Michigan couple jailed in Mexico returning home after lawmaker visit
A couple from Michigan is returning home after being jailed in Mexico for over a month.
Paul and Christy Akeo boarded a flight with Congressman Tom Barrett after the lawmaker landed in the country on April 2.
The two had a membership with the Palace Resorts, a company based in Florida that owns a number of resorts and time-shares in Mexico
(FOX 2) - It is the end of an international nightmare for two Michigan residents who were stuck in a Mexican jail in a dispute over a time-share, as they are now flying back home.
What they're saying
Paul and Christy Akeo, along with Congressman Tom Barrett, entered their plane back home on Thursday that can be seen in a video posted to the representative's X account at 8:44 p.m.
This came a day after Barrett landed in Mexico to meet the couple, who had been jailed since the beginning of March.
"I met with them personally for an hour and learned of the horrific conditions they are facing — rubbled walls, overcrowded cells, toilets that don't flush, and disgusting food," Barrett said. "I met with the president of the Quintana Roo Supreme Court to expedite any relief we can provide."
The backstory
According to their daughter, Lindsey Lemke Hull, the two had a membership with the Palace Resorts, a company based in Florida that owns a number of resorts and time-shares in Mexico, but Lemke Hull says the Palace Resorts breached the contract.
That was said to be about $117,000, but it was over a year ago. There was no dispute, or so they thought.
The parents decided to go to Cancun but were detained and arrested as soon as their airplane landed, Lemke Hull said. Customs officials claimed they had outstanding charges of criminal fraud and sent them straight to jail.
"She's very confused. She cries a lot. She is scared she's unaware of the amount of corruption that is going on with this case. She is upset because she can't see her husband or speak to her husband about anything," Lemke Hull said. "She's just there."
Dig deeper
Back in March, it was determined that the Palace Resorts would be given six more months to gather evidence, which meant that Lemke Hull's parents would have been jailed in Mexico for at least six more months.
Thankfully, they won't have to wait that long anymore.
The Source
FOX 2 used information from Congressman Tom Barrett's social media and previous reporting.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Would a weaker dollar be a good thing for the US?
The strength of the U.S. dollar influences trade, inflation and investment, but as President Trump noted Friday, the currency's power comes with trade-offs. 'I'm a person that likes a strong dollar, but a weak dollar makes you a hell of a lot more money,' Trump told reporters Friday. The president added that a strong dollar helps keep inflation in check and feels good psychologically, but argued, 'You can't sell anything.' His mixed messaging highlights tension policymakers have long grappled with: There isn't a simple connection between the strength of a country's currency and the strength of its economy. On one hand, a strong dollar makes imported goods cheaper for American consumers, but on the other, a weaker dollar makes U.S. products more competitive abroad, benefiting exporters. What does it mean when the dollar is strong vs. weak? The dollar is considered strong when it rises in value against other currencies, as measured by the exchange rate. If a dollar can buy more of another currency than before, that means it's getting stronger relative to that currency. Tourists notice this when traveling abroad and exchanging money. Earlier this year, the U.S. dollar and the euro were nearly at parity, or worth practically the same. Today, $1 is worth about 0.85 euros, meaning Americans visiting Italy will notice they get fewer euros in exchange for their dollars than just a few months ago. In that sense, the dollar has weakened relative to the euro. But the value of the U.S. dollar — and other currencies — is constantly changing due to supply and demand, shaped by factors like monetary policy, inflation and investor sentiment. The dollar has been weakening recently, falling more than 10 percent in the first half of the year when compared to a basket of currencies from major U.S. trading partners. The last time the dollar weakened this much at the start of the year was 1973, according to The New York Times. What are the advantages of a strong dollar? American tourists get more value for their money abroad when the dollar is strong, but you don't have to leave the country to experience the upside. One of the main benefits is that it lowers the cost of imports, making foreign products cheaper for consumers. But shoppers buying Mexican tequila and Canadian maple syrup aren't the only ones who come out ahead — a strong dollar also lowers input costs for businesses that rely on imports, easing inflationary pressures. A U.S. automaker importing parts from Mexico would pay fewer dollars for the same peso-priced components when the dollar strengthens against the peso. Lower input costs for U.S. companies put pressure on foreign competitors to cut prices to stay competitive, another potential win for American consumers. More broadly, as the world's primary reserve currency, a strong dollar projects global confidence and reinforces trust in the U.S. financial system. It's often seen as a sign of economic strength. 'When we have a strong dollar, one thing happens — it sounds good,' Trump told reporters Friday. What are the disadvantages of a strong dollar? A strong dollar can hurt American exporters because it makes U.S. goods more expensive in foreign markets. Boeing, for example, exports large numbers of aircraft globally, and when the U.S. dollar strengthens, those planes become more expensive to foreign buyers paying in other currencies. American firms that don't export can also feel the pinch, as they often compete with imports. A strong dollar can make it harder for Made-in-the-USA products to hold their own against cheaper goods from abroad. 'You can't sell tractors, you can't sell trucks, you can't sell anything,' Trump said of a strong dollar on Friday. 'It is good for inflation, that's about it.' While a strong dollar tends to ease U.S. inflationary pressures, it also intensifies inflation abroad — a dynamic that, in today's interconnected global economy, can ultimately be bad for business. Another point: A strong dollar raises the cost of visiting the U.S., which can dampen tourism. In the end, the strength of the dollar is a balancing act, with trade-offs that ripple across the global economy. Whether it helps or hurts depends on where you sit and what you're trying to sell.
