13-07-2009, 12:19 AM
by DEA agent Celle Castillo
SELECTIVE*PROSECUTION*
&*
MY*
DEATH*SENTENCE*
“You’ve*never*lived*till*you’ve*almost*
died.*For*those*who*fight*for*it,*Life*
has*a*flavor,*the*protected*will*never*
know.”*
Jim Lamotte & Ricardo Davis
Green Berets in Vietnam
July 04, 2009
As I stand in the cross hairs of those who target Second Amendment
freedoms, I realize that firearms trafficking is not the only grievance my
government holds against me.
Having spent years as an “expert witness” for the defense, I still believed
in our judicial process. The function of justice is to serve truth. However, at the
end of the day, it had become obvious that my case had become “business as
usual,” and that our government was continuing to tear the fabric of our
Constitution. Our Constitution was written to protect American citizens from our
government.
Many people have asked me why I did not contest my case in a jury trial.
To begin with, I did not have the funds to take my case to trial. I hired my
attorney, Roberto Eddie de la Garza on April 14, 2008, for a plea agreement for
approximately $5,000. In addition, my 84-year-old mother asked me to accept a
2
plea agreement because she did not want to pass away while her only son was
incarcerated.
On January 30, 2009, my appeal attorney filed an Amended Motion for
Release Pending Appeal citing my Sixth Amendment right to effective
representation.
In January of 2009, the Honorable Judge Royal Furgeson ordered a
hearing on the motion for February 19, 2009.
On February 18, 2009, Assistant United States Attorney, State Bar
24062266, Mark Roomberg, filed a Government’s Response to Defendant’s
Amended Motion for Release Pending Sentence.
On February 19, 2009, the Honorable Judge Royal Furgeson did not rule
on my motion for release pending appeal; he intended to wait until he had heard
a brief from my attorney for a later date. However Judge Furgeson did extend my
self-surrender date to July 20, 2009, giving me the opportunity to assist my
attorney on the case. The reason given was that my former attorney, de la
Garza, had hijacked my file from October of 2008 to February of 2009.
On October 22, 2008, on my attorney’s advise, I pled out to two counts:
Superseding Information:
Count One: Conspiracy to Traffic in firearms without a Firearms
License;
Count Two: Trafficking in Firearms without a License.
I was sentenced to 37 months incarceration. The Honorable Judge Royal
Furgeson had at first ordered my self-surrender to take place on March 5, 2008.
3
On June 18, 2009, Public Defender, Judy Fulmer Madewell, my appeal
attorney, filed a Appeal Brief with the Honorable Judge Royal Furgeson in
reference to my appeal on the grounds of Ineffective Counsel, “conflict of
interest” and the district court’s error in applying a four-level increase to the
offense level.
On June 30, 2009, the judge ordered a Setting Status Conference for July
10, 2009, ten days before my self-surrender date of July 20, 2009.
History*of*the*Case*
On March 6, 2008, I was illegally arrested in San Antonio, Texas by
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives Special Agent Allen Darilek
and ICE Special Agent Marcus Sexton. Their criminal complaint was filed on
March 05, 2008 and signed by United States Magistrate Judge, John W.
Primomo. The said complaint was authored by agent Darilek.
As I read the complaint, I could not believe the absurd and outlandish
allegations that he had sworn.
COUNT ONE: (PERJURY): The act or an instance of a person
deliberately making false or misleading statements while
under oath. AGENT Darilek swore to this criminal complaint.
First and foremost, Darilek alleged that I had conspired with a convicted
felon, Dominick Colombrito, in purchasing weapons at a gun show. I attempted
to convince Darilek that Mr. Colombrito was not a convicted felon. Indeed, he
4
sold weapons with a Federal license. I questioned Darilek as to whether Mr.
Colombrito had been taken into custody. Agent Darilek assured me that he had
been arrested. Darilek displayed a phony mug shot of Mr. Colombrito. On April
03, 2008, I received a telephone call from Mr. Colombrito assuring me that he
was not a convicted felon and that he has never been arrested by a federal
agency. In my opinion, agent Darilek manufactured this evidence because this
was the only way he could arrest me. I was not a prohibited person, and neither
was the individual who had sold me the weapons. Agent Darilek knowingly and
intentionally violated my constitutional rights. The question is did the Assistant
United State Attorney Mark Roomberg approve the complaint before it was
sworn to? According to the Domestic Operations Guidelines: “The United
States Attorney shall be consulted…shall be furnished progress reports of the
investigation at regular intervals to ASSURE APPROPRIATE PARTICIPATION
BY PROSECUTING OFFICIALS.
COUNT TWO: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT is a
procedural defense; via which, a defendant may argue that
they should not be held criminally liable for actions which may
have broken the law, because the prosecution acted in an
“inappropriate” or “unfair” manner. Such arguments may
involve allegations that the prosecution withheld evidence or
knowingly permitted false testimony.
Roomberg failed to report to the court and the defense that agent Darilek
had manufactured evidence in his complaint. The law is very clear. If a federal
employee receives information that another federal employee committed a
crime and fails to report it, he himself has just committee a crime.
de la Garza also failed to bring this information to the court.
5
COUNT THREE: CIVIL RIGHT VIOLATION (Fourth Amendment)
prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.
In the “end justifies the means,” BATFE agent Daniel Casey (McAllen
Field Office) conducted one of the most grievous atrocities any agent can
commit. On March 06, 2008, he illegally searched my residence by coercion.
He threatened the owner that if she did not give permission to search the house,
he was going to call the police, news media, and wait for my grandkids to get
home so they could witness the search. This allegation was made in front of the
other agents, which included ATF agent Robert Flores.
COUNT FOUR: SELECTIVE PROSECUTION is a procedural
defense in which a defendant argues that they should not be held
criminally liable for breaking the law, as the criminal justice system
discriminated against them by choosing to prosecute. In a claim of
selective prosecution, a defendant essentially argues that it is
irrelevant whether they are guilty of violating a law, but that the fact
of being prosecuted is based upon forbidden reasons. Such a
claim might, for example, entail an argument that persons of
different age, race, religion, or gender, were engaged in the same
illegal actions for which the defendant is being tried and were not
prosecuted, and that the defendant is only being prosecuted
because of a bias. In the U.S., this defense is based upon the 14th
Amendment, which requires that “nor shall any state deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
For several months the informant in this case, Jay LeMire, was not
arrested in my case until I threatened to expose it to the judge. The government
in an attempt to avoid this violation was forced to arrest LeMire. The injustice
becomes evident when you are made aware that LeMire received five years’
probation for the same violations I had been charged with.
6
COUNT FIVE: PERJURY
Another allegation on Darilek’s complaint was that I had sold weapons
outside the United States.
This allegation was without merit or any evidence whatsoever. U.S.
Magistrate John W. Primomo did not buy into it and dismissed the charge. Yet,
Judge FURGESON took the allegation to weigh against me into the federal
guideline on my sentencing.
Brief for the Defense/Appellant In the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit U.S. v. Celerino Castillo, III
Page 7: No. 08-51144
The Government admitted that it had no “proof that he was selling to
prohibited person.” “We suspect and we can’t prove that, yes, these guns
were going south of the border.”
On May 29, 2008, I met de la Garza at the Embassy Suites in McAllen,
Texas. de la Garza was in town for a meeting with head of the U.S. Attorney
Office in McAllen (Leonard). I questioned de la Garza what his business was
with the U.S. Attorney. Finally, de la Garza confessed that his son, Andrew de
la Garza, Criminal No. M-07-141-2 had been arrested on February 2007 in
South Texas by BATFE. He had been arrested for straw purchases and other
serious gun violations by the BATFE. I warned de la Garza that he needed to
address the court to see if there was a conflict of interest on his behalf. It was
later reveal that there were allegations that two BATFE agents Robert Flores
and Daniel Casey had been involved in both of our cases. See BATFE EF
7
3120.2 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION, prepared by SA Robert Flores, dated
03-06-08: on the consent search of my parent’s residence. Also see BATFE EF
3120.2 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION prepared by SA Daniel P. Casey dated
03-06-08 on the consent to search my residence. He assured me that there was
no conflict. This should have been my first red flag on what I suspected de la
Garza was up to. I also requested that he file a motion on Outrageous
Government Conduct in regard to the Criminal Complaint. Our lunch was cut
short; because he had the appointment at 1:30PM with the U.S. Attorney’s
Office. de la Garza admitted that both he and Leonard had gone to law school
together. He also stated that he had paid Jack Wolf $50,000.00 to make sure
that his son got off the criminal charge. As of this month de la Garza’s son is
down to one count of the 5 (five) counts he had originally been charged with.
COUNT SIX: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
I requested from my attorney a copy of the Grand Jury transcripts
concerning the criminal indictment, in other words, what agent DERILEK and
AUSA MARK Roomberg had testified to. I suspect the Government had failed to
turn over the Grand Jury transcripts on discovery for obvious reasons. de la
Garza assured me that there were no grand jury transcripts. That should have
been the second “red flag” for me, but I trusted de la Garza because our families
went way back in history. As you will learn later, I was deeply mistaken. de la
Garza continued to promise that he would file the Motions.
