Tweet
Have Judge, Media Jumped to Conclusions in Arpaio's Investigation?
Have Judge, Media Jumped to Conclusions in Arpaio’s Investigation?
FOCUS OF PROBE MAY NOT BE AS SPECULATED
by Sharon Rondeau
Birther Report
6/8/2015
Excerpts:
(Jun. 8, 2015) —Hearings in the civil contempt trial of Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio have been temporarily suspended as U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow decides whether or not to recuse himself from the case.
The lawsuit, Melendres, et al v. Arpaio, et al, was filed in December 2007 and claimed that Maricopa County Sherriff’s Office (MCSO) employees had engaged in racial profiling by targeting Latinos in neighborhood sweeps and traffic stops without reasonable suspicion of a crime.
Snow claimed the alleged practice violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
In an injunction in the Melendres case issued in December 2011, Snow opined that an individual’s presence in the country illegally did not constitute a crime prosecutable by state and local authorities, although previously, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency had authorized and trained MCSO employees and others in the process of apprehending and turning over individuals found to be in the country illegally under the 287(g) program.
Snow’s injunction imposed the cessation of Arpaio’s enforcement of “federal immigration law.”
Arpaio is serving his sixth consecutive term as sheriff and is known for his strong stance against illegal aliens in the county. Within hours of Obama’s November 20, 2014 declared executive actions allowing for millions of illegals to be granted a stay from deportation under certain conditions, Arpaio filed a lawsuit, claiming that if implemented, the actions would cost the county’s taxpayers millions more in expenses.
At the time, CBS News reported that nationally, “The number of immigrants who lack legal status has remained the same since 2009 at 11.2 million.” However, the correct figure may be 20 million or more.
While Arpaio’s lawsuit was dismissed at the U.S. District Court level by an Obama appointee, an appeal is pending. Another lawsuit filed by 26 states challenging the executive actions has been upheld by a U.S. District Court judge in Texas and the majority of a three-judge panel at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
In May 2013, Snow ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Melendres, who are defended by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Snow also appointed a monitor to ensure that the MCSO complied with Snow’s order to cease racial profiling. Arpaio appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the majority of Snow’s ruling but opined that the monitor’s role “must only be related to the constitutional violations.”
In March, Arpaio and his chief deputy, Gerard (Jerry) Sheridan admitted to having failed to follow Snow’s orders and offered a settlement of $100,000 to be paid to the plaintiff class by Arpaio personally. Snow refused the offer, and hearings in the civil contempt matter were held on April 21-24.
Arpaio testified on April 23 and Sheridan on April 24.
Arpaio 4-23-15 Evidentiary Hearing Day 3
Arpaio 4-24-15 Evidentiary Hearing Day 4
During both days of testimony, Snow launched a pointed line of questioning which appeared to emanate from an article dated June 4, 2014 in The Phoenix New Times referencing a confidential informant, Dennis Montgomery. The publication has had an adversarial relationship with Arpaio since at least 2004. Its co-founders, Jim Larkin and Mike Lacey, have stated that they launched the newspaper in 1970 “in reaction to the war in Vietnam.”
In October 2007, the Larkin and Lacey were arrested in the middle of the night after publishing Arpaio’s home address and the contents of subpoenas they received on their website. After spending the night in jail, they filed suit against the MCSO.
In an article dated October 18, 2007, Larkin and Lacey stated that their attorneys reviewed grand jury subpoenas described in a subsequent report as “invalid” by Arizona Superior Court Judge Anna Baca. Baca’s order of November 14, 2007 and an AP article dated October 24, 2007 indicated that the subpoenas did not appear to have come from the grand jury. Then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas quickly dropped the charges against Larkin and Lacey and fired the prosecutor who had reportedly issued the subpoenas on his own authority.
It is unclear whether or not Arpaio was involved in the arrests.
At the time, Larkin and Lacey asked, “Where in America do you arrest journalists for what they write?”
On August 6, 2013, the home of former Vail Daily and then-Washington Times journalist Audrey Hudson was raided by the Maryland State Police, “federal agents” and a member of the U.S. Coast Guard, who “made a pre-dawn raid of her family home Aug. 6 and took her private notes and government documents that she had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.” The intrusion was made on the pretext of “a warrant to search for unregistered firearms and a ‘potato gun’ suspected of belonging to her husband.”
Hudson had been reporting on the claims made to her by U.S. Air Marshals that the percentage of flights on which they traveled was lower than that which was reported to the public in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Lacey and Larkin established a foundation whose website reposts The Phoenix New Times’ work and supports causes to which the two pledged financial support after winning $3.75 million from the lawsuit. The Lacey and Larkin Frontera Fund states on its home page that its founders “have dedicated the settlement money arising out of their arrest by Sheriff Joe Arpaio to fund migrant rights organizations throughout Arizona.”
A $2 million endowment was given to the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University with the purpose of “training journalism students in the particulars of local Hispanic issues for both print and broadcast coverage.” The fund also supports the Arizona DREAM Act Coalition.