Politico
4 hours ago
- Politico
ICE Is Overplaying Its Hand. We've Seen It Happen Before.
Out of this breach emerged the Compromise of 1850, a grand bargain designed to preserve the Union. Under its provisions, California entered the Union as a free state, but the citizens of other former Mexican territories were left to make their own determinations about slavery. Congress abolished the slave trade, but not slavery, in Washington, D.C. And, in return for these concessions, Southern politicians secured what would prove to be the most incendiary component of the deal: the Fugitive Slave Act (FSA) of 1850. The new act inspired widespread disgust throughout the North. The law stripped accused runaways of their right to trial by jury and allowed individual cases to be bumped up from state courts to special federal courts. As an extra incentive to federal commissioners adjudicating such cases, it provided a $10 fee when a defendant was remanded to slavery but only $5 for a finding rendered against the slave owner. Most obnoxious to many Northerners, the law stipulated harsh fines and prison sentences for any citizen who refused to cooperate with or aid federal authorities in the capture of accused fugitives — much in the same way the Trump administration has threatened to jail persons who impede its immigration raids. Before the FSA, formerly enslaved people were able to build lives for themselves in many northern communities. They found homes, took jobs, made friends, started families, formed churches. But after the FSA, they were permanent fugitives — and anyone who employed them, associated with them or provided them housing were accomplices. Early enforcement made immediate martyrs of ordinary people and pierced the illusion that slavery was just a Southern problem. In 1851 federal agents in Boston arrested Thomas Sims, who had escaped enslavement in Georgia, and marched him to a federal courthouse under guard by more than 300 armed soldiers to prevent a rescue. For Boston, a city whose history was steeped in the struggle against King George's standing army, it was an ominous display. Sims' hearing was, just as the law intended, shambolic, and he was ultimately returned to Georgia. (He would later escape a second time during the Civil War.) Want to read more stories like this? POLITICO Weekend delivers gripping reads, smart analysis and a bit of high-minded fun every Friday. Sign up for the newsletter. That same year, Shadrach Minkins, a waiter who had also fled enslavement to Boston, was seized in broad daylight. This time, word traveled fast, and a local 'vigilance committee' — interracial groups formed to monitor and, when necessary, resist enforcement of the fugitive slave law — assembled, with an eye toward liberating the accused man. Awaiting a hearing in federal custody, Minkins was suddenly rescued in a dramatic confrontation witnessed by attorney Richard H. Dana, Jr. 'We heard a shout from across the courthouse,' Dana recalled, 'continued into a yell of triumph, and in an instant after down the steps came two negroes bearing the prisoner between them with his clothes half torn off, and so stupefied by his sudden rescue and the violence of the dragging off that he sat almost dumb, and I thought had fainted. ... It was all done in an instant, too quick to be believed.' Minkins made it to Montreal, where he lived the rest of his life in freedom.
Los Angeles Times
8 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump says he's deporting the ‘worst of the worst.' What is really happening?
