Posted on 05/03/2008 9:58:09 PM PDT by Ladycalif
JUST BRING AMERICAN FLAGS AND RAMOS AND COMPEAN SIGNS
* * Please no signs about illegal immigration or signs other than Ramos and Compean - JUST BRING A FLAG if you don't have a sign - Congressman Rohrabacher wants the press conference to focus on JUSTICE for Ramos and Compean
MEDIA ADVISORY
Rep. Rohrabacher To Announce National Day Of Prayer
For Jailed Border Agents
May 11th Marks Beginning of National Police Week
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 2, 2008 When: MONDAY, MAY 5th , 2008
1:30pm PST
Where: LAPD Police Officers Memorial, Ahmanson Recruit Training Facility
5651 W. Manchester Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90045
What: Rep. Rohrabacher will be holding a press conference to announce a National Day of Prayer for our law enforcement officers, specifically unjustly imprisoned Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, currently serving 11 and 12 years, respectively, in federal prison for wounding an illegal alien drug smuggler. Both agents have been in solitary confinement for over a year. Their appeal was heard by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Dec. 3rd, 2007. A decision has yet to be rendered. Over 100+ Members of Congress have asked for a Presidential Pardon or Commutation for the officers and over 350,000 citizens have signed onto a petition demanding immediate action by President Bush.
“I ask that on Sunday, May 11th, the American people join me in a National Day of prayer for not only Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean and their families, but for all the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line to protect our communities everyday,” says Rohrabacher. “I hope the appellate court judges hear our prayers and move to issue a decision quickly freeing Ramos and Compean to be reunited with their families.
“In addition to being Mother’s Day, May 11th also marks the beginning of National Police Week. The Ramos and Compean prosecution already represents one of the greatest miscarriages of justice I’ve ever seen and if their case isn’t overturned, every law enforcement officer will be put on notice that if they use their weapon, they could face 10 years in prison.”
The drug smuggler and government’s star witness, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, recently pleaded guilty to four felony counts related to subsequent drug smuggling activities while under immunity just months before he was scheduled to testify against Ramos and Compean.
Who: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Monica Ramos (wife of imprisoned border patrol agent Nacho Ramos)
Joe Loya (father-in-law of imprisoned border patrol agent Nacho Ramos)
TJ Bonner, National Border Patrol Council, President
Chris Burgard, Border documentary filmmaker
Pastor Clint Miller
The Minuteman
Contact: Tara Setmayer, Communications Director
(202) 225-9274
Tara Olivia Setmayer
Communications Director
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46)
United States House of Representatives
2300 Rayburn Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-2415-office
202-225-0145-fax
Tara.Setmayer@mail.house.gov
ramos and compean ping
More political grandstanding from Rohrbacher. He’s wasting time on these feel good PR events when all he has to do is submit legislation exempting LEO’s from the 10 year mandatory sentence when it involves an officer who without premeditation or corruption incorrectly uses his gun in the line of duty.
But why kill the golden PR goose that keeps on giving.
Ramos & Compean BTTT!!!
How much bought and paid for influence do American businesses and other employers of cheap labor illegals actually have with our elected officials? And why should we tolerate this kind of malpractice by our elected officials in the first place? The correct answers are a lot of influence, and we shouldn't tolerate it for a NY minute. Some heads should figuratively roll if those two men aren't released soon.
Ping.
We've been through all of this before. Sutton never actually used the statute that Congress wrote (924-c), -now did he...?
Anyone know if one of them is still imprisioned here in Ohio?
PING!
RAMOS/COMPEAN Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list.
How come not one R&C supporter can explain how NONE of their so called congressional backers are willing to work toward getting R&C IMMEDIATELY released from prison by submitting legislation clarifying 924 so it doesn’t apply to LEO’s using their weapons in the normal course of their duties?
I’ve talked to several lawyers who say this is not only possible but the easiest route to not only getting R&C released but also to protect ALL LEO’s in the future against charges of this kind. One lawyer said “because they are too lazy”.
I’ll tell you why, because no one wants them released, no one wants to fix the problem. For most R&C supporters this is not a Border Patrol agent issue, it is an immigration issue. For politicians, it’s an emotional flash point they can use to gain PR and media exposure and drum up donations and support for future political aspirations.