In June 2008, I pled out to the two counts of a federal indictment. Guilty
pleas in the absence of trial prevented the judicial search engine from finding out
what actually had happened, thus impeding the pursuit of truth. In other words, I
pled out to two bogus charges.
8
For this hearing, the government gave a heads up to a young female
reporter, who walks the halls of justice for last minute hearings on a Friday
afternoon. I noticed Roomberg texting on his cell phone. Within one hour after
my plea, it was on the radio airways. By the time, I got home, (four hours later) it
was on the local television station. The following morning it was in the local
newspaper. I certainly would love to pull Roomberg’s cell phone calls/texts to
see whom he was calling while in the courtroom. I certainly hope that this
information will be revealed when an inquiry is initiated on to how my case was
mishandled by the government.
Could there also have been a telephone call or text to AUSA Toni Trevino
of the McAllen office? She is the prosecutor who is now being sued by a former
client (defendant) because she withheld evidence in his trial, plus other serious
allegations where transcripts were allegedly altered. The federal courts of
appeals are just sick to death of prosecutorial misconduct and not being able to
do anything about it in the Bush administration. This is a shot across the
prosecution’s bow. This AUSA allegedly had a meltdown in federal judge Ricardo
Hinojosa’s courtroom. The allegation is that she started to cry because she had
lost a case and started blabbering, “it’s not fair”. She is the same AUSA who
had a DEA agent, Amanda Davis, commit perjury before a grand jury. This is a
fact. AUSA Trevino also allegedly received information that someone had
changed the transcripts of a hearing, where she had been chastised by a federal
judge for breaking a plea agreement. She failed to report this allegation to the
proper authorities for criminal investigation. AUSA Trevino is married to Benito
Trevino, an alleged former Republican chairman for Starr County. This picture
should start to get clearer. Trevino once forewarned a defense attorney (Shelby
Wisefield) that I had “best be careful in what I did against the government,
because she was going to do everything in her power to get me arrested.” The
picture is not that blurry now.
9
For the past several months, I vigorously attempted to address my
concerns to the government through my attorney. I felt my attorney was reluctant
to carry out my instructions.
On September 2008, I received a telephone call from de la Garza , who
stated that the government was dismissing my criminal case because they had
failed to charge me with the proper charges. According to Roomberg, their
office had allegedly been the first to initiated Polk vs. U.S. back in the late
1990s. So if they are the experts on Polk vs. US, why the eight months delay?
See attached copies of Transcripts “Guilty Plea” dated October 01,
2008: Page 2: Line 3.
Roomberg:
We filed a motion to dismiss – he’d pled guilty but we filed a motion to
dismiss indictment on a case that was pointed out to me…
Let me take one step back. The reason we superseded was because our
office discovered the Polk case, because the plain language of the statute with
which the defendant was initially charged…
UNITED STATES V POLK
“Precludes an individual being charged with [a crime] where the
straw purchaser bought a firearm for an individual who was not a
prohibited person [such as a convicted felon]. The defendant
[Castillo] was not a prohibited person.” [U.S. Attorney Johnny
Sutton]
Also see copies of Transcripts “Sentencing hearing dated October 22,
2008: Page 7: line 14
10
Go figure, on their intelligence or boldness of outrageous government
misconduct. If our government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for
law; it has invited every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
The record will reflect that this district office of the criminal law continues that the
“end justifies the means”. This would bring terrible retributions and unrestricted
secrecy in unlimited corruption, as we can clearly see in this case.
According to a New York Times, story dated April 15, 2009, by James C.
McKinley Jr. “At gun shows in these states, (Texas) there is even less regulation.
Private sellers, unlike licensed dealers, are not obligated to record the buyer’s
name, much less report the sale to the A.T.F.”
Roomberg made the case that I had not documented any names of the
people I had sold guns to. I was given four-level increase for trafficking in
firearms. My base offense level was 12 and then was shot up to 21.
On October 1, 2008, my case was dismissed – but not without a catch.
The government was now charging me with Trafficking in Guns without a License
and Aiding and Abetting. I had to scan through the new plea agreement while in
the courtroom. I asked my attorney how was it possible for the government to
prove that I sold a gun. There was never any evidence introduced concerning
who I had sold the guns too. He assured me that the government could do
whatever it wanted to do. He insisted that if I took the plea, I would more than
likely receive probation. This was the real deal, “the government would
dismiss my case, and my attorney would convince me to plea out.” I
argued my point to my attorney that in half of the gun shows, weapons are
routinely sold without a license. I soon learned that this was not the first time that
this U.S. Attorney’s Office had initiated a plea agreement in the courtroom. The
case was the involvement of the Lampazianie family who continue to proclaim
their innocence – despite the fact that they each pleaded guilty to one count of
conspiracy as part of a group plea bargain. The family members contend that
11
the plea deal was slapped together in the courtroom just before the trial was set
to begin in 1999. They also stress that the plea deal was not in writing and was
presented to them as a last-chance offer before facing a trial they believed was
fixed.
COUNT SEVEN: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT “one of the
most reprehensible things a prosecutor can do is to attempt to put
into evidence before the court his own altered evidence.”
Prior to signing the agreement, Roomberg stated to my attorney that if I
pled out to this new agreement that I would NOT lose my benefits. Roomberg
assured my attorney that Jay LeMire was pleading to a similar charge, so that he
would not lose his Social Security benefits. My attorney failed to obtain a written
entry of my benefits into the plea agreement. de la Garza also reported this
allegation to Bill Conroy’s story dated February 01, 2009 title, ‘Iran/Contra
whistleblower Cele Castillo increasingly looks like a framed man.’ “De La
Garza also claims that in a discussion outside the courtroom that day, Oct. 1,
Roomberg told him that Castillo would keep his benefits if he pled out to the new
charges. And De La Garza says he relayed that information to Castillo.”
THE COURT:
…I – I will not in any way do anything to remove your benefits, but there –
there are instances where I understand in a sentencing a federal judge
can remove the benefits that people receive from either Social Security,
the Veteran’s Administration, or whatever. It’s not my plan to do that. Is
the Government planning to ask for that?
Roomberg:
No, Your Honor, In fact, in regards to the superseding information, the reason
these particular charges were chosen, we could have picked another charge
causing a false entry – causing a licensed firearm dealer to put a false entry into
their book which would be more of a falsity crime and which to my understanding
from talking to other attorneys would have a far greater impact than this would
because it is not a criminal falsity crime, either the conspiracy or the one
12
substantive count, it would not impact on that. I’m not an expert on that. We’re
not taking a position on it. We’re certainly not seeking that from the Court. But
that – That’s our position.
THE COURT:
“Well, that’s helpful, and I would not order it anyway. You’ve earned
those benefits and –“
My attorney once again assured me that there was no reason why the judge
would not place me on probation, because I had no previous criminal record plus
my health issues would be brought into consideration. He stated that in the worst
scenario, I would get one year, and that I would self surrender in March of 2009.
Between the 1st and the 22 of October 2008, I checked with the
appropriate departments to recheck the status of my benefits. I checked with the
Office of Personal Management (OPM) Government office and they advised me
that I would lose every aspect of my retirement annuity if I was to be incarcerated
for a felony charge. Never to get those benefits again. This would include my
family’s health and life insurance (half a million dollars) that I have had for the
past 28 years. I then proceeded to check with the Veterans Administration
Benefits, and I was assured that my benefits would be reduced upon my
incarceration in excess of over 60 days for a felony conviction. The amount not
payable may be apportioned to a spouse, dependent children or parents. I finally
contacted the Social Security Administration about my benefits and asked them if
I was incarcerated, would I lose my benefits? The individual further stated that
no government court order would change their policy. The question remains as
to how Roomberg was able to make these far-fetched statements about me not
losing my benefits.
If our courts lose their authority and their rulings are
no longer respected, there will be no one left to
13
resolve the divisive issues that can rip the social fabric
apart…The courts are a safety valve without which no
democratic society can survive.
Rose E. Bird,
Chief Justice, Supreme Court of California
On October 13, 2008, when I realized that de la Garza had failed to
address my concerns to Judge Furgeson, I decided to address them in a letter to
Judge Furgeson. On Oct. 22, 2008, Judge Furgeson confirmed that he had
received my letter of concern.
On October 22, 2008, I presented myself for my arguments on my
sentencing before Judge Royal Furgeson. We proceeded to address our five
arguments (objections) that had been implemented in the new Pre Sentence
Investigation Report during an unprecedented two hour sentencing. (See
attachment.) My attorney and I (mostly I) vigorously attempted to make my case
on the following objections.