They called them the 'worst of the worst.' For more than a month and a half, the Trump administration has posted a barrage of mugshots of L.A. undocumented immigrants with long rap sheets. Officials have spotlighted Cuong Chanh Phan, a 49-year-old Vietnamese man convicted in 1997 of second-degree murder for his role in slaying two teens at a high school graduation party. They have shared blurry photos on Instagram of a slew of convicted criminals such as Rolando Veneracion-Enriquez, a 55-year-old Filipino man convicted in 1996 of sexual penetration with a foreign object with force and assault with intent to commit a felony. And Eswin Uriel Castro, a Mexican convicted in 2002 of child molestation and in 2021 of assault with a deadly weapon. But the immigrants that the Department of Homeland Security showcase in X posts and news releases do not represent the majority of immigrants swept up across Los Angeles. As the number of immigration arrests in the L.A. region quadrupled from 540 in April to 2,185 in June, seven out of 10 immigrants arrested in June had no criminal conviction — a trend that immigrant advocates say belies administration claims that they are targeting 'heinous illegal alien criminals' who represent a threat to public safety. According to a Los Angeles Times analysis of ICE data from the Deportation Data Project, the proportion of immigrants without criminal convictions arrested in seven counties in and around L.A. has skyrocketed from 35% in April, to 46% in May, and to 69% from June 1 to June 26. Austin Kocher, a geographer and research assistant professor at Syracuse University who specializes in immigration enforcement, said the Trump administration was not being entirely honest about the criminal status of those they were arresting. Officials, he said, followed a strategy of focusing on the minority of violent convicted criminals so they could justify enforcement policies that are proving to be less popular. 'I think they know that if they were honest with the American public that they're arresting people who cook our food, wash dishes in the kitchen, take care of people in nursing homes, people who are just living in part of the community … there's a large segment of the public, including a large segment of Trump's own supporters, who would be uncomfortable and might even oppose those kinds of immigration practices.' In Los Angeles, the raids swept up garment worker Jose Ortiz, who worked 18 years at the Ambiance Apparel clothing warehouse in downtown L.A., before being nabbed in a June 6 raid; car wash worker Jesus Cruz, a 52-year-old father who was snatched on June 8 — just before his daughter's graduation — from Westchester Hand Wash; and Emma De Paz, a recent widow and tamale vendor from Guatemala who was arrested June 19 outside a Hollywood Home Depot. Such arrests may be influencing the public's perception of the raids. Multiple polls show support for Trump's immigration agenda slipping as masked federal agents increasingly swoop up undocumented immigrants from workplaces and streets. ICE data shows that about 31% of the immigrants arrested across the L.A. region from June 1 to June 26 had criminal convictions, 11% had pending criminal charges and 58% were classified as 'other immigration violator,' which ICE defines as 'individuals without any known criminal convictions or pending charges in ICE's system of record at the time of the enforcement action.' The L.A. region's surge in arrests of noncriminals has been more dramatic than the U.S. as a whole: Arrests of immigrants with no criminal convictions climbed nationally from 57% in April to 69% in June. Federal raids here have also been more fiercely contested in Southern California — particularly in L.A. County, where more than 2 million residents are undocumented or living with undocumented family members. 'A core component of their messaging is that this is about public safety, that the people that they are arresting are threats to their communities,' said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank. 'But it's hard to maintain that this is all about public safety when you're going out and arresting people who are just going about their lives and working.' Trump never said he would arrest only criminals. Almost as soon as he retook office on Jan. 20, Trump signed a stack of executive orders aimed at drastically curbing immigration. The administration then moved to expand arrests from immigrants who posed a security threat to anyone who entered the country illegally. Yet while officials kept insisting they were focused on violent criminals, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt issued a warning: 'That doesn't mean that the other illegal criminals who entered our nation's borders are off the table.' As White House chief advisor on border policy Tom Homan put it: 'If you're in the country illegally, you got a problem.' Still, things did not really pick up until May, when White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller ordered ICE's top field officials to shift to more aggressive tactics: arresting undocumented immigrants, whether or not they had a criminal record. Miller set a new goal: arresting 3,000 undocumented people a day, a quota that immigration experts say is impossible to reach by focusing only on criminals. 'There aren't enough criminal immigrants in the United States to fill their arrest quotas and to get millions and millions of deportations, which is what the president has explicitly promised,' Bier said. 