US vs. Jesus Diaz Case - UPDATED

Case Info: The LEOAC website is the best source of information when it comes to bad government persecutions by way of prosecutions in what we call the "War on Law Enforcement". As such, LEOAC is advocating for Jesus Enrique Diaz, Jr., a Border Patrol Agent who was maliciously prosecuted at the request of the Mexican Consul in Eagle Pass, Texas. After a thorough independent review, we have concluded that this case was done in order to hand the Mexican Government a Border Patrol agent's scalp. It was solely motivated by politics. The sole issue here is Agent Diaz was accused of pulling on the handcuffs of a doper while allegedly questioning him about a dope load. The U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas who prosecuted this case for the Department of In-Justice painted the doper as a poor victim selling drugs to make money for his family. When this case first began, between 1 and 2am Central Time on October 16, 2008, the U.S. Attorney was none other than Johnny Sutton who left DOJ on April 19, 2009. His Chief Deputy was appointed by Obama as U.S. Attorney and continued the prosecution.

Sutton previously prosecuted Border Patrol Agents Gary Brugman, Jose Compean, and Ignacio Ramos, FBI Special Agent in Charge Hardrick Crawford, Edwards County Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez, as well as Celerino 'Cele' Castillo a retired DEA Agent who blew the whistle on the Iran-Contra scandel.

Agent Diaz has served for 8+ years in the Border Patrol. His wife Diana has been a BP agent for 15 years and currently is a Field Operations Supervisor (FOS). They have 4 children together, including an infant born in March 2011. Mr. Diaz also has 2 children from his previous marriage. Numerous family members also serve in law enforcement in Texas and New Mexico.

We will soon post a number of documents including Agent Diaz' trial transcripts. (see bottom of page for documents, transcripts, and exclusive footage not available anywhere else).

To summarize, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton and his minions used an extremely weak charge, claiming the civil rights of a doper were violated. Sutton and his successor under the Obama Administration then put the full weight of the Justice Department behind this prosecution, solely to give the Mexican Government a Border Patrol Agent's scalp. Law enforcement officers commonly pull on a perps or suspects handcuffs. If this is the new standard for a 10 year prison sentence, then all departments either need to be questioned by the DOJ about this, or they need to support Agent Diaz' appeal and his family's quest for justice.

If retired Chief and current Congressman Silvestre Reyes, CBP Deputy Commissioner David Aguilar (Chief of the BP from 2004 to 2009), current COBP Mike Fisher, and every last manager at the Border Patrol have pulled on the handcuffs of a suspect, then they need to be held similarly accountable for this is the precedent that DOJ and the Federal Courts have established.

Open Letter from Director Charles L. Ryan Arizona Department of Corrections

Waiver - the Open letter is posted on www.thunderrolls.net - This group is not endorsing or approving this letter or any comments related to this link or letter.

Selective enforcement of those cases that the ADOC "feels" or "requires" referral to prosecutors.

FY # Inmates # Staff Total Assaults

2009 - 624 - 355 - 979

2010 - 744 - 342 - 1086

2011 - 276 - 141 - 417

Total - 1644 - 838 - 2482


Interesting Points to look at:

Director Ryan said “The outside criticism ignored or downplays the fact that the raw numbers of cases submitted for possible prosecution are higher since 2009 –

Response – Ryan ignores or downplays the fact that the conviction rate or % has dropped significantly in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Director Ryan said “Consider that the previous administration did not count or consider an assault against staff if the employee was not injured. I changed that definition, so that an assault against staff is considered an assault whether the employee was injured or not. We consider the law and the truth, not how low our statistics are interpreted”

Response – Ryan change in definition of the charge “assault” created higher numbers for justification for overtime and other political means, not to protect staff as these assault rates are higher than the previous administration but the pursuit to convict is weaker making his proclamation to be a “paper tiger” statement to please staff inferences.

How long would a Chief of Police last at this job if the conviction rate drops because of shoddy investigative means and lack of pursuit to protect all that are inside a prison community... One can speculate the police chief to be fired.

Not an analytical expert, I will allow the reader to figure out how those assaults are determined to be sufficient and justified to be considered for prosecution as the numbers of cases referred versus the number of assaults are divided by a wide margin that implies not all assaults are worthy of prosecution thus the director's commitment to staff safety is politically indifferent to all staff and just those he chooses to care for or provide attention to in his own ways that separate these victims into two groups, those who are valued and those not so valued. You decide which group these officers fall in but I can see the majority are not valued...

