Posted on 12/03/2007 4:03:22 PM PST by dynachrome
The U.S. government admitted today in federal court that the prosecution's star witness in the criminal trial of Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean – confessed drug dealer Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila – lied under oath. "He told some lies on the stand," Mark Stelmach, the assistant U.S. attorney representing prosecutor U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton said under questioning by a three-judge 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel in New Orleans
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
For almost a year youhave been saying the Rene Sanchez was a dirty cop bought working in concert with OAD and bought and paid for a Mexican drug cartel.
Guess only some cops get your support.
BTW - Are you saying a fair number of BP agents are liars and corrupt?
I think I mentioned a plural. Under his volition and accompanied by a lawyer, Vasquez did not mention that Compean had spent casings, that Compean had them in his hand, that he counted out nine, that he then counted the bullets in his magazines to include the one from his Beretta nor that Compean made a coarse statement concerning Davila taking him down(which would corroborate Compean contention they wrestled had he made such a statement.)
At the initial point of the investigation, Vasquez had no reason to fear anything and had no reason to withhold anything.
Yeah, the officers that are probably telling the truth and attempt to do their duty in apprehending a person committing a crime. The officers that are proved to be lying, such as Juarez and Vasquez, deservedly receive contempt.
I never said a fair number of BP officers are liars and corrupt. You have that distinction. Look back at your posts over a year ago when you essentially called all officers at Fabens liars. You challenged me to tell you who was telling the truth. I have done that.
I wondered if anyone else noticed that, LOL.
“At the initial point of the investigation, Vasquez had no reason to fear anything and had no reason to withhold anything.”
Huh? He engaged in the cover up and tampered with evidence by retrieving the spent shell casings. He had plenty to keep quiet about.
You can’t be this dense.
You have called Vazques and Juarez liars and perjurers. You have called the supervisors at the station liars. You have accused Rene Sanchez of being a corrupt tool of the Mexican mafia. The only agents you claim are telling the truth are the two who were convicted of shooting an unarmed man in the back, tampering with and destroying evidence, failure to report and a cover up.
Ya, you’re a real supporter of the Border Patrol.
This statement tell is all about you...
“Yeah, the officers that are probably telling the truth and attempt to do their duty in apprehending a person committing a crime.”
The only Border Patrol agents worthy of your support are the ones who shoot mexicans. The rest are a bunch of liars and patsies.
So get off your high horse about “Support the Border Patrol” crap. You couldn’t care less about them.
Talking about dense, don't you read? Vasquez appeared of his own volition the day after the investigators appeared in March. He came with a lawyer, obtained a Proffer letter, and told of his retrieval and disposal of the casings. So what was he quiet about concerning his involvement?
They are liars by record. Show me where I called the supervisors liars. Show me the statement I supposedly made about Rene Sanchez being a corrupt tool of the Mexican mafia. What I did state about Rene is that he appears to be deceptive about his relationship to Davila, to include the highly coincidental meeting in Reynosa, Mexico.
Now you are the one that called every Border Patrol agent at Fabens a liar.
Kiss my posterior, buddy. I am of Mexican heritage. My wife is Mexican. My grandfather on my mother's side is Mexican. My father was Mexican. So, I have a dim view of people shooting Mexicans for no reason. Davila was and is involved in the illegal drug business. He disobeyed orders to halt and proceeded to act in a manner which concluded in a shot in his ass. He deserved it.
And to top it all off, I have never stated "Support the Border Patrol", although I do. I have supported two agents who were wrongly prosecuted after doing their duty while 2 of those that testified against them did nothing. Those two are Juarez and Vasquez.
VOLUME 12, Page 65-66 C. Sanchez - Cross by Ms. Stillinger Q. Okay. Do you recall getting a memo in July of this year -- 13 I'm sorry, of last year -- pertaining to Mr. Sanchez? 14 MS. KANOF: Objection, Your Honor. Approach the 15 bench? 16 THE COURT: All right. 17 (Bench conference:) 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. ...
No kidding?
But what does it matter? So a professional drug smuggler, and known liar was used to prosecute our border patrol agents?
As long as the message was sent, warning all hands off illegal aliens and Mexican drug smugglers.
How low will this government stoop to push their open borders agenda?
In addition, the prosecutor in this case went after the two border agents in a manner generally reserved for violent criminals with previous felony criminal records.
Given the mood of the country, with government elected officials aiding and abetting this lawless invasion, with many believing the prosecutor had a political conflict of interest here, will live to regret his participation and actions in this case.
Sutton's political conflicts and political connections here, clearly resulted in intentionally overreacting against these two border agents.
Sutton's zeal to send his political message of, hands off illegal aliens and Mexican drug smugglers, has backfired in his face.
That about says it. However, since he now is in our custody, I really want to know which hand he used to sign his documentation.
Press Briefing by Tony SnowjobBut, apparently NOT FOLLOWING standard procedures in securing immunity, NOT CAREFUL about putting lying scumbag illegal alien drug dealers on the stand, USURPING CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY when giving this criminal drug-dealing scumbag questionable and likely ILLEGAL "hybrid immunity" so as to aid Bush's AGENDA and friend Sutton, so as to facilitate the prosecution of AMERICAN HEROS who DARED do their jobs because they DEFIED BUSH when attempting to secure our borders.Q I have a couple of follow-ups. The Fort Worth Star Telegraph quotes President Bush on Fox TV network as saying that he is bound by strict federal guidelines on pardons, and cannot immediately grant a pardon to Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean because, quote, "there is a series of steps that are analyzed in order for the Justice Department to make a recommendation as to whether or not a President grants a pardon," from the President. Was this series of analyzed steps followed when President Jerry Ford pardoned President Nixon even before he was tried; when President Carter pardoned all those draft resisters?
MR. SNOW: You know, that is one of the most preposterous comparisons I've ever heard. But having said that, let me just -- what you're asking is, should the President waive standard procedures in this case. And the answer is, no, we want to be careful about issuing pardons...
Bob, it appears that you fired without identifying your target. Merry Christmas.
Andrew, nice to see you on FR. Merry Christmas.
You bet.
I would start by seizing all of his cellular telephone records, electronic transmissions, email, and residential telephone records. Every correspondence, every word and meeting from every investigator involved, in regards to communicating with Sutton should be investigated. Who exactly were the investigators speaking with and what outside influences were at work here?
Arrgh! Showing me the memo revived my memory. I do now remember that situaton. The words “unusually well informed” rang the bell.
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.