The first was my objection to the number of weapons that the government
said were involved. The government could only submit proof of the last eight
weapons that I had purchased from LeMire. Only four of those weapons were
seized. Roomberg kept using the phrases to support the government’s position
as “we believe,” “we think,” & “we suppose.” The judge, without any
evidence, rejected our arguments.
The second objection pertained to the trafficking in arms. We made the
argument that I did not sell to a prohibited person or to any person who was
going to commit a crime with the guns, criteria for trafficking in arms. Once
again, the government kept saying, “we believe,” “we think,” and “we
suppose.” The motion was denied. I started to realize that the cards were
stacked against me. It was not going to make a difference what we argued; all
our arguments were going to be denied.
14
See transcripts on “Sentencing” dated Oct. 22, 2008
Page 11; Line12:
Roomberg:
“…normally I don’t discuss this in open court but since the
defendant raised it himself at sentencing…”
Do we have proof that he was selling them to prohibited
persons? NO!
Clarification : This is what I said in regards to the above
statements by Roomberg at my sentencing.
Sentencing Transcripts October 22, 2008
Page 22; Line 14:
Castillo
…The Government knows who it is You know, and he didn’t –
didn’t break the law, you know. He bought them from me just like –
just like another person. He has a Texas driver’s license, he’s from
the U.S. and He’s not a prohibited person.
NEVER did I mention that I spoke with the government. My
explanation was that the surveillance units had seen me meeting
with the individual and had identified him through his license plate.
15
Roomberg knew exactly whom the guns went to, because the agents had
followed me on surveillance when I delivered the shotguns in January of 2008.
Two agents, from two different agencies, have written reports [REPORT OF
INVESTIGATION] to that effect. There is no doubt that the individual who took
custody of the guns did in no way shape or form break the law by taking custody
of the guns. He was not a prohibited person, and the government knew this to
be a fact. The agents on surveillance did not witness any guns changing hands
between this individual and me. This can be confirmed in their surveillance
report. Once again the judge ruled against us.
Page 29; Line 10:
Roomberg:
this person who has dealt the majority – what he just said in court, the
majority of these guns he only knows by a nickname and a general area
where they live … The types of guns are the FN 5.7 and the P 90
which are the assault rifles.”
Roomberg intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly lied to the court.
Roomberg lied about the P90 rifle. This weapon is nowhere to be
found in my case. He just plain made up this allegation.
PAGE 35; LINE 13
THE COURT:
You know, this – this is a close call for me. And it – I have struggled with it and
struggled with it…
16
THE COURT:
…I’m just struggling with this. It seems to me that – if I can have more
information about the purchaser, but the problem is that information seems to be
pretty elusive.
COUNT SEVEN : PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
My attorney argued that under relevant conduct issue of trafficking
that I should not be held accountable for conduct that has no basis or
evidence to support the allegations the government was making that I was
involved in trafficking of weapons outside the U.S. Roomberg addressed
to the court that the government had no idea who the guns went to and
that they only had a nickname to go by. Again, the judge ruled against us.
On February 19, 2009, before the Honorable Judge Royal Furgeson,
Roomberg made a serious allegation against me. He alleged, without any proof
to the court, that since by the time of my sentencing, the BATFE had traced two
of the weapon in my case to Mexico. He identified them in his GOVERNMENT
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’s AMENDED MOTION FOR RELEASE
PENDING SENTENCE; DATED February 18, 2009. The weapons in question
were one FN-5.7x28 and a P-90 assault rifle. I warned my attorney that the P-90
assault rifle had no bearing in my case. This weapon was never mentioned in
my case, and that I strongly believed that Roomberg was once again lying to the
court. Roomberg never mentioned if these weapons were used in a crime, just
that they had been found. If Roomberg documented the P-90 from BATFE
records indicating that they had been seized in Mexico, he should had gotten the
serial number and the model number. He failed to properly identify these
weapons with serial numbers. It is a good indication that he was just
manufacturing evidence. He never produced any identification for the courts.
When I was first arrested by BATFE, their first statement was that they had found
17
one of the guns in Mexico. This is the M.O that BATFE uses to intimidate a
citizen.
PAGE 9 of said motion: Governments Response to Defendant’s Motion
on February 19, 2009
Roomberg:
Based on new developments in this case, the government believes
the defendant is a danger to the community as well. As discussed at
sentencing, the government speculated that the guns which Defendant, a
resident who lived close to the Mexican border, was purchasing in San
Antonio via the straw purchaser were being smuggled to Mexico for
nefarious purposes. Since sentencing, B ATFE has traced and located
two of the “mata policias,” “cop killer,” weapons to Mexico-a FN 5.7 pistol
and a FN PS-90 assault rifle…
COUNT EIGHT: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Page 19: line16:
Roomberg:
“That’s what these cop killing guns are meant for. They are not meant
for shooting bambis. Bambi doesn’t wear flak jackets. You don’t need
armor piercing bullets to go hunting.”
During my sentencing and at the latest hearing, Roomberg testified on
numerous times the wrong amount of weapons I was being charged with. The
official total was 35 weapons. He mentioned nine (9) times that there were 32
18
guns. He also falsified testimony on numerous occasions that that the FN 5.7x28
used armor piercing rounds, which it does not. And about Bambi doesn’t wear
flak jackets, it certainly would not matter because flak jackets are not bullet proof.
According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, a flak jacket vest is a form of
protective clothing designed to provide protection from shrapnel and other
indirect low velocity projectiles. But how would Roomberg know, he never
served his country. I still own a Vietnam era flak jacket.
Page 20: line: 7
Madewell:
“I would like to point out that it had Government’s response they
mention two guns, one of which was an FN PS 90 assault rifle, but if you
will look in the plea agreement and the indictment, there’s no such weapon
mentioned. I would also like to point out that, although the prosecutor
called the guns at issue cop killers, that according to the ATF government
website, the FN 5.7, 5x7 times 28 – I don’t know to pronounce that part –
millimeter is imported into the United – approved for importation into the
United States as a sporting firearm. The ATF website also says the only
ammunition that is approved for import into the United States is not armor
piercing ammunition. That’s from the ATF’s own website.
On January 13, 2009, I received a telephone call from Mrs. Madewell who
advised me that she had for the past several months attempted to contact de la
Garza to no avail. She stated that she has not worked on my appeal because de
la Garza had not turned the file over to her or even spoken to him. She stated
however, that her secretary had contacted him on several occasions, and he had
promised to turn the file over to them. The appeal attorney claims that her office
has offered to send one of their investigators to pick up the file; but he has
19
declined. I asked her if he had to turn the file over to her, and she replied that
she thought that he did not have to. I then asked how she was going to file the
appeal. She stated that she could not file the appeal without knowing the proper
information. An appointment was made to meet with her the following week.
On March 03, 2009, two days, before my first self-surrender, I finally
received my attorney’s notes dated June 26, 2008. The notes will prove
without reasonable doubt that Roomberg lied to the court. The notes
indicate: the full name of the individual that purchased said weapons
from me. Second: The surveillance unit had identified his truck with paper
plates. (See surveillance reports by agents) And most significantly:
Roomberg made MapQuest from his computer in identifying the
individual.
COUNT NINE: OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE
The act by which one or more persons attempt to prevent, or do
prevent, the execution of lawful process.
At the prosecutor’s table, ICE agent Marcus Saxton sat in on both my
plea hearing and my sentencing, and he never once corrected
Roomberg’s untruthfulness. Case agent Allen Darilek never showed up
for my last three court proceedings.
The third objection was to relevant conduct-leadership role. The gun deals
were between the “snitch,” Jay LeMire, and me. The government once again
said such things as “we believe,” “we think,” and “we suppose.” If the
government was adamant about not knowing who I was giving the guns to, how
could there be leadership involvement between LeMire and myself? We were
once again denied.
20
Finally, we objected to a downward departure due to health and family under
Sec. H of the sentencing guidelines & USC 3553. After suffering Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder in Vietnam and with the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the judge found no compassion for a worn out veteran of three
wars, who had placed his life on the line on several occasions to preserve his
country. Apparently, it was not good enough. Denied.
The Honorable Judge Royal Furgeson strongly denied that I was a
danger to the community and so did the Probation Department.
There is no proof the 32 guns he bought through a straw purchaser
ended up in cartel hands. “BUT PROSECUTOR SAYS THAT CAN BE
ASSUMED BECAUSE MANY OF THEM – 23 WERE HANDGUNS THAT
CAN FIRE ARMOR-PIERCING AMMO…”
I was sentenced to 37 months incarceration for my actions. The judge was
kind enough to allow me to self-surrender and ordered my surrender for March
05, 2009. The question is how did de la Garza know this back in October 2008
as to when I was going to self-surrender in March?
The Narco News Story wrote a story in regards to the wrong doing in my
case reference to The United States Attorney’s Office. Both de la Garza and I
were interviewed for said story. I assumed it was okay to do the interview since
Roomberg had been interviewed by the San Antonio Express News on their
story of gun running, dated December 14, 2008. The next three entries are from
the newspaper story.