The director addressed this wide margin with the statement that “In addition to criminal prosecution procedures, ADC is served by the administrative disciplinary policy.” Ironically, he stated “Virtually all sustainable incidents of assault, assaultive behavior, or any other misconduct by inmates result in administrative sanctions being placed on the inmate.” The irony here is that these extra sanctions are meaningless to these types of inmates as he illustrated in his case with inmate Daniel Eason by giving him “a pass” by not prosecuting him.” His placement in the Enhanced Security unit is still not sufficient to manage him and thanks to the director, Eason now enjoys the label of “one of the most dangerous inmates in the ADOC.” Nothing like ranking and empowering this inmate more glory and making him public enemy number one and the most notable punk in the system.

I spoke to CO II Illingsworth throughout that entire episode and between him and his father, they wanted to press charges against him [Eason] but COII Illingsworth told me that the cost to prosecute was too high and not worth the efforts to bring additional time to this inmate. I spoke with him in the emergency room in Osborne Trauma Center, I spoke with him when he was released from the hospital and he was still dazed and in shock, I spoke with him while he was home recuperating, I spoke with him when he wasn’t ready to come back to work, I spoke with him when he came back and offered him a slot at Complex to re-integrate into the work place, I spoke to him when he was at work I admire this officer’s return to work as he endured a pure hell that should have never happened but that’s not part of the story. The only part told was how the inmate was not prosecuted for attempted murder. During those hours at the ER I saw only one lieutenant [Hawkins] his family and oh no, no Mr. Ryan, No warden, No deputy warden, just the two of us and his family.

Half truths are sometimes the same as lies but we will leave this lying dog lay on that front porch as those who actually work for a living [line staff] and those who risk it all [again line staff] listen to the director’s spiel of misconceptions and deflections of the facts to suit his own needs.

The prosecution of criminal cases in Arizona prisons 2005-2011

Fiscal Year                   # of cases        # cases insufficient evidence for prosecution

2005                             85                      54

2006                           109                      95

2007                             72                      51

2008                             96                     66

2009                          110                      68

2010                          120                      60

2011                           95                       55

Total                         687                     449

Yr         #Cases submitted    # cases declined    # cases resulting         # cases pending by pros in conviction

05      31                                   6                               24/77%                    1

06      14                                   0                               14/100%                  0

07      21                                   4                               17/81%                    0

08      30                                  7                                21/70%                   2

09      42                                 13                              25/60%                     4

10      60                                 14                             29/48%                    17

11      40                                  2                                     5                       33

          238                             46                               135/57%                 57                                


Fiscal Year  #Assaults on Inmates   #Assaults on Staff     Total Assaults

2009                624                               355                      979

2010                744                              342                     1086

2011                276                               141                      417

Total               1644                              838                    2482


Interesting Points to look at

Director Ryan said “The outside criticism ignored or downplays the fact that the raw numbers of cases submitted for possible prosecution are higher since 2009 –

Response – Ryan ignores or downplays the fact that the conviction rate or % has dropped significantly in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Director Ryan said “Consider that the previous administration did not count or consider an assault against staff if the employee was not injured. I changed that definition, so that an assault against staff is considered an assault whether the employee was injured or not. We consider the law and the truth, not how low our statistics are interpreted”

Response – Ryan change in definition of the charge “assault” created higher numbers for justification for overtime and other political means, not to protect staff as these assault rates are higher than the previous administration but the pursuit to convict is weaker making his proclamation to be a “paper tiger” statement to please staff inferences.

How long would a Chief of Police last at this job if the conviction rate drops because of shoddy investigative means and lack of pursuit to protect all that are inside a prison community.. One can speculate the Chief would be fired.

Open Letters – What purpose do they serve?

Reading one ‘open letter’ in particular, it prompted me to seek the answer as to why someone in a most powerful position would write an open letter to the masses that are under his command. Seeking to find his motive or his issue with those matters listed within this letter, it is important to look beyond the words and thoughts printed inside these letters that are circulated to an unlimited number of people and sometimes a nationwide effort to express their thoughts on paper.

