Justice Department to sue Sheriff Joe

[okie52]

US Justice Dept. plans to sue Ariz. sheriff Arpaio over civil rights allegations


05-10-2012 08:33 AM CDT |By WALTER BERRY, Associated Press

PHOENIX (Associated Press) --
Federal authorities have said they plan to sue Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio and his office over allegations of civil rights violations, including the racial profiling of Latinos.

The U.S. Justice Department has been seeking an agreement requiring Arpaio's office to train officers in how to make constitutional traffic stops, collect data on people arrested in traffic stops and reach out to Latinos to assure them that the department is there to also protect them.

Arpaio has denied the racial profiling allegations and has claimed that allowing a court monitor would mean that every policy decision would have to be cleared through an observer and would nullify his authority.

The self-proclaimed toughest sheriff in America has been a national political fixture who has built his reputation on jailing inmates in tents and dressing them in pink underwear, selling himself to voters as unceasingly tough on crime and pushing the bounds of how far local police can go to confront illegal immigration.

DOJ officials told a lawyer for Arpaio on April 3 that the lawman's refusal of a court-appointed monitor was a deal-breaker that would end settlement negotiations and result in a federal lawsuit.

The "notice of intent to file civil action" came Wednesday from Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas Perez in a letter to an Arpaio lawyer.

Perez, who heads the DOJ's civil rights division, noted that it's been more than 100 days since the sheriff's office received the DOJ's findings report and federal authorities haven't met with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office counsel since Feb. 6 to discuss the terms of a consent agreement.

At a news conference Wednesday afternoon, Arpaio defended himself in the face of the pending lawsuit.

"If they sue, we'll go to court. And then we'll find out the real story," he said. "There's lots of miscommunication emanating from Washington. They broke off communications.

"They're telling me how to run my organization. I'd like to get this resolved, but I'm not going to give up my authority to the federal government. It's as simple as that," Arpaio added.

Last December, the DOJ released a scathing report accusing Arpaio's office of racially profiling Latinos, basing immigration enforcement on racially charged citizen complaints and punishing Hispanic jail inmates for speaking Spanish in Arizona's most populous county. Maricopa County includes Phoenix and its surroundings.

The DOJ also accused Arpaio of having a culture of disregard for basic constitutional rights.

The civil rights allegations have led some Arpaio critics to call for his resignation, including the National Council of La Raza, a prominent advocacy group for Latinos.

The sheriff's office also is facing criticism over more than 400 sex-crimes investigations _ including dozens of alleged child molestations _ that hadn't been investigated adequately or weren't examined at all over a three-year period ending in 2007.

Arpaio has apologized for the botched cases, reopened 432 sex-crimes investigations and made 19 arrests.

Separate from the civil rights probe, a federal grand jury has been investigating Arpaio's office on criminal abuse-of-power allegations since at least December 2009. That grand jury is examining the investigative work of the sheriff's anti-public corruption squad.

[OULenexaman]

The DOJ also accused Arpaio of having a culture of disregard for basic constitutional rights.

Pot calling kettle....

[Midtowner]

Arpaio is a scumbag. He's been sliding downhill ever since his pet District Attorney and his Asst. were disbarred for abusing their power to prosecute political rivals for bogus offenses.

[olevetonahill]

Arpaio is a scumbag. He's been sliding downhill ever since his pet District Attorney and his Asst. were disbarred for abusing their power to prosecute political rivals for bogus offenses.

Yer really Leroy in Drag aint ya.

[olevetonahill]

Ya can help him out here

https://www.secureiws.com/arpaiolegaldefensefund/

[okie52]

Ya can help him out here

https://www.secureiws.com/arpaiolegaldefensefund/

I'll send him some dough. Anybody fighting Holder can't be all bad.

[texaspokieokie]

Sheriff Joe & Gov. Brewer are 2 of my heroes.

The ****ing feds are gonna sue him for doing the job they should be doing. They say he discriminates, of course he does !!!

the whole problem is mexicans, so he concentrates on mexicans. the illegals are strangling the state of AZ.

[okie52]

Arpaio is a scumbag. He's been sliding downhill ever since his pet District Attorney and his Asst. were disbarred for abusing their power to prosecute political rivals for bogus offenses.

