RAMOS & COMPEAN WERE CHARGED WITH 'NON-EXISTENT CRIME'

Legal Brief Says Border Agents Were Charged With 'Non-Existent Crime'
By Matt Purple
CNSNews.com Correspondent
July 26, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Two Border Patrol agents whose prosecution and sentences to lengthy prison terms triggered a political storm this year may have been charged with a "non-existent crime," according to a legal brief submitted to a federal appeals court in May, and obtained by Cybercast News Service.

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are serving 11- and 12-year sentences respectively for shooting and wounding a Mexican national who was trying to escape after attempting to smuggle 743 pounds of marijuana across the Mexico-Texas border in February 2005.

Although they were convicted on 11 counts, the crime carrying the lengthiest penalty was for the "discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence," a violation of section 924(c)(1)(a) of the U.S. Code. It carries a minimum 10-year prison sentence.

Cybercast News Service obtained a copy of an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") legal brief filed by Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Virgil Goode (R-Va.), and Ted Poe (R-Texas) in the former agents' appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans.

They accuse the prosecution of "creating a purported criminal offense never enacted into law by Congress," and of charging Ramos and Compean with a "non-existent crime."

Simply discharging a firearm near a violent crime is not illegal, the brief argued, saying the law they were convicted under is not a law at all, but a sentencing factor used to help a jury determine jail time after a conviction.

The brief cited several cases as precedent, including United States v. Barton in which the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that "discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence" could be used only as a sentencing factor, not as an element of a conviction. In Harris v. United States, the Supreme Court made a similar ruling.

The brief argued that, for a 10-year sentence, a defendant must be convicted under the specific terms laid out in section 924(c)(1)(a) (see section).

This provision is applicable, the section says, to "any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime ... uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm ..." If, and only if, these conditions apply can a defendant be sentenced to ten years in prison for the "discharge" of a firearm.

The brief argued that the shooting of drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila was not "in relation to" the drug crime because Ramos and Compean were themselves not participants in the drug crime.

Furthermore, Border Patrol Agents are authorized to carry and use firearms as law enforcement officers.

"By narrowing the issue to the discharge of the firearm," the brief said, "the prosecution and the trial court actions adversely affected the fairness of the entire trial, depriving defendants of any opportunity to present to the jury that they were using and carrying their firearms during and in relation to their employment as Border Agents."

The brief also criticized the prosecution.

"The criminal code cannot be treated by the prosecution as a legal chameleon, changing elements to fit the circumstances of the case that the government, in its discretion, wants to present to the judge and jury," it said.

One of the brief's authors, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners for America, told Cybercast News Service that this case could set an alarming precedent under which any law enforcement officer who fired a gun at the scene of a drug crime could be prosecuted under Section 924(c).

He also criticized U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, the lead prosecutor in the case.

"What [Sutton] was apparently trying to do is avoid the little detail that there was no underlying crime of carrying a gun because [Ramos and Compean] were authorized to carry guns," Pratt said. "So I think he tried to slide around and use the sentencing provision as an underlying crime."

'Perverse'

Rep. Jones conceded in a statement that Ramos and Compean may have been guilty of violating Border Patrol policy by shooting Aldrete-Davila and failing to file a subsequent report.

But Jones also blasted Sutton, saying the prosecutor "had no business charging [Ramos and Compean] with a crime that Congress clearly designed to apply only to the individuals who are possessing, using, or carrying firearms for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime - not to federal law enforcement agents."

"How perverse it is that this statute is now being used against law enforcement officers who were trying to stop drug trafficking," he added.

Sutton told the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 17 that it was his trial team that made the decision to bring the "discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence" charge, and that he was not consulted on the issue.

"We have a deliberative process that goes on inside our office that I cannot describe," he said.

Sutton could not be reached for comment, and his spokeswoman said she did not think anyone else in the office would comment on the brief until it responds to the appeal in early August.

Asked about the appeal, Pratt said he was worried that it may be denied because the cited evidence had not been presented previously.

"The thing that concerns me most is that, because [the alleged misuse of Section 924(c)] wasn't brought up at the first trial, the Fifth Circuit Court could play legal games and say, well, too bad," he said.

Still, Pratt described himself as "hopeful" and warned that Sutton's tactics would eventually catch up with him.

"[Sutton] can only hide in the tall grass for so long and, Lord willing, the lawnmower's on the way in," he said.

article here

FireWing said:

Legal Brief Says Border Agents Were Charged With 'Non-Existent Crime'
By Matt Purple
CNSNews.com Correspondent
July 26, 2007

Alright! Now, that's what I'm talking about. Thanks for the information, FireWing. Hey, I'll bet Esquire is dancing in the judicial "church" aisles while reading that one.