“We think the person sending the drugs and receiving the guns are
the same, “prosecutor Roomberg SAID.
21
Prosecutors and BATFE said they hadn’t heard of Castillo before
his arrest in March.
Both prosecutors and BATFE agents had heard of me prior to my arrest.
The BATFE had initiated their case against me back in January 2008. Anyone
in law enforcement knows that when you initiate a case on an individual, you run
his name with all other law enforcement agencies. Because of my activism, and
history as an “expert witness” for the defense, they certainly knew of me. I am
known in government files, believe me. Let’s not forget the sting operation with a
television station I was involved with against BATFE at the Pharr gun show in
January, 2008 of that year. The BATFE was allegedly committing racial profiling
against U.S. citizens.
As for the prosecutors not knowing me, well how soon do they forget that I
testified against the government, as an “expert witness,” in the same courtroom
where I was sentenced? It was the Arturo Gutierrez case. This was where the
government was caught breaking the law. This was a sting operation by the FBI
against several San Antonio police officers. In that case, the case FBI agent,
Manny Ramirez, was fired and his supervisors were asked to resign because of
their misconduct.
Now, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this cannot go unchecked. Let’s
see if we can use Roomberg’s allegations or (method of operation) that he used
to convict me without any proof. It was revealed that when de la Garza took on
my case, he was under investigation by the State Bar for stealing approximately
$30,000 from client/clients. For the complete story, visit the Texas State Bar web
site and read this month’s (January, 2008) magazine.
On October 15, 2008, de la Garza received a notice from the Texas State
Bar that he was to be suspended for one year, starting Nov. 01, 2008. On
October 22, 2008, de la Garza represented me at my sentencing, still deceiving
22
me concerning his investigation. During my sentencing, the judge had stated that
I have waived the right to appeal my sentencing. As for de la Garza, he had
misrepresented me from the very beginning.
On October 28, 2008, de la Garza emailed me and attached documents
for my appeal on my sentencing. A note on the email: “I am enclosing the
documents you have requested. Please print, sign where indicated and send to
the clerk of the court by FexEx or UPS so it gets there NO LATER THAN
FRIDAY. Appears you must personally sign the appeal, etc. The right hand
doesn’t know what the left hand is saying I guess. Questions-call me.
Remember you need to send the original NOTICE OF APPEAL and one copy
and the original Motion for Court appointed Attorney and Once Copy. Must sign
all in blue.” So, if I gave up the right to appeal my sentence, why is he
representing in filing for the appeal? In a phone call, he stated that Roomberg
had lied to the judge, and that he had the notes to prove he had lied.
In the middle of November of 2008, I spoke to my former attorney de la
Garza. He advised me that he had spoken to the attorney handling my appeal
case and that he had turned over the file to her.
On November 27, 2008, I received a letter from Public Defender appeal
attorney, Mrs. Judy Madewell advising me that she would be handling my appeal
on my sentencing. She also stated that if I needed any questions answered to
contact her.
Did Roomberg and de la Garza conspire in order to convict me? Did
Roomberg ignore the possibility of federal charges, if any, against de la Garza
on the State Bar’s findings? Numerous attempts by the Public Defender and me
were made to attempt to retrieve my files from de la Garza. He found no
concerns or worries that the government would take any action against him. They
are hoping that I will go to prison before this is exposed and then, while I am
23
inside, no one will listen, or I will have an accident. This may be, but all I can say
to these individuals is that I am going to become the nightmare that their mothers
warned them about.
So here we are at the end of this story. The question to some would be
why would the government come after me with bogus charges from the
beginning? During the 1980s, I became an Iran/Contra Whistleblower against
the Reagan/Bush administrations. I exposed our government as complicit in the
drug trade and ARMS SMUGGLING. There were several bi-partisan
investigations in both the House & Senate which confirmed my allegations
against the government. Several individuals involved in these atrocities were
convicted, but later pardoned. In addition, some of them continued to work for
the Bush administration. Why was I targeted by this outrageous government
conduct? I believe that U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton is very close to the Bush
family and I guess it was payback for all my allegations against the Bush family.
My fiasco has not been the only case the Sutton administration has
conducted. There is The House of Death, where he allowed an ICE informant to
get away with murdering several people in Mexico with the knowledge of their
handlers. There is also the prosecution of Border Patrol Agents Ramos and
Compean. Sutton allowed Osvaldo Davila to give false statements against the
agents. As Congressman Rohrabacher once said, “Davila is a rotten
habitual drug smuggler who should have been the target of Sutton’s
prosecution, instead of the agents.” Congressman Ted Poe also issued a
statement on the Ramos/Compean appeal following a hearing in the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals in New Orleans, LA: “Today, before the 5th Circuit Court of
Appeals, the US Attorney’s Office admitted that their star witness in the case
against the agents, ‘told some lies’. The rest of us call that perjury. The fact that
the prosecution knowingly allowed their witness to offer false testimony raises
even more red lags about the overzealous prosecution of this case.”
24
Many years ago, I took an oath to protect the Constitution of the United
States and have gladly fought for it on several occasions. I’ve continued this
struggle. However, this time it’s against the criminals in my own government. It
certainly looks like I have lost this battle for my freedom, but I am desperately
trying to learn to live to fight another day. It also bothers the heck out of me how
to interpret this struggle. There is no greater conflict in me than that with regard
to how I feel about my government and how my government feels about me. All I
have ever asked from the courts was for a chance to prove myself. I asked for a
fair and impartial opportunity, nothing that you yourself would not demand.
Bottom line, I was invited to a poker game and was handed a fixed deck. I was
brought up to believe by my father that beneath it all, we as Americans are
decent people, with an abiding scene of integrity and fair play.
Back in 1996, I went before a Federal Grand Jury in Washington D.C, the
same Grand Jury that former First Lady Hillary Clinton testified before on “White
Water.” I testified concerning the allegations of the CIA’s implication in murder,
drug trafficking, and arms smuggling. I was granted whistle blower status.
In 1996, a great and honorable man, the Rev. Joseph Lowery invited Dick
Gregory, Joe Madison, and me to a press conference at the National Press Club
in Washington, D.C. We were protesting the corruption in our government,
specifically within the CIA and DEA. On that day, all three of them went to jail for
me and for the American people. On January 20, 2009, I saw the Rev. Joseph
Lowery give the benediction at President’s Barack Obama’s swearing in. Come
July 20, 2009, it will be my turn to carry the cross and become a political prisoner
of my government. But before I do, I will utilize one other tool that has always
worked on my spirit. I will conduct a pilgrimage to the federal court house in San
Antonio.
I certainly know that I am nowhere close to Senator Ted Stevens’
accomplishments, but I strongly believe the Prosecutorial Misconduct was more
25
severe in my case than in his. The judge in his case, Judge Emmet Sullivan, has
now held Justice Department lawyers in contempt for their Misconduct and most
surprisingly has dismissed the case against Sen. Stevens. His investigation
could lead to reprimands, disbarment, even criminal charges. I certainly hope
that in the Senator’s case, it will lead to more widespread reform – or at least
more effective oversight – of a practice that is more common than many would
like to admit for quite human reasons. The United States Attorney General has
gone where few before him dared to go. Mr. Erik Holder should be praised for
his actions on Sen. Steven’s case.
Roomberg commented in the last hearing “that it was time for me to go to
jail, for my wrong doing.” That may be so, come July 20. In point of fact, our
country can only move forward with confidence if it first cleans its own house.
Checks and balances are what ordinary people are requesting in our judicial
system. Whether Roomberg is punished for his action or not, we must never,
ever accept the defense that somebody was “just following orders”.
On April 10, 2009, my official complaint against the Government was hand
carried by two veteran’s organization, Americas Last Patrol and a member of
American G-I Forum, to the Office of Inspector General and the Civil Rights
division at the Department of Justice. I am requesting an inquiry of how my case
was handled by the prosecution. However, I am fearful that the old guard is still
present that will protect Roomberg. All I know is that I don’t want to spend the
rest of my life in prison, questioning whether I should have done this or that.
On February 27, 2009, I was awarded 100% disability from the Veterans
Administration. However, it was not for my Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
(50%), but for my coronary artery disease. The VA revealed that I have chronic
recurring congestive heart failure with a two vessel coronary artery bypass graft.
They also reported that I have chronic congestive heart failure. Most significant I
have (left) ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction of less than 30
26
percent. My incarceration will certainly be my death sentence. But, most likely,
Roomberg would say, “they have doctors in prison.” I proudly served my
country, so individuals like Roomberg are able to have that freedom.
Democracy is two wolves & a lamb (Castillo)
voting on what to have for lunch. Freedom is
an armed lamb contesting the vote.
A true American patriot must always be ready to defend his country
against his Government. I certainly earned those rights, even if it means going to
jail.
