Comments on: Ramos-Compean Oral Argument Update (Updated x2)

By: David Rogers

David Rogers — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:26:11 +0000

Three of the twenty-two judges on the Fifth Circuit were former U.S. attorneys or Assistant U.S Attorneys. Two of those three (Prado and Jolly) were on this panel. One of those two (Prado) was the predecessor to the prosecuting U.S. Attorney in this case. Same office, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas. Both appointed (to the Fifth Circuit, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office) by the same man.

Does this seem odd to anyone?

By: Cheryl D.

Cheryl D. — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:38:02 +0000

It’s been over 90 days, does anybody know why the court hasn’t ruled on this?

I’m hoping Compean and Ramos will prevail, how can this be affirmed when the prosecution’s star witness lied on the stand, by their own admission?

By: LEO

LEO — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:48:12 +0000

Ramos and Compean should have gotten in trouble, but only for not reporting the shooting. Getting 10 years plus for shooting the drug smuggler is ridiculous. They testified they believed the smuggler had a weapon and that’s all they need to justify the shooting. Even though they never found the weapon it becomes a moot point because the smuggler was never caught so only God and the smuggler knows if he had a gun. [I guess the smuggler wouldn’t lie under oath] Everyone that knows anything about law enforcement knows that drugs and weapons go hand in hand. Why because they need weapons to protect the load from other drug traffickers. So why take the word of a drug smuggler? The thing that pisses me off the most is that a jury found these agents guilty. What I do know is that this case has demoralized the law enforcement community. From what I have read I really feel this was a justified shooting just for the fact that the subject was never caught so how can anyone know he was armed. Now with the death of Agent Aguilar I believe he could have used deadly force but this case might have come to his mind. I know it does to me when ever I pull out my weapon. I believe this case has open the doors for drug traffickers by agents not doing their job for the purpose of not losing a decent paying job. As law enforcements officers say [no cases-no problems; big cases-big problems] And what I see now is the no problem effect.

By: j curtis

j curtis — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:29:26 +0000

You’ve convinced yourself independant of any facts

I read the trascripts multiple times and read the court documents from my PACER account. I don’t expect you’ll be making any head on challenges to what I’ve written but will instead continue to try to discount my points by other means.

Let’s see if you can challenge my points without referring to WND, just for fun. I’ll take any refusal to do this as an admission that you can’t do it.

By: Christoph

Christoph — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:16:12 +0000

“Bush’s strategy was to prevent “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” from coming out at the trial.”

Bush was stategerizing throughout the trial? Who knew Bush was an evil legal mastermind too. Will that man’s massive intellectual capabilities in the pursuit of darkness ever cease to amaze me?

Comment by SPQR — 12/10/2007 @ 4:10 pm

Hear, hear!

By: SPQR

SPQR — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:10:45 +0000

The thing is, j curtis, it has already been well established that the reporter you rely upon is the one "full of hooey". You've convinced yourself independant of any facts of what you want to believe in this case.

By: j curtis

j curtis — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:08:02 +0000

I’m absolutely positive that your beloved AP is “full of hooey”. What was the context of the admission that Davila lied? Did he tell a fib to investigators about the 100 lb catfish he caught? Probably not, it was probably something relevant to the matters before the 5th circuit.

One thing is certain, Davila was a professional drug trafficker. Bush’s strategy was to prevent “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” from coming out at the trial. They used a gimmick to deny the agents their due process rights. That gimmick was “you don’t get due process because giving you due process will jeopardize an ongoing investigation!”.

The defense spent hours trying to establish Davila’s hardened criminality to the jury with more difficult approaches since they were forbidden to use the obvious approach. Showing their true intent, in the closing statements, Team Bush characterized these approaches as a waste of the court’s time, a witch hunt and so forth, while knowing full well that they succeeded with their malicious strategy of keeping the best and most obvious evidence of Davila’s criminality under wraps.

By: Bob J

Bob J — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:44:18 +0000

BTW – Since you did not mention it I assume you agree the WND is full of hooey.

By: Bob J

Bob J — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:42:30 +0000

Because the statement was “told some lies to investigators”, not “told some lies to prosecutors”.

Second, you know nothing about what OAD might have or might not have told prosecutors about that, third, if they asked he would probably have taken the 5th, and fourth, his immunity agreement did not cover any actions outside the shooting incident at Fabens.

By: j curtis

j curtis — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:03:51 +0000

The only information to come out on this was from an AP writer who related that feds said OAD had told some lies to investigators, presumably during intitial interviews.

How do you come to the presumption that it was only “during initial interviews”? It’s obvious that Davila was lying to prosecutors about the October involvement because if he had confessed there would be no need to further investigate his involvment in the matter for the next two years. Wouldn’t you agree?