HOME
VIDEOS
PHOTOS
THE STORY
COURT DOCS
WHISTLEBLOWER RESOURCES
DHS OFFICIALS
DOCUMENTARY
JULIA DAVIS
BJ DAVIS
LEGAL
PATRIOT ACT
CCCP NEWS
CONTACT US
LINKS
 |
|
|
DHS Officials
Customs and Border Protection District Director of Field Operations, ADELE
FASANO is being placed under oath on August 31, 2004.
Former CBP Commissioner ROBERT BONNER * * * * * * * * * *  DANIEL W. SUTHERLAND Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties U. S. Department of Homeland Security DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: Mission Statement The mission of the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is
to protect civil rights and civil liberties and to support homeland security by
providing the Department with constructive advice on the full range of civil
rights and civil liberties issues the Department will face, and by serving as
an information and communication channel with the public regarding all aspects
of these issues. On April 16, 2003, President Bush appointed Daniel W. Sutherland
to be the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security. In this position, Mr. Sutherland provides advice to the
Secretary and the senior officers of the Department on a full range of civil
rights and civil liberties issues. Mr. Sutherland has handled a number of
important civil rights lawsuits involving the rights of women. His experience
has been primarily in the areas of discrimination against immigrants and his
litigation includes cases alleging discrimination by a large urban police
department in its dealings with people from the former Soviet Union. On August 24, 2005 Daniel W. Sutherland received a Decision in the
Julia Davis case (EEOC No. 340-04-00317X, Agency No. I-03-W121) from the
Federal Administrative Judge Daniel E. Leach, with a letter stating in part: "Dear Director: "Enclosed is my Decision finding the agency liable herein,
awarding damages and attorney fees. The hearing record is also enclosed" The attached decision stated in part: "Indeed, the complainant established agency culpability of an
egregious sort and has been awarded a significant sum in damages because of the
effects of the agency's unlawful discrimination". CLICK HERE TO READ EEOC LETTER TO SUTHERLAND On September 30, 2005 Daniel W. Sutherland authored a letter on
behalf of the Department of Homeland Security in the Julia Davis case, whereby
Mr. Sutherland stated: "On August 22, 2005, the AJ concluded that Complainant was
harassed on the basis of her sex and that the Agency failed to take appropriate
and reasonable measures to address her claims of harassment... After careful review, it is the decision of DHS not to implement
the AJ's decision... This is DHS' final action in this matter. Sincerely, Daniel W. Sutherland Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties U.S. Department of Homeland Security". There has been no greater disregard for civil rights and civil
liberties than a blatant refusal to honor a final court order by the very
office designed to protect those rights - Department of Homeland Security's
Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and its head, Daniel W. Sutherland.
Mr. Sutherland has been a civil rights attorney throughout his legal career,
serving fourteen years with the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of
Justice and nearly two years with the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S.
Department of Education. The irony of this arrogant non-compliance with the court order is
all the more abhorrent as it endorses the sexual exploitation of women,
tramples the working rights of federal employees and aids in the criminal
misconduct of DHS agents to cover-up a national scandal. This refusal to honor
the court order was provided by Mr. Sutherland, who proclaims himself to be a
"civil libertarian" and a champion of women's and immigrant's rights.
Mr. Sutherland also provides legal and policy advice on civil rights, civil
liberties and privacy protection and is currently working on policies regarding
aliens of "special interest" to national security. By his actions in the Julia Davis case, Mr. Sutherland
demonstrated his office's policy of absolute disregard for women's rights,
civil liberties and privacy protection. Mr. Sutherland's current involvement
with issues regarding aliens of "special interest" are especially
curious, in light of Julia Davis' whistleblowing disclosure as to improper
admission and inadequate processing of Special Interest Country aliens. Mr.
Sutherland's public statements and the agency's stated objectives are in direct
contradiction to their actions in the Julia Davis' case. In one of his statements, Daniel W. Sutherland exclaimed: "We have established an Office for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties (CRCL) to ensure that we protect both our physical safety and our
American ideals. It is my privilege to lead that office...
