From Reappropriate:
Story Quickpoints:
- In 2004, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Ephraim Cruz became a whistleblower against the mistreatment of detainees that he witnessed while working at the Douglas Border Patrol Station. Reported abuse of detainees included overcrowding of cells, denial of food for 20-30 hours to children and pregnant women, and the forcing of a male detainee into a “stress position” until he collapsed in pain and exhaustion.
- Though Ephraim wrote memos and letters to his supervisors and political representatives for nearly a year, nothing was done about the mistreatment of undocumented aliens at the Douglas station. Meanwhile, Ephraim faced retaliation from his co-workers and supervisors in U.S. Border Patrol for his whistle-blowing.
- In 2006, Ephraim was charged — and acquitted in federal court — of transporting an illegal immigrant across the border. Ephraim believes the charges brought against him were thinly-veiled retribution for his whistle-blowing.
- Now, U.S. Border Patrol is attempting to dismiss Ephraim based on the same charges that he was acquitted of by a federal court. He has until Friday (November 9, 2007) to either resign from his post or be fired.
- Ephraim doesn’t have the money to hire a civil attorney to help combat this latest move by the U.S. Border Patrol, nor can he find a lawyer willing to take on the case pro bono. Ephraim Cruz needs your help!
- If you are (or you know) a civil attorney experienced in a case like this and willing to help Ephraim, please email him at ephraimcruz@hotmail.com.
- If you are willing to donate a few dollars to offset Ephraim’s projected legal fees, please contact him at ephraimcruz@hotmail.com.
- If you are a blogger, journalist, or a member of a non-profit organization, please forward / re-post / link this post to everyone you know to help us get Ephraim’s story out!
Click through to Reappropriate to read the full story. Jenn at Reappropriate has really done a lot of good interviewing work, as well as quoting extensively from primary source documents; there’s a lot more to this story, and Jenn’s post, than the quickpoints quoted above.
UPDATE: For more background on this story, read these three stories from the Tucson Weekly: November 2005 (about the charges being pressed against Cruz), March 2007 (about Cruz’s acquittal), and September 2007 (about the apparent lack of investigation into Cruz’s allegations of abuse of migrants).
It was March 2004 when U.S. Border Patrol Agent Ephraim Cruz first broke ranks, by reporting the grave mistreatment of immigrant detainees at the agency’s station in Douglas.
But despite Border Patrol claims to the contrary, an investigation of these allegations may never have occurred. Or if it did, perhaps the results were too embarrassing for public consumption.
Either way, after a dizzying two months and several dozen phone calls, the Tucson Weekly has been unable to learn which government agency actually conducted the probe–or whether the investigation transpired at all. This failure denotes either outright stonewalling by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security–parent agent to the Border Patrol–or a startling level of federal ineptitude.
I’m against permitting illegal aliens from coming into the U.S., but that doesn’t mean that mistreatment of people being detained for such is permissible. If this man truly witnessed mistreatment of detainees and did what he could to stop it, he was doing his duty both morally and legally and should be commended, not condemmed. I’m interested in this transportation charge, though. I’m also interested as to what the burden of proof is on such a thing for employment purposes. In other words, why was he found not guilty, and is this one of these deals where the burden of proof needed to justify a guilty finding is higher than the burden of proof needed to permit dismissal.
Understand that I’m not putting anything past the Border Patrol bureaucrats, and I’m perfectly willing to accept being shown that the charges were, in fact, bullshit and this guy’s being railroaded because he highlighted the inadequaces of his superiors.
Ron: I’ve updated the post with links to news stories about the charges and the acquittal. But you’ll really get the most details by reading Jenn’s post at Reappropriate in full.
Ephraim can’t afford to hire a lawyer, because he’s a poor student – but he’s also a nine-year department veteran? Border patrol agents start out at GS-11, which is a starting salary of $46k a year – assuming the guy’s never gotten a promotion and never gotten any kind of increment other than the automatic step increments for being a warm body, he earns (earned) a minimum of $60k/year.
That’s hardly a fortune but it’s also not the portrait of someone who just no way, no how can afford a lawyer. Something is fishy. The fact that he hasn’t been able to find a pro-bono lawyer to help him sends up another mackerel-colored flag.
As we all know, acquittal does not mean innocent.
Being a lawyer and all, I’m well qualified to comment on the “he can afford a lawyer” thing.
$60k yearly income? Shit, plenty of civil cases between individuals go over $60,000 in legal fees. Happens all the time.
It is–literally–impossible to even do the initial research for many clients for much under five grand, if you want to do a good job. Sure, you can cut corners if they’ve only got a $10,000 claim, and they’re willing to take the risk by saving the fees. But for something serious like this? There’s quite a bit one has to know, and find out. And that’s only the initial research, not what you actually need to go to trial.
Going to trial is rarely under 20,000 for a simple case. If I had to guess on this case (on the little posted above) I’d guess closer to $100,000-150,000. Or more.
Perhaps it’s less , but I doubt it. If you’re up against the U.S. government (free lawyering on their side) it isn’t a budget affair.