He may be but he is fighting scumbags...including a justice department and president that sought to overturn an AZ law that punished employers that knowingly hired illegals...a law that was signed by none other than Obama's on Homeland Security secretary Napolitano. Fortunately, every court including the SC shot down Holder and Obama's attempts to overturn this law.

[Midtowner]

Yer really Leroy in Drag aint ya.

So you think it's a-ok to charge someone with a crime you have no basis to believe they committed just because they don't tow your political line? Or does the way he treats illegals (which I actually approve of) simply excuse anything he does? A man is defined by his dishonorable actions more than his honorable actions. In Arpaio's case, using his public office to persecute political opponents by subjecting them to baseless sex crimes allegations (and that's for starters) defines him as a dishonorable character.

For all the good Clinton did while in office, he perjured himself, and thus is widely regarded as a slimeball.

You don't get to have it both ways. Arpaio's bad actions cannot simply be excused because of the (R) next to his name.

[Midtowner]

He may be but he is fighting scumbags...including a justice department and president that sought to overturn an AZ law that punished employers that knowingly hired illegals...a law that was signed by none other than Obama's on Homeland Security secretary Napolitano. Fortunately, every court including the SC shot down Holder and Obama's attempts to overturn this law.

The legal issue needed to be settled. There was and still is a substantial question of law as to whether the states have the power to legislate in the area of regulating immigration.

[olevetonahill]

You threw out all these accusations about him , Can ya back them up?With Facts not more accusations

As far as him enforcing the Law, does it really matter if its a Fed law or a State Law?

Maybe he should just enforce those Laws set by his own county.

[okie52]

The legal issue needed to be settled. There was and still is a substantial question of law as to whether the states have the power to legislate in the area of regulating immigration.

Holder and Obama didn't seek to overturn the law to just settle the "issue" for some legal guidance. They wanted it overturned to fit their agenda. They lost every court battle on this law. That law had been on the books since 2007 a full 3 years before being challenged by Obama. Holder and Obama filed their case against the employer law shortly after the main AZ law concerning illegal immigration was passed in April 2010, which, of course, is now in front of the SC.

[Midtowner]

You threw out all these accusations about him , Can ya back them up?With Facts not more accusations

As far as him enforcing the Law, does it really matter if its a Fed law or a State Law?

Maybe he should just enforce those Laws set by his own county.

Sure:


As chief prosecutor for Arizona's most populous county, which covers much of the Phoenix area, Thomas, a Republican, gained national prominence after joining forces with Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County's controversial sheriff, in aggressively pursuing, detaining and prosecuting undocumented immigrants.

A series of failed public corruption prosecutions, also closely plotted with Arpaio, proved Thomas's downfall. After the cases collapsed, a far-reaching independent investigation authorized by the Arizona Supreme Court revealed stunning ethical lapses, according to the scathing 247-page report by the review panel.

Thomas suffered from "profound arrogance" that led him into "ethical ruin," said the panel, headed by William O'Neill, the state's presiding disciplinary judge.

Thomas, aided by Aubuchon, "outrageously exploited power, flagrantly fostered fear, and disgracefully misused the law," the panel said.

In a decision read from the bench, O'Neill said the panel found "clear and convincing evidence" that Thomas and his deputy brought unfounded and malicious criminal and civil charges against political opponents, including four state judges and the state attorney general.

The charges were ultimately rejected by state grand juries or thrown out of court as meritless, but not before wrecking havoc on the lives of those targeted.

Thomas used his office to settle political scores and worked closely with Arpaio's office in the discredited prosecutions, said Bennett Gershman, a national expert on prosecutor misconduct who acted as a consultant for the ethics investigation.

"Anybody who disagreed with them, they indicted," Gershman said.

In one instance, Thomas brought criminal charges against a state judge with no evidence and no investigation, in order to stop the judge from filing an adverse ruling the following day in a corruption case. In another case, Thomas indicted a county official on more than 120 misdemeanor and felony counts, despite having clear knowledge that the statute of limitations for almost all of the alleged crimes had passed more than a year earlier.

Thomas and Arpaio are under investigation by a federal grand jury for possible civil rights and other charges, according to court documents obtained by the Arizona Republic in 2010. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Phoenix declined to comment on the grand jury proceedings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/andrew-thomas-disbarred-phoenix-prosecutor_n_1415815.html

Thomas and Arpaio were allies. Thomas went after Arpaio's enemies with false charges.

