity again? If the government indicts Aldrete-Davila, they are going to have to admit that prosecutor U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton allowed Aldrete-Davila to lie in the Ramos and Compean trial when Aldrete-Davila said he was not a professional drug smuggler."
"I'll bet you that Ortiz-Hernandez will put the finger on Aldrete-Davila, just like he did in October 2005 when DEA and Border Patrol first interviewed Ortiz-Hernandez at the Fabens, Texas, Border Patrol Station," Loya told WND.
Sutton's office said because of "ongoing investigations regarding this matter," officials couldn't comment.
"However, we have been clear and unambiguous, Aldrete received immunity only for offenses which occurred on Feb. 17, 2005, and has no immunity or protection for any other crimes that he may have committed. As we have said many times, this office will pursue criminal charges where there is prosecutable criminal activity and competent evidence to prove it," the statement said.
"This statement sounds like we're going to be told next that Sutton's office doesn't have enough information to prosecute Aldrete-Davila for the October 23, 2005, offense Ortiz-Hernandez is charged with committing," Loya said. "Why don't we just send Sutton copies of the Department of Homeland Security, Drug Enforcement Agency, and U.S. District Court criminal complaints we have that substantiate Aldrete-Davila's involvement. How is Sutton going to explain those documents away?"
WND has reported that a Department of Homeland Security investigative report filed by Special Agent Christopher Sanchez on Nov. 21, 2005, documents that Ortiz-Hernandez identified Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila was the person who drove the 750 pounds of marijuana to Ortiz-Hernandez's safe house on October 23, 2005.
WND also has published criminal complaints filed in U.S. District Court on March 2 and March 6, 2007, that provide corroboration that Aldrete-Davila was the person who delivered 752.8 pounds of marijuana in a Ford Astro van to Ortiz-Hernandez's home in Clint, Texas, Oct. 23, 2005.
"Let's hope the government investigates the drug smugglers surrounding Ortiz-Hernandez more than they did in the Ramos-Compean case," Loya said. "In Ramos and Compean's case nobody ever investigated the cell phone Aldrete-Davila left in the drug van. We still don't know even today where that cell phone is."
WND has obtained a March 18, 2005, U.S. District Court order of detention issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Norbert J. Garney mandating that Ortiz-Hernandez remain in custody pending trial because he is a flight risk.
The detention order reads that the preponderance of evidence establishes that "the defendant (Ortiz-Hernandez), a citizen of Mexico, without legal permission to remain in the United States, was arrested for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over 1000 kilograms of marijuana."
The detention order noted that Ortiz-Hernandez "has strong familial ties to Mexico and has a criminal history which includes a history of failure to appear."
"Now that Ortiz-Hernandez has been arrested and indicted, Ramos and Compean should be released immediately," Loya added. "If Sutton had told the jury about this second October load, the government's case would have been thrown out the window. How would any jury convict Ramos and Compean if the jury knew that Aldrete-Davila, the government's chief witness, was a liar?"
"What the documents show is that Sutton's office let Ortiz-Hernandez operate his safe house for two years after he was first busted for drugs in March 2004," Loya said. "Now it's three years since March 2004 and Sutton is finally getting around to prosecuting him. How many years are we going to have to wait for Sutton to prosecute Aldrete-Davila? How many more loads of drugs does Aldrete-Davila have to bring across the border before Sutton does anything?"
"WND has reported that Ortiz-Hernandez was indicted on March 28, 2007, on three counts of federal criminal drug charges.
Yeah. That's what he said. You are a reading-comprehension wonder. Please construct another false dichotomy for our amusement.
Heh...
LEO’s are not judges, they’re not juries, they’re not jailers, their job is to apprehend suspects so the rest of our judicial system that we are so proud of can go to work to determine guilt or innocence and if necessary, mete out justice.
And through all this all the BP supporters care to talk about is the illegal alien situation at the border, as if that had one iota of relevance to the important issue being discussed.
So ya, I would say 90% of the BPA supporters are either shilling for their border security issue or just plain don’t like Mexicans, maybe both.
In either case, it stinks they are putting their own personal agenda before the integrity of our law enforcement and justice systems.
“It astounds me every day how little conservatives on FR know about their own Constitution. And of course, yes anyone who is in the US has the same Constitutional rights (which are different than citizenry rights). You see, that’s what our FF meant when they said they were “inalienable”.”
LOL. “Unalienable” rights are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and not the US Constitution.
And, no, not everyone who shows up on our shores is protected by the US Constitution.
It’s so easy to give away the constitutional rights and protections of others, I wonder if you would be willing to give yours up as well....you know, to make it easier for BPA’s to catch and/or shoot illegals at the border.