The Phoenix New Times includes opinion and derogatory terms in its articles. Regarding Arpaio’s April 23 testimony, PNT reported that Arpaio “admitted there had been an investigation into Snow’s wife, concerning comments she allegedly made at a restaurant” after Snow handed a copy of the June 4, 2014 article to Arpaio by way of the court clerk.
“In my line of work, it doesn’t get much better than a federal judge’s handing your column to a public official, and getting the accused pol to confirm the column’s facts, one by one, under oath,” wrote Stephen Lemons.
The Post & Email has previously reported that the mainstream media largely mischaracterized the MCSO’s probe involving comments made by Snow’s wife. While both Arpaio and Sheridan testified that neither Snow nor his wife was “investigated,” an Arizona Republic editorial masquerading as journalism misrepresented that “Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio dug himself deeper into a hole on Thursday, admitting that he quietly had the wife of U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow investigated.”
The Phoenix New Times characterized the inquiry into Snow’s wife’s statements as a “non-investigation investigation.” It also maintains that Arpaio is guilty of “abuse of power,” of which he was exonerated by the U.S. Department of Justice in August 2012.
However, in May 2012, the Department of Justice launched a civil rights lawsuit against Arpaio’s office, claiming that “since approximately 2006, MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio have intentionally and systematically discriminated against Latinos. They have accomplished this by stopping Latinos in their vehicles four to nine times more often than similarly situated non-Latino drivers. In addition, MCSO stops Latinos on the county’s roads without the required legal justification. Also, MCSO detains and searches Latinos on the roads, in their homes, and in their workplaces without legal justification for doing so. Further, MCSO mistreats Latino detainees with limited English proficiency by ignoring important requests if they are not made in English and punishing detainees if they fail to understand orders given in English. Finally, MCSO files baseless administrative actions, civil actions and criminal cases against its perceived critics in an attempt to chill free speech.”
Obama himself has been accused of “chilling free speech.”
The DOJ’s lawsuit was filed nine weeks after Arpaio and Mike Zullo, lead investigator of the MCSO’s affiliated Cold Case Posse, gave a formal press conference declaring that Barack Hussein Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are “computer-generated forgeries,” a claim that was expounded upon further in a second press conference on July 17 of that year.
..............................
The media has not raised the issue of whether or not the Fourth Amendment rights of account-holders, judges, the MCSO and their attorneys, whose bank accounts, phone lines and email accounts were reportedly breached by a government entity, were violated. - © 2015, The Post & Email. All rights reserved. Source link. - http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/06/...investigation/
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/06...dge-media.html
Have Judge, Media Jumped to Conclusions in Arpaio’s Investigation?
FOCUS OF PROBE MAY NOT BE AS SPECULATED
by Sharon Rondeau
Birther Report
6/8/2015
Excerpts:
(Jun. 8, 2015) —Hearings in the civil contempt trial of Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio have been temporarily suspended as U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow decides whether or not to recuse himself from the case.
The lawsuit, Melendres, et al v. Arpaio, et al, was filed in December 2007 and claimed that Maricopa County Sherriff’s Office (MCSO) employees had engaged in racial profiling by targeting Latinos in neighborhood sweeps and traffic stops without reasonable suspicion of a crime.
Snow claimed the alleged practice violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
In an injunction in the Melendres case issued in December 2011, Snow opined that an individual’s presence in the country illegally did not constitute a crime prosecutable by state and local authorities, although previously, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency had authorized and trained MCSO employees and others in the process of apprehending and turning over individuals found to be in the country illegally under the 287(g) program.
Snow’s injunction imposed the cessation of Arpaio’s enforcement of “federal immigration law.”
Arpaio is serving his sixth consecutive term as sheriff and is known for his strong stance against illegal aliens in the county. Within hours of Obama’s November 20, 2014 declared executive actions allowing for millions of illegals to be granted a stay from deportation under certain conditions, Arpaio filed a lawsuit, claiming that if implemented, the actions would cost the county’s taxpayers millions more in expenses.
At the time, CBS News reported that nationally, “The number of immigrants who lack legal status has remained the same since 2009 at 11.2 million.” However, the correct figure may be 20 million or more.
While Arpaio’s lawsuit was dismissed at the U.S. District Court level by an Obama appointee, an appeal is pending. Another lawsuit filed by 26 states challenging the executive actions has been upheld by a U.S. District Court judge in Texas and the majority of a three-judge panel at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
In May 2013, Snow ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Melendres, who are defended by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Snow also appointed a monitor to ensure that the MCSO complied with Snow’s order to cease racial profiling. Arpaio appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the majority of Snow’s ruling but opined that the monitor’s role “must only be related to the constitutional violations.”
In March, Arpaio and his chief deputy, Gerard (Jerry) Sheridan admitted to having failed to follow Snow’s orders and offered a settlement of $100,000 to be paid to the plaintiff class by Arpaio personally. Snow refused the offer, and hearings in the civil contempt matter were held on April 21-24.
Arpaio testified on April 23 and Sheridan on April 24.