Respectfully,
Celerino “Cele” Castillo, 3rd
Former DEA Agent
United States Army
Infantryman Viet-Nam
Powderburns@prodigy.net
W.W.W. Powderburns. Info
SELECTIVE*PROSECUTION*
&*
MY*
DEATH*SENTENCE*
“You’ve*never*lived*till*you’ve*almost*
died.*For*those*who*fight*for*it,*Life*
has*a*flavor,*the*protected*will*never*
know.”*
Jim Lamotte & Ricardo Davis
Green Berets in Vietnam
July 04, 2009
As I stand in the cross hairs of those who target Second Amendment
freedoms, I realize that firearms trafficking is not the only grievance my
government holds against me.
Having spent years as an “expert witness” for the defense, I still believed
in our judicial process. The function of justice is to serve truth. However, at the
end of the day, it had become obvious that my case had become “business as
usual,” and that our government was continuing to tear the fabric of our
Constitution. Our Constitution was written to protect American citizens from our
government.
Many people have asked me why I did not contest my case in a jury trial.
To begin with, I did not have the funds to take my case to trial. I hired my
attorney, Roberto Eddie de la Garza on April 14, 2008, for a plea agreement for
approximately $5,000. In addition, my 84-year-old mother asked me to accept a
2
plea agreement because she did not want to pass away while her only son was
incarcerated.
On January 30, 2009, my appeal attorney filed an Amended Motion for
Release Pending Appeal citing my Sixth Amendment right to effective
representation.
In January of 2009, the Honorable Judge Royal Furgeson ordered a
hearing on the motion for February 19, 2009.
On February 18, 2009, Assistant United States Attorney, State Bar
24062266, Mark Roomberg, filed a Government’s Response to Defendant’s
Amended Motion for Release Pending Sentence.
On February 19, 2009, the Honorable Judge Royal Furgeson did not rule
on my motion for release pending appeal; he intended to wait until he had heard
a brief from my attorney for a later date. However Judge Furgeson did extend my
self-surrender date to July 20, 2009, giving me the opportunity to assist my
attorney on the case. The reason given was that my former attorney, de la
Garza, had hijacked my file from October of 2008 to February of 2009.
On October 22, 2008, on my attorney’s advise, I pled out to two counts:
Superseding Information:
Count One: Conspiracy to Traffic in firearms without a Firearms
License;
Count Two: Trafficking in Firearms without a License.
I was sentenced to 37 months incarceration. The Honorable Judge Royal
Furgeson had at first ordered my self-surrender to take place on March 5, 2008.
3
On June 18, 2009, Public Defender, Judy Fulmer Madewell, my appeal
attorney, filed a Appeal Brief with the Honorable Judge Royal Furgeson in
reference to my appeal on the grounds of Ineffective Counsel, “conflict of
interest” and the district court’s error in applying a four-level increase to the
offense level.
On June 30, 2009, the judge ordered a Setting Status Conference for July
10, 2009, ten days before my self-surrender date of July 20, 2009.
History*of*the*Case*
On March 6, 2008, I was illegally arrested in San Antonio, Texas by
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives Special Agent Allen Darilek
and ICE Special Agent Marcus Sexton. Their criminal complaint was filed on
March 05, 2008 and signed by United States Magistrate Judge, John W.
Primomo. The said complaint was authored by agent Darilek.
As I read the complaint, I could not believe the absurd and outlandish
allegations that he had sworn.
COUNT ONE: (PERJURY): The act or an instance of a person
deliberately making false or misleading statements while
under oath. AGENT Darilek swore to this criminal complaint.
First and foremost, Darilek alleged that I had conspired with a convicted
felon, Dominick Colombrito, in purchasing weapons at a gun show. I attempted
to convince Darilek that Mr. Colombrito was not a convicted felon. Indeed, he
4
sold weapons with a Federal license. I questioned Darilek as to whether Mr.
Colombrito had been taken into custody. Agent Darilek assured me that he had
been arrested. Darilek displayed a phony mug shot of Mr. Colombrito. On April
03, 2008, I received a telephone call from Mr. Colombrito assuring me that he
was not a convicted felon and that he has never been arrested by a federal
agency. In my opinion, agent Darilek manufactured this evidence because this
was the only way he could arrest me. I was not a prohibited person, and neither
was the individual who had sold me the weapons. Agent Darilek knowingly and
intentionally violated my constitutional rights. The question is did the Assistant
United State Attorney Mark Roomberg approve the complaint before it was
sworn to? According to the Domestic Operations Guidelines: “The United
States Attorney shall be consulted…shall be furnished progress reports of the
investigation at regular intervals to ASSURE APPROPRIATE PARTICIPATION
BY PROSECUTING OFFICIALS.
COUNT TWO: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT is a
procedural defense; via which, a defendant may argue that
they should not be held criminally liable for actions which may
have broken the law, because the prosecution acted in an
“inappropriate” or “unfair” manner. Such arguments may
involve allegations that the prosecution withheld evidence or
knowingly permitted false testimony.
Roomberg failed to report to the court and the defense that agent Darilek
had manufactured evidence in his complaint. The law is very clear. If a federal
employee receives information that another federal employee committed a
crime and fails to report it, he himself has just committee a crime.
de la Garza also failed to bring this information to the court.
5
COUNT THREE: CIVIL RIGHT VIOLATION (Fourth Amendment)
prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.
In the “end justifies the means,” BATFE agent Daniel Casey (McAllen
Field Office) conducted one of the most grievous atrocities any agent can
commit. On March 06, 2008, he illegally searched my residence by coercion.
He threatened the owner that if she did not give permission to search the house,
he was going to call the police, news media, and wait for my grandkids to get
home so they could witness the search. This allegation was made in front of the
other agents, which included ATF agent Robert Flores.
COUNT FOUR: SELECTIVE PROSECUTION is a procedural
defense in which a defendant argues that they should not be held
criminally liable for breaking the law, as the criminal justice system
discriminated against them by choosing to prosecute. In a claim of
selective prosecution, a defendant essentially argues that it is
irrelevant whether they are guilty of violating a law, but that the fact
of being prosecuted is based upon forbidden reasons. Such a
claim might, for example, entail an argument that persons of
different age, race, religion, or gender, were engaged in the same
illegal actions for which the defendant is being tried and were not
prosecuted, and that the defendant is only being prosecuted
because of a bias. In the U.S., this defense is based upon the 14th
Amendment, which requires that “nor shall any state deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
For several months the informant in this case, Jay LeMire, was not
arrested in my case until I threatened to expose it to the judge. The government
in an attempt to avoid this violation was forced to arrest LeMire. The injustice
becomes evident when you are made aware that LeMire received five years’
probation for the same violations I had been charged with.
6
COUNT FIVE: PERJURY
Another allegation on Darilek’s complaint was that I had sold weapons
outside the United States.
This allegation was without merit or any evidence whatsoever. U.S.
Magistrate John W. Primomo did not buy into it and dismissed the charge. Yet,
Judge FURGESON took the allegation to weigh against me into the federal
guideline on my sentencing.
Brief for the Defense/Appellant In the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit U.S. v. Celerino Castillo, III
Page 7: No. 08-51144
The Government admitted that it had no “proof that he was selling to
prohibited person.” “We suspect and we can’t prove that, yes, these guns
were going south of the border.”
On May 29, 2008, I met de la Garza at the Embassy Suites in McAllen,
Texas. de la Garza was in town for a meeting with head of the U.S. Attorney
Office in McAllen (Leonard). I questioned de la Garza what his business was
with the U.S. Attorney. Finally, de la Garza confessed that his son, Andrew de
la Garza, Criminal No. M-07-141-2 had been arrested on February 2007 in
South Texas by BATFE. He had been arrested for straw purchases and other
serious gun violations by the BATFE. I warned de la Garza that he needed to
address the court to see if there was a conflict of interest on his behalf. It was
later reveal that there were allegations that two BATFE agents Robert Flores
and Daniel Casey had been involved in both of our cases. See BATFE EF
7
3120.2 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION, prepared by SA Robert Flores, dated
03-06-08: on the consent search of my parent’s residence. Also see BATFE EF
3120.2 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION prepared by SA Daniel P. Casey dated
03-06-08 on the consent to search my residence. He assured me that there was
no conflict. This should have been my first red flag on what I suspected de la
Garza was up to. I also requested that he file a motion on Outrageous
Government Conduct in regard to the Criminal Complaint. Our lunch was cut
short; because he had the appointment at 1:30PM with the U.S. Attorney’s
Office. de la Garza admitted that both he and Leonard had gone to law school
together. He also stated that he had paid Jack Wolf $50,000.00 to make sure
that his son got off the criminal charge. As of this month de la Garza’s son is
down to one count of the 5 (five) counts he had originally been charged with.
COUNT SIX: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
I requested from my attorney a copy of the Grand Jury transcripts
concerning the criminal indictment, in other words, what agent DERILEK and
AUSA MARK Roomberg had testified to. I suspect the Government had failed to
turn over the Grand Jury transcripts on discovery for obvious reasons. de la
Garza assured me that there were no grand jury transcripts. That should have
been the second “red flag” for me, but I trusted de la Garza because our families
went way back in history. As you will learn later, I was deeply mistaken. de la
Garza continued to promise that he would file the Motions.