BTW - Will they be allowed to shoot anyone on sight looking a little Mexican or should they check an ID first?
I try to resist the temptation to chase red herrings.
I made the point earlier that there are “human” rights and there are “citizen” rights. And yes, anyone showing up on our shores has these certain “human” rights, that’s why we keep terrorists in Gitmo and why the Coast Guard tries to intercept Cubans before they get to this shore and declare their “rights”.
Anything you don’t understand is a “red herring” to you.
2. Any argument you are losing is a “red herring”.
Bob, you really should know better than to try to put words in people’s mouths.
You’re right, but the point could be clarified and expanded.
First, Up until 1985, it was legal in many states for LE to use deadly force against fleeing felons. That year, SCOTUS decided the Tennessee v. Garner case, and said “no, you can’t shoot at a fleeing felon for that reason alone”. (Garner was a burglary suspect.) So EVEN IF Ramos and Compeon KNEW that that suspect had a million bucks worth of weed in his truck, it’s illegal, everywhere in the US, to shoot at the dude for that reason alone. Their lawyers knew this, so they didn’t even argue it at trial, but this point has been raised repeatedly in the media and on the errornet to cloud the issue. Frankly, the Garner decision may be good public policy, or bad, or good law, or bad, but if people have a problem with Garner, it would be more interesting, and productive, to argue that point, not pretend that the decision was never rendered.
One quibble: one does not need to show that there was an “immediate” threat to justify the use of deadly force, only that the forced used was objectively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances. I’m not gonna comment on the jury’s findings of fact regarding the shiny black object. I don’t find the story absurd on its face as you imply, but they heard the testimony, we didn’t.
Seems to me that if people want to have more old-school policing used in this country, they should just come out and say so, rather than gripe about the outcome of one trial.
“And yes, anyone showing up on our shores has these certain “human” rights, that’s why we keep terrorists in Gitmo and why the Coast Guard tries to intercept Cubans before they get to this shore and declare their “rights”.”
You know as much about our history as the Constitution.
The German saboteurs who FDR tried via military tribunals (ala Gitmo) showed up on our shores.
Here are your “other Boarder Patrol agents” and a few other Law Enforcement officers Johnny Sutton ordered & bought.
1.) Border Patrol Agent Rene Sanchez – a longtime friend of the Mexican drug smuggler granted immunity to testify against Ramos and Compean – a possible double agent. Rene Sanchez’s actions make it look like he could have been in the drug business with Aldrete-Davila all along. The Department of Homeland Security never investigated, and from the beginning of this case Johnny Sutton was out to prosecute the Border Patrol, not the drug smugglers.
Sanchez and Aldrete-Davila grew up together in Mexico, prompting some observers to question the propriety of a family friend of Aldrete-Davila playing such a major role in reporting the Ramos-Compean incident involving the drug smuggler.
2.) Former BP Agents David Jaquez and Arturo Vasquez & Oscar Juarez Who were fired for changing their stories under oath many times.
3.) DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner admitted under oath that his top deputies gave members of Congress false information, painting Border Patrol agents as rogue cops who were not in fear for their lives and who were ‘out to shoot Mexicans,’” Culberson said in a statement.
Keep in mind that The D.H.S. told the Congress UNDER OATH that Secretary Skinner’s office asserted it had documentary evidence Ramos and Compean:
1. confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect;
2. stated during the interrogation they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting;
3. stated that day they “wanted to shoot a Mexican”;
4. were belligerent to investigators;
5. destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.
THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS.
is that abu gharib where humiliation & fear = torture.
And what bearing could someone have on a trial by saying things to congress after the trial has ended???? They were tried and convicted by 12 of their peers while being represented by competent counsel. This wasn't a banana republic show trial. They were convicted in no small part by their own testimony.
THAT is a BIG dog! Jeepers.
Would you consider water boarding to be torture??? Where water + fear (fear of suffocating)= torture??? I know if someone had one big a$$ German Shepperd inches away from me and the command to “sick balls” was being threatened I’d consider that torture. I value the boys pretty highly.
typically torture is considered to be abuse that causes permanent damage. water boarding for example creates the fear of death but not death or tissue damage. there’s not even temporary damage.
would you consider some of the really big six flags rollercoasters to be torture.
Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING
there’s plenty of room in websters for torture to mean much of anything. but if you’ll notice there’s a concentration of meanings around pain and extreme pain which is agony.
water boarding for example, does not cause agony or pain. it causes fear.
all the pictures at abu gharib and were about humiliation. and not pain.
club gitmo just looked funny.
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.