Arpaio 4-23-15 Evidentiary Hearing Day 3
Arpaio 4-24-15 Evidentiary Hearing Day 4
During both days of testimony, Snow launched a pointed line of questioning which appeared to emanate from an article dated June 4, 2014 in The Phoenix New Times referencing a confidential informant, Dennis Montgomery. The publication has had an adversarial relationship with Arpaio since at least 2004. Its co-founders, Jim Larkin and Mike Lacey, have stated that they launched the newspaper in 1970 “in reaction to the war in Vietnam.”
In October 2007, the Larkin and Lacey were arrested in the middle of the night after publishing Arpaio’s home address and the contents of subpoenas they received on their website. After spending the night in jail, they filed suit against the MCSO.
In an article dated October 18, 2007, Larkin and Lacey stated that their attorneys reviewed grand jury subpoenas described in a subsequent report as “invalid” by Arizona Superior Court Judge Anna Baca. Baca’s order of November 14, 2007 and an AP article dated October 24, 2007 indicated that the subpoenas did not appear to have come from the grand jury. Then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas quickly dropped the charges against Larkin and Lacey and fired the prosecutor who had reportedly issued the subpoenas on his own authority.
It is unclear whether or not Arpaio was involved in the arrests.
At the time, Larkin and Lacey asked, “Where in America do you arrest journalists for what they write?”
On August 6, 2013, the home of former Vail Daily and then-Washington Times journalist Audrey Hudson was raided by the Maryland State Police, “federal agents” and a member of the U.S. Coast Guard, who “made a pre-dawn raid of her family home Aug. 6 and took her private notes and government documents that she had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.” The intrusion was made on the pretext of “a warrant to search for unregistered firearms and a ‘potato gun’ suspected of belonging to her husband.”
Hudson had been reporting on the claims made to her by U.S. Air Marshals that the percentage of flights on which they traveled was lower than that which was reported to the public in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Lacey and Larkin established a foundation whose website reposts The Phoenix New Times’ work and supports causes to which the two pledged financial support after winning $3.75 million from the lawsuit. The Lacey and Larkin Frontera Fund states on its home page that its founders “have dedicated the settlement money arising out of their arrest by Sheriff Joe Arpaio to fund migrant rights organizations throughout Arizona.”
A $2 million endowment was given to the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University with the purpose of “training journalism students in the particulars of local Hispanic issues for both print and broadcast coverage.” The fund also supports the Arizona DREAM Act Coalition.
The Phoenix New Times includes opinion and derogatory terms in its articles. Regarding Arpaio’s April 23 testimony, PNT reported that Arpaio “admitted there had been an investigation into Snow’s wife, concerning comments she allegedly made at a restaurant” after Snow handed a copy of the June 4, 2014 article to Arpaio by way of the court clerk.
“In my line of work, it doesn’t get much better than a federal judge’s handing your column to a public official, and getting the accused pol to confirm the column’s facts, one by one, under oath,” wrote Stephen Lemons.
The Post & Email has previously reported that the mainstream media largely mischaracterized the MCSO’s probe involving comments made by Snow’s wife. While both Arpaio and Sheridan testified that neither Snow nor his wife was “investigated,” an Arizona Republic editorial masquerading as journalism misrepresented that “Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio dug himself deeper into a hole on Thursday, admitting that he quietly had the wife of U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow investigated.”
The Phoenix New Times characterized the inquiry into Snow’s wife’s statements as a “non-investigation investigation.” It also maintains that Arpaio is guilty of “abuse of power,” of which he was exonerated by the U.S. Department of Justice in August 2012.
However, in May 2012, the Department of Justice launched a civil rights lawsuit against Arpaio’s office, claiming that “since approximately 2006, MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio have intentionally and systematically discriminated against Latinos. They have accomplished this by stopping Latinos in their vehicles four to nine times more often than similarly situated non-Latino drivers. In addition, MCSO stops Latinos on the county’s roads without the required legal justification. Also, MCSO detains and searches Latinos on the roads, in their homes, and in their workplaces without legal justification for doing so. Further, MCSO mistreats Latino detainees with limited English proficiency by ignoring important requests if they are not made in English and punishing detainees if they fail to understand orders given in English. Finally, MCSO files baseless administrative actions, civil actions and criminal cases against its perceived critics in an attempt to chill free speech.”
Obama himself has been accused of “chilling free speech.”
The DOJ’s lawsuit was filed nine weeks after Arpaio and Mike Zullo, lead investigator of the MCSO’s affiliated Cold Case Posse, gave a formal press conference declaring that Barack Hussein Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are “computer-generated forgeries,” a claim that was expounded upon further in a second press conference on July 17 of that year.
..............................
The media has not raised the issue of whether or not the Fourth Amendment rights of account-holders, judges, the MCSO and their attorneys, whose bank accounts, phone lines and email accounts were reportedly breached by a government entity, were violated. - © 2015, The Post & Email. All rights reserved. Source link. - http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/06/...investigation/
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/06...dge-media.html