I am privileged to serve a great public servant like Tom Ridge,
who has pledged that "our strategy and our actions [will be] consistent
with the individual rights and civil liberties protected by the
Constitution." The leaders of this department feel so strongly about this
issue that they have prominently incorporated these principles into our first
strategic plan. Leaders like Asa Hutchinson repeatedly state that the
protection of our American ideals is at the very core of what our department is
all about. The commitment to appropriately address the types of hypotheticals
that I laid out a few minutes ago has been clear and strong... In Section 705 of the Homeland Security Act, Congress established
something called an "Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties."
There is no other title like this in the federal government: There are no
models to follow...Secretary Ridge had to define this position, to build this
Office. Like any good architect, he started with a strong foundation, with
sturdy cornerstones... Our first decision was that the missing piece of the puzzle is not
so much an after-the-fact analysis of things that have allegedly gone wrong,
but a player at the table on the front end; helping to shape policies in ways
that are mindful of the Constitution and our civil liberties. Why not prevent
trouble rather than investigate it after it has already occurred? Secretary
Ridge decided that this new department needs someone to help advise the senior
leadership about the full range of issues that have implications for our civil
rights and civil liberties. Second, the issues involved here are significant enough that this
individual must be appointed by the President and report directly to the Secretary
of DHS. Third, the equal employment opportunity (EEO) issues this
department will face offer it rare opportunities to do great good. The
Secretary has repeatedly stated his commitment to create a model government
agency. EEO policies are integral to that effort... This agency, which largely (but not entirely) has a law
enforcement/intelligence mission, is unique because it has placed a civil
libertarian into the senior leadership... My office primarily has an internal
function--assisting the senior leadership to develop policies in ways that
protect and enhance our civil liberties. Our second major area of work involves reviewing matters in which
there is an allegation of abuse. Under Section 705(a)(1) of the Homeland
Security Act, this office is required to "review and assess information
alleging abuses of civil rights, civil liberties and racial and ethnic
profiling." Moreover, our office is responsible for reviewing matters that
arise under a variety of federal civil rights statutes, such as Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Therefore, although we are structured to be part of the policy-making team at
DHS, we are also obligated to review certain matters. This presents an
interesting challenge. Consider the following: * We are
within the very agency that we are charged to investigate... the matters we are
reviewing are allegations by individuals against our own agency. First, when we receive allegations of abuse, we offer all matters
to the Inspector General, with the understanding that they will select as many
as they feel appropriate to investigate, per criteria set forth in the
Inspector General Act...At the conclusion of our review, we produce a report
that identifies specific steps that the leadership of DHS can take to address
the matter and to ensure that this is the model agency that we want...At the
conclusion, we provide the individual with a description of how the matter has
been resolved and addressed by the agency... To date, we have received approximately 55 matters. We have
referred many of these to the various responsible component agencies but we
have retained a significant number for our review. We expect to begin seeing
results from these reviews in the upcoming weeks and months. Again, our goal is
to address these matters with integrity with a review that fully addresses the
allegations of the individual and that produces appropriate and constructive recommendations
for improvements within the agency... Our third function involves the equal employment opportunity work
of the department. Each of the component agencies has its own EEO offices, and
one of the real assets we have is the experience and expertise of the leaders
of these offices and their fine staffs... Daniel W.
Sutherland, Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties" * * * * * * * * * * ORLANDO CHAMBERS - CBP Supervisor, San Ysidro Port of Entry Orlando
Chambers, utilizing an agency letterhead in his official capacity as the Port
Director, wrote a letter of reference on behalf of sexual predator Senior
Supervisor Kevin Crusilla to the Superior Court of Chula Vista, CA, on the
official Department of Homeland Security letterhead. By the issuance of this
letter, Orlando Chambers attempted to stop the court from issuing a restraining
order to protect JULIA DAVIS from the uninvited, unwelcome sexual advances,
solicitation and battery by Supervisor Crusilla (an old friend of Orlando
Chambers).