So how about everyone quit moaning and wailing about the plight of R&C...none of you want this to end too quickly anymore than many want “Operation Chaos” in the dem primary to end.
If you did you would be pounding Rohrbacher and Hunter to write and submit this legislation. If they did it would already have been done.
Here we go again. You got shot down on this back in December/January. After multiple queries asking you to justify your half-cocked theory that Congress can redefine (or "undeclare") laws, ex post facto, even your alleged source for such theory wouldn't back you up. [Follow up questions on your revised (ever-changing) legal theories went unanswered, probably to avoid further embarrassment. ]
Lets not drag these threads through the same nonsense, again. (But, if you insist, please be sure to answer the initial set of questions as to how this could be accomplished ex post facto when Congress is basically forbidden from applying changes retroactively.)
Thanks in advance.
Actual/
Register Projected
Name Number Age Release Date Location
IGNACIO RAMOS 58079-180 39 08-11-2016 PHOENIX FCI
JOSE ALONSO COMPEAN 58080-180 31 06-24-2017 ELKTON FCI
FCI Elkton is located in central Columbiana County, 3 miles east of Lisbon, 30 miles south of Youngstown, and 45 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Maybe he likes getting spanked.
Here is the actual exchange between CBB and I concerning the "ex post facto" and redefining 924 issues. I'll let the readers decide who is engaging in double speak and misdirection.
BobJ to CBB - My opponents are arguing that that wouldn’t be possible due to ex post facto laws, but I am arguing that law only applies in that the law cannot go after a perp for something that they later made a crime. I am arguing that doesn’t apply to victims of badly written or unfair laws, that laws can be clarified which would allow someone to go to a federal judge who could then order them released. Got any thoughts here?
CBB to BobJ - "Ex post facto applies in only one direction. Congress cannot make an act into a crime after the act has been committed. On the other hand, Congress does have the power to “undeclare” an act as a crime.
BobJ to CBB - "This is the question though. Could congress pass a law that clarifies 924 in how it applies to LEO’s in the line of duty or “undeclare” it as you have stated in a way that would allow Ramos and Compean to be released from the 10 year mand?
CBB to BobJ - "Yea, they could. But if Congress does anything, it will probably take the easy route and cut the funding."
I decided long ago to resist responding to you or having any interaction on FR since you are nothing more than the Johnny Cochran of the Ramos and Compean issue. You are incapable of rational and meaningfull discussion as you are a jaded apostate whose goal is not truth or the rule of law, but pushing your immigration agenda.
So take your twaddle down the road and enlighten the blinded cultists who will lap up your swill regardless of how ignorant, idiotic or illogical it is, but homey don't play that game.
So you are afraid of getting spanked after all.
And FWIW I’ve had several other discussions with attorneys on and off FR who state the same thing...that congress (and congresspersons who have the will) could submit legislation that redefines 924 in a way that removes LEO’s from prosecution if they make an honest mistake when using their weapons in the line of duty. This would obviously exclude LEO’s who do it with forthought or are corrupt.
They also unanimously stated that once that law was passed and signed an attorney could go to any federal judge with request to release R&C and that request would almost certainly be granted.
Again, the main question I have is why so called R&C supporters and their congressional advocates like Rohrbacher and Hunter have not even feinted toward this solution?
How long have R&C been in jail, away from their families? How much longer do they have to suffer because their “supporters” are more interested in using them to push individual agendas like immigration and border security, or put on flashy press conferences or hold prayer vigils that are great for media opps and Tv face time but do nothing for the real victims?
I’m not sure the statute could be amended/clarified and made retroactive to this case but tell my why they aren’t trying to amend/clarify the statute now for future use. Doesn’t make sense to me when they can could be working on that part now.
You're being to kind to Rohrabacher. I'd call it demagoguery.
Sorry Bob. On December 29, 2007, It was you that asserted that one could "undeclare" a law. You can call me a liar all you won't but the facts indicate otherwise.
