Julia Davis Harassed by the Government She Wanted to Defend After 9-11
One woman bucked the norm and was subject to the wrath of the DHS- Julia Davis.
Officer Davis’ case landed in the courtroom and eventually she was able to expose the DHS and CBP outrageous behavior at the San Ysidro Port in San Diego, CA.
Davis joined CBP after the 9-11 attack on America in an effort to serve her country proudly (Davis is an immigrant). However, her enthusiasm and professionalism for her new law enforcement career turned to fear and anger when one of her Senior Supervisors at work, Kevin Crusilla, began to make inappropriate sexual advances. While harassing Davis, Crusilla continually reminded her that she was a probationary employee and during her first year of employment could be easily terminated at any time at management’s discretion.
At first Davis tried to quietly resolve the issue by asking other Supervisors and Port Directors to intervene without filing a formal complaint. She had no idea that her boss Crusilla was part of the “good ole boy” club and a close personal friend with the upper management. She naively counted on management to make the harassment stop, including Port Director William “Bruce” Ward, Assistant Port Director Orlando Chambers and Port Director Oscar Preciado.
Although Port Managers knew Crusilla had made unwanted sexual advances towards other women, Port Directors and the Crusilla friendship stopped any action against him. Officers at the Port knew that the system would retaliate against anyone reporting misconduct by the management. Davis, however, had no idea that the management was in a habit of attacking victims who dared to complain, instead of disciplining perpetrators. She would later discover that a victim of stalking, battery and harassment was subject to even greater danger by seeking protection from the agency.
DHS continued its harassment of the Davis household eventually using a Black Hawk helicopter and a couple of home invasions to break Davis and get her to stop with the sexual harassment charges. However, it would be DHS that would underestimate Davis and her willingness to fight for her God-given rights and the country she now called home.
In desperation Davis filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on May 10, 2003. Since the Department of Homeland Security was not taking any action to stop the harassment and to protect Davis from Crusilla’s harassment and stalking, she petitioned for and was granted first a temporary and then a permanent restraining order against Crusilla with the California Superior Court in Chula Vista, CA.
This would be her first legal victory against DHS, a company she admired and worked hard to be a part of. A final court decision was issued in September 2005, in the complaint of discrimination by former Customs and Border Protection Officer Davis against the Department of Homeland Security awarding her the amount of $225,000. The Judge ruled Davis established agency culpability of an egregious sort and has been awarded damages as well as attorney fees due to discrimination.
The Judge also ruled that no one could work under the conditions Davis was subjected to and said; “I find that based on the record in the case, complainant has established not only that the agency engaged in illegal conduct, but also that the conduct was intolerable to a reasonable person because it was especially humiliating and included unnecessary harassment. Secondly, I find that the complainant’s resignation was caused by, or in response to, the illegal treatment.”
In a statement Davis said, “This decision is an important step in safeguarding civil rights of federal employees and holding agencies accountable for failing to prevent and to timely curtail unconstitutional actions in the workplace.”
Unconstitutional indeed and something that happens throughout the United States at many ports of entry as confirmed by independent sources that shared their stories throughout all levels of government agencies.
WINS HIS CASE—Van de Kamp has been in the news recently in connection with a victory in the United States Supreme Court. He was a petitioner.
The respondent was one Thomas Lee Goldstein who had been imprisoned for 24 years on a murder conviction. Acting on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the U.S. District Court for the Central District found that prosecutors wrongfully used testimony of a jailhouse informer—who was, fittingly, named “Fink”—without disclosing to Goldstein’s attorney that the informer had received reduced sentences based on testimony for the prosecution in other cases. The court gave California authorities the choice of releasing Goldstein or re-trying him; the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed; Cooley’s office in 2004 opted to release the man.
The head of the agency that prosecuted Goldstein in 1980 was District Attorney John Van de Kamp and his chief deputy was Curt Livesay. Goldstein sued them under a federal civil rights statute.
U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz ruled that the defendants did not enjoy prosecutorial immunity because the acts complained of by Goldstein were administrative, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. But the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion handed down last Jan. 26, reversed. The opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer says:
An irony underlying the case was that one of the objectives of the Fair Commission was to prevent wrongful use of testimony by jailhouse snitches.
Van de Kamp recounts:
“I walked into the Supreme Court when the case was argued with Goldstein. Had a very nice, pleasant conversation. After the argument was over—I think it was fairly clear where the court seemed to be going—he came up to me and said, ‘I want to thank you for the work you’ve done in trying to prevent wrongful convictions.’ ”
Van de Kamp relates that depositions were taken of the deputy DA who prosecuted Goldstein and that the deputy swears to having had no knowledge of any promises to Fink in exchange for his testimony.
