“When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross, and will claim the label Americanism”
Arizona's own Goebbels, Russell Pearce, is now attempting to raise money for Ban Amnesty Now using the phase-out of the 287(g) program as a panic button.
What Pearce fails to mention is that DHS is also rolling out a new program, Secure Communities, which accomplishes the same immigration status checks on all persons booked in local jails across 15,000 jurisdiction in 44 states (whereas 287(g) is only in about 60 jurisdictions), without the liability and constitutional violations created by unleashing xenophobic hate-baters like Sheriff Joe Arpaio on an innocent public.
Is the circus in town? Because this clown, Birther "Crazy Uncle Joe" Arpaio, is about to show us "The Greatest Show on Earth" (my apologies to Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus).
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio will reveal the findings of his office's investigation into the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate on March 1st, he announced Tuesday.
"Once again I take my elected sheriff's status very serious and when the people ask me to do something, I try to do it regardless of the repercussions, the politics," Arpaio said Tuesday at the Maricopa County Republican Party Lincoln Day Lunch and Straw Poll. "So on March 1st I will have a press conference and reveal what we found out during that investigation. And I don't have press conferences just to have my name on television."
Ahahahaha! I'll bet he said that with a straight face. This clown is nothing but a prima donna who constantly seeks media attention from the conservative media noise machine to get his name on television.
One phone call to the state of Hawaii would have taken care of it. The Hawaii State Department of Health made an exception to release a copy of President Obama's long form birth certificate. They granted that exception in part because of the tremendous volume of requests they had been getting. President Barack Obama's long form birth certificate can be seen here (PDF).
Oooohh, I can't guess what this clown "Crazy Uncle Joe" is going to reveal -- spoiler alert! FAUX News chyron: "BREAKING NEWS: Sheriff Joe Arpaio says Obama's birth certificate a fake!" Birther queen Orly Taitz and Birther king Donald Trump will join our Three Stooges on FAUX and Friends to discuss. Stay tuned!
Seriously? In their attempt to delegitimize President Obama as other than American, the conservative media noise machine has opted to revive this entirely debunked and discredited birther wingnut conspiracy theory yet again? And "Crazy Uncle Joe" Arpaio is the clown they are going to trot out for it?
The State House Committee on Military Affairs and Public Safety passed HCM2005, which expresses the august and considered judgment of the Arizona House that dismantling internal border patrol checkpoints and "relocating these agents from the streets and highways to the border fence, stationing them three hundred feet apart, and providing a constant patrol along the border fence will stop the crossing of illegal immigrants and result in little need for border patrol agents in the interior of this state."
You sure that 200 feet apart wouldn't be a better deterrent, guys? Come on. This sort of attempt to micro-manage Federal immigration policy and practices is just more political grandstanding by the anti-immigrant AZGOP.
The seeming unconcious hypocrisy of folks who complain about the intrusiveness of the border patrol's permanent internal checkpoints, but none-the-less support intruding on Latino-looking American citizens and residents using local police anywhere in the state, never ceases to amaze.
It's sometimes surprising what comes out of the mouths of our elected representatives on this topic. In the following clip you get to watch State Rep. David Gowan (R-LD30) bellyache about how he doesn't like the Federal government bugging folks like him (non-Hispanic-looking folks, presumably) about their immigration status inside our borders. Apparently, however, it's fine with Gowan for the State of Arizona to do so (as he is a proponent of the SB107), which is intrusive in EXACTLY this way.
Gowan says:
“We're talking the difference between the federal government and the State doing law-enforcement. There is a higher criteria that comes with the federal government. And that's the essence of this, is the federal government, what I was talking about earlier, asking about our citizenship inside America is what perturbs me.”
WTF? What higher criteria? I suspect that criteria is simply whether Gowan, and folks like him, feel that the "right people" are in charge of the law enforcement officers in question. If the officers are "properly" trained only to harass brown people -- like Sheriff Joe's crew -- it's OK. But if the officers are "improperly" trained not to racially profile -- like the Border Patrol under the communist Kenyan Obama -- then Gowan no likey.
See Gowan make an ass-hat of himself after the click... (h/t to Sarah Muench for pointing out the video)
Sheriff Arpaio responded to the DOJ's Civil Rights Division by the deadline set by AAG Thomas Perez, but he did so in a rather unusually passive aggressive fashion (see his attorney's letter [pdf link]: he's made his own discovery demands (106 of them!) and set his own deadline. He seems to be acting like the DOJ's investigation is under investigation.