'Immigration and Customs Enforcement says there's half a million removable noncitizens who have criminal convictions in the United States. Most of those are nonviolent: traffic, immigration offenses. It's not millions and millions.' By the time Trump celebrated six months in office, DHS boasted that the Trump administration had already arrested more than 300,000 undocumented immigrants. '70% of ICE arrests,' the agency said in a news release, 'are individuals with criminal convictions or charges.' But that claim no longer appeared to be true. While 78% of undocumented immigrants arrested across the U.S. in April had a criminal conviction or faced a pending charge, that number had plummeted to 57% in June. In L.A., the difference between what Trump officials said and the reality on the ground was more stark: Only 43% of those arrested across the L.A. region had criminal convictions or faced a pending charge. Still, ICE kept insisting it was 'putting the worst first.' As stories circulate across communities about the arrests of law-abiding immigrants, there are signs that support for Trump's deportation agenda is falling. A CBS/YouGov poll published July 20 shows about 56% of those surveyed approved of Trump's handling of immigration in March, but that dropped to 50% in June and 46% in July. About 52% of poll respondents said the Trump administration is trying to deport more people than expected. When asked who the Trump administration is prioritizing for deporting, only 44% said 'dangerous criminals.' California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass have repeatedly accused Trump of conducting a national experiment in Los Angeles. 'The federal government is using California as a playground to test their indiscriminate actions that fulfill unsafe arrest quotas and mass detention goals,' Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for Newsom told The Times. 'They are going after every single immigrant, regardless of whether they have a criminal background and without care that they are American citizens, legal status holders and foreign-born, and even targeting native-born U.S. citizens.' When pressed on why ICE is arresting immigrants who have not been convicted or are not facing pending criminal charges, Trump administration officials tend to argue that many of those people have violated immigration law. 'ICE agents are going to arrest people for being in the country illegally,' Homan told CBS News earlier this month. 'We still focus on public safety threats and national security threats, but if we find an illegal alien in the process of doing that, they're going to be arrested too.' Immigration experts say that undermines their message that they are ridding communities of people who threaten public safety. 'It's a big backtracking from 'These people are out killing people, raping people, harming them in demonstrable ways,' to 'This person broke immigration law in this way or that way,'' Bier said. The Trump administration is also trying to find new ways to target criminals in California. It has threatened to withhold federal funds to California due to its 'sanctuary state' law, which limits county jails from coordinating with ICE except in cases involving immigrants convicted of a serious crime or felonies such as murder, rape, robbery or arson. Last week, the U.S. Justice Department requested California counties, including L.A., provide data on all jail inmates who are not U.S. citizens in an effort to help federal immigration agents prioritize those who have committed crimes. 'Although every illegal alien by definition violates federal law,' the U.S. Justice Department said in a news release, 'those who go on to commit crimes after doing so show that they pose a heightened risk to our Nation's safety and security.' As Americans are bombarded with dueling narratives of good vs. bad immigrants, Kocher believes the question we have to grapple with is not 'What does the data say?' Instead, we should ask: 'How do we meaningfully distinguish between immigrants with serious criminal convictions and immigrants who are peacefully living their lives?' 'I don't think it's reasonable, or helpful, to represent everyone as criminals — or everyone as saints,' Kocher said. 'Probably the fundamental question, which is also a question that plagues our criminal justice system, is whether our legal system is capable of distinguishing between people who are genuine public safety threats and people who are simply caught up in the bureaucracy.' The data, Kocher said, show that ICE is currently unable or unwilling to make that distinction. 'If we don't like the way that the system is working, we might want to rethink whether we want a system where people who are simply living in the country following laws, working in their economy, should actually have a pathway to stay,' Kocher said. 'And the only way to do that is actually to change the laws.' In the rush to blast out mugshots of some of the most criminal L.A. immigrants, the Trump administration left out a key part of the story. According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, its staff notified ICE on May 5 of Veneracion's pending release after he had served nearly 30 years in prison for the crimes of assault with intent to commit rape and sexual penetration with a foreign object with force. But ICE failed to pick up Veneracion and canceled its hold on him May 19, a day before he was released on parole. A few weeks later, as ICE amped up its raids, federal agents arrested Veneracion on June 7 at the ICE office in L.A. The very next day, DHS shared his mugshot in a news release titled 'President Trump is Stepping Up Where Democrats Won't.' The same document celebrated the capture of Phan, who served nearly 25 years in prison after he was convicted of second-degree murder. CDCR said the Board of Parole Hearings coordinated with ICE after Phan was granted parole in 2022. Phan was released that year to ICE custody. But those details did not stop Trump officials from taking credit for his arrest and blaming California leaders for letting Phan loose. 'It is sickening that Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass continue to protect violent criminal illegal aliens at the expense of the safety of American citizens and communities,' DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.
