United States Loretta Van Beek Strip-Searched & Molested by CBP

Discussion in 'Border Controls, Customs and Immigration' started by Mike, Jun 3, 2012.

  1. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    This is our Department of Homeland "Security" hard at work molesting women at the border. :rolleyes:

    Fed Cops:
    Canadian Woman, Loretta Van Beek, Strip-Searched at U.S. Border for Smuggling Raspberries

    Since Loretta Van Beek stepped forward and filed her lawsuit in February of 2011, at total of 8 women (including Loretta) have come forward with similar stories, all regarding border crossings in the Detroit area. Thus far three lawsuits have been filed on behalf of four victims.

    Victims publicly identified to date: Leslie Ingratta, Lisa Bhatt, Loretta Van Beek, Meera Sidhu
    Attorney for the victims: Attorney S. Thomas Wienner
    CBP "Officers" :rolleyes: identified to date: Crystal Robinson, Toni Seenstra

    Loretta Van Beek's suit is expected to go to trial by the end of the year.
  2. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Multiply this, by however-many-times-we'll-never-know, at all kinds of border crossings all over the country, including airports, for a truer picture of what's going on. This abuse isn't confined to the Detroit area. I still contend that, just as in rape cases, most people aren't going to come forward, are going to file suit, can't afford to file suit, aren't going to tell their stories. We'll never know the extent of this abuse.

    This makes me never want to travel alone again. Not that having a traveling companion is a guarantee against abuse, but it's a safeguard.

    (By the way, that blogger should retitle that entry -- Loretta Van Beek wasn't attempting to smuggle anything, including raspberries. She just had a few rolling around in her car. Sort of like the sealed bag of sunflower seeds hubby and I just took into and out of Canada to snack on the train if we needed to. We didn't declare those either, even though they're "seeds." I guess that means we're smugglers.)
  3. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    with so many credible witnesses coming forward against these two subhuman employees of CBP, I forsee not only a sizable legal settlement, but a minimum of firing of those two individuals and quite possibly jail time as sex offenders. Okay, jail time may be optimistic. It's nice that those two female perps were publically identified. May their lives be (expletive deleted) henceforth.
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  4. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Yeah. I worry about my daughter travelling alone across the US border to her school. Next fall, though, she'll be with my son, who is not one to go quietly into that dark night.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  5. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    They should definitely be fired. But one wonders whether that will happen, or whether they'll be shunted off to another federal job. And this should be on their permanent records, so they can't get any other job in life that gives them the power to abuse people again. They should be forced to work flipping burgers or working retail somewhere, or doing anything that doesn't allow them power over people. Actually, I wouldn't trust them flipping burgers either; they'd probably spit in the food.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  6. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    Whoa! These are really serious violations. I didn't know how sexual these gropes were. How nauseating.
  7. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    If people have the power to do this, they will do this. That is why this power must be removed. If it is important enough to strip search someone, it is important enough to get a warrant detailing the cause of the search, the nature of the search, and what is being searched for. Allowing a puke agent to decide this is just begging for this type of abuse.

    I hope these violated women find justice, and the perps have justice done to to them....
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  8. Lancer69

    Lancer69 Member

    I see that it took the jury in US Federal Court approximately 90 minutes to find the US Customs and Border Protections Officers innocent of all charges related to Ms. Van Beek's claims. It appears Ms. Van Beek had her day in court and that justice was served. Ms. Van Beek wouldn't lie because she was turned away at the border would she?
  9. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    A rare victory for the Border Patrol's douche bags, but I believe there are several more cases pending regarding abuses at that same port of entry.

    The news report (only one available that I can find at this point) makes no mention of Ms. van Beek "lying". A civil case revolves the "preponderance of the evidence", so it may be a simple matter of "she said" vs. "she & she said". The good news is that there are several more cases in the pipeline.
  10. Lancer69

    Lancer69 Member

    The "strip search" portion of Van Beek's original claim was found to be false, along with the nipple pinching claim. I know an attorney in Windsor, Canada placed an ad on a billboard offering legal assistance to those who feel they were molested at the US border. This has drawn a few claims by Canadian citizens who have crossed at this border entry part. I also know that two more Canadian women who had initially filed similar complaints have since dropped their suits prior to going to trial.
  11. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    If you could provide access to the transcript or a detailed account, I might have some grounds on which to agree. A verdict for the defense does not necessarily mean the plaintiffs pressed false charges, but can simply mean there was insufficient evidence presented. About what I expected from this, since the incident occurred in an unsupervised area by the perps, if the complaint were true.

    If there was conclusive proof the accused did *not* commit this crime, the case would never have progressed this far, IMO. The plaintiff appears to be a legitimate and believable businesswoman, with several other claims of the same nature coming forth against this crossing. My opinion, until I see the transcripts, would be that she quite likely did not achieve justice due not to the malice or stupidity of the jury, but to the nature of this type of offense.