ORLANDO
CHAMBERS TESTIMONY IN JULIA DAVIS CASE (Witness
sworn.) JUDGE
LEACH: State your full name for the record, please. THE
WITNESS: Orlando Chambers. JUDGE
LEACH: Mr. Chambers, as you know, you've been asked to testify in a proceeding
involving a complaint of discrimination instituted by Ms. Davis against the
Department of Homeland Security... DIRECT
EXAMINATION BY
MR. ROSS: Q.
Between November of 2002 and July of 2003, where did you work and in what
capacity? A.
I worked at San Ysidro port of entry as a branch chief. Q.
And what's the GS level of a branch chief? A.
GS-13 level. Q.
Is that management? A.
Yes, it is, sir. Q.
And you supervise a supervisor under you; isn't that correct? A.
That's correct. Q.
Is that your position today? A.
Yes, it is, sir. Q.
Now, were you ever asked to write a letter on behalf of Kevin Crusilla? A.
Yes. Q.
Do you recall in what context you were asked to write that letter? A.
As a friend. Q.
As a friend. Okay. And how long had you known Mr. Crusilla for? A.
I've known Mr. Crusilla since 1987. Q.
This letter that you wrote for Mr. Crusilla, it was on official government
stationery, wasn't it? A.
Yes, it was. Q.
I'm going to show you a document, and you tell me if this is, in fact, the
letter... Q.
Is that what you recognize? A.
Yes, sir. Q.
And is that what you wrote? A.
Yes. Q.
And do you see at the top it says "U.S. Customs and Border
Protection"? A.
That's correct. Q.
Now, sir, when you wrote that letter, were you acting in your capacity as an
official of the United States
Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security? A.
Yes, I was. Q.
And in what capacity were you acting? A.
As a branch chief second line supervisor. Q.
And what was the letter for? A.
The letter was a character reference. Q.
And where was it going to be used? A.
He asked me for the letter to be used on his behalf, I guess, in a case
regarding Ms. Davis... Q.
Now, sir, did it ever come -- was there ever an occasion where you were called
on the carpet because you wrote a letter on Agency stationery for Mr. Crusilla? A.
Yes. I was told basically to put something in writing as to why I used the
letterhead... Q.
Is that your response to the Agency asking you to explain why you wrote that
letter on Agency ADVANCE \d 5stationery? A.
That is correct... Q.
Now, sir, you recall giving an affidavit in the EEO case? A.
Yes, I do. Q.
And I'm going to show you a document, sir. Do you see, sir, right in No. 4,
Paragraph 4, the end of Paragraph 4 where it says, "I prepared the memo
before I was aware that he was being served with a court temporary restraining
order." A.
Uh-huh. Q.
Is that correct, sir? A.
Yes, that's correct. Q.
Isn't it true, sir, that you're the one with the sheriff that served the
temporary restraining order on Mr. Crusilla? A.
Yes, sir. Q.
So how could it be on June 4th that you were unaware that he was being served
with a temporary restraining order when you're the person that served him with
that temporary restraining order? A.
Yes, sir. Two things: one, I don't know if I mentioned to you before, but I --
I have some doubts. I'm not saying I did not do it -- write the letter after,
but I'm not positive. If you look at a couple of the memos, that same June 24th
-- and I'm not looking for excuses, but for some reason sometimes if you write
a memorandum, the date is by default. It gives you the printout of the date
that the letter was printed. I'm not trying to find excuses... Q.
Well, is that your signature on Page 3? A.
Yes, it is, sir. Q.
Does it say right above your signature, "I declare under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct"? A.
Absolutely. Q.
But you lied on Page 2? A.
Why would I lie? Q.
When you said you didn't know about the temporary restraining order when you're
the person that served it. A. I served the letter, sir, but I'm talking the
time frame. Q.
Mr. Chambers, when did you first find out that Mr. Crusilla was being accused
of harassing Ms. Davis? A.
I can't remember dates, sir, but I know it was rumors around with nothing
direct. Because when you have these EEO's, most of the time it should be
confidential. Q.
So if somebody gets harassed, it's confidential. Nobody is supposed to know
about it? Is that what your testimony is? A.
No. Well, no. If you have a case going on, some kind of harassment, you don't
know everybody to have everybody to have -- what's going on. The next thing
it's spread out there at the port like wild fire. Q.