September 11 – Hollywood Producer/Director BJ Davis named Central District of California federal Judge A. Howard Matz as a co-Defendant with known mob affiliates, for aiding and abetting them in committing serious copyright fraud and other RICO violations (Case No. CV 09-1771-PHX-JAT).
After numerous attempts of extortion against Davis, known affiliates of the Bonanno crime family arranged a takeover of his company and an award-winning film.
After the feature’s premiere in 2005, when it received accolades and sterling film reviews, mobsters took possession of the footage, transported it across state lines and illegally re-edited the film for criminal gain. Scenes starring one of the mobsters were inserted, while the key portions of the film, sound and audio have been unlawfully modified or removed. The look and sound of the final creation betrays the fact that it was modified by amateurs, prompting scathing reviews from critics. Additionally, mafia henchmen created fraudulent critics to bash the film, in order to drive down the price of the stock, in a “poop and scoop” scheme of securities fraud.
The picture was subsequently, pulled from worldwide buyers and withdrawn from the 2006 Phoenix Film Festival, Beverly Hills Film Festival, USA Film Festival, Palm Beach Film Festival, Los Angeles Film Festival, San Diego Film Festival, Jackson Hole Film Festival, Houston-World Fest Film Festival due to litigation and harassment by the crime family of the late Salvatore “Bill” Bonanno and specifically Michael Paloma aka Saquella who was subsequently sentenced to federal prison because of Davis’ formal complaints to the FBI and SEC (United States v. Michael R. Saquella from the Eastern Federal District Court of Virginia Judge Leonie M. Brinkema presiding, Case No.1:07CR305-001). Saquella is now serving ten (10) years in federal prison for pillaging Davis’ company, Beverly Hills Film Studios, Inc., with 24,000 victims whom he defrauded of over $20 million dollars, as reflected in the Department of Justice Press Release, dated March 14, 2008.
BJ Davis was able to stop the extortion of his company, by making reports to the FBI, SEC and related law enforcement agencies, which resulted in convictions of certain key participants. However, when Davis sought justice in the courts, seeking to have his film restored to its original state and returned to its owners, Judge A. Howard Matz simply stated that it was only BJ Davis’ “opinion” as to whether there was actually mafia involvement. This statement was made in spite of standing federal convictions and letters from prosecutors that clearly identified Defendants to be deeply involved with the Bonanno crime family.
Matz failed to curtail the illegal re-editing of the exhibited and locked film by parties who had no right to engage in such actions.
In addition to the illegal takeover and re-editing of his film, Davis and his family were subjected to threats, attacks and acts of violence, prompting the issuance of restraining orders against the Godfather and his lieutenants. Due to Matz’s personal relationship with former Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner (who is involved in an unrelated pending case involving BJ Davis and his wife Julia Davis, a former CBP officer and whistleblower)
Matz concentrated his energies on attacking and harming the Davis’ under the color of law.
Matz has exerted the awesome powers and financial resources of the United States government to deny Davis his constitutional rights in contrived attempts to find Davis in contempt for defending his rights to a film he created, produced and directed.
Henry Louis Gates' Contempt Of Cop Emptywheel - At tonight's nationally televised press conference, a reporter asked President Obama a question about the July 16 arrest of famed Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Obama set off...
Contempt of Cop' by William Norman Grigg - The police are to the government as the edge is to the knife, insists sociologist David Bayley, who apparently couldn't explain why the typical...
Welcome to America Now step inside the jail cell - The audio exchange in this video was apparently recorded at the U.S. Canada border after a Canadian displayed contempt-of-cop towards the American law enforcement officer asking questions.
Contemptible police tactics - Cops raid the home of a licensed medical marijuana provider in Washington, handcuff the fourteen year old son and put a gun to his head, and search the nineteen year old daughter and take the contents of her mickey-mouse wallet.
How To Survive Traffic Stops in America, Submit, Instantly! - What the cops want is immediate obedience and submission. Many cops are ex-military and view the civilian motorists of America about like they viewed the hapless peasants of Iraq and Afghanistan, that is, with contempt, not as fellow citizens deserving of civility and respect. It is a possibly lethal mistake to do anything other than submit, instantly and obey! Or be ready to shoot first. But aim high.
SIDE BAR: '
