Bid to drop Voorhis charges is rejected
By Sara Burnett, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Voorhis gave data to Beauprez camp.
A federal judge on Tuesday turned down a motion to dismiss charges against Cory Voorhis, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent accused of looking up information about illegal immigrants to help Bob Beauprez's campaign for governor.
Voorhis and his attorney, William Taylor, declined to comment on the decision as they left the federal courthouse downtown.
"We're just going to get ready for trial now," Taylor said.
U.S. District Judge John Kane set a trial date of March 31.
The trial is scheduled to take eight days.
Voorhis is charged with exceeding his authorized access to a national crime database, a misdemeanor. He is on unpaid administrative leave.
Voorhis' attorneys argued that the charges should be dropped because Voorhis is the target of a selective prosecution. They said others who looked up the same information weren't charged with a crime.
In a daylong hearing Friday, three employees of the Denver District Attorney's Office said a staffer used the same database in October 2006, after Beauprez, a Republican, ran an attack ad against his opponent, Democrat Bill Ritter.
The ad accused Ritter of giving illegal immigrants plea deals when he was the Denver district attorney.
But prosecutors say the DA's office was using the database for a legitimate work purpose - to answer questions from the media and the Ritter campaign about the veracity of the ad. Their actions were not illegal, prosecutors have said.
A Texas investigator also accessed the same database on behalf of Colorado Republicans, according to testimony Friday. That case has been turned over to Texas authorities.
To prove a selective prosecution, defense attorneys needed to present evidence that others in a similar situation are not generally prosecuted, and that the decision to prosecute Voorhis was discriminatory, or based on a factor such as race or religion, Kane said.
The defense proved neither of those things, the judge ruled Tuesday.
Kane said the employee in the DA's office was looking up information for a "legitimate use."
He also said Voorhis' situation is different from the others because he is a federal employee, bound by laws that prohibit him from using his position or authority to influence an election and from engaging in political activity while on duty or in a government office.
burnetts@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5343
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
February 5, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
So Voorhis can break the law for political reasons and think he can walk away. He should at least lose his job and further access to privileged information. He had to have signed and violated a confidential information non-disclosure form to have access to the data period. I think he should at least spend some time in a federal penitentiary too.
February 5, 2008
8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
anteup writes:
"DA’s office was using the database for a legitimate work purpose — to answer questions from the media and the Ritter campaign about the veracity of the ad". Answering questions for the media and Ritter's campaign was "legitimate work purpose", information for the public and for a republican campaign is a "crime". HYPOCRITES
February 5, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Remember "Gene" Citizen or not we all have equal protection under the constitution. If Ritter offered plea deals to illegals aliens, my guess is he probably offered the same kind of deals to US citizens. Like it or not Gene that is our Contitution. Get used to it.
February 5, 2008
9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Translation of the low IQ crowd's lynch mob attitude towards Voorhis.....
1. Lynch anyone that doesn't support corrupt Democrat candidates.
2. Defend all corrupt Democrats that do the same thing that Voorhis' did.
Lesson learned.... Democrats are hypocrites. If they weren't, they'd demand that Ritter, Morrissey, and the other Democrats that did the same thing Voorhis did be sitting beside him at the defendant's table.
February 5, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
JK writes:
Lets just destroy this guy's life for letting the truth out.
February 5, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
No JK . lets prosecute a federal agent who may have used his position to promote a personal political agenda. If Voorhies had stood up and said, I think Ritter gave too many deals to illegal aliens, I would have no problem with that. It was the use of a confidential database contrary to the law that got in him trouble.
by the way rickg, no one is being prosecuted for using this information not even Beauprez and his campaign. Voorhies had a special duty and is accused of violating that. Ritter was not a DA at the time and therefore did not have any such duty. Try to at least get your facts straight before you go off foaming at the mouth.
February 5, 2008
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
buffs...
You need to learn the facts in the case.
Morrissey's staff have testified that they DID access the SAME information as Voorhis. They claim it was in response to media inquiries, however were unable to offer ANY evidence that ANYONE in the media ever made any such inquiries. Also, they admitted that their own hand written communications log showed that the ONLY inquiry about the illegal alien was from the RITTER CAMPAIGN!!! And they admitted that minutes later they accessed the same NCIC computer records that Voorhis accessed.
The Ritter campaign asked them to check into it, and they did. And the law states that the ONLY legal reason to access the NCIC database is for criminal investigations and prosecutions. The DA's office was NOT involved in any investigation or prosecution of the illegal alien when they ILLEGALLY accessed the NCIC database at the request of the Ritter campaign.
Result.... one person who accessed it to check on information for political purposes is being prosecuted. Their political opponents who ALSO accessed it to check on information for politicial purposes is NOT being prosecuted.
Only hypocrites would claim this is fair and ethical, and claim it's justice to selectively prosecute ONE person, but shield and protect others who do the exact same thing. An intelligent, honest, ethical person would say this is a selective prosecution. Find someone to help you figure out which one applies to you, since you appear to lack the balance and ethics to figure it out on your own.
February 5, 2008
11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
They DON'T like secret police files being opened to the public....
February 5, 2008
12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyLee writes:
Pretty spot on, I'd say, rickg....
February 5, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
Rickg, dittos.
February 5, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Rickg, ditto the dittos.
February 5, 2008
12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
ripcord writes:
Rickg, and even more dittos.