See also:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-lincoln-republican/2012/04/11/opinion-arpaio-just-as-guilty-as-andrew-thomas/

[Midtowner]

Holder and Obama didn't seek to overturn the law to just settle the "issue" for some legal guidance. They wanted it overturned to fit their agenda. They lost every court battle on this law. That law had been on the books since 2007 a full 3 years before being challenged by Obama. Holder and Obama filed their case against the employer law shortly after the main AZ law concerning illegal immigration was passed in April 2010, which, of course, is now in front of the SC.

It's a valid exercise of federal power to protect the sphere of influence federal legislative authority has over an issue. Is it political? It's always political. That doesn't make it wrong. The Supreme Court could go either way on this. To state that the Justice Department has "lost every court battle on this law" is not remotely accurate. Most of the law has been prevented from going into effect. I believe the only parts which have actually gone into effect weren't even challenged by the Justice Department (but have been challenged by other plaintiffs).

[okie52]

It's a valid exercise of federal power to protect the sphere of influence federal legislative authority has over an issue. Is it political? It's always political. That doesn't make it wrong. The Supreme Court could go either way on this. To state that the Justice Department has "lost every court battle on this law" is not remotely accurate. Most of the law has been prevented from going into effect. I believe the only parts which have actually gone into effect weren't even challenged by the Justice Department (but have been challenged by other plaintiffs).

That is completely wrong about the employer law.


Supreme Court upholds Ariz. employer sanctions law


By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY


Updated 5/27/2011 10:24 AM |
665 | 32

WASHINGTON — A Supreme Court decision upholding an Arizona law penalizing businesses that hire illegal immigrants could spur other states to try similar measures aimed at stopping people from crossing the border illegally.

By Denny Gainer, USA TODAY file

The Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law that targets businesses who hire illegal immigrants.

In their 5-3 decision Thursday, the justices made clear that states can play a role in what is generally a federal system of immigration regulation. The court upheld a 2007 Arizona law that revokes the business license of companies that hire unauthorized workers, saying it met an exception to the usual federal prohibition on states setting civil or criminal penalties in this area.

The court, however, offered no clear signal of how it might rule on a more controversial and closely watched Arizona anti-immigration law, signed in 2010 by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and now facing a separate, higher-profile legal challenge.

The court "gives the green light to state use of licensing laws as a tool of immigration enforcement," says Temple University law professor Peter Spiro, predicting that advocates for restrictions will likely push other states to adopt measures similar to Arizona. "But that doesn't mean they will get their way," added Spiro, who specializes in immigration law. "Business interests are very powerful in state capitals."

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, among the groups that backed Arizona at the court, said, "I think you're going to see this become a catalyst for state action, in licensing and other areas." He termed the ruling "a road map" for states that want "to protect their borders and citizens."

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) also said it hoped state legislatures would move on new restrictions.

Omar Jadwat, an immigration rights lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which took the lead with the Chamber of Commerce in suing Arizona, expressed regret about the ruling but stressed its narrowness and said it would not affect resolution of the dispute over SB 1070.

Civil rights and business groups had argued that the Arizona law clashes with comprehensive U.S. immigration policy and, in a practical vein, burdens lawful employers and could lead to discrimination based on race and national origin. Lawyer Carter Phillips, who represented the challengers, told the justices during arguments in December that Congress feared that if employers faced heavy penalties, they would "err on the side of not hiring" people who looked foreign but were authorized to work here.

The key question was whether the Arizona penalty was overridden by federal immigration rules that bar "any state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ" illegal immigrants.

In his opinion for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the sanction is permitted under the "licensing" exemption. He stressed that the Arizona law covers only "knowing or intentional violations" of the U.S. prohibition on hiring illegal workers and that the penalty is triggered only after the second violation.

"An employer acting in good faith need have no fear of the sanctions," Roberts wrote.

The court in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting also upheld an Arizona provision requiring all employers in the state to use a federal electronic verification system to confirm that workers are authorized to take jobs. The federal government makes that E-verify system optional, and challengers said the records are incomplete and prone to error.

Roberts was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and, for most of his opinion, Clarence Thomas.

Dissenting were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. The court's ninth justice, Elena Kagan, who previously was U.S. solicitor general, did not participate.