Isn't it true, sir, that it was common knowledge at the port that Mr. Crusilla
was harassing Ms. Davis? Isn't that true, sir? A.
It was rumor, sir. Q.
And isn't it true, sir, that you personally knew of at least two other
incidents prior to Ms. Davis where Mr. Crusilla was accused of harassing female
employees under his supervision? A.
No, sir. Q.
As you sit here today under penalty of perjury -- A.
Yes, sir. Q.
-- you swear that you did not know that Mr. Crusilla had been accused of
harassment of a female employee under his supervision prior to this date? MS.
CLARK: He's badgering the witness. JUDGE
LEACH: This is cross examination. He's a hostile witness. I'll give him a lot
of leash. I want to find out exactly what Mr. Chambers knew and when he knew
it. THE
WITNESS: Sir, I don't recall times. I'm not hiding. Like I stated in my
correspondence, my memo, Kevin Crusilla was not one of our A supervisors. I've
known him over the years. There's a lot of rumors down at the port there. You
can't pay attention to every rumor we have, sir. JUDGE
LEACH: Were the rumors about him sexually harassing other female probationary
employees? THE
WITNESS: No, sir, not that I know of. JUDGE
LEACH: Did you know about a relationship he was having with a female employee
who he supervised? Not
Ms. Davis, some other female? THE
WITNESS: A relationship? JUDGE
LEACH: A relationship, sexual relationship. THE
WITNESS: No, sir. JUDGE
LEACH: You were not aware of that? THE
WITNESS: No, sir. JUDGE
LEACH: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Ross. BY
MR. ROSS: Q.
Do you know who Inspector Palen is? A.
Yes, sir, I know Ms. Palen. Q.
And you're sitting here testifying that you didn't know that Mr. Crusilla had a
relationship with Inspector Palen? A.
I don't know of a relationship, sir. I don't know what your definition of
"relationship" is, sir. Number one, like I said, it's always rumor
control around that port. If there's nothing that I can know for a fact, I
cannot say anything about that. It's always rumor control at that port at any
given time... JUDGE
LEACH: But there was a rumor to this effect? THE
WITNESS: There's always rumors, sir. JUDGE
LEACH: A rumor about Palen and Crusilla? THE
WITNESS: I heard a rumor about Palen and Crusilla way after this incident.
That's it, sir. I know things always mushroomed out... BY
MR. ROSS: Q.
In your letter of June 4, 2003, you say, "I have known Supervisor Crusilla
since 1987." A.
'87. Q.
That means in the year 2003 you had known Mr. Crusilla for 16 years. Isn't that
correct? A.
That's correct. Q.
And during that period of time, you met him on a personal level, you had dinner
with him, sometimes went
out and drank with him. A.
That's correct. Q.
You socialized with him? A.
That's correct. Q.
And it's your testimony that you never knew that he had previous complaints
against him regarding female
officers prior to Ms. Davis making a complaint against Mr. Crusilla? A.
In regards to Ms. Palen, absolutely not. Q.
That's not my question. You're testifying today that you swear under oath that
even though you knew Mr. Crusilla for 16 years, you socialized with him, you
had dealings with him outside of the workplace, it's your testimony you never
knew that there were complaints against him prior to the incident with Ms.
Davis about other female employees? A.
Not job-related no. Absolutely not. Q.
You said there were rumors, right? And yet you write a letter after you serve a
restraining order on him talking about how he's a wonderful guy. Why would you
provide a character reference for somebody who, by the time you wrote this
letter, you knew something serious was taking place and being alleged, and yet
you still wrote the letter. I don't get it. A.
Like I said before, Counselor, it was all rumor control. Ms. Palen -- I'm sorry
-- Ms. Davis and Kevin Crusilla worked the evening shift. If you go to the port
at any given time, there's always some kind of rumors going along, and I cannot
uphold that and I can't tend to believe everything I hear. About an encounter
with Kevin, I didn't say Kevin was A-1. I've seen Kevin deteriorate jobwise,
not messing around with females. Q.
What's the policy at the Agency on sexual harassment? A.