In June 2008, I pled out to the two counts of a federal indictment. Guilty
pleas in the absence of trial prevented the judicial search engine from finding out
what actually had happened, thus impeding the pursuit of truth. In other words, I
pled out to two bogus charges.
8
For this hearing, the government gave a heads up to a young female
reporter, who walks the halls of justice for last minute hearings on a Friday
afternoon. I noticed Roomberg texting on his cell phone. Within one hour after
my plea, it was on the radio airways. By the time, I got home, (four hours later) it
was on the local television station. The following morning it was in the local
newspaper. I certainly would love to pull Roomberg’s cell phone calls/texts to
see whom he was calling while in the courtroom. I certainly hope that this
information will be revealed when an inquiry is initiated on to how my case was
mishandled by the government.
Could there also have been a telephone call or text to AUSA Toni Trevino
of the McAllen office? She is the prosecutor who is now being sued by a former
client (defendant) because she withheld evidence in his trial, plus other serious
allegations where transcripts were allegedly altered. The federal courts of
appeals are just sick to death of prosecutorial misconduct and not being able to
do anything about it in the Bush administration. This is a shot across the
prosecution’s bow. This AUSA allegedly had a meltdown in federal judge Ricardo
Hinojosa’s courtroom. The allegation is that she started to cry because she had
lost a case and started blabbering, “it’s not fair”. She is the same AUSA who
had a DEA agent, Amanda Davis, commit perjury before a grand jury. This is a
fact. AUSA Trevino also allegedly received information that someone had
changed the transcripts of a hearing, where she had been chastised by a federal
judge for breaking a plea agreement. She failed to report this allegation to the
proper authorities for criminal investigation. AUSA Trevino is married to Benito
Trevino, an alleged former Republican chairman for Starr County. This picture
should start to get clearer. Trevino once forewarned a defense attorney (Shelby
Wisefield) that I had “best be careful in what I did against the government,
because she was going to do everything in her power to get me arrested.” The
picture is not that blurry now.
9
For the past several months, I vigorously attempted to address my
concerns to the government through my attorney. I felt my attorney was reluctant
to carry out my instructions.
On September 2008, I received a telephone call from de la Garza , who
stated that the government was dismissing my criminal case because they had
failed to charge me with the proper charges. According to Roomberg, their
office had allegedly been the first to initiated Polk vs. U.S. back in the late
1990s. So if they are the experts on Polk vs. US, why the eight months delay?
See attached copies of Transcripts “Guilty Plea” dated October 01,
2008: Page 2: Line 3.
Roomberg:
We filed a motion to dismiss – he’d pled guilty but we filed a motion to
dismiss indictment on a case that was pointed out to me…
Let me take one step back. The reason we superseded was because our
office discovered the Polk case, because the plain language of the statute with
which the defendant was initially charged…
UNITED STATES V POLK
“Precludes an individual being charged with [a crime] where the
straw purchaser bought a firearm for an individual who was not a
prohibited person [such as a convicted felon]. The defendant
[Castillo] was not a prohibited person.” [U.S. Attorney Johnny
Sutton]
Also see copies of Transcripts “Sentencing hearing dated October 22,
2008: Page 7: line 14
10
Go figure, on their intelligence or boldness of outrageous government
misconduct. If our government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for
law; it has invited every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
The record will reflect that this district office of the criminal law continues that the
“end justifies the means”. This would bring terrible retributions and unrestricted
secrecy in unlimited corruption, as we can clearly see in this case.
According to a New York Times, story dated April 15, 2009, by James C.
McKinley Jr. “At gun shows in these states, (Texas) there is even less regulation.
Private sellers, unlike licensed dealers, are not obligated to record the buyer’s
name, much less report the sale to the A.T.F.”
Roomberg made the case that I had not documented any names of the
people I had sold guns to. I was given four-level increase for trafficking in
firearms. My base offense level was 12 and then was shot up to 21.
On October 1, 2008, my case was dismissed – but not without a catch.
The government was now charging me with Trafficking in Guns without a License
and Aiding and Abetting. I had to scan through the new plea agreement while in
the courtroom. I asked my attorney how was it possible for the government to
prove that I sold a gun. There was never any evidence introduced concerning
who I had sold the guns too. He assured me that the government could do
whatever it wanted to do. He insisted that if I took the plea, I would more than
likely receive probation. This was the real deal, “the government would
dismiss my case, and my attorney would convince me to plea out.” I
argued my point to my attorney that in half of the gun shows, weapons are
routinely sold without a license. I soon learned that this was not the first time that
this U.S. Attorney’s Office had initiated a plea agreement in the courtroom. The
case was the involvement of the Lampazianie family who continue to proclaim
their innocence – despite the fact that they each pleaded guilty to one count of
conspiracy as part of a group plea bargain. The family members contend that
11
the plea deal was slapped together in the courtroom just before the trial was set
to begin in 1999. They also stress that the plea deal was not in writing and was
presented to them as a last-chance offer before facing a trial they believed was
fixed.
COUNT SEVEN: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT “one of the
most reprehensible things a prosecutor can do is to attempt to put
into evidence before the court his own altered evidence.”
Prior to signing the agreement, Roomberg stated to my attorney that if I
pled out to this new agreement that I would NOT lose my benefits. Roomberg
assured my attorney that Jay LeMire was pleading to a similar charge, so that he
would not lose his Social Security benefits. My attorney failed to obtain a written
entry of my benefits into the plea agreement. de la Garza also reported this
allegation to Bill Conroy’s story dated February 01, 2009 title, ‘Iran/Contra
whistleblower Cele Castillo increasingly looks like a framed man.’ “De La
Garza also claims that in a discussion outside the courtroom that day, Oct. 1,
Roomberg told him that Castillo would keep his benefits if he pled out to the new
charges. And De La Garza says he relayed that information to Castillo.”
THE COURT:
…I – I will not in any way do anything to remove your benefits, but there –
there are instances where I understand in a sentencing a federal judge
can remove the benefits that people receive from either Social Security,
the Veteran’s Administration, or whatever. It’s not my plan to do that. Is
the Government planning to ask for that?
Roomberg:
No, Your Honor, In fact, in regards to the superseding information, the reason
these particular charges were chosen, we could have picked another charge
causing a false entry – causing a licensed firearm dealer to put a false entry into
their book which would be more of a falsity crime and which to my understanding
from talking to other attorneys would have a far greater impact than this would
because it is not a criminal falsity crime, either the conspiracy or the one
12
substantive count, it would not impact on that. I’m not an expert on that. We’re
not taking a position on it. We’re certainly not seeking that from the Court. But
that – That’s our position.
THE COURT:
“Well, that’s helpful, and I would not order it anyway. You’ve earned
those benefits and –“
My attorney once again assured me that there was no reason why the judge
would not place me on probation, because I had no previous criminal record plus
my health issues would be brought into consideration. He stated that in the worst
scenario, I would get one year, and that I would self surrender in March of 2009.
Between the 1st and the 22 of October 2008, I checked with the
appropriate departments to recheck the status of my benefits. I checked with the
Office of Personal Management (OPM) Government office and they advised me
that I would lose every aspect of my retirement annuity if I was to be incarcerated
for a felony charge. Never to get those benefits again. This would include my
family’s health and life insurance (half a million dollars) that I have had for the
past 28 years. I then proceeded to check with the Veterans Administration
Benefits, and I was assured that my benefits would be reduced upon my
incarceration in excess of over 60 days for a felony conviction. The amount not
payable may be apportioned to a spouse, dependent children or parents. I finally
contacted the Social Security Administration about my benefits and asked them if
I was incarcerated, would I lose my benefits? The individual further stated that
no government court order would change their policy. The question remains as
to how Roomberg was able to make these far-fetched statements about me not
losing my benefits.
If our courts lose their authority and their rulings are
no longer respected, there will be no one left to
13
resolve the divisive issues that can rip the social fabric
apart…The courts are a safety valve without which no
democratic society can survive.
Rose E. Bird,
Chief Justice, Supreme Court of California
On October 13, 2008, when I realized that de la Garza had failed to
address my concerns to Judge Furgeson, I decided to address them in a letter to
Judge Furgeson. On Oct. 22, 2008, Judge Furgeson confirmed that he had
received my letter of concern.
On October 22, 2008, I presented myself for my arguments on my
sentencing before Judge Royal Furgeson. We proceeded to address our five
arguments (objections) that had been implemented in the new Pre Sentence
Investigation Report during an unprecedented two hour sentencing. (See
attachment.) My attorney and I (mostly I) vigorously attempted to make my case
on the following objections.
The first was my objection to the number of weapons that the government
said were involved. The government could only submit proof of the last eight
weapons that I had purchased from LeMire. Only four of those weapons were
seized. Roomberg kept using the phrases to support the government’s position
as “we believe,” “we think,” & “we suppose.” The judge, without any
evidence, rejected our arguments.