He did not respond personally, but through a letter signed by his attorneys at Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Popolizio and Jones, hereinafter, 'the mouthpiece'. The letter contained two "Exhibits" and was all on the attorneys' letterhead.
My overall impression of the document is that is ultimately a rather detailed and aggressive discovery demand for every bit of evidence on which the DOJ based the conclusions laid out in their letter of investigative findings. Considering there is currently no litigation pending, it's a very unusual response. What makes it even more odd is that all of the evidence that Sheriff Joe's mouthpieces demand was originally produced by the MSCO itself in response to the DOJ's lawsuit seeking disclosure for its investigation.
Nearly everything Sheriff Joe demands was disclosed by him to the DOJ, and thus are presumably his own records. Did he not keep copies? Is he just too lazy to review his own records? Does he want the DOJ to draw him a road map to defending against a lawsuit against his office?
Those items Joe wants the DOJ to produce that did not come from his office strike me, quite frankly, as demands for attorney work product and consultations with experts which, even if litigation were pending, would not be discoverable. Essentially, Sheriff Joe wants the DOJ to give him every scrap of evidence they might use against him, and the entire paper trail of their investigation of his office.
To say that the DOJ will not assent to his demands is putting it mildly. This response is more of a propaganda tool than a response. Joe's propaganda spin will go like this:
"I wanted to cooperate. I provided everything they ever asked for. All I wanted to know was what evidence they based their conclusions on, and they won't say. Their investigation is just a secretive political hit job. How can I possibly help put my office in compliance when they won't even tell me how they determined my office was violating the law? All I want is some help understanding why they think there are violations occurring, and they have just proven they are just out to get me. I offer to help them, and they just filed suit. Blah, blah, blah..."
Poor Joe.
Let's start with the cover letter.
First, there is the bald-faced lie with which it begins. The mouthpiece claims Joe has made "good faith voluntary efforts" to achieve compliance with the DOJ's investigation. Bullshit. He stonewalled the investigation and it required a federal lawsuit to get him to allow DOJ investigators access to MSCO records, facilities and personnel. The mouthpiece alleges that 'the dispute' between them over the 'scope' of the investigation 'was ancient history': if you call a year ancient, perhaps...
It just gets worse from there. The mouthpiece alleges the MSCO and Joe stand ready to cooperate "regardless of this political gamesmanship, the undisclosed broken promise, and the misleading portrayal of this matter in the media..." You are seeing a press release, not a response to serious allegations of systemic civil rights violations.
The mouthpiece then claims that Joe wants a "constructive dialogue" but "will not cower at the threat of litigation, either." Further, such a "constructive dialogue" can only occur "if the DOJ provides the underlying facts and information for its findings." Why? Because "only with all of the underlying facts and information relevant to the DOJ's conclusions in hand... can we truly evaluate these findings, determine their merit and make any neccessary changes and adjustments to the MSCO..."
Did you get that? Joe wants to judge whether he thinks the DOJ's investigation has merit. He's so stuck in authoritarian law-enforcer mode that he does not seem to realize that he's being accused of being the lawbreaker.
Imagine if the next perp that MSCO picks up wants to investigate how MSCO came to accuse him before he'll accept that he's under investigation? The perp wants the names and addresses of all his victims and the individual cops who picked him up. He wants every internal email or memo regarding his case. Discovery by an accused is one thing, but what Sheriff Joe is proposing is outrageous.
His mouthpiece goes on "if the DOJ's stance is to conceal the facts underlying its findings unless forced to reveal them in litigation, that stance is absurd, counterproductive, unfortunate, and contrary to it guidelines." What, did you run out of adjectives, mouthpiece?
What is actually absurd is the list of 106 civil discovery demands contained in 'Exhibit 2'. It is entitled "Requests for Facts and Information" and repeats the baldfaced lie about "the complete cooperation of the MSCO you have enjoyed", then asserts that "the DOJ is obligated to make every effort to secure the voluntary compliance of the MSCO which, at this juncture, depends on the DOJ's mere provision of the factual detail behind its findings."
Merely respond to these 106 extensive demands we are making. Oh, is that all?
The letter proceeds step-by-step to demand definitions, documentation, and all factual and procedural background for every factual assertion in the DOJ's finding letter.