Zero tolerance. Q.
What does "zero tolerance" mean to you? A.
No nonsense. We don't condone any harassments. Q.
So when you hear a rumor or rumors at the port that somebody is sexually
harassing a subordinate, do you think maybe you had a duty to investigate the
matter or ask questions, especially since you knew the guy for 16 years? A.
First of all, if Ms. Davis didn't bring it to my attention, there's no way I'm
going to confront her... Q.
Did you ever have any kind of correspondence with Ms. Davis concerning Mr.
Crusilla? A.
Ms. Davis emailed me once. Q.
What did she tell you? A.
She said she was disappointed. I can't quote what she said, but she said she
was disappointed in me giving him a character reference knowing the type of
person he was, and I responded to her by it's an open case, and I didn't
appreciate she communicating with me about the case. Q.
Let me show you Exhibit No. 41 in the investigative file. Is that the email
you're referring to, sir? A.
That's correct. Q.
So let me see if I've got this straight. "I don't appreciate you sending
me these type of messages and memorandum. Please refrain from sending me your
personal opinions and issues regarding open investigations. These matters
should be left to the proper investigating authorities." Is that exactly
what you said, sir? A.
That is correct. Q.
And that's dated on June 28th, 2003. Is that correct? A.
That's correct. Q.
And what open investigation was there on June 28th, 2003, that you know about? A.
About Ms. Davis and Kevin. Q.
And who was conducting this open investigation? A.
I have no idea. Q.
So if you'd had no idea there was an open investigation, why did you tell Ms.
Davis not to contact you because there was an open investigation? A.
Because there was an investigation going on. Q.
How did you know that? A.
Because of rumor control. Q.
Oh, so that rumor you believe, but the other rumors you don't believe? A.
Because that -- I got bits and pieces from Sally Carrillo. Q.
I see. But basically you heard a rumor, but that rumor made you believe there
was an open investigation, but another rumor doesn't make you believe that Mr.
Crusilla was doing anything? Why does one rumor have more weight than another
rumor? A.
Counselor, at no time no one sat down -- we had meetings. We have these musters
that we have along with supervised managers. At no time did anyone come out and
said this is official at that time. This was going on. I heard Sally mention
something. Just like everyone else, I have a lot on my plate. And the less
rumor is better for me, focus on my job. If it comes to me -- if somebody comes
to me, I take over, whatever it is, until the end. I work on that. But the best
thing -- like I said, the less people that knows about any investigation going
on is best. Q.
Isn't it true, sir, that because Mr. Crusilla was your friend, you didn't want
him to get in trouble and you didn't do anything, you covered your eyes, and
you played like an ostrich so that nothing bad would happen to Mr. Crusilla.
Isn't that really what happened, sir? A.
No, sir. Q.
Isn't it true, sir, that what really happened here is that you knew all along
Mr. Crusilla was doing something with Ms. Davis, and you told everybody, "Don't
get me involved in this. I'm friends with Kevin Crusilla, and I'm even going to
write a letter for him because I know he's in trouble"? A.
That's a negative, sir, no sir. Q.
Sir, is it serious to sexually harass an employee in DHS? A.
Absolutely. Q.
And is it serious, sir, that somebody knows about it and doesn't report it? Is
that a pretty serious thing too? A.
Yes, sir. I agree with you. Q.
So when does the line cross, sir, where you know or suspect or think there may
be something happening and you don't report it? Didn't you have some kind of a
duty to at least look into the matter? A.
No, sir. It was handled by Ms. Carrillo. Ms. Carrillo is my supervisor. Ms.
