Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Snitch whose crimes were tolerated by feds to be extradited to Mexico

Gathering information from informants is a dicey game - police are dealing with criminals who almost always have their own agenda. The case of Guillermo Eduardo Ramirez Peyro provides perhaps the best example since Whitey Bulger of how law enforcement's use of confidential informants can tolerate or encourage major crimes, sometimes worse than the ones they're helping investigate.

US authorities intend to extradite Peyro for 12 murders committed in Ciudad Juarez while he was working as an agent of US Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), but according to an attorney for family members of Peyro's alleged murder victims, "The U.S. government wants him to stay hidden, so by extraditing him, he in effect disappears in Mexico and the U.S. government wipes its hands clean." Here's more background on the case from the Dallas Morning News last month ("US expected to extradite drug defendant from Mexico," Mar. 3):

Mexican authorities have a standing warrant for Ramirez Peyro in connection with the Jan. 2002 discovery of 12 bodies in the back yard of a suburban Ciudad Juarez home.

According to documents and transcripts, Ramirez Peyro had the keys to the house where the victims were executed. He assigned corrupt policemen their roles in several killings, going so far as to recommend how best to eliminate the victims, whether by shooting or by suffocation.

He called in gravediggers to bury bodies, paid off the killers and notified his contact that the job was done. He described the killings as carne asadas, or barbecues.

In at least one of case, U.S. officials said, agency supervisors had been notified ahead of time and listened in on an open cell-phone line as the killing took place, an allegation that ICE authorities have privately denied. ICE officials also say they had limited knowledge of Ramirez Peyro's alleged criminal activities.

So far, ICE's internal investigation has led to the removal or transfer of several officials. Top supervisors Giovanni Gaudioso and Patricia Kramer were transferred to Washington from El Paso. Kramer resigned under pressure last October, U.S. officials said.

Two agents were suspended without pay for about a month. Another remains on an extended leave of absence and at least four directors have come and gone over the past two years.

Even so, said Sandalio Gonzalez, the former special agent in charge of the El Paso field division of the Drug Enforcement Administration - who blew the whistle on ICE - Congress hasn't shown any interest in investigating the agency.

Gonzalez said he has met twice with Senate committee investigators with no results. ...

"The real question is who polices the executive branch of government," said Gonzalez. "It's Congress' job, and they have done nothing."

Thanks to Rebeccah Bernhardt for pointing this out to me.


Anonymous said...


Now you're in my arena.

Sandy Gonzalez represents someone who benefited from not following rules and then using not following them when they didn't benefit him.

Gonzalez doesn't even speak good english let alone the truth but his cause isn't without merit.

DEA has well established rules for dealing with informants but here's what happens in the BLUR game and here's why it won't be enforced.

Gonzalez and all of his type go from DEA office to DEA office and spread the word about how we (DEA) don't have the perfect way of doing things. They open the door to interpretations of rules that were based on MISTAKES not successes. You see DEA Agents that followed the rules appreciate why they're there and know how they came to be.

The compromise doesn't occur because DEA Agents don't know the rules, the compromise occurs because some DEA Agent who has worked in New York compromised the DEA rules daily in New York then got into an investigation where the DEA rules without exception apply. It's the exception that happens daily not the rule and it happens because shit-birds like Gonzalez get promoted for numbers that were produced by daily compromise.

DEA had a long tradition of accomplishment and their rules were developed based on the mistakes and lives of very honorable people. You would think the Agency would understand that those sacrifices not successes should be setting the standard but secretly they don't.

I've said it before and I'll say it now. Tulia was not an anomoly and when you get into DECEIT, DEA is the mothership of lies and corruption.

Anonymous said...


Forgot to mention something. Gonzalez was an Associate SAC for DEA in Miami. He and the SAC, Vince Mazzilli (a real piece of work) were co-captians of a MAJOR BLUR.

These two secretly preach about the importance of compromise then when the Agents compromise, these two openly spout the importance of rules.

Gonzalez said Mazzilli covered up for some white Agents who stole some cocaine. Gonzalez stood up for the Hispanic Agents and DEA did what DEA does best: Transfer the problem so the problem continuously exists just somewhere else.

I have no doubt, this snitch will tell everyone that he killed someone and the U.S. Government knew he was doing it. I don't doubt for one minute that several of the people handling him knew but here's where the BLUR comes in handy.

If four or five agencies with different jurisdictions got together and worked this guy, there's four or five targets or more to point to for blame. Following the finger will wear everyone down until it disappears and no one cares. It's the benefit of that kind of cooperation that got Gonzalez promoted. It serves him right, it's his demise.

Anonymous said...

Good Lord! Was this the "House of Death" I read about on the DEAWatch Website?

Anonymous said...


You got it but before Gonzalez wrote a letter to the U.S. Attorney, Gonzalez was involved in a situation himself in Miami that predates this but it bears some relevance.

The "House of Death" is a very interesting story but I wish someone else besides Gonzalez was the button.

Catonya said...

There was a news report within the last couple weeks about something -it was unrelated to this - but along the same lines. I searched for a couple hours this morning and now can't find it of course.

maybe someone will recognize it and post back a link.

the short of it- a 3 judge panel ruled that a man had waited too late to sue the ?FBI? for endangering the lives of his family approximately 3 months ago. The man was the key witness in a trial against a ?mobster? - investigators informed the mobster of the witnesses home address. Witness and family were visited in their home by the mobster who held them at gunpoint, threatening their lives.

The judges said the witness could have sued when he was in danger, but now that the danger was over - too bad.

sorry for the longevity and any facts I may not be remembering correctly. Wish I could find the news report. (I'll keep looking)