The second objection pertained to the trafficking in arms. We made the
argument that I did not sell to a prohibited person or to any person who was
going to commit a crime with the guns, criteria for trafficking in arms. Once
again, the government kept saying, “we believe,” “we think,” and “we
suppose.” The motion was denied. I started to realize that the cards were
stacked against me. It was not going to make a difference what we argued; all
our arguments were going to be denied.
14
See transcripts on “Sentencing” dated Oct. 22, 2008
Page 11; Line12:
Roomberg:
“…normally I don’t discuss this in open court but since the
defendant raised it himself at sentencing…”
Do we have proof that he was selling them to prohibited
persons? NO!
Clarification : This is what I said in regards to the above
statements by Roomberg at my sentencing.
Sentencing Transcripts October 22, 2008
Page 22; Line 14:
Castillo
…The Government knows who it is You know, and he didn’t –
didn’t break the law, you know. He bought them from me just like –
just like another person. He has a Texas driver’s license, he’s from
the U.S. and He’s not a prohibited person.
NEVER did I mention that I spoke with the government. My
explanation was that the surveillance units had seen me meeting
with the individual and had identified him through his license plate.
15
Roomberg knew exactly whom the guns went to, because the agents had
followed me on surveillance when I delivered the shotguns in January of 2008.
Two agents, from two different agencies, have written reports [REPORT OF
INVESTIGATION] to that effect. There is no doubt that the individual who took
custody of the guns did in no way shape or form break the law by taking custody
of the guns. He was not a prohibited person, and the government knew this to
be a fact. The agents on surveillance did not witness any guns changing hands
between this individual and me. This can be confirmed in their surveillance
report. Once again the judge ruled against us.
Page 29; Line 10:
Roomberg:
this person who has dealt the majority – what he just said in court, the
majority of these guns he only knows by a nickname and a general area
where they live … The types of guns are the FN 5.7 and the P 90
which are the assault rifles.”
Roomberg intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly lied to the court.
Roomberg lied about the P90 rifle. This weapon is nowhere to be
found in my case. He just plain made up this allegation.
PAGE 35; LINE 13
THE COURT:
You know, this – this is a close call for me. And it – I have struggled with it and
struggled with it…
16
THE COURT:
…I’m just struggling with this. It seems to me that – if I can have more
information about the purchaser, but the problem is that information seems to be
pretty elusive.
COUNT SEVEN : PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
My attorney argued that under relevant conduct issue of trafficking
that I should not be held accountable for conduct that has no basis or
evidence to support the allegations the government was making that I was
involved in trafficking of weapons outside the U.S. Roomberg addressed
to the court that the government had no idea who the guns went to and
that they only had a nickname to go by. Again, the judge ruled against us.
On February 19, 2009, before the Honorable Judge Royal Furgeson,
Roomberg made a serious allegation against me. He alleged, without any proof
to the court, that since by the time of my sentencing, the BATFE had traced two
of the weapon in my case to Mexico. He identified them in his GOVERNMENT
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’s AMENDED MOTION FOR RELEASE
PENDING SENTENCE; DATED February 18, 2009. The weapons in question
were one FN-5.7x28 and a P-90 assault rifle. I warned my attorney that the P-90
assault rifle had no bearing in my case. This weapon was never mentioned in
my case, and that I strongly believed that Roomberg was once again lying to the
court. Roomberg never mentioned if these weapons were used in a crime, just
that they had been found. If Roomberg documented the P-90 from BATFE
records indicating that they had been seized in Mexico, he should had gotten the
serial number and the model number. He failed to properly identify these
weapons with serial numbers. It is a good indication that he was just
manufacturing evidence. He never produced any identification for the courts.
When I was first arrested by BATFE, their first statement was that they had found
17
one of the guns in Mexico. This is the M.O that BATFE uses to intimidate a
citizen.
PAGE 9 of said motion: Governments Response to Defendant’s Motion
on February 19, 2009
Roomberg:
Based on new developments in this case, the government believes
the defendant is a danger to the community as well. As discussed at
sentencing, the government speculated that the guns which Defendant, a
resident who lived close to the Mexican border, was purchasing in San
Antonio via the straw purchaser were being smuggled to Mexico for
nefarious purposes. Since sentencing, B ATFE has traced and located
two of the “mata policias,” “cop killer,” weapons to Mexico-a FN 5.7 pistol
and a FN PS-90 assault rifle…
COUNT EIGHT: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Page 19: line16:
Roomberg:
“That’s what these cop killing guns are meant for. They are not meant
for shooting bambis. Bambi doesn’t wear flak jackets. You don’t need
armor piercing bullets to go hunting.”
During my sentencing and at the latest hearing, Roomberg testified on
numerous times the wrong amount of weapons I was being charged with. The
official total was 35 weapons. He mentioned nine (9) times that there were 32
18
guns. He also falsified testimony on numerous occasions that that the FN 5.7x28
used armor piercing rounds, which it does not. And about Bambi doesn’t wear
flak jackets, it certainly would not matter because flak jackets are not bullet proof.
According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, a flak jacket vest is a form of
protective clothing designed to provide protection from shrapnel and other
indirect low velocity projectiles. But how would Roomberg know, he never
served his country. I still own a Vietnam era flak jacket.
Page 20: line: 7
Madewell:
“I would like to point out that it had Government’s response they
mention two guns, one of which was an FN PS 90 assault rifle, but if you
will look in the plea agreement and the indictment, there’s no such weapon
mentioned. I would also like to point out that, although the prosecutor
called the guns at issue cop killers, that according to the ATF government
website, the FN 5.7, 5x7 times 28 – I don’t know to pronounce that part –
millimeter is imported into the United – approved for importation into the
United States as a sporting firearm. The ATF website also says the only
ammunition that is approved for import into the United States is not armor
piercing ammunition. That’s from the ATF’s own website.
On January 13, 2009, I received a telephone call from Mrs. Madewell who
advised me that she had for the past several months attempted to contact de la
Garza to no avail. She stated that she has not worked on my appeal because de
la Garza had not turned the file over to her or even spoken to him. She stated
however, that her secretary had contacted him on several occasions, and he had
promised to turn the file over to them. The appeal attorney claims that her office
has offered to send one of their investigators to pick up the file; but he has
19
declined. I asked her if he had to turn the file over to her, and she replied that
she thought that he did not have to. I then asked how she was going to file the
appeal. She stated that she could not file the appeal without knowing the proper
information. An appointment was made to meet with her the following week.
On March 03, 2009, two days, before my first self-surrender, I finally
received my attorney’s notes dated June 26, 2008. The notes will prove
without reasonable doubt that Roomberg lied to the court. The notes
indicate: the full name of the individual that purchased said weapons
from me. Second: The surveillance unit had identified his truck with paper
plates. (See surveillance reports by agents) And most significantly:
Roomberg made MapQuest from his computer in identifying the
individual.
COUNT NINE: OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE
The act by which one or more persons attempt to prevent, or do
prevent, the execution of lawful process.
At the prosecutor’s table, ICE agent Marcus Saxton sat in on both my
plea hearing and my sentencing, and he never once corrected
Roomberg’s untruthfulness. Case agent Allen Darilek never showed up
for my last three court proceedings.
The third objection was to relevant conduct-leadership role. The gun deals
were between the “snitch,” Jay LeMire, and me. The government once again
said such things as “we believe,” “we think,” and “we suppose.” If the
government was adamant about not knowing who I was giving the guns to, how
could there be leadership involvement between LeMire and myself? We were
once again denied.
20
Finally, we objected to a downward departure due to health and family under
Sec. H of the sentencing guidelines & USC 3553. After suffering Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder in Vietnam and with the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the judge found no compassion for a worn out veteran of three
wars, who had placed his life on the line on several occasions to preserve his
country. Apparently, it was not good enough. Denied.
The Honorable Judge Royal Furgeson strongly denied that I was a
danger to the community and so did the Probation Department.
There is no proof the 32 guns he bought through a straw purchaser
ended up in cartel hands. “BUT PROSECUTOR SAYS THAT CAN BE
ASSUMED BECAUSE MANY OF THEM – 23 WERE HANDGUNS THAT
CAN FIRE ARMOR-PIERCING AMMO…”
I was sentenced to 37 months incarceration for my actions. The judge was
kind enough to allow me to self-surrender and ordered my surrender for March
05, 2009. The question is how did de la Garza know this back in October 2008
as to when I was going to self-surrender in March?
The Narco News Story wrote a story in regards to the wrong doing in my
case reference to The United States Attorney’s Office. Both de la Garza and I
were interviewed for said story. I assumed it was okay to do the interview since
Roomberg had been interviewed by the San Antonio Express News on their
story of gun running, dated December 14, 2008. The next three entries are from
the newspaper story.
