Jeffrey Obrist - Fraudulent Document Analysis Unit (FDAU) Officer, CBP
Blaine, WA 98230
Jeffrey Obrist was the US Customs and Border Protection Officer called in to conduct the interrogation of me following my 2019 arrest at the Peace Arch port of entry.
Obrist worked in the Fraudulent Documents Analysis Unit (FDAU) and the Admissibility Enforcement Unit (AEU) of CBP.
At the time of my arrest at the Peace Arch POE, Obrist was stationed a few miles away, at the Pacific Highway POE. He was called in to the Peace Arch POE, specifically to handle my case because, apparently, my situation was more than the officers on hand were able to handle TR 2019-08-13 p20l18-30.
I really have no issue with Obrist. I know that during the first half of the interrogation, he believed I was an alien who had previously been deported, had stolen the identity of a US citizen, and was trying to enter the US illegally using that stolen identity, so I understand his assertiveness. But he was professional and reasonable throughout the entire interrogation.
Obrist Really Tried to Get Me to Claim to Be A US Citizen,
But I Adamantly Refused
Prior to the interrogation beginning, the audio/video recording system in the interrogation room had already been turned on and Obrist can be heard discussing the case with another officer. During that interaction, Obrist can be heard telling the other officer he's not sure what's going to happen with me TR 2019-03-15 entry 3.
And shortly thereafter, Obrist tells the other officer I'm going to claim to be a US citizen. Then Obrist and the officer briefly discuss me previously making a claim of US citizenship and being prosecuted for it TR 2019-03-15 entries 3.5-3.8.
That's significant because throughout the entire interrogation, I adamantly refused to claim to be a US citizen. I would only say I was born in the US.
Obviously, having been born in the US would mean I am a US citizen, however stating you were born in the US is not the same as making a claim of US citizen as envisioned by 18 USC § 911. There is no criminal offense related to falsely claiming to have been born in the US. For that matter, there is no offense related to falsely claiming to be a US national, only to being a US citizen.
So, by stating in the interrogation, that I was born in the US I was implying I am a US citizen, but not such that I could be charged with making a false claim of US citizenship again.
Of course, if you really are as US citizen, whether by birth or otherwise, then your claim wouldn't be false and you wouldn't be violating §911 - regardless of the government's insistence that you were not born in the US and are not a US citizen.
Throughout the interrogation, Obrist repeatedly tried to pressure me into making a claim of US citizenship, and became quite heated about it at times. But I persisted in saying I am not making a claim of being a US citizen, I am only saying I was born in the US.
About half way through the interrogation (in terms of time, not questioning), Obrist's tone and demeanor seemed to change. He seemed to abandon his assertiveness and hostility, and he said he had to go speak with his supervisors to decide what to do with me TR 2019-03-15 entries 334-340. He left the room for about a half hour, leaving another officer to watch over me.
When Obrist returned, he was no longer hostile, aggressive, or adversarial. He was now polite, even hospitable at times, asking me if I was hungry, offering to get me some water, and complimenting my Docs (that's Doc Martens for those of you who don't know) TR 2019-03-15 entries 570-897.
Obrist and His Supervisor Express Concern About Me Going Before An Immigration Judge
Later, toward the end of the interrogation, Obrist's supervisor entered the room and discussed the status of the case with Obrist.
I couldn't hear what they were saying from where I was seated, however it was picked up the recording system.
They were speaking in sentence fragments, but the gist of the conversation seems to be expressing concern about me going before an Immigration Judge TR 2019-03-15 entries 691-701.
I believe the concern was that if I went before an Immigration Judge with the proof of having been born in the US that would reflect very poorly on DHS and the federal justice system. You know, being that I was convicted of falsely claiming to be a US citizen even though I was a US citizen; then being deported from the US twice ... even though I'm a US citizen.
While Obrist was out of the room, I spoke at length with Officer Carter about an assortment of topics TR 2019-03-15 entries 344-569. Just light conversation. Carter seemed very nice and very insightful on many things. I believe Obrist asked him to supervise me to try to get me talking openly while Obrist and his supervisor monitored from another room.
Obrist Testifies at One of My Trials
Obrist was later called as a witness for the prosecution at one of my subsequent trials in Canada. The trial was for a few probation violations, namely:
- leaving the province of BC without the permission of my probation officer;
- being within 100 meters of the US border; and
- failing to report for probation as directed.
I won't go into the details of that case and trial here. It's covered at length in the section dedicated to it 244069-5-BC. In here, I'm just going to talk about the few interesting parts of Obrist's testimony at that trial.
Direct-Examination By the Prosecution
The prosecution's purpose in calling Obrist was to testify that I was physically present at the US port of entry, which is entirely within the US, and therefore, I was clearly outside of BC at that time.
There was really very little of significance in the prosecutor's direct-examination of Obrist. Most of his questions were to lay foundation.
At one point in the direct-examination, Obrist mentioned that after the interrogation I was "transported to the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington, to see an Immigration Judge" TR 2019-08-13 p23l42-44. I mention that here, because it suggests that at the time of the interrogation, Obrist's understanding was that I would be going before an Immigration Judge, which is what I told him my objective was. If that's the case, it would mean Obrist was actually helping me with my goal of proving to the Immigration Court that I am a US citizen, I was deported illegally, and getting my removal order vacated.
Otherwise, the prosecutor showed Obrist an aerial photo of the Douglas and Peace Arch ports of entry, and used that to establish that the POE building where Obrist interacted with me was entirely within the US TR 2019-08-13 p24l39-p25l16.
Okay, so Obrist's testimony established I was, in fact, inside the US and, therefore, not in BC. A fact which wasn't at all in dispute.
That is, literally, all Obrist was dragged up to Canada to testify about. And what's really obnoxious about it is that I didn't even dispute any of that. It was completely unnecessary for the Canadian prosecution to have this US federal officer have to take time off of protecting the border to go to Canada to testify about an irrelevant issue which wasn't being disputed, in a case that was so petty and irrelevant that the BC government should not have spent even 10 minutes and $20 on.
Cross-Examination By Me
On cross-examination, I really only had one thing to establish: Whether Obrist had any knowledge of CBSA removing me from Canada at the Douglas port of entry which is why I was at the Peace Arch port of entry.
I asked Obrist where I was when he first laid eyes on me. He responded it was inside the secondary inspection building TR 2019-08-13 p25l29-39.
I asked him if he had any first-hand knowlege of how I came to be at the Peace Arch port of entry, or of my interactions with CBSA prior to crossing the border. He testified he had no knowledge of those matters TR 2019-08-13 p25l41-p26l20.
Since my defense on that case was that I turned myself in to CBSA at the Douglas port of entry, with the intention of being removed from Canada (or more technically, denied readmission from the port of entry), and that CBSA did, in fact, deny me re-entry, then the fact that I was at the Peace Arch port of entry, on the other side of the border, is irrelevant - I was there because I was effectively removed by CBSA; I did not leave BC voluntarily, I was removed by the government. And therefore, I didn't violate the probation conditions. But all of that is not relevant to this profile of Obrist, so if you want to know more about it go to the 244069-5-BC section.
So that's really all there is to say about Obrist's testimony at that criminal trial. A complete waste of his time and of the Canadian taxpayer's money.