Now, call me crazy, but I think Joe knows exactly what the DOJ based its findings on. The mouthpiece outlines in great detail in 'Exhibit 1' exactly what the MSCO provided the DOJ: 230 interviews (145 inmates, 85 staff, more with Joe and command staff), 86,398 pages of documentation, 931 Gigs of records and documents, 165 boxes of documents, etc. Could it be that the DOJ used all that information to make its findings? Imagine that...
So what does Joe demand as his price of cooperation? Let's take a look at a few sample 'requests'.
"1. Please provide a complete copy of the recent statistical study that the DOJ commissioned regarding MCSO traffic stop activities on Maricopa County roadways which purportedly concludes that Latino drivers are four to nine times more likely to be stopped than similarly situated non-Latino drivers."
Seems like a reasonable sort of request. No big thing. Just show us the goods and we'll judge whether the report is reliable. Right. Now the accused gets to judge whether the evidence against him is good enough. But wait there's more...
In 'request' 2, we get this:
"2. ... Please also provide the identity, files,reports, notes, writings, relevant to the conclusions of each law enforcement expert consultant who concluded that these HSU stops were in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The curriculum vitae of each expert is also requested."
Now, I'm not a civil litigator, but I'm pretty sure that such material (except the c.v.s) would not be discoverable. What Joe and his mouthpiece are demanding here are the means by which to investigate and attempt to undermine, discredit, or intimidate those experts. The part about notes and writings is especially disturbing; those materials are work for hire in anticipation of litigation and thus absolutely non-discoverable work product.
Joe wants the DOJ to strip naked before he'll consent to even talk to them.
Even odder, Joe wants the work product of every expert the DOJ ever consulted in their investigation (see 'request' 22), whether their advice contributed to the DOJ's findings or not. That's so not going to happen.
Now, that's all pretty disturbing, but check this out:
"3. Please describe, with particularity, each "individual account" regarding MCSO deputies stopping Latinos on the basis of their appearance. In doing so, please identify the individual by providing a name and contact information so that we may conduct our own interviews. We would also request any statements provided to the DOJ, either recorded or written, which memorialized these individual accounts and any factual information regardingthese alleged discriminatory stops including, but not limited to, the date and time of each stop."
OK, now this is getting bizarre. Joe wants the names and contact information of the victims of MSCO racial profiling, so they can 'conduct their own interviews'? This is like a rapist wanting to inview his own victim. It's absurd. The MSCO is asking for the exact tools they need to further intimidate and attempt to undermine the victims of their own civil rights violations.
That may seem bad, but they are just getting started.
They want the same particularized victim information for people who reported the police misconduct underlying every allegation the DOJ makes. This includes immigration detainees, prisoners in MSCO's own jails, even citizens who reported MSCO retaliation against individuals who criticize police practices! He wants that information for victims of retaliatory detention, arrest without cause, and unfounded civil lawsuits! He wants the DOJ to identify and lay bare to retaliation the very people his office is accused of victimizing!
This has the danger of retaliation and initimidation written all over it!
Joe and his mouthpiece actually think the DOJ is going to identify whistleblowers, some of whom are in Joe's own custody, in his own jails, or under his own command, for him to 'investigate' their allegations? He's clearly insane.
Or just full of shit.
This is not a request for any sort of reasonable information sharing or discovery, it is an excuse not to cooperate and give himself a legitimate sounding excuse for his continued non-cooperation. "They won't tell me what I did wrong! Wah, wah, wah."
This skein of utterly non-responsive clap-trap and out-right lies, in combination with Joe's recent announcement that he will seek reelection signals just one thing: Joe's hunkering down.
The DOJ will get no cooperation. Voluntary compliance is not going to happen. Joe knows he's going down, and he's digging in for a protracted propaganda and legal war, and he'll do anything, including going after whistleblowers in his own office, in his own jails, and among the public he was entrusted to keep safe and instead victimized, to continue running things the way he likes.
Days before the Insight Bowl in Tempe on December 30, in which the Iowa Hawkeyes play the Oklahoma Sooners, Crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio was in Iowa introducing Governor Goodhair Rick Perry of Texas and insulting Iowa Hawkeyes fans by confusing them with Ohio State Buckeyes. Oh, there will be signs in the stands at the Insight Bowl carried by Hawkeyes fans. Rick Perry's sidekick confuses Buckeyes and Hawkeyes:
Sports fans sometimes aren't considered the sharpest tools in the shed, but at least we know our team mascots and symbols. The same can't be said for a key associate of presