Wrongful Prosecution, Illegal Detention by ICE, and the Deportation of A US Citizen

Initially, DHS's allegation was that I was an alien, lawfully admitted as a tourist for the standard six months, but that I remained in the US beyond that (Count 1). After a couple of years, they realized there was no record of me ever entering the US or being issued a visa, so they changed their allegation to me being an alien who entered the US without being admitted - that is, I entered illegally (Count 2).

But their second allegation was problematic as well because DHS's and the State Department's own policies did not require and I-94 (entry document) to be issued to Canadians entering by land or sea. The State Department's policy requires that if a Canadian is encountered within the US and there is no record of their entry then that encounter is to be considered their time of entry. I argued this in the proceedings, but the Immigration Judge ignored it.

The proceedings dragged on from September 2007 through August 2009. In August 2009 the Immigration Judge ordered me removed, but DHS continued to detain me until August 2011.

At the end of August 2011, about a week before I could file a habeas petition under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) Zadvydas v. Davis, Wikipedia, ICE released me.

A year and a half later, after countless false allegations and reports from my ex-wife, ICE came to my home in Los Angeles, arrested me, and told me I can either fight my deportation and sit in custody indefinitely again, or just let them deport me to Canada. I told them, if Canada will accept me, then deport me there. A few weeks later, they put me on a plane to Vancouver, Canada.

In May 2008, the Immigration Judge told DHS that unless they could provide some form of biometric evidence (e.g. fingerprints) establishing I am the person from Canada they were insisting I was, then he was going to dismiss the case at the next hearing.

So ICE obtained, from the Toronto Police, the fingerprints and mugshot of the person they were accusing me of being. Those fingerprints and that mugshot did not match me. At that point, ICE and DHS knew, beyond all doubt, that I was not the person they had been detaining and trying to deport me as.

But rather than withdrawing their allegations and terminating the removal proceedings, the charged me with perjury and false claim of US citizenship, in the US District Court.

ICE's expectation was that the US Attorney would offer me a plea of time served, which I would obviously accept so I could get out of custody, then they would use that conviction as proof I am not a US citizen and deport me based on that.

But I declined the US Attorney's plea agreement and went to trial. I figured I had a US birth certificate and a social security number, the records from the Toronto Police proving I wasn't that person from Canada, so how could I possibly be convicted?

Well, the defense lawyer never bothered mentioning anything about me being born in the US, and I was convicted. I was sentenced to 24 months in prison, which I never actually served, then I was transferred back to ICE custody.

As I expected, DHS then used the false claim of US citizenship conviction as the proof I am not a US citizen. Under the doctrine of res judicata, the fact that I was convicted of that, barred the Immigration Court from even considering any evidence which would necessarily contradict it.

In 2007, while I was living in Phoenix, AZ, I was associating with some sketchy folks who may or may not have been involved in a forged check cashing scheme. One day I loaned my car to one of those sketchy folks. He attempted to cash one of those checks while he had my car. The police were called, questioned him, searched the car, and seized some of my property from the car.

Over the next couple of months, the detective refused to return my property to me. Eventually, I filed a complaint against him. A few days later, he began investigating me as the mastermind of the forgery scheme. Shortly after that, he came and arrested me for it.

During the interrogation, he tried to get me to provide information about the people involved in the operation. I declined to cooperate. He charged me with forgery and theft of means.

While fighting this case, I was held in custody. I quickly realized the defense lawyer was much more interested in trying to convince me I was guilty and to take a plea agreement. So, I represented myself.

When the police investigated, the witnesses who worked at that check cashing stores, supposedly positively identified me from a photo array. However, when the prosecutor's office interviewed those witnesses, the unequivocally admitted they didn't recognize me. The recordings of those interviews were, of course, disclosed to me.

Included in the prosecution's evidence were the checks which were actually cashed. The check cashing stores required the customer to impress an inked fingerprint on the check. I obtained a fingerprint analyst to prove it was not my fingerprint and to testify at the trial. The prosecution and the police refused to provide the analyst the checks so he could do his analysis. I complained to the court about this. The court ordered the prosecution to provide the checks to the analyst.

Shortly after the court ordered the prosecution to provide the fingerprint analyst the checks, the prosecutor dismissed the charges.

I also obtained a court appointed investigator to assist me with locating and interviewing witnesses. While the fingerprint fiasco was going on, there was also an issue with the investigator's telephone number suddenly being disconnected. Since the investigator was appointed by the court, the judge was very dismayed about that. He ordered the investigator to be present at the next appearance, to explain. The investigator falsely claimed his number had not, at any point, been out of service and that his other clients, who were also in the county jail, have been able to call him. However, the court appointed advisory counsel confirmed that the investigator's number was, in fact, out of service. The investigator became agitated and inadvertently admitted he had been communicating with the prosecution regarding the case. That was a major problem for the prosecution. The prosecutor stepped outside with the advisory counsel, for a few minutes and when they returned, the advisory counsel informed me the prosecutor was dropping all the charges. This was about a week before the trial was scheduled to begin.

I was detained in the county jail for about 13 months, fighting this case, and a week before the trial the prosecutor dropped all the charges. They had the fingerprint evidence all along; they had the witness interviews, where the witnesses admitted they didn't recognize me. So they knew, all along, that I was not the offender.