February 5, 2008
1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
froward69
Two wrongs make a right... good logic there! Oh wait what your really saying is that the second wrong shouldn't be punished because they were doing it just because the first guy did, but we need to punish the first one. That's much better logic!
If the guy in front of me on the highway hadn't been going 125 mph, I wouldn't have to have been speeding to catch up so I could get his license plate # for the cops! Same logic...
Marshdale
So you support an campaign platform of "Let all the rapists and murders go free, their good people on the inside... Really!"?
"But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. "
So holding them over for deportation would've been the best thing to do for the safety of the public. At the minimum!
But you would rather we get used to having an unsafe state for our children to grow up in. Way to use your head!
buffsblog
Doesn't your pot field need tending?
February 5, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
snowbelly writes:
Anybody who is against mr.ritter and his wonderful, benevolent party are obviously uninformed and ignorant.Why won't they just admit they don't like people from another country taking their jobs and daughters.
February 5, 2008
3:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
bhaney01 writes:
Let me see if I'm getting this. It's ok for then DA Ritter to offer illegals plea deals, even if they are charged with heroin posession with intent to distribute on top of the fact that they are illegal, but it's wrong for that information to be exposed to us, the voting, taxpaying public? Anyone that feels Agent Voorhis is guilty of some grave transgression should re-evaluate their worth to society. The man has been charged with 3 misdemeanors, but he's in a federal court to hear his case. Doesn't this sound a bit suspect to anyone on this blog? Taxpayer money is being spent on what could ultimately ruin this mans professional life, and all he's charged with is misdemeanor crimes.
February 5, 2008
3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Awww cmon now.... everyone knows Ritter is a staunch ANTI-illegal crusader..er...uh.. Everyone knows that Ritter and Denver are hard as nails on illegal aliens!
Denver isn't a sanctuary city. Now, is it??
Why in the world would anyone think that the Honorable Bill Ritter would pander to illegal aliens. Illegals are only here to commit the crimes that we American's don't want to do. They should be let off easy, after all they are "hard" working criminals. Isn't
that right Mr. Ritter???
Two wrongs do not make a right but.... I wish Mr. V. all the luck in the world on this one!!! Enough is enough!!!
February 5, 2008
4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
factdaddy writes:
Here's an idea, let's take this guys pay away from him, and whatever else
it might take so he can't even stand up for himself, What happened to inncent
until proven guilty? Voorhis isn't the bad guy here.
February 5, 2008
4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
factdaddy writes:
The imformation that came to light, is by far, a way bigger issue than where it came from, because we the people, are to only know, what they want us to know. Right Bill?
What has happened to our country?
February 5, 2008
4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
ripcord writes:
T1anda, I have a hard time figuring you out. You seem to be on one side of the aisle on one issue and then on the other side on another issue. There is nothing wrong to say you are not affiliated, but are you? Where do you stand today in the caucuses? I am just curious.
February 5, 2008
5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
lcdrjxant
What is that ludicrous rant!? How many times do you have to be told that EVERYTHING is not about race? How about having a real opinion, without playing the race card, just once!
February 6, 2008
7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
anteup writes:
How much will an 8 day trial cost the taxpayers, and all for an indiscretion that should have been handled by his boss. This warrants a couple of weeks suspension or at the most termination of employment but NOT a criminal trial. It says he is bound by law prohibiting him from using his position to influence an election, without people like him how are we the people supposed to know what kind of slime is being elected to office? To prove a selective prosecution they have to prove prosecution was discriminatory, or based on a factor such as race or religion, in this case POLITICAL AFFILIATION is the discrimination. Gee, I wonder who called in a political favor.
February 6, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Himtngal writes:
What a waste of taxpayer dollars. Time should be spent on going after those criminals who received Ag Trespass. Ritter cares more about illegal aliens than Colorado citizens and that's obvious. Justice for Cory? He needs $$$$$ to get it. www.corylegaldefense.com
February 6, 2008
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
Jimminy, you are a moron. Check your facts. All the information given out was PUBLIC INFORMATION in the first place. It was just easier for a cop to get it than go through the county clerks office. These were no secret files in any sense.
February 6, 2008
11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
finer299 writes:
It would be interesting to do a poll on how many attended Cory Vorhiss hearing. Is anyone understanding the scope of this trial?
Here is a person who sees a trend of allowing criminals a free pass to break whatever law they choose, with a slap on the hand, and decides that he needs to alert the proper authority as to what nonsense is going on. Reporting it to his state senator seems to be the proper procedure.
Seems to me that this is canabilizing loyal, committed employees.
Too bad there aren't more Corys.
Does anyone remember Ramos and Compean? (Kind of puts a chill on enforcing immigration/drug/criminal laws now doesn't it?
February 6, 2008
12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
redwhiteandBLUE writes:
There will be a fundraiser for Cory thurs eve. Hope he gets a big
turn out. He has a family and children. We wouldn't want that family to be seperated ,would we? (in all sincerity).
February 21, 2008
12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mauri writes:
For everyone that thinks this is Cory Voorhis' fault, you're wrong. If you would go to his web site, and actually read his story, you would find out that he realized Ritter was doing wrong things with the info and Cory went to the person he thought could help (Beauprez) get things straight with Ritter and the LAW and instead, Beauprez used the info Cory presented him incorrectly! So get your facts straight! >:(