Simple math:
I don’t charge nearly this much, but anyone who would be qualified to take this probably charges ~ 300/hour. Every hour is billed–including travel time, interview time, writing time, deposition time, research time, and court time. Every 40 hours costs $12000. Every deposition adds $1000.
Look at the number of people just listed above. Ya really think this guy can afford to take it on, with a salary of $60k? I don’t think so.
He’s in the middle income “screw me” bracket: too rich to get free services, too rich to attrach pro bono folks, and too rich to get sympathy. But realistically he can’t afford what he needs.
Wow, maybe after we get done nationalizing the medical system we can turn our collective stink eye toward the legal system.
Ampersand, thank you VERY much for the post. Ephraim is working on such a time crunch right now that we appreciate any help we can get in trying to spread the word.
I will try to do my best to answer the questions raised in the comments, and I’ll be back as frequently as I can to continue to try and offer what I know. Ephraim is understandably too busy this week to take that on, but I spent several hours familiarizing myself with Ephraim’s case so that I feel I can address the issues that have been raised thus far.
RonF: I’m not clear on the burden of proof for dismissal charges, but that is why Ephraim needs a lawyer. Given the history of the case, we need an attorney who is willing to take on the case and look through all the history to understand what Ephraim’s option are.
The transportation charge was based on Terrazas’ status as an illegal immigrant. Charges that Ephraim faced (which, btw, meant he faced 20 years, not 20 months — an error I’ve corrected in the post) alleged that he was aware of Ms. Terrazas’ illegal status, and that he was attempting to smuggle her across the border. However, consider that the other off-duty agent in the car that night was not charged with anything relating to the incident, and that Terrazas was a well-known resident of Douglas who had interacted MORE CLOSELY with other Border Patrol Agents. Why, then, would Ephraim have been expected to know Ms. Terrazas’ immigration status when no other Agent was held to the same standard?
Of course, the question also remains whether or not an employee can be dismissed based on charges that a person has been acquitted of in court?
Robert: I don’t know the particulars of Ephraim’s finances but I can guarantee he doesn’t have the money for a lawyer. (see below)
ferg: Could you please elaborate? I’m just not a trained lawyer — how is acquittal not innocent?
Sailorman: Consultation that Ephraim has done with local lawyers have concluded that an initial out-of-pocket cost to retain a lawyer is $25,000
OK. Thanks for providing the direct information, Jenn. I stand corrected regarding his financial need.
how is acquittal not innocent?
Acquittal in a criminal case simply means “not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
There’s no acquittal in a civil case, but if you win than it is only “more likely than not” you were correct.
The criminal standard is quite high–probably close to 80-90% surety of guilt. Plenty of people are acquitted who are actually guilty; our system is set up that way on purpose. Moreover, there’s no “proof of innocence” in a typical trial. It doesn’t matter whether or not the defendant is INNOCENT, it matters whether or not she’s GUILTY.
Thanks Amp and Jenn!
Acquittal in a criminal case also doesn’t mean he can’t be fired after an administrative investigation. One doesn’t necessarily have to decide the other and evidence depending on the state’s laws on peace officer confidentiality or federal laws doesn’t necessary allow the two parts of the investigation to share information on it. And filing bogus criminal investigations, reopening internal investigations that were closed out, charging insubordination on some bogus thing, railroading whistle blowers not only isn’t unusual, it’s part of the sanctioned guide on how to punish whistleblowers in law enforcement. If you don’t see it, that’s odd.
Nothing about this is surprising.
I’m familiar with this situation in law enforcement. I have talked to primarily men of color in law enforcement agencies who have undergone similar experiences. None of them could afford attorneys. One of them couldn’t afford to make house payments and was barely able to avoid foreclosure on his home when he spent about eight months on administrative leave after he whistleblew. It didn’t help that he purchased his home through an incentive in financing program to encourage officers and fire fighters to live within the city limits. The guy who probably was making about $40,000 a year had to get food from his church to feed his family. We actually passed the hat for him for several months at meetings until we opened an account to accept contributions for him. He ended up getting another job but his prospective employers were allegedly threatened by other officers in his agency not to hire him. What’s called blackballing is a serious issue as well.
I think the longest that an officer I talked to spent on unpaid leave was almost two years until he was exonerated at his board of rights hearing. It started with him when he reported a drawing of a Black man being hung by a noose in the substation where he worked which was in the LAPD. Then came the reopened insubordination investigation and other trumped up stuff. Not that he didn’t have other allegations of misconduct but the trail of them after he reported the drawing was highly suspicious.
But if you break the “code of silence” that’s what happens, more often than not. Officers have been ostracized, threatened, harassed, beaten nearly to death and even killed as happened in New Orleans’ Police Department and nearly happened in Chicago’s police department in a recent murder for hire plot that was uncovered.
So when something bad happens including to a member of the public(and I’ve been working on a case this weekend that’s bad), that’s one reason among others why it’s so quiet. Heads turning the other way, claiming they didn’t see anything.
Which means that in marginal cases probably close to between 1 in 10 and 1 in 5 of those convicted are actually innocent.
Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya?