Cory Voorhis plans future court action over his firing

cory voorhis photograph.jpg
Cory Voorhis is playing the waiting game -- again.
Last week, ex-ICE agent Cory Voorhis made his case for why he should get his old job back during a two-day hearing; click here to read J. David McSwane's account of the first session and here for his take on the second one. But even as he waits for Merit Systems Protection Board Judge Jeremiah Cassidy to determine whether he should be reinstated (a ruling is expected in thirty to 45 days), Voorhis is already thinking about going back to court.

"I fully intend to seek some judicial review about how this case has been handled and conducted," he says.

Overall, Voorhis was pleased by the hearings.

"I feel really good about how they went," he notes. "I was really anxious to testify and tell the story for the first time after all these years."

That tale, involving Voorhis's passing of information from a restricted database to gubernatorial candidate Bob Beaprez, had unexpected repercussions. Many observers believe it contributed directly or indirectly to the decision by Governor Bill Ritter not to run for reelection and the failure of onetime Ritter aide Stephanie Villafuerte's nomination as U.S. Attorney.

As for Voorhis himself, he was acquitted of criminal wrongdoing but wound up being sacked by ICE anyhow. One of his goals in pushing for the hearing was to expose the agency's behavior in hurrying him toward the door.

"One thing that was apparent is that the government showed a complete willingness to misconstrue numerous facts and evidence," he says. "I'm terribly disturbed by how the whole investigation was conducted in the first place. They committed some major wrongs that have yet to be made right at this point."

Examples? Voorhis won't go into them right now, "because I anticipate that much of that will be subject to future litigation." But he does feel comfortable discussing his contention that his actions weren't politically motivated even though Beaprez was in campaign mode at the time Voorhis provided info about plea bargains offered to illegal immigrants that was potentially damaging to his opponent, Ritter. As he stressed on the stand, he sought out Beauprez because of his status as a congressman, not a candidate.

"I knew a congressman has oversight authority on federal immigration matters," he says. "I thought at that point the issue was of such a magnitude that it needed the full weight of a U.S. congressman, who could bring all the powers he has to bear to put a stop to that kind of dangerous policy." He adds that he chose Beauprez over other Colorado representatives because he seemed to be the only one of those officials to be speaking regularly about immigration matters.

Beauprez attended the hearing, which impressed Voorhis.

"I want to make clear that this case was never about hurting Bill Ritter or helping Bob Beauprez," Voorhis maintains. "But one thing I've seen throughout this process is that there's quite a distinction between the character of the man who's in office and Bob Beauprez."

He thinks Beauprez "demonstrated what a great man he is by weathering merciless personal attacks on his character even from some of those people who supported me and were calling on him to come to my rescue. To this day, I believe Bob Beauprez owes me nothing. But he has shown the willingness to be supportive of me from the very beginning. I think that shows the type of character the man has."

Likewise, Voorhis was buoyed by the number of backers who attended the hearing.

"Not only did it cheer me, but I think there was an even more important matter at stake. The government in this case actually took efforts to try to hold this hearing in what I'd characterize as a closet, with no witnesses available. That's a miscarriage of justice that they would even attempt that.

"What I always feared was that the misconstruing of facts and evidence would not be witnessed by others. So it was extremely important to have members of the community, whether they supported me or not, have the chance to sit and witness the government at work. And I think that's what transpired."

Several days removed from the hearings, Voorhis is loathe to guess an outcome. In his words, "I long ago gave up on trying to predict how things will go in the judicial system." But he acknowledges the strain it's put on those closest to him.

"This situation has impacted every member of my family, from my two young children and my beautiful wife to my mother and her physical health and every one of my siblings and the extended members of the family," he says, adding, "This isn't a case about just me. It's about the impact on my entire family -- and the impact on the community."

Comments (26)

Historian says:

Voorhis is a poor man's Donald Segretti. Only dumber. And less effective. And more of a liar.

If your "reporting" of a wrong you believed to be illegal wasn't politically motivated, why not go to the FBI instead of a politician?

Go ahead, keep throwing money at litigation and encouraging your mindless followers to finance it. We love it! It's a little stimulus engine.

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 9:58AM
Anonymous says:

What a genius Cory Voorhis is. He's waiting on a ruling, so he makes a bunch of derogatory statements about the court in the meantime. How could that be a bad idea?

Hmmmm. Maybe he's just too dumb to work for taxpayers. His judgment is such that I don't want him carrying a gun, let's put it that way.

I also chuckle at his outrage with the same agency he used to work for, after it was Cory Voorhis, and no one he's now accusing, who jumped into a political campaign to smear a Democrat he disagreed with. Yet not a hint of self-irony in this statement, huh, Cory?

"One thing that was apparent is that the government showed a complete willingness to misconstrue numerous facts and evidence."

If that's the case, then you're a good fit for the job, genius.

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 10:17AM
Anonymous says:

First he abused his job, now he's abusing the justice system.

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 11:03AM
Anonymous says:

I really hope he does take this to court, and the trial is public. That way, the public can hear that the whole "issue" is a non-issue because a local- or state-issued ag-trespass plea bargain cannot prevent deportation because federal law supersedes any local or state plea deals. Voorhis would have known this as part of his ICE training. He will be exposed at ttial as a purely political animal, and I can't wait to hear Boyles and his Klan try to explain it away!

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 11:10AM
L.B. says:

Obviously "Anonymous" and "Historian" are either friends of Tax Ritter's or they work for the Denver Post. Both Anonymous and Historian can't stand the fact that Peter Boyles has the guts to expose the truth about Ag Trespass and the whole darn bunch of liberals who are kissing up to illegal aliens and their lobbyists. Time to throw the bums out of office - The GOP has their share of illegal alien lovers as well; ie John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Bill Owens, Larry Mizel and Bill Armstrong to name a few.

Hope Voorhis gets a settlement and then goes after the other jerks that made his life miserable. I don't mind contributing - it's better than donating to those that are running for office.

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 11:26AM
Anonymous says:

Um, LB, hasn't the Post carried Voorhis' water on this issue? Read up on the Stephanie Villafuerte issue. I'm assuming you actually have read the Post?

I retired from the Rocky.

The only "jerk" who made Cory Voorhis' life miserable is Cory Voorhis.

I thought you Republican ideologues were all about "personal responsibility." Nobody held a gun to Cory the Nitwit's head and said, "Play politics with your job or else." He made that brilliant decision all on his own, not the liberal media or the Ritter campaign. Correct?

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 11:58AM
Historian says:

Voorhis will not get a settlement. Instead, he'll choose to go down the self-righteous-I-don't-care-who-gets-hurt-misguided-self-martyred-idiocy path. He's already admittedly thrown his family under his bus of self-delusion...

This situation has impacted every member of my family, from my two young children and my beautiful wife to my mother and her physical health and every one of my siblings and the extended members of the family," he says, adding, "This isn't a case about just me. It's about the impact on my entire family -- and the impact on the community."

Wrong. It is about only you, and your ham-handed attempts to play politics. Someday when you view the wasteland of your family that this created, you may realize your stupidity.

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 12:24PM
Anonymous says:

Naybe L.B. would like to explain to us how a local or state plea bargain can trump federal law. This ought to be good.

Let's put this in terms L.B. can understand: Guns. What if the city of Denver and the state of Colorado banned all handguns. Would those laws stand, L.B.? Of course not, because the Second Amendment of the FEDERAL Constitution takes precedence.

So in that light, in your Boyles-taught legal brilliance, L.B., please explain to us how a local district attorney's plea deal can avert a federal deportation mandate. Hmmmm???? (Please cite and link to actual laws, not WorldNet Daily!)

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 2:12PM
Anonymous says:

Don't worry about Voorhis. He'll make plenty of money on the teabag-and-Tancredo whine-and-dine circuit, and Clear Channel will give him a talk show. At least WE won't be paying the idiot's salary anymore.

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 2:15PM
Mike says:

Leave it to the Ex-Rocky Mountain News employee and the Historian to be mean spirited. You liberals can't have a discussion without name calling. With the exception of Karen Crummy, Denver Post has been weak on the issue re Voorhis. So many people are jealous of Boyles; get a life. The guy rules the airwaves in Denver. That's what bugs the liberal progressive, open borders crowd. They probably love John McCain too.

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 2:53PM
Himtngal says:

Would love to have Agent Voorhis have his own radio talk show on Clear Channel. Denver needs a talk show strictly about illegal immigration. Voorhis could be our very own talk show host just as Terry Anderson; the voice of Los Angeles is, when it comes to illegal immigration. You go Cory and don't let the bastards grind you down. Why do some of these posts have to be so nasty? Guess that's the liberal way?

L. B.. - you're right on target!

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 3:00PM
Oldsailor says:

I for one am on the side of Cory Voorhis and I hope he gets reinstated at ICE plus backpay. I’m sure he would be much more qualified to be in charge of ICE than Janet N. who is useless. I don’t think Janet or her boss want good people working there. I’m glad Peter Boyle is working so hard to help Cory.

I had some negative input about Anonymous and Historian but I think their posts here reveals what kind of people they are.

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 3:10PM
Historian says:

So sad. The faux-outrage of pro-Voorhis posters over the description of cold, hard, facts, is to be expected. After all, they are complicit in the Voorhis family ruin by continuing to encourage this moron's self-righteous crusade. Politics is messy that way, and if you want to throw political stones without basis, you'd better be prepared for the consequences.

Five years from now, when he is long forgotten but the consequences of his ill-advised foray into attack-and-smear-politics are still felt by his family, will you supporters be there? I doubt it.

Can any of you answer this question?: If the "reporting" of a wrong Voorhis believed to be illegal wasn't politically motivated, why didn't he go to the FBI instead of a politician?

Keep sending him money. He will prevail, and the bells of liberty and freedom will ring throughout the land once again! Amen!

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 3:52PM
Janice says:

Having attended both trials; it is clearly obvious that ICE employs a bunch of non-intellectual personnel to fill their management staff. I don't want to be mean as Messrs "Anonymous" and "Historian" are when they post their diatribe of whine and snivel....but, those who attended the trials of Voorhis know that Cory's supervisors are not the best and the brightest. The lies, the deceit and false testimony these government employees gave under oath is deplorable. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. For sure, Voorhis testimony was factual, telling and really gives the full picture of the obstruction of justice going on in this state. Hopefully, some day, the whole truth about Colorado's corrupt elected officials and public servants will come out. It needs to surface so the corruption will cease. Especially the corruption of preferential treatment given to illegal alien lawbreakers. The people of this state deserve better

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 3:57PM
Mike says:

I think Anonymous and Historian are the same person.

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 4:04PM
Historian says:

I think L.B., Mike, Janice, Oldsailer, Himtngal, and Voorhis are the same person.

After all, none of them can answer my simple question.

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 4:09PM
Luke says:

Who cares?

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 5:56PM
Anonymous says:

Peter Boyles is a radio huckster/weekend Harley warrior who is rich off of encouraging outrage in the stupid. The stupid who are so stupid they can't see they're being played by a rich man pretending to be a populist for truth. You can't admire his ethics -- he has none -- but you gotta admire his business acumen.

Posted On: Tuesday, Feb. 2 2010 @ 9:49PM
Anonymous says:

Just to let everyone know there are plenty of times when a state or local plea agreement trumps immigration law.

Section 237(a)(2)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality act, as amended states that any alien who at any time after entry is convicted of a crime of domestic violence, a crime of stalking, or a crime of child abuse is deportable. This means that any individual who islawfully present in the United States is charged with a crime as defined above would be deportable if found guilty. Now hold on to your hat, the same individual accepts a plea of disorderly conduct, guess what he is no longer deportable from the US. Also, in many cases involving the plain old illegal alien, a plea agreement as stated in the article of Ag Trespassing is not considered a removalble offense, and therefore the individual would not be removed from the US as a criminal. Also that individual would then be able to apply for waivers and potentially get to stay in the US.

So for all you Monday morning immigration agents, please educate yourselves prior to making misguided statements as I have read in these comments. It is unfortunate, but these types of deals are made all over the United States, but you have to ask yourself one question.

"If the illegal alien or green card holder gets such a sweet plea bargain deal, will that same deal be offered to the US citizen if they are charged with the same crime?" The answer to that question is no.

Who is truly the victim in this case?

Posted On: Wednesday, Feb. 3 2010 @ 8:09AM
Ghostus says:

Its interesting we never hear you voicing your opinions of facts of the case on Peters show or here. However, the facts about Ritter and his entire crew are pretty clear to everyone. Having been a lifelong Democrat, I can say I am ashamed of what has gone on with this case. The media coverage is so incredibly biased. You said you worked for the RMN? Due to lack of support they are no longer in business. Same thing will happen to the Denver Post too. The repressive environment there is no conducive th the truth. At least we have Westword. They may be the big winner here.

Posted On: Wednesday, Feb. 3 2010 @ 10:47AM
Anonymous says:

Oh, brother. As Mark Twain once said, "It's not what people don't know that's the problem. It's what they know for sure that just ain't so."

Ag trespass is not a misdemeanor. It is a Class 5 felony, and a deportable offense in itself. And even if all local or state charges against an illegal are dropped completely, the state of being illegal is in itself a federal offense, and nothing a state or local entity does can prevent deportation once the illegal alien is "in the system."

None of the Boyles-Voorhis sycophants on this board can prove otherwise. All they can do is pull an unsubstantiated statement out of their ass such as "these types of deals are made all over the United States." Really? Where? Show me the actual records, not some fairy tale from some white supremacist's website.

There's another direct question the tea-baggers haven't answered here: Why didn't Voorhis go to the FBI instead of a political campaign? I'm amazed that one of them hasn't responded with a typical Boyles answer: IT'S A VAST CONSPIRACY!!! Everybody's involved! Ritter! Napolitano! That Kenyan (or is it Indonesian this week) Obama! The FBI! The CIA! The Trilateral Commission! The Bilderbergers! The second gunman on the Grassy Knoll! The mainstream media! A little old lady in Hoboken! THE ENTIRE WORLD IS OUT TO GET POOR CORY VOORHIS!

(By the way, I suffered with peter boils once. A little Neosporin cleared them right up.)

Posted On: Wednesday, Feb. 3 2010 @ 11:19AM
Boyles-Voorhis Sycophants says:

The Bilderbergers aren't in on it. But the Masons are.

Posted On: Wednesday, Feb. 3 2010 @ 1:26PM
Peter Boils says:

The whole anti-Cory plot began at a secret meeting in Area 51 and was chaired by JonBenet Ramsey's real killer.

Posted On: Wednesday, Feb. 3 2010 @ 2:16PM
Anonymous says:

Please show me under what section of immigration law, Title 8 united States Code, would someone be removed for trespassing, expecially when that individual holds a green card. Not likely. Also, you missed the point on the illegal alien. You are absolutely correct that being unlawfully present is good enough to get the person deported, however, if a conviction is set aside or pleaded down to prevent that individual from being removed as a criminal under immigration law then that is a travesty. I guess the example used in my previous post fell on blind eyes.

So, show me the facts not some ramblings of a bitter person.

Not being all that familiar with Colorado laws I must admit that I spoke out of turn, but when you write things like Ag, I read that to be agriculture and not Agg as in Aggravated. My apology.

Why not go to the FBI? Can't answer that one because I do not know the particulars of the event. I do not propose to assume to know someone else's motives.

You fail to present any evidence to the contrary that the case was mishandled. Take for the example the Supervisor, who lied under oath. Ask any federal agent what the term Gigglio means. It means that you are worthless as a Criminal Investigator because you can not be used to testify because everything you say is now questioned. The supervisor lied under oath, and yet he is not admonished at all. Fair? I do not think so.

It would not matter how many examples you are provided about "Deals being made all over the country." You find some way to turn it around to fit your self righteous need to espouse conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. You must not be law enforcement, because if you were you would know the truth of what I just said.

Whte Supremict. No, not at all, just a public servant of 13 years tired of seeing comments similar to yours. I am not here to judge Voorhis or you, but simply to state information that I have gained from 13 years of Federal Law Enforcement service.

Posted On: Wednesday, Feb. 3 2010 @ 4:39PM
Anonymous says:

Sir, you missed the point. You wrote, "if a conviction is set aside or pleaded down to prevent that individual from being removed as a criminal under immigration law then that is a travesty." Let's see if I can explain this more clearly. The "conviction that was set aside or pleaded down" is a local or state issue. That local or state action CANNOT "prevent that individual from being removed as a criminal under immigration law" because that person REMAINS a criminal by FEDERAL standards just for the act of being in the U.S. illegally. And because he's now in custody and in the court system, he is NOT set free! He is simply transferred to federal supervision and disposal. A LOCAL or STATE acquittal DOES NOT give him a free pass to escape FEDERAL law. The only way that could happen is if the FEDERAL immigration officials drop the ball. It would be their fault, not that of a local D.A.

And Voorhis had to know this. THIS is why he turned his suspicions over to a political campaign, not the FBI. The FBI would have told him just what I told you: it doesn't matter what the D.A. does. The federal law takes precedence, and an illegal caught up in the system would still be deported even if it turns out he committed no violation of state or local law. He's still a criminal. But Voorhis and the Beauprez campaign knew that there were enough gullible people not to understand this -- and this thread proves it.

Posted On: Wednesday, Feb. 3 2010 @ 10:45PM
Anonymous says:

Please conduct a google search for Section 237(a)(2) (Lawfully present aliens) and 212(a)(2) (illegal aliens) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. You will see in almost all cases a conviction is needed, and therefore, if a conviction is needed and that conviction is set aside or pleaded down to a non-removable offense the person, if lawfully present in the US, cannot be removed.

I am not going to argue the position on illegal aliens, because the mere fact that they entered the US illegally allows for their removal. However, if they are removed as a criminal and they re-enter the US, then they are more likely to be prosecuted at the Federal Level.

As an example: An illegal alien is arrested for and charged with Domestic Violence, a defined removable offense under 237(a)(2)(E), the illegal alien pleads to Disorderly Conduct, gets 11 months probataion then is removed. Upon his return his arrested for the probation violation and a prosecution packet is provided to the US Attorney for review based on the unlawful re-entry, there is a good chance the case would not be accepted because the individual was not removed as a criminal alien. Of course I am speaking in general terms, and it really depends on the jursidiction.

Federal law does take precedence, but Congress saw fit to build into the law requirements that must be met before the precedence takes affect. If the criteria are not met then the law has no impact.

What is happening on this thread is that individuals think they know immigration law. Only Tax law is more complex than immigration law. There are no clearly defined answers. What gets a person removed in Arkansas may not apply in California.

Again, I am not adding comments to judge or support anyone, merely to try and clear the air about the often times misunderstood and misinterpreted immigratin laws.

Posted On: Thursday, Feb. 4 2010 @ 8:13AM

Write Comment


Comments may not show up immediately after submission. Please wait a minute after posting a comment for it to appear.

All reader comments are subject to our Terms of Use. By clicking "Post," you acknowledge that you have reviewed and agree to these Terms.

Most Popular Stories

Sign up for free stuff, news info & more!

Tools