Immigration judge rules House of Death informant should stay in U.S.

An immigration judge in the Twin Cities (the same Minnesota community recently traumatized by a deadly bridge collapse) today built a bridge to the truth in the House of Death.

The judge found in favor of Guillermo Ramirez Peyro, the U.S. government informant who played a key role in the House of Death carnage. The judge issued twin findings in Ramirez' deportation case that promise to be a major public-relations fiasco for the U.S. and Mexican governments. The judge’s ruling essentially implicates the government of Mexico in the narco-trafficking business and also keeps the spotlight focused on the U.S. government’s role in the House of Death mass murder in Juarez, Mexico.

Ramirez’ attorney, Jodi Goodwin, told Narco News that the case hinged on two critical questions. The first was whether Ramirez could “be reasonably located to another area of Mexico” outside of Juarez and the border region. The second was “whether or not the government [of Mexico] would acquiesce in the torture of Lalo [Ramirez’ nickname] by cartel figures.”
That’s right, the immigration judge had to determine whether the evidence presented by Ramirez’ attorney supported the contention that the Mexican government would essentially cooperate with narco-traffickers to assure retribution against Ramirez.

“The IJ [immigration judge] found they would,” Goodwin says.

The judge, Joseph Dierkes, also found, by logical consequence it would seem, that there would be nowhere in Mexico that Ramirez would now be safe from the clutches of government-enabled narco-assassins.

The judge’s ruling today creates a dilemma for the U.S. government. Ramirez is one of the few people left alive from the carnage in Juarez — despite the U.S. government’s efforts to the contrary — who can reveal the inside story of the House of Death across both sides of the border.

Former DEA Special Agent in Charge Sandalio Gonzalez, who blew the whistle on the U.S. government’s complicity in the House of Death murders, puts it this way:

The ruling by the immigration judge [today] solidifies the fiasco created by ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas [in San Antonio], and continues to expose the government cover-up that reaches DHS [Department of Homeland Security], the office of the Attorney General, and perhaps beyond.

This is a hot potato they don't know what to do with, a problem of their own making that makes it all the more urgent for Congress to intervene. If Congress continues to ignore this case, they would be abdicating their Constitutional responsibility as overseers of the Executive Branch, and we might as well throw in the towel as far as being a nation of laws.

For Ramirez, though, his journey through the U.S. legal system is far from over, despite today’s favorable ruling.

Goodwin says Ramirez will stay “locked up in solitary ‘protective custody’ while any appeals are in process.”

"Mr. Ramirez is back in the same legal position he was two years ago when Immigration Judge [Joseph] Dierkes first issued his decision granting him Convention Against Torture protection," she adds.

CYA Justice

Ramirez is now sitting in a U.S. prison, isolated for his own protection — and seemingly to also protect the interests of the U.S. government.

The U.S. government is seeking to deport Ramirez to Mexico because he is an illegal alien. But, ironically, for most of this decade, that same U.S. government seemingly had no problem employing Ramirez.

Ramirez is a former Mexican cop who became a paid U.S. government informant in 2000. He was part of an ICE operation that led to the torture and brutal murders of a dozen people who, in early 2004, were found buried in the backyard of a House in Juarez, Mexico.

Ramirez, while working for the U.S. government, assisted in carrying out those assassinations as part of his assignment — a fact he claims his ICE handlers were fully aware of, often in advance of the murders. In addition, a U.S. prosecutor confirms that high-level DHS and Justice Department officials approved Ramirez’ continued use as an informant after they became aware of the first House of Death murder, which took place in August 2003.

In light of these facts, the U.S. Attorney with ultimate oversight over the case (Johnny Sutton in San Antonio, Texas) in April 2005 cut a plea deal with the narco-trafficker (Heriberto Santillan Tabares) who ran the murder machine in Juarez, since dubbed the House of Death. The plea deal was seemingly an arrangement of convenience between narco-lord Santillan and U.S. Attorney Sutton.

The deal was bartered within a month of letter being published by Narco News, drafted by the then-head of DEA operations in El Paso, Texas, (Sandalio Gonzalez). That letter, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, essentially accused the U.S. government, in great detail, of being complicit in the House of Death murders.

As part of the plea deal — seemingly designed to avoid a public trial — Sutton agreed to drop all murder charges against Santillan. In addition, instead of investigating the allegations in Gonzalez’ letter, Sutton chose instead to use his pull within the Justice Department (he is a “dear friend” of President Bush) to silence and retaliate against the DEA commander, which eventually led to his early retirement.

Within a month of the April 2005 plea bargain, the DHS, which oversees ICE, initiated deportation proceedings against its informant, Ramirez.

Since then, Ramirez has made a number of startling revelations, including accusing the Mexican government of being an active player in the narco-trafficking world. In fact, Ramirez’ accomplices in the House of Death murders were Mexican police officers who worked for Santillan.

Ramirez claims that if the U.S. government is successful in deporting him back to Mexico, he, too, will be tortured and murdered by the narco-traffickers he betrayed. He argues further that the Mexican government will not protect him, as the U.S. government contends, but rather will, in fact, help to deliver him to his doom.

The Legal Trail

The DHS initiated the deportation proceedings against Ramirez in May 2005, according to court records. The DHS is arguing that the informant now faces no danger in Mexico despite the fact that he betrayed powerful members of the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes drug organization — for whom Santillan worked.

However, according to court records, the immigration judge in Ramirez’ case disagreed with the DHS’ contention that he would be safe in Mexico and in August 2005 granted him relief from deportation under Article III of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

The DHS appealed the immigration judge’s ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which is under the oversight of U.S. Attorney General — who has the power to appoint the board’s members and overrule or modify its decisions.

Perhaps predictably, the BIA sided with the DHS and reversed the ruling of the immigration judge (Dierkes of the U.S. Immigration Court in Bloomington, Minn.). That reversal forced the informant to take his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in an effort to forestall his deportation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that Ramirez’ deportation case should be returned to the Justice Department-controlled BIA for further proceedings.

The BIA, in turn, remanded the case back to start — to the original immigration judge — likely hoping that Judge Dierkes would revisit his verdict and find it in his career interest to issue a new ruling that protects the Justice Department’s interests in the House of Death case.

But demonstrating both courage and a dedication to justice that is rare among the political class of this nation, the judge did not oblige today.

It remains to be seen if other judges in that same legal system will support their colleague’s judicial valor in this case.

The government can now appeal Dierkes’ decision back to the BIA.

“If the BIA were to rule against us, then we would appeal [again] to the Eighth Circuit [Court of Appeals],” Goodwin says. “Beyond that, would be a discretionary appeal to the Supreme Court.”

When does it end?

“Good question,” Goodwin adds. “The government holds the key to his freedom in my opinion.”

But we, kind readers, hold the key to our opinions in this matter. That is a factor the fickle, election-checked Congress — both Democrats and Republicans alike — would be wise to bear in mind.

Stay tuned….