The U.S. government had sided with the challengers, saying the state's law was not truly a "licensing" provision because it did not involve the granting of licenses, only the revocation.

Roberts noted in his opinion that at least eight other states, including Colorado, Mississippi and Pennsylvania, have followed Arizona with laws attempting to impose sanctions for the hiring of illegal workers.

Dissenting justices said the federal system was intended to prevent such a patchwork of state laws and said the majority too broadly construed the licensing exception.

Justice Breyer, in a dissenting opinion joined by Ginsburg, wrote that state penalties "might prove more effective in stopping the hiring of unauthorized aliens. But they are unlikely to do so consistent with Congress' other critically important goals, in particular, Congress' efforts to protect from discrimination legal workers who look or sound foreign."

[Midtowner]

I recall that aspect now, you are correct. But to say that either side has been completely successful or not is not entirely accurate.

[okie52]

I recall that aspect now, you are correct. But to say that either side has been completely successful or not is not entirely accurate.

What success did Holder/Obama get from the challenge of the AZ employer law? At least prior to their challenge some states may have wondered about such a law being enforceable if they have enacted it themselves. As far as I can tell it cemented that law not just for AZ but for every state that now wishes to follow it.

[Midtowner]

What success did Holder/Obama get from the challenge of the AZ employer law? At least prior to their challenge some states may have wondered about such a law being enforceable if they have enacted it themselves. As far as I can tell it cemented that law not just for AZ but for every state that now wishes to follow it.

Until the SCOTUS comes down with its opinion, we only know that states are allowed to have some limited avenues of action in immigration enforcement, and only in very specific areas. I don't believe there's an articulate overarching principle announced in that decision. Lower court victories are going to be irrelevant once this opinion comes down in the next couple of months.

The success Holder/Obama get is preserving what used to be absolute federal power in regulating immigration, sort of like how the feds have exclusive control over foreign policy and interstate commerce.

[okie52]

Until the SCOTUS comes down with its opinion, we only know that states are allowed to have some limited avenues of action in immigration enforcement, and only in very specific areas. I don't believe there's an articulate overarching principle announced in that decision. Lower court victories are going to be irrelevant once this opinion comes down in the next couple of months.

The success Holder/Obama get is preserving what used to be absolute federal power in regulating immigration, sort of like how the feds have exclusive control over foreign policy and interstate commerce.

Except Holder/Obama didn't get it. States now know they can yank employers licenses that hire illegals. Certainly not the outcome Obama and Holder hoped for from the courts.

[LiveLaughLove]

So you think it's a-ok to charge someone with a crime you have no basis to believe they committed just because they don't tow your political line?

This is precisely what Obama and Holder do and are doing.

Ignore voter intimidation by the black panthers, try to prosecute OKeefe for proving voter fraud, etc etc.

You don't get more scumbaggy than Holder. Arpaio is a rank amateur compared to him.

[OULenexaman]

"You don't get more scumbaggy than Holder."...............there is one step up....he appointed him.

[olevetonahill]

"You don't get more scumbaggy than Holder."...............there is one step up....he appointed him.

Heh

[LiveLaughLove]

That's true but Holder's been a political brown shirt, scumbag in two administrations. We've only had Dear Leader for one, Thank God.

[Curly Bill]

Who's the biggest piece of scum:

Holder or Axelrod?

[OULenexaman]

coin toss....

[sappstuf]

Who's the biggest piece of scum:

Holder or Axelrod?

Yes.

[OULenexaman]

put Emanuel in the middle of 'em....you gotch one hell of a scummy sammich.

[Curly Bill]

put Emanuel in the middle of 'em....you gotch one hell of a scummy sammich.

Scum sandwich with arugula. Obammy's favorite!

[okie52]

Yes.

It works for just about everything.

[Midtowner]

Except Holder/Obama didn't get it. States now know they can yank employers licenses that hire illegals. Certainly not the outcome Obama and Holder hoped for from the courts.

Win some lose some.

I'd have not guessed at that result.

[Midtowner]

This is precisely what Obama and Holder do and are doing.

Ignore voter intimidation by the black panthers, try to prosecute OKeefe for proving voter fraud, etc etc.

You don't get more scumbaggy than Holder. Arpaio is a rank amateur compared to him.