Carrillo is the one that took the case. JUDGE
LEACH: You mean to tell me that nobody else in management has responsibility if
Ms. Carrillo takes the case? THE
WITNESS: No, sir. JUDGE
LEACH: But you had no responsibility? THE
WITNESS: Exactly. JUDGE
LEACH: You had none? THE
WITNESS: No, sir. JUDGE
LEACH: Sexual harassment may be occurring, but you have no responsibility
because she's not in your chain of command? Is that right? THE
WITNESS: She is in my chain of command, your Honor. JUDGE
LEACH: Oh, she is? THE
WITNESS: Yes, she is. JUDGE
LEACH: But you have no responsibility? THE
WITNESS: Not direct, sir. Ms. Davis works evening shift. We have totally
different inspectors, supervisors work evening shifts. Something is brought to
your attention, you need to act upon it... JUDGE
LEACH: Well, I'm at a loss here. I really am. I don't understand what is going
on in this agency. But I'm bothered by listening to the testimony today by what
is going on in this agency. You say you have a sexual harassment policy. You
say it's a zero tolerance policy. What do you do when you have any information
or suspicion that sexual harassment is going on as a manager, and you are that?
THE
WITNESS: Yes, sir. The first thing I do is pass it to my first line supervisor
or the port director. JUDGE
LEACH: You don't do anything yourself? You pass it on to somebody? THE
WITNESS: If I hear rumor control, I make sure I go and ask if something is
going on that they know about. Many times cases going on I may not know about
it. JUDGE
LEACH: Is there written procedure to follow in a case of sexual harassment
anywhere that you know about? THE
WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE
WITNESS: Your Honor, if there is a harassment case that you know about, you
make sure you act upon it, not a rumor from some third party or fifth party out
there, sir. We have over 600 officers that work at the border, sir. We have
different shifts. We have different chain of command, sir. JUDGE
LEACH: You served a temporary restraining order. You accompanied a sheriff. You
accompanied a sheriff with a temporary restraining order that was issued by a
superior court judge in the state of California; is that correct? THE
WITNESS: Yes. JUDGE
LEACH: You didn't believe that that temporary restraining order should have
been issued? THE
WITNESS: Yes, sir. If it's -- it was not my position to judge anyone, your
Honor. I was called. I was told to go with this sheriff and retrieve this
weapon from Mr. Crusilla. JUDGE
LEACH: Are you aware that a temporary restraining order means that a judge
somewhere believed that certain standards were met with respect to the person
who's seeking the order in terms of the complaint she filed seeking the order
that certain standards were met regarding the case that she was trying to make
out before that judge? In other words, there were grounds. There were reasons
for that temporary restraining order. Is that -- is that your understanding? THE
WITNESS: Yes, sir. JUDGE
LEACH: So at that point in time in your mind Mr. Crusilla -- one judge thought
that he was a danger; is
that correct? THE
WITNESS: That's correct, your Honor. BY
MR. ROSS: Q.
Mr. Crusilla is the victim here because he was betrayed, right? He's the
victim? A.
I wouldn't say he's a victim, sir. Q.
And you got the gun from Mr. Crusilla. You gave it to his cousin, didn't you? A.
No, I did not, sir. Q.
Who did you give it to? A.
Either brother-in-law or uncle... Q.
So you took a gun from a guy who had a restraining order against him -- because
it's against the law to have a gun when you have a restraining order? A.
That's correct. Q.
But because of your friendship, instead of confiscating the weapon and putting
it under Agency control, you gave it to his relative? A.
No, sir. Two weapons were retrieved. One was a government weapon that we kept
from him. The second one was a collector's item that we gave to his cousin --
or I don't know. I'm not sure. I don't remember the relationship... Q.
And did Mr. Crusilla ever explain to you why he refused to be interviewed by
the investigator who was investigating this case on behalf of Ms. Davis? A.
I didn't even know he refused to. Q.
Did he explain to you why he was AWOL? A.
No. I didn't know he was AWOL either. JUDGE
LEACH: I hate to ask the obvious one. If this were to happen today, knowing
what you know now, would you give a such a letter of reference to somebody? THE
WITNESS: No, your Honor. JUDGE
LEACH: Okay. That's a no? THE
WITNESS: That's a no, your Honor. JUDGE
LEACH: Nothing else. You're excused. I appreciate very much your testifying.
We're off the record momentarily. (Brief
recess taken: 03:19 P.M. to 03:23 P.M.) * * * * * * * * *
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION SUPERVISOR
OFFICIAL REPORT BY SUSAN BOUTWELL:
PERJURY, INCONSISTENCIES AND MISREPRESENTATIONS
| |