The main reason for writing such a letter would be to put the ink to the paper and state or express the author’s position on a particular matter or a range of different subjects listed in the order of preference to the writer. In this case, the order is a significant indicator how the author perceives his interest versus those of his readers and makes it clear that his priority on these matters are clearly written and expressed. Unconsciously, this writer might have opened up a Pandora’s box situation that allows the readers to infer that although he is expressing his thoughts in an open letter format, he is attempting to get his message out there beyond those addressed and interested in his position or take of those matters listed.

Thus an open letter is an attempt to begin or initiate a mass communiqué with others outside the title of the heading on the letter. This is purely for political reasoning and is a passive attempt to attract the support or ideology of others not intended as the target group but rather a support group. This could of course backfire if the message is received by a opposing group that can use these contents of the letters as ammunition to fire back with a message that contradicts or conflicts with those words written in the open letter. Secondary reason for this attempt to begin a wider stroke of the pen to others is to diffuse thoughts of those ready to initiate harmful action against the man or the matter at hand. Thus this conscious awareness of the opposition’s stand on those issues written are more or less a way to express their credibility is valid and he is doing something about it with those steps outlined in his letter.

The open letter can and often used to criticize others points of view or their actions. This is a another way to avoid a slander or libel position and express those views as being false and untruthful comparing his own data versus those he seems as adversary to his position or management style. This opposition of ideology is intended to implant confusion and deflection to these matters put to ink and causes either a sense of dissatisfaction or a level of apathy creating a barrier or hesitation to participate in the controversy giving the author the psychological “high road” to establishing credibility and truth. Regardless of what is printed, the reader must be led away from other points of view in a sense of controlling the message and elevating the messenger to a more convincing level.

Reading many open letters, it may be pure conjecture that their attempt is to implant humor or some sort of simple attempt to announce a publicly endorsed message. For the most part, it is my understanding that an open letter is a high profile attempt to focus a broader sense of attention to the recipient(s) and asking them to follow the message contained within the letter, prompting these readers to take some kind of action. In many cases, this action would consort to some sort of collusion between the author and the readers stabilizing and solidifying his stand on those matters expressed.

My only recommendation to reading open letters is to consider the source and its credibility and purpose for writing such a message to begin with. At times, open letters are often a result of frustration, anger and disruption to the normal manner business is taken care of and those actions requested by the reader are mere attempts to stop these interruptions of conflicting ideas and conform to the one message written to all concerned.

This letter is posted on the website of the Thunder Rolls - it does not reflect the opinion or position of this group. The link is merely an attempt to access the letter referred to in this blog:

Link to letter -

http://www.thunderrolls.net/Directors_Open_Letter_to_ADC_Staff_2011-05-09.pdf

Why Arizona Prisons are Failing

Arizona prisons are hinged in a very perilous state of affairs under the current leadership of the director appointed by the governor. If it is one thing that has been clearly demonstrated time after time is the lack of consistency this prison system has failed to perform even its most rudimentary functions of all correctional practices, keep staff safe and prevent escapes, assaults and violence down inside prisons.

Of course, we can’t blame their failures entirely on the director as he must have help in gaining such an ill reputed standing of being incompetent and negligent in the manner his upper echelon staff performs their duties as outlined within the agency policies and procedures. No doubt, Arizona prisons are not one of the easiest prisons to manage but before the arrival of the current director and those appointments he has made since taking the reigns of the bureaucracy he has failed the citizens miserably in performance and expectations more so than in the past.

Running no doubt the most narrow-minded and inhumane prisons in this country, its current organizational practices range right up there with medieval operations and Abu Ghraib mentalities. Even the most routine events or tasks are compromised by failures to act properly and inflicting needless harm on prisoners that are at the mercy of the failed supervisors and administrators. Officers are left to fend for themselves as they get no assistance or guidance from managers or administrators interested in only two things as directed by their boss; to prevent escapes and to contain any internal damage with fear and retaliatory management methods that reflect serious issues inside a prison setting.