O'Keefe plead guilty to misdemeanor entering a federal building under false pretenses. Considering he was trying to hack the phone system of a U.S. Congresswoman, I'd say that's getting off pretty light. If the President had anything to do with that, they'd be squashing O'Keefe like a bug. There was evidence of the crime--enough that O'Keefe certainly can't deny it now since he plead to the crime.

On the other hand, Arpaio's pet Assistant Attorney General was disbarred for filing completely baseless charges against public officials they saw as rivals. If you can't see the difference, you need to take those partisan blinders off. Two lawyers--prosecutors--actually lost their licenses to practice law for doing Arpaio's bidding. Arpaio doesn't have a similar ethical code, but is being pursued for the same actions through the federal courts. He's toast.

[hawaii 5-0]

I have mixed feeling on this one.

I saw Sheriff Joe on 60 Minutes way back when and admired his get tough actions.

Maybe now he's gone overboard. (evolved)

5-0

[diverdog]

I have mixed feeling on this one.

I saw Sheriff Joe on 60 Minutes way back when and admired his get tough actions.

Maybe now he's gone overboard. (evolved)

5-0

He started to fall in love with his own press clippings.

[cleller]

Still, its a messed up world when Sheriff Joe gets slapped down, sued, faces jail, etc and the Rahm Emanuels of the world prospers and get government love and money.

[Midtowner]

Still, its a messed up world when Sheriff Joe gets slapped down, sued, faces jail, etc and the Rahm Emanuels of the world prospers and get government love and money.

Apples to Oranges.

Emanuel didn't have someone charged with a crime he knew they didn't commit just for short-term political points.

[cleller]

Apples to Oranges.

Emanuel didn't have someone charged with a crime he knew they didn't commit just for short-term political points.

Beats me if Sheriff Joe did that or not. Rahm's just a dick.

[Midtowner]

Beats me if Sheriff Joe did that or not. Rahm's just a dick.

He did it. His pet D.A. has already been disbarred for it and 'ol Joe is experiencing the feds coming after him for the same abuses. At his age, he'll probably croak before it's all over, but he's a slimeball.

[cleller]

He did it. His pet D.A. has already been disbarred for it and 'ol Joe is experiencing the feds coming after him for the same abuses. At his age, he'll probably croak before it's all over, but he's a slimeball.

As you obviously know, the sheriff does not file charges, the DA does. Has Joe been charged with the offense? Does he deserve a presumption of innocence?

You can invite Rahm over, and talk about the hedge funds that have him in their pocket. I'll invite Joe.

[olevetonahill]

As you obviously know, the sheriff does not file charges, the DA does. Has Joe been charged with the offense? Does he deserve a presumption of innocence?

You can invite Rahm over, and talk about the hedge funds that have him in their pocket. I'll invite Joe.

Dont ya Know nuthin?
Mid KNOWS all and is above reproach on all things. He once found a nickle on the sidewalk and spent 3 months and 2000$ of his own money just to find the rightful owner

[Sooner5030]

At first I liked sheriff Joe....must have been ten years ago....then I thought he was too much of a attention whore....now that the federal gubment is after him I guess I like him again. strange

[soonercruiser]

Who's the biggest piece of scum:

Holder or Axelrod?

Doesn't each bad axle required two bad "wheels"?

[cleller]

At first I liked sheriff Joe....must have been ten years ago....then I thought he was too much of a attention whore....now that the federal gubment is after him I guess I like him again. strange

I gotta admit he did seem to get to liking the attention too much. At least he meant well at one time, though.

[OULenexaman]

for all you Joe bashers.....GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

At first I liked sheriff Joe....must have been ten years ago....then I thought he was too much of a attention whore....now that the federal gubment is after him I guess I like him again. strange
Federalism is a two way street, though I agree its usually a one way street going the Feds way, they got one right here. Arapio's been going after legal Hispanic-Americans committing no crime, just as hard as he's been pursuing criminal illegals. Racism, plain and simple.

[olevetonahill]

Federalism is a two way street, though I agree its usually a one way street going the Feds way, they got one right here. Arapio's been going after legal Hispanic-Americans committing no crime, just as hard as he's been pursuing criminal illegals. Racism, plain and simple.

Well that splains everything

[okie52]

Federalism is a two way street, though I agree its usually a one way street going the Feds way, they got one right here. Arapio's been going after legal Hispanic-Americans committing no crime, just as hard as he's been pursuing criminal illegals. Racism, plain and simple.