Here is the actual exchange between CBB and I concerning the "ex post facto" and redefining 924 issues. I'll let the readers decide who is engaging in double speak and misdirection. BobJ to CBB - My opponents are arguing that that wouldn’t be possible due to ex post facto laws, but I am arguing that law only applies in that the law cannot go after a perp for something that they later made a crime. I am arguing that doesn’t apply to victims of badly written or unfair laws, that laws can be clarified which would allow someone to go to a federal judge who could then order them released. Got any thoughts here? CBB to BobJ - "Ex post facto applies in only one direction. Congress cannot make an act into a crime after the act has been committed. On the other hand, Congress does have the power to “undeclare” an act as a crime. BobJ to CBB - "This is the question though. Could congress pass a law that clarifies 924 in how it applies to LEO’s in the line of duty or “undeclare” it as you have stated in a way that would allow Ramos and Compean to be released from the 10 year mand? CBB to BobJ - "Yea, they could. But if Congress does anything, it will probably take the easy route and cut the funding."
Yep. That is a conversation that you purportedly had via freepmail and that CBB later corrected (CBB: "No, I did not say that Congress could "undeclare" the law.") in the post that I linked, above. And by the way--I see you demonstrating that you indeed were the one to come up with the contention that the law could be "undeclared." Thanks for that.
I decided long ago to resist responding to you or having any interaction on FR since you are nothing more than the Johnny Cochran of the Ramos and Compean issue. You are incapable of rational and meaningfull discussion as you are a jaded apostate whose goal is not truth or the rule of law, but pushing your immigration agenda.
Here I thought we were discussing the issue and you launch into another juvenile outburst of personal attacks. You really should seek help about that.
So take your twaddle down the road and enlighten the blinded cultists who will lap up your swill regardless of how ignorant, idiotic or illogical it is, but homey don't play that game.
Whew! Check those gaskets while you're at it.
Thank you for taking the time to find that information!!
My guess is they think the appeal will correct the issue. Sutton applied the law incorrectly--and contrary to Congress's intent. During Senate hearings, many congresscritters were flabbergasted that Sutton's minions had applied the law as they did. The amicus brief written by Mark Brewer also laid it out quite eloquently the other ways in which the law was misapplied. If you haven't read it, let me know and I'll dig up a link.
bttt
Prospectively, that may be true. But it doesn't help R&C. But then again, had Sutton and his minions not misapplied the law in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem. Senate hearings established that Congress never intended to be used as it was. Hopefully the appeals court will just set the record straight in their opinion and we won't have to waste time making yet more laws, just because some overzealous prosecutor had it out for a couple BP agents.
They also unanimously stated that once that law was passed and signed an attorney could go to any federal judge with request to release R&C and that request would almost certainly be granted.
ROFL. We're back to square one. Did these anonymous lawyers also tell you about seeing little green monsters when they were children?
Again, the main question I have is why so called R&C supporters and their congressional advocates like Rohrbacher and Hunter have not even feinted toward this solution?
Because, as has been demonstrated in post after post for the past 4 months, IT CAN'T BE DONE EX POST FACTO! Sheesh! Oh, I forgot... you know an anonymous attorney somewhere.... uh huh.
How long have R&C been in jail, away from their families? How much longer do they have to suffer because their “supporters” are more interested in using them to push individual agendas like immigration and border security, or put on flashy press conferences or hold prayer vigils that are great for media opps and Tv face time but do nothing for the real victims?
See above.
You're welcome.
I read it but it only applies or says that the law was applied incorrectly to this case based upon not specifying a crime in counts 4 and 5. That doesn’t cure the future use where the DA specifies a crime and gets a conviction. Congress amends/corrects their screw ups in legislation/statutes regularily. I think they’d want to do the same with this sec. of the statute and then there would be no question as to intent. Thus my question as to why aren’t they proceeding in the correction to crystalize their intent?.......
`(C) The minimum sentencing requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply if--`(i) the person who used, carried, or possessed the firearm was authorized to carry that type of firearm in the lawful performance of an employment duty;
`(ii) the offense under this paragraph occurred during or in relation to such employment; and
`(iii) the crime during and in relation to which the offense under this paragraph occurred is a crime of violence.'.
Good.
Well that is a start. Interesting that is was introduced by Reyes D-Tx and has no cosponsors not even those that are screaming the loudest.
I wish that we had more commentary on this aspect of the situation.
That's all he has to do? Just submit the legislation and Ramos and Compean will be free? He doesn't have to get the legislation brought up in Committee, voted out to the floor, passed in the House and the Senate? Then signed by the President?