Let's hope and pray. What a great track to run on. By that I mean appealing to the judicial system's procedures and not mob emotionalism which will fail and could hurt these convicted defendants.

P.S. -- At a minimum, I'm hoping this leads to a reduction in sentences with time served applied.

Jason

Thanks. It's gotten pretty smooth around here in the last day or so. Good job. Thanks to you and the other new moderators.

INVASION USA House votes for plan to free Ramos, Compean Provision would prevent spending any funds to keep agents in prison Posted: July 26, 2007 5:00 p.m. Eastern

The House of Representatives has attached two amendments to spending bills intended to free Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean from prison and prohibit the Department of Transportation from spending any funds on the development of NAFTA Superhighways.

Several congressmen are discussing a third amendment, designed to shut down the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America working groups in the Department of Commerce, but as yet no sponsor has been finalized.

Taken together these memos evidence a growing resistance in the House to open borders, prosecutions of law enforcement on the border, and the increasingly evident drive by the Bush administration to push North American integration.

Ramos and Compean

Representative Ted Poe, R-Texas, sponsored an amendment that was co-sponsored by Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., and Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., aimed at prohibiting the federal government from spending any federal funds to keep Ramos and Compean imprisoned.

As WND reported, the amendment had first been proposed by Tancredo.

It was attached to H.R. 3093, the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008.

The amendment, which passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan voice vote, is designed to be a "get-out-of-jail now" maneuver forcing the Bureau of Prisons to release the two agents.

"This amendment represents a novel concept," Poe told WND. "But the House had a lively, emotional, and intense debate on the floor and the more the debate proceeded the more I'm convinced we are winning a lot of people over."

"Agents Ramos and Compean, serving 11- and 12-year prison sentences for wounding a drug smuggler running more than 750 pounds of marijuana across the border, have now spent more than six months in federal custody," Hunter said in a press release. "The conviction of these agents represents the most severe injustice I have ever seen and, without question, qualifies for a presidential pardon."

H.R. 3093 is currently being debated in the House, with a final vote expected to be taken this week.

NAFTA Superhighways

In a separate move, Hunter successfully offered an amendment to H.R. 3074, the Transportation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008, prohibiting the use of federal funds for participating in working groups under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, including the creation of NAFTA Superhighways.

Hunter's amendment passed 362 to 63, with strong bipartisan support. And the House later approved H.R. 3074 by 268-153, with the Hunter amendment included.

"The proposed NAFTA Superhighway presents significant challenges to our nation's security, the safety of vehicle motorists, and will likely drive down wages for American workers," Hunter said in a press release. "Much like NAFTA, the superhighway is designed to serve the interests of our trading partners and will lead to neither security nor prosperity."

Referring to the Trans-Texas Corridor planned to be build parallel to Interstate-35, Hunter said, "This 12-lane highway, which is already under construction in Texas, will fast-track thousands of cargo containers across the U.S. without adequate security. These containers will move from Mexico, a country with a record of corruption and involvement in the drug trade, across a border that is already porous and insufficiently protected."

"Unfortunately, very little is known about the NAFTA Superhighway," Hunter said. "This amendment will provide Congress the opportunity to exercise oversight of the highway, which remains a subject of question and uncertainty, and ensure that our safety and security will not be compromised in order to promote the business interests of our neighbors."

Truth and justice seem to be the first casualties these days. We seem to be living Opposite Day every day as if in a movie like Ground Hog Day. It is amazing to me just how upside down our government has become at both the federal and state level in California. I have a feeling that I am not in the only state where it feels like Alice in Wonderland these days.

FireWing said: It is my understanding that Ramos and Compean will most likely get out of prison around the first of the year while their case is being appealed.  This is very good news for them and we can only hope that they will be able to remain free.

Hi!  Here is the Link to the Speech, Given by U.S. Republican Congressman Walter of North Carolina, very well explaining how Border patrol agents Ramos and Compean were charged, Prosecuted, and convicted  on a Federal crime that does not exist:     http://ramos-compean.blogspot.com/2007/06/ramos-compean-convictions-based-on.html

And also U.S. Democratic Congressman William Delahunt of Massachusetts, realizes that these two Border Patrol agents were Prosecuted and convicted on a Federal crime that they should Not have been Prosecuted and convicted with and on.  Please Check out and See:     http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56949

Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean were Prosecuted and convicted of a  Federal crime that does not exist.  They should be Freed right Now!