Have you already convicted Zimmerman, too?

[olevetonahill]

Have you already convicted Zimmerman, too?

The longer that boy stays in skool the dumber he gets

[Midtowner]

Have you already convicted Zimmerman, too?

Relevance?

[pphilfran]

Relevance?

Sustained...

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Have you already convicted Zimmerman, too?
Surely you misunderstood my post...

Besides rampant racial profiling (which I know most of y'all will never go for), do you find it the least bit suspicious that almost any public official who gets in a disagreement with Arapio ends up being charged with something? Here's a little list:

Phil Gordon, Phoenix Mayor
Dan Saban, Arpaio's 2004 and 2008 opponent for the office of Sheriff of Maricopa County
Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General
David Smith, Maricopa County Manager
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Barbara Mundell, Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Judge
Anna Baca, former Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Judge
Gary Donahoe, Maricopa Superior Court Criminal Presiding Judge
Daniel Pochoda, ACLU attorney
Sandra Dowling, former Maricopa County School Superintendent
Mike Lacy, Editor, Phoenix New Times

Of those listed, only Dowling was convicted of any crime. A class-2 misdemeanor of patronage, for giving her daughter a summer job in the school district. That charge, was nowhere in the original 25-count felony indictment. The sheriff is clearly out of control, and needs his power checked. Arapio sent in the SWAT team to Dowling's house, which in itself is hardly necessary when her charges related to stealing money from the school, not ****ing gun running.


The longer that boy stays in skool the dumber he gets
I love how you just sit there like an ignorant piece of ****, and call others idiots without offering any real sort of facts or evidence. You got anything substantive or are we done here?

[okie52]

Relevance?

Have either party been convicted of the crime?

[okie52]

Relevance?

The rush to judgement.

[okie52]

Sustained...

I object.

[Penguin]

The Feds Have Evidence That Joe Arpaio Broke the Law -- When Will The Indictments Come? (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2011-05-26/news/the-feds-have-evidence-that-joe-arpaio-broke-the-law-when-will-the-indictments-come/)
Sheriff Joe is a scumbag. People have known it for a while (please note the date on the article). I especially love the part how a judge threw out a 117 count indictment on Arpaio's Republican political enemy because each and every count was bogus. Fox News needs to find a new hero.

[OU_Sooners75]

Yeah, this isnt politically motivated or anything.

Obama's socialites are hard at it. Making sure the latinos stay in his pocket.

If he really cared, why not do this a lot sooner?

But since now you are officially campaigning to keep your job, you do it now?

God, I hope this negro gets voted out of office!

[okie52]

Surely you misunderstood my post...

Besides rampant racial profiling (which I know most of y'all will never go for), do you find it the least bit suspicious that almost any public official who gets in a disagreement with Arapio ends up being charged with something? Here's a little list:

Phil Gordon, Phoenix Mayor
Dan Saban, Arpaio's 2004 and 2008 opponent for the office of Sheriff of Maricopa County
Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General
David Smith, Maricopa County Manager
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Barbara Mundell, Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Judge
Anna Baca, former Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Judge
Gary Donahoe, Maricopa Superior Court Criminal Presiding Judge
Daniel Pochoda, ACLU attorney
Sandra Dowling, former Maricopa County School Superintendent
Mike Lacy, Editor, Phoenix New Times

Of those listed, only Dowling was convicted of any crime. A class-2 misdemeanor of patronage, for giving her daughter a summer job in the school district. That charge, was nowhere in the original 25-count felony indictment. The sheriff is clearly out of control, and needs his power checked. Arapio sent in the SWAT team to Dowling's house, which in itself is hardly necessary when her charges related to stealing money from the school, not ****ing gun running.


I love how you just sit there like an ignorant piece of ****, and call others idiots without offering any real sort of facts or evidence. You got anything substantive or are we done here?

Actually I am all for profiling. It seems pretty stupid to me when 9 out of 10 illegals are latino to not target latinos for an identity check. Legally you can't do it so you need to be a little more discreet in how its done. Perhaps Joe needs to further refine his process. Racist...absolutely not. Just a fact of life in the US concerning illegal immigrants. Put 12,000,000 illegal Canadians here and you will see almost the same reaction. I say almost because the Canadians would be able to speak English...well they sorta can.

heh. Now it would seem Joe's opponents (if that's what your list contains) are getting some rather tough scrutiny. Probably an abuse of power I would agree. Maybe some counseling would be in order. Sure hate to pull a guy away from his work that is doing such a bang up job.