For example, in the Arizona Department of Corrections, an employee has an 80 % chance of being disciplined and found guilty of charges pressed without due process or conclusive evidence or allowances for mitigating circumstances. On the other hand, an inmate that assaults an officer has a 77 % chance of getting away with a physical attack on an employee as the agency has only pressed charges in 23 % of assaults on staff that occurs on the average of 1 per every 3 days of the year. This heavy hand on disciplining staff has resulted in poor morale and poor performance that contributes to the many operational failures incurred in the past two and a half years. Recent data gathered illustrating a contributing cause to this negative culture is the pervasiveness of the “blame” factor more than the “mistake” factor. This shows that operational standards are not followed because of poor executive and managerial oversight and accountability. Lapses in security, high levels of staff injuries and illness, absence of proper training and abuse of its employees are evident and not addressed by any of those in a position to manage change of these shortcomings. Employees are coming to work as they are assigned by thin rosters carrying with them additional stress and anxiety as the “statistics reveal the full depth of the department's apathy towards officers injured by inmates in the line of duty. In addition to losing benefits at six months, facing termination, being ignored by your administration after your sacrifice, and suffering physically and mentally.” In summary of these matters, there are other tangible factors not yet listed or explained that includes ignoring fair labor standards, equal opportunity laws, disability requirements, labor safety standards and many more that include a flawed fabric and methodology to work in. [1]

Data published by a well known retired correctional administrator reflected a very discerning fact that impacts the wellness and morale of every correctional employee that works inside a prison.  “Not only do you face permanent injury, disfigurement, loss of income, and the stress on your family life that fighting the Workman's Compensation system entails, you now know that the inmate(s) who hurt you have a less than 20% chance of being convicted of the crime. Actually, the last three years have been better than 20%, but 2006 and this year's statistics bring the average down. Say, a 23% chance of conviction, just to be fair to ADC and CIU.” [1]

This negative culture breeds contempt for orderly procedures, abuse of prisoners, neglect and attention to detail matters concerning inmate movement, counts, escapes, etc. their investigative tools are biased and poorly implemented and it is staff rather than the prisoner these investigators focus on when something goes wrong. Until it was brought to the director’s attention, a culture to “punish staff” existed that has somewhat backed off once the practice was revealed. Currently there are multiple issues at hand being totally ignored as another catastrophe such as the Lewis hostage situation is brewing inside Arizona prisons and nobody is paying attention to the smoke signals being sent out by those who have been victimized by the system.

Sources:

[1] www.thunderrolls.net

How to maintain Motivation & Morale for Change

During these times of controversy and who is telling the truth versus those trying to be politically correct, it has been very difficult to motivate people to do their best and the right thing. Ask yourself a simple question and look at the answer to find out if you are becoming a pessimist or remain to be a die hard optimist with these tough economic times and low morale within our country, our job and within the family circles. This question is very simply put. How many of you are really putting in the extra effort to enjoy a better quality of life? Then follow up with another question and ask yourself this one. How many of you are feeling the extra stress and anxiety at home or the workplace? If the answer to these two questions are negative in nature, you may need to pick up the pace a bit to get better at how you manage your life or job.


Obviously there are some things you can do to make it a better life for you and your family. You can begin to organize your thoughts to build up morale in the home and the workplace by knowing what it is you need to motivate those changes. Remember that motivation is a very powerful tool that can be used to create good things or bad things depending whether the thoughts are good or evil. The power and the desire require effort and the effort should be a united front [consistency] so that all things will work out well for all involved. Focusing on the good things and dealing with any adversities in a positive manner will keep you on track towards the goal.

The first element to increase the morale in life is to trust your own thinking and evaluation of the matters that surround and impact you. It is often said that self confidence and the inner trust of your own will bolster a positive feeling you can use to manage change. Share this trust and express how you see the task that lies in front of you and seek participants to join you in the challenge(s).

Before you start any such a task to change or motivate yourself or a group into a new directions you must make sure you have a plan. This plan should consist of expectations [group input] and clear up any misunderstandings immediately. Whether working as an individual or as work teams within the individuals assigned appoint a facilitator that can guide the group and step in or out as the progress is identified. Focus on creativity, independence in thinking and positive qualities to enhance motivation to participate to the fullest and most of all communicate effectively.