Surely you are aware that when you are in the House minority, your legislation goes nowhere unless the Committee chair and House leadership (read RATS) lets it. Why do you think we are seeing so many GOP retirements?
Even if such a measure were passed, laws usually take effect months (sometimes longer) after they are signed by the President. I don't know whether Congress could pass a law that would apply retroactively to sentences already issued.
First, most of your comments are at best inoperable and at worst ignorant as support for this issue crosses party lines which has been amply demonstrated (including Dianne Feinstein) on FR over the past year.
My question to you is...why do you want SO BAD for peple to think this option to be difficult or impossible?
Hmmm?
Because it’s a non-starter. This legislation doesn’t address the issue of premeditation or corrupt cops who abuse their privilige to carry and use a gun under the color of their authority.
It has no co-sponsors because congress intended the original legislation to be used against corruption in law enforcement.
There are bad cops out there.
As do I.
Why the silence?
Your point won't be addressed.
Why don't you ask yourself? You are the one selling that approach. Where is your letter/email/phone call outlining the "solution"? And don't ask me for mine, I'm not selling that solution. I believe that Ramos and Compean are innocent. I believe that they were convicted by an "incompetent" jury led there by an overly "aggressive"(for whatever reason ---"It does seem to me like the government overreacted here," said Judge E. Grady Jolly ) prosecution team. That happens, you know.
This question was already answered above but this one wasn’t:
How much time should good men spend on those that have eyes but won’t see, thaose that have ears but won’t hear?
It doesn't take very long to read your posts.
You hate conservatism.
We will have to pray them out.
Bookmark
There is a long history in the Congressional Record and testimony during Senate hearings directly to the contrary.
Do you have anything in the form of evidence to support this contention or are ya just blowin' smoke?
Looks like a missed a couple bimbo eruptions?
Sponsors are nice for PR campaigns. If it can get through committee, I don’t care who sponsors or introduced it.
I’d prefer to see them get rid of most all of the mandatory minimum sentiencing laws.
He was flailing but I didn’t think that he had clearly crossed the line.
I’m still trying to make sense of his retroactive law theory.
The B.S. flag has been thrown on you.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200001/ai_n8892080
II. BACKGROUND
A. History of 18 U.S.C. sec924(c)
18 U.S.C. sec924(c) was originally enacted as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.13 In its original form, the statute provided a mandatory minimum sentence of between one and ten years for those criminals who used or carried a firearm "unlawfully during the commission of any federal felony."14 Because of weaknesses that undermined the deterrent force of the statute,15 Congress amended the statute several times. In 1984, in light of an accelerated crime rate, the Act was amended by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (CCCA).16 The CCCA, among other things, made it clear that "Congress intended section 924(c) to be a separate offense and punishable in addition to the predicate."17 In 1986, sec924(c) was amended again by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.18 Two of the most important changes from this amendment were to make sec 924(c) applicable to drug offenses and distinguish among the types of firearms, "raising the mandatory minimum penalty to ten years if the firearm is a machine gun or equipped with a silencer."19 "Subsequent amendments in 1988, 1990 and 1994 have redefined a drug trafficking crime, expanded types of firearms covered by the statute and increased penalties up to life imprisonment without release."20 These amendments represented a shift in Congress's attitude toward sentencing.21
I never got answers to questions asked 3 months ago--go figure.
Drug trafficking? Ya think?
Here's an excerpt from a recent Court of Appeals opinion (Tenth Circuit, 2007):
We have not had occasion to reach the question, and post-Bailey legislation has made it less likely we will have the opportunity to do so. Congress amended the relevant statutory text in 1998 to also criminalize possession of a firearm "in furtherance of" a drug trafficking crime. 924(c)(1)(A); An Act To Throttle Criminal Use of Guns, Pub. L. No. 105-386, sec. 1(a)(1), 924(c)(1)(A), 112 Stat. 3469, 3469 (1998). Whereas the pre-1998 language required courts to determine whether a defendant "used" a firearm, the amended language explicitly criminalizes simple possession "in furtherance of" a drug crime.There are many, many more examples -- can't find a mention of an intent by Congress to apply this do Law Enforcement officers, unless they also happen to be drug traffickers.
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.