[olevetonahill]

I love how you just sit there like an ignorant piece of ****, and call others idiots without offering any real sort of facts or evidence. You got anything substantive or are we done here?

Wait is this Like a Personal attack er sompun? Surely you wouldnt resort to such a Low thing since you feel you need to report EVERY one who ever says one little thing about YOU.
Go away Boy yer ignorant and ya bother me

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

God, I hope this negro gets voted out of office!
Im-****ing-pressive


Actually I am all for profiling. It seems pretty stupid to me when 9 out of 10 illegals are latino to not target latinos for an identity check. Legally you can't do it so you need to be a little more discreet in how its done.
So you're all for doing somethign illegal, to keep out illegals? How would you feel about being profiled if you were say, one of the millions of legal Americans of Latin American decent? There's about 50,000,000 of them, so chances are the average Juan isn't an illegal. Kinda makes profiling a little useless, don't you say?

And no, I'm not convicting him. But those who enforce our laws and are given positions of great power need to be held to very high, very high standards. He was given a position power and has clearly abused it.



Wait is this Like a Personal attack er sompun? Surely you wouldnt resort to such a Low thing since you feel you need to report EVERY one who ever says one little thing about YOU.
Go away Boy yer ignorant and ya bother me

Nope? Didn't think so

[olevetonahill]

Im-****ing-pressive


So you're all for doing somethign illegal, to keep out illegals? How would you feel about being profiled if you were say, one of the millions of legal Americans of Latin American decent? There's about 50,000,000 of them, so chances are the average Juan isn't an illegal. Kinda makes profiling a little useless, don't you say?

And no, I'm not convicting him. But those who enforce our laws and are given positions of great power need to be held to very high, very high standards. He was given a position power and has clearly abused it.


Nope? Didn't think so

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Society/Pix/pictures/2010/4/21/1271861774568/Crying-Baby-001.jpg

[Midtowner]

Heh. Now it would seem Joe's opponents (if that's what your list contains) are getting some rather tough scrutiny. Probably an abuse of power I would agree. Maybe some counseling would be in order. Sure hate to pull a guy away from his work that is doing such a bang up job.

Law enforcement filing false indictments in order to intimidate and harass political opponents? How can you possibly defend that? The profiling thing, I agree, that makes a lot of sense. I'm kind of fine with it. That doesn't excuse the rest of his behavior.

Arpaio is a ****bag and he's going down.

[okie52]

So you're all for doing somethign illegal, to keep out illegals? How would you feel about being profiled if you were say, one of the millions of legal Americans of Latin American decent? There's about 50,000,000 of them, so chances are the average Juan isn't an illegal. Kinda makes profiling a little useless, don't you say?

And no, I'm not convicting him. But those who enforce our laws and are given positions of great power need to be held to very high, very high standards. He was given a position power and has clearly abused it.




50,000,000 Latinos. That sounds about right so that 1 out of every 4are illegal. That's a pretty high percentage.

And I sure hope when cops are looking for klansmen they arent pulling over black people. But, then again, we can't be profiling.

[okie52]

Law enforcement filing false indictments in order to intimidate and harass political opponents? How can you possibly defend that? The profiling thing, I agree, that makes a lot of sense. I'm kind of fine with it. That doesn't excuse the rest of his behavior.

Arpaio is a ****bag and he's going down.

Oh I was just having a little fun about Joes apparent abuse of power.

An enemy of my enemy seems appropriate here.

[sappstuf]

O'Keefe plead guilty to misdemeanor entering a federal building under false pretenses. Considering he was trying to hack the phone system of a U.S. Congresswoman, I'd say that's getting off pretty light. If the President had anything to do with that, they'd be squashing O'Keefe like a bug. There was evidence of the crime--enough that O'Keefe certainly can't deny it now since he plead to the crime.

On the other hand, Arpaio's pet Assistant Attorney General was disbarred for filing completely baseless charges against public officials they saw as rivals. If you can't see the difference, you need to take those partisan blinders off. Two lawyers--prosecutors--actually lost their licenses to practice law for doing Arpaio's bidding. Arpaio doesn't have a similar ethical code, but is being pursued for the same actions through the federal courts. He's toast.