Communicate those things you want to do or implement. Managing change is important and should be shared with as many people that you can bring into the plan to transform the situations accordingly. Don’t try to do this by yourself as it will be a too heavy load to carry. Learn the effectiveness of writing and speaking the points with accuracy and personalization for each member of the change group. Draw them into a tighter circle so you can exemplify the trust in each of them and communicate accordingly. Seek dialogue and focus on the good ideas but never dispose of any bad ideas as they too are beneficial to this process. Be unselfish in you mannerism to gain ground on the project to change and motivate everyone’s lives with a celebration of some sort. Ask for help and talk things out. Stay away from promises and realize that change along the way is a key to success.

Give credit where credit is due and build on your progress with positivity that fuels the future and the result of this change. Don’t do all the talking as you let others talk. Be observant and look at body language as they speak to find consistency in their message and their actions. Do the same with every member of the group and if you see controversy, don’t be afraid to address it with a sincere approach for input or comments. Learn to rotate roles and delegate or disseminate the messages and the tasks. Let the trust factor guide you in decisions and do this judiciously so that a spirit of fairness exists within the work group or family circle. Don’t be afraid to allow the team to exercise their own strengths as they meet the expectations or those objectives discussed and identified. Many people tend to create a “loner” role that isolates them from the rest of the group and impairs their ability to delegate to others as they might not communicate their tasks with sufficient data or information.

As a group, let the successes and failures fall on the entire entity and not on any individual. Don’t be in a hurry to take sole responsibilities as the responsibility to succeed is everyone’s duty or task to accomplish one way or another. Don’t overload any one person in particular and give credit where credit is due. However, don’t let the credit syndrome overcome the spirit of the group as this is about teamwork and not individual accomplishments or glory. Don’t make excuses for others and don’t put the group in harm’s way by overloading the commitment to the tasks at hand.

Other elements of this task to motivate and change are ensuring positive relationships within the group and organization or family. Avoid competition or comparing of tasks to ruin the spirits designed to motive the group with positive energy. Ensure that when you identify the problems, you don’t become part of the problem. This may seem to be an obvious concern but conflict is the biggest factor of defeat among work groups or families. Treat each other with respect and don’t demean or patronize participants who are willing to share their input with others. Share as much as you can and formulate common ground that will solidify the findings or the points of views. Communicate clearly with each other and share the responsibilities to the fullest extent possible.

Credibility Gap

Whenever an agency is allowed to investigate their own business e.g. criminal violations of state or federal laws, staff misconduct, administrative flaws, mission failures or catastrophes, the effects of public affairs plays heavily into the disposition of every case to ensure no culpability is found on the agency but rather pushing the blame either to a mechanical system, a person or in some cases, a technology. Whenever an agency fails to follow their own doctrine and regulations in dealing with the nature of their business, they must be prepared to deal with the media to demonstrate fulfillment to the best of their ability and control.

In the meantime, during the investigations conducted, policies are changed and revised verbally with the written follow up as the public affairs person fabricates or organizes a written response to the matter at hand to show on going progress. This diversion is merely a stall tactic to cleanse the wounds or hands of those involved in the matter under investigation. Access to the media is controlled and official statements add up to no substance for a pre-determined amount of time giving the agency ample time to correct their in-house problems.

Policy changes are implemented as data is accumulative over short periods of time. Changes in policy were often accompanied by the realization within the administration that issues could have been handled in a more effective manner and adjustments are made to show improvements as if acting in good faith to manage the issues with high credibility and trust. Persons are sequestered and interviewed to make sure the language spoken and understood is one of the same. Drafts are written and reviewed and re-written if found to be deficient of the information requested or the manner it was talked about and taken into account to reflect consistency in all statements submitted. All personnel assigned are personally selected and approached with curt or abrupt conversations that give directions to a desired political outcome that sometimes includes verbal expressions of anger and frustration. This method occurs as employees still acquiesced to the pressures of higher authorities and proposed or pending enacted policy changes.

This process, a dichotomy in design if you will, between the need to convey honest and candid information to the media and their obvious unconditional loyalty to those they serve up above produces a much desired outcome that invariably fail to be effective as nothing was accomplished within this entire process except to openly express their findings as they are written. When the media loses faith in the production of the materials submitted by state agencies that refuse to operate under a policy of transparency, they in turn will begin to print their views based on their ability to relay important information to the public. Until such time their credibility gap is exposed, the media will accept their version of the incident without hesitation and report it accordingly on their evening news or newspapers.