    I'm willing to listen to the facts--show me.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  12. Lancer69

    Lancer69 Member

    As I currently do not have access to court transcripts I cannot provide any further information. In my opinion, since the jury decision was unanimous that the CBP officers did nothing wrong, i.e. squeeze nipples, insert fingers, etc. and as no one can provide conclusive facts that Ms. Van Beek's accounts are truthful, I tend to believe in the decision of the court and can see cracks in Ms. Van Beeks story. I guess we will not agree and it will be interesting to see the outcomes of legal procedures from those complainants who have not withdrawn their cases.
  13. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    I used to have a Pacer account and would even pay for transcripts of certain trials. It's amazing that what looks one way in news reports looks quite the other in, say the judge's decision, in cases where there is no jury trial. Too many cases, too much money, not enough time.

    There is nothing to agree or disagree on. The plaintiff did not prove her case. That happens all the time to truly aggrieved parties. Sometimes the apparently obviously guilty get off, such as in the OJ Simpson case. Does it mean the offense did not happen? No. Nothing was proved. Not guilt, and certainly not innocence.

    Perhaps the real issue here, whether Mrs. Van Beek was violated and receieved no justice, or whether the border guards were unjustly accused, the real issue underlying this trial and others to follow is that these offenses could happen at any time to anyone at these crossings. These kinds of powers must be withdrawn from border guards simply because nobody can be trusted with it.
  14. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    One other thing to remember is that a jury doesn't just go into their deliberations, spend 5 minutes deciding that one party or the other was a lying bitch, and that's the end of it.

    Juries are given instructions by the judge, generally reviewed and agreed up by attorneys on both sides. At some point as they were going down these particular instructions, they reached a critical decision point that ended their deliberations and relieved the defendents of liability. That doesn't mean that anyone "lied".

    Law enforcement officers have qualified immunity for the actions. "Qualified" means that the immunity can be removed under some circumstances. Parts of the judge's instructions in a case like this would have dealt with the whether the respondents met the conditions necessary to lose that qualified immunity. The plaintiff's allegations could be 100% true and accepted by the jury, yet if the conditions for removing qualified immunity haven't be met, that's the end of the story.

    And remember the preponderance of the evidence: Three people in a back room with no witnesses, no cameras: One person says one thing, two people say another. Lacking any other evidence, at which end of the spectrum is the preponderance likely to lie?

    Lancer69 (Michigan IP address) has been visiting sites all over the internet and leaving similar comments, so I'm guessing he has some axe to grind in this, perhaps a close connection to CBP or to the respondents.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  15. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    I figured as much. He's part of the CBP or DHS or is an interested party. The claim that because the plaintiff failed in court the accused parties were factually innocent is particularly obnoxious and ridiculous. Per Mike's scenario above, any number of things could have yielded these results. It is dishonest to state otherwise.

    I ascribe to the bad penny theory. (A bad penny always turns up.) If the defendants in this case did these things, they will continue until definitively caught. That kind of behavior won't stop.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  16. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Seven other victims came forward.

    Stay tuned. :)
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  17. Lancer69

    Lancer69 Member

    Yes, I have been to other sites such as this as I see that no one wants to provide updates to this story, they just leave negative comments and are afraid to consider the reality that they might be wrong. I didn't come here to argue but I can't be the only one who has questioned Ms. Van Beek's honesty. One last comment before I'm gone, flame away if it makes you feel better.

    Ms. Van Beek claimed that she was stopped, strip searched and molested because she forgot to declare a few raspberries. If that were the actual case the fruit would be confiscated and she would receive a warning or, at most, a fine. Ms. Van Beek was turned away at the border, which is not done over some prohibited produce. As Ms. Van Beek was not honest about the reason she was denied entry into the US, I cannot take it on faith that anything else she had said is the truth. I guess there are those who will choose to believe everything she says and that is your right, but if I can't believe all of her story I find any of her other claims and statements questionable as well.

    No I do not work for the Federal Government, CBP, The Ambassador Bridge Company, The Federal Court System, or any organization remotely associated with this case. I have followed this case closely as I travel frequently over this border entry point to visit family in Canada and was curious as to the outcome of her court case. After her trial I found it extremely odd that there was no follow up to her story anywhere. If it makes some of you uncomfortable or angry that I choose to provide updates and to question Ms. Van Beek's honesty then so be it. I will be following the cases of the others who have filed similar claims as well.

    Okay, off my soapbox and done. I hope there is no ill will but I'm mature enough to take it.
  18. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Your evidence for this is what?
  19. Lancer69

    Lancer69 Member

  20. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Nothing related in that article would justify a strip search.

    "Thought to be living illegally in the U.S." is a ruse commonly used by Border Patrol agents who are having a bad day and would like for you to have a bad day, too. One of the most infamous examples was one of their thugs in the Seattle area who used to brag about how many victims he had denied entry into the U.S. His undoing eventually was a road rage incident in which he whipped out his gun & badge & finally got himself fired.

    In recent years over 150 border patrol agents have been busted on corruption charged and another 2000 arrested on assorted other criminal charges. The agency is rife with corruption and misconduct, largely -- but not entirely -- because they neglected to do background checks on most of their new hires for several years.

    The workload of corruption & misconduct cases has so overwhelmed their regular OIG that he's had to farm out much of the effort.

Share This Page