Yep, either Sheriff Joe is toast or the investigation will be dropped with no charges for abuse of power....


Federal authorities announced late Friday they were dropping the four-year criminal investigation into Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio and would not be pressing abuse of power charges against him. (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/joe_arpaio_criminal_case_dropped.php)

Maybe you meant he likes toast...

[olevetonahill]

Yep, either Sheriff Joe is toast or the investigation will be dropped with no charges for abuse of power....



Maybe you meant he likes toast...

Heh, All the Loud mouth Lefties that were screaming for his head are awful quite aint they

This is one reason I dont pay much tention to what Mid says, Hes so covinced that hes the only one who understands this **** Yet he hasnt quite grasped the Fact that yer INNOCENT untill proven guilty
Let alone even charged

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Heh, All the Loud mouth Lefties that were screaming for his head are awful quite aint they

This is one reason I dont pay much tention to what Mid says, Hes so covinced that hes the only one who understands this **** Yet he hasnt quite grasped the Fact that yer INNOCENT untill proven guilty
Let alone even charged

Vet, I know you know that authorities decline to prosecute all the time when they believe the guy's guilty but don't think they can get a conviction.

And one is not necessarily INNOCENT until proven guilty. Rather, prosecutors must have the goods to show a contradiction to the presumption of innocence.

It's like if you think there are infinitely many prime numbers. You start out assuming only a finite number of primes and show that leads to a contradiction. If you are unable to show the contradiction, that does not mean there are only a finite number of primes. Rather, you just don't have sufficient evidence to contradict it. Well, that and you're not a good mathematician.

[olevetonahill]

Vet, I know you know that authorities decline to prosecute all the time when they believe the guy's guilty but don't think they can get a conviction.

And one is not necessarily INNOCENT until proven guilty. Rather, prosecutors must have the goods to show a contradiction to the presumption of innocence.

It's like if you think there are infinitely many prime numbers. You start out assuming only a finite number of primes and show that leads to a contradiction. If you are unable to show the contradiction, that does not mean there are only a finite number of primes. Rather, you just don't have sufficient evidence to contradict it. Well, that and you're not a good mathematician.

Yer full of **** :excitement: Hell if they thot they could have charged him with anything and took it to court whether they won a conviction or not . They would have done it

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

He's still a ****, and facing a pair of false-arrest lawsuits where he allegedly tossed two newspaper execs in the can 'cause they were writing bad about him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/sheriff-joe-arpaio-lawsuit_n_1841181.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

[LiveLaughLove]

He's still a ****, and facing a pair of false-arrest lawsuits where he allegedly tossed two newspaper execs in the can 'cause they were writing bad about him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/sheriff-joe-arpaio-lawsuit_n_1841181.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Bunk. You guys are always crying that we just listen to right wing radio, and only read right wing blogs. Them you quote Huffington like its a bastion of truth justice and the American way.

Allegedly, is being used very loosely there.

The guy would be so far in a dungeon, no one would find him if he were guilty like the left wishes he were.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Yer full of **** :excitement: Hell if they thot they could have charged him with anything and took it to court whether they won a conviction or not . They would have done it

I apologize vet, I just read more closely what happened. They are not pursuing the corruption charges, but the charges concerning civil rights violations are separate from this. Everybody knows he's guiltier than OJ on the civil rights violations. And stupider than a Jersey Shore cast member on the Obama birth certificate crusade.

[sappstuf]

I apologize vet, I just read more closely what happened. They are not pursuing the corruption charges, but the charges concerning civil rights violations are separate from this. Everybody knows he's guiltier than OJ on the civil rights violations. And stupider than a Jersey Shore cast member on the Obama birth certificate crusade.

Hell, every Dem knew that he was guiltier than OJ on corruption charges. Until they didn't bring charges after a 4 year investigation...

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Bunk. You guys are always crying that we just listen to right wing radio, and only read right wing blogs. Them you quote Huffington like its a bastion of truth justice and the American way.

Allegedly, is being used very loosely there.

The guy would be so far in a dungeon, no one would find him if he were guilty like the left wishes he were.
Fair enough, here's an ABA journal article for you.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/arpaio_must_stand_trial_over_false_arrest_allegati ons/