“We think the person sending the drugs and receiving the guns are
the same, “prosecutor Roomberg SAID.
21
Prosecutors and BATFE said they hadn’t heard of Castillo before
his arrest in March.
Both prosecutors and BATFE agents had heard of me prior to my arrest.
The BATFE had initiated their case against me back in January 2008. Anyone
in law enforcement knows that when you initiate a case on an individual, you run
his name with all other law enforcement agencies. Because of my activism, and
history as an “expert witness” for the defense, they certainly knew of me. I am
known in government files, believe me. Let’s not forget the sting operation with a
television station I was involved with against BATFE at the Pharr gun show in
January, 2008 of that year. The BATFE was allegedly committing racial profiling
against U.S. citizens.
As for the prosecutors not knowing me, well how soon do they forget that I
testified against the government, as an “expert witness,” in the same courtroom
where I was sentenced? It was the Arturo Gutierrez case. This was where the
government was caught breaking the law. This was a sting operation by the FBI
against several San Antonio police officers. In that case, the case FBI agent,
Manny Ramirez, was fired and his supervisors were asked to resign because of
their misconduct.
Now, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this cannot go unchecked. Let’s
see if we can use Roomberg’s allegations or (method of operation) that he used
to convict me without any proof. It was revealed that when de la Garza took on
my case, he was under investigation by the State Bar for stealing approximately
$30,000 from client/clients. For the complete story, visit the Texas State Bar web
site and read this month’s (January, 2008) magazine.
On October 15, 2008, de la Garza received a notice from the Texas State
Bar that he was to be suspended for one year, starting Nov. 01, 2008. On
October 22, 2008, de la Garza represented me at my sentencing, still deceiving
22
me concerning his investigation. During my sentencing, the judge had stated that
I have waived the right to appeal my sentencing. As for de la Garza, he had
misrepresented me from the very beginning.
On October 28, 2008, de la Garza emailed me and attached documents
for my appeal on my sentencing. A note on the email: “I am enclosing the
documents you have requested. Please print, sign where indicated and send to
the clerk of the court by FexEx or UPS so it gets there NO LATER THAN
FRIDAY. Appears you must personally sign the appeal, etc. The right hand
doesn’t know what the left hand is saying I guess. Questions-call me.
Remember you need to send the original NOTICE OF APPEAL and one copy
and the original Motion for Court appointed Attorney and Once Copy. Must sign
all in blue.” So, if I gave up the right to appeal my sentence, why is he
representing in filing for the appeal? In a phone call, he stated that Roomberg
had lied to the judge, and that he had the notes to prove he had lied.
In the middle of November of 2008, I spoke to my former attorney de la
Garza. He advised me that he had spoken to the attorney handling my appeal
case and that he had turned over the file to her.
On November 27, 2008, I received a letter from Public Defender appeal
attorney, Mrs. Judy Madewell advising me that she would be handling my appeal
on my sentencing. She also stated that if I needed any questions answered to
contact her.
Did Roomberg and de la Garza conspire in order to convict me? Did
Roomberg ignore the possibility of federal charges, if any, against de la Garza
on the State Bar’s findings? Numerous attempts by the Public Defender and me
were made to attempt to retrieve my files from de la Garza. He found no
concerns or worries that the government would take any action against him. They
are hoping that I will go to prison before this is exposed and then, while I am
23
inside, no one will listen, or I will have an accident. This may be, but all I can say
to these individuals is that I am going to become the nightmare that their mothers
warned them about.
So here we are at the end of this story. The question to some would be
why would the government come after me with bogus charges from the
beginning? During the 1980s, I became an Iran/Contra Whistleblower against
the Reagan/Bush administrations. I exposed our government as complicit in the
drug trade and ARMS SMUGGLING. There were several bi-partisan
investigations in both the House & Senate which confirmed my allegations
against the government. Several individuals involved in these atrocities were
convicted, but later pardoned. In addition, some of them continued to work for
the Bush administration. Why was I targeted by this outrageous government
conduct? I believe that U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton is very close to the Bush
family and I guess it was payback for all my allegations against the Bush family.
My fiasco has not been the only case the Sutton administration has
conducted. There is The House of Death, where he allowed an ICE informant to
get away with murdering several people in Mexico with the knowledge of their
handlers. There is also the prosecution of Border Patrol Agents Ramos and
Compean. Sutton allowed Osvaldo Davila to give false statements against the
agents. As Congressman Rohrabacher once said, “Davila is a rotten
habitual drug smuggler who should have been the target of Sutton’s
prosecution, instead of the agents.” Congressman Ted Poe also issued a
statement on the Ramos/Compean appeal following a hearing in the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals in New Orleans, LA: “Today, before the 5th Circuit Court of
Appeals, the US Attorney’s Office admitted that their star witness in the case
against the agents, ‘told some lies’. The rest of us call that perjury. The fact that
the prosecution knowingly allowed their witness to offer false testimony raises
even more red lags about the overzealous prosecution of this case.”
24
Many years ago, I took an oath to protect the Constitution of the United
States and have gladly fought for it on several occasions. I’ve continued this
struggle. However, this time it’s against the criminals in my own government. It
certainly looks like I have lost this battle for my freedom, but I am desperately
trying to learn to live to fight another day. It also bothers the heck out of me how
to interpret this struggle. There is no greater conflict in me than that with regard
to how I feel about my government and how my government feels about me. All I
have ever asked from the courts was for a chance to prove myself. I asked for a
fair and impartial opportunity, nothing that you yourself would not demand.
Bottom line, I was invited to a poker game and was handed a fixed deck. I was
brought up to believe by my father that beneath it all, we as Americans are
decent people, with an abiding scene of integrity and fair play.
Back in 1996, I went before a Federal Grand Jury in Washington D.C, the
same Grand Jury that former First Lady Hillary Clinton testified before on “White
Water.” I testified concerning the allegations of the CIA’s implication in murder,
drug trafficking, and arms smuggling. I was granted whistle blower status.
In 1996, a great and honorable man, the Rev. Joseph Lowery invited Dick
Gregory, Joe Madison, and me to a press conference at the National Press Club
in Washington, D.C. We were protesting the corruption in our government,
specifically within the CIA and DEA. On that day, all three of them went to jail for
me and for the American people. On January 20, 2009, I saw the Rev. Joseph
Lowery give the benediction at President’s Barack Obama’s swearing in. Come
July 20, 2009, it will be my turn to carry the cross and become a political prisoner
of my government. But before I do, I will utilize one other tool that has always
worked on my spirit. I will conduct a pilgrimage to the federal court house in San
Antonio.
I certainly know that I am nowhere close to Senator Ted Stevens’
accomplishments, but I strongly believe the Prosecutorial Misconduct was more
25
severe in my case than in his. The judge in his case, Judge Emmet Sullivan, has
now held Justice Department lawyers in contempt for their Misconduct and most
surprisingly has dismissed the case against Sen. Stevens. His investigation
could lead to reprimands, disbarment, even criminal charges. I certainly hope
that in the Senator’s case, it will lead to more widespread reform – or at least
more effective oversight – of a practice that is more common than many would
like to admit for quite human reasons. The United States Attorney General has
gone where few before him dared to go. Mr. Erik Holder should be praised for
his actions on Sen. Steven’s case.
Roomberg commented in the last hearing “that it was time for me to go to
jail, for my wrong doing.” That may be so, come July 20. In point of fact, our
country can only move forward with confidence if it first cleans its own house.
Checks and balances are what ordinary people are requesting in our judicial
system. Whether Roomberg is punished for his action or not, we must never,
ever accept the defense that somebody was “just following orders”.
On April 10, 2009, my official complaint against the Government was hand
carried by two veteran’s organization, Americas Last Patrol and a member of
American G-I Forum, to the Office of Inspector General and the Civil Rights
division at the Department of Justice. I am requesting an inquiry of how my case
was handled by the prosecution. However, I am fearful that the old guard is still
present that will protect Roomberg. All I know is that I don’t want to spend the
rest of my life in prison, questioning whether I should have done this or that.
On February 27, 2009, I was awarded 100% disability from the Veterans
Administration. However, it was not for my Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
(50%), but for my coronary artery disease. The VA revealed that I have chronic
recurring congestive heart failure with a two vessel coronary artery bypass graft.
They also reported that I have chronic congestive heart failure. Most significant I
have (left) ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction of less than 30
26
percent. My incarceration will certainly be my death sentence. But, most likely,
Roomberg would say, “they have doctors in prison.” I proudly served my
country, so individuals like Roomberg are able to have that freedom.
Democracy is two wolves & a lamb (Castillo)
voting on what to have for lunch. Freedom is
an armed lamb contesting the vote.
A true American patriot must always be ready to defend his country
against his Government. I certainly earned those rights, even if it means going to
jail.
Respectfully,
Celerino “Cele” Castillo, 3rd
Former DEA Agent
United States Army
Infantryman Viet-Nam
Powderburns@prodigy.net
W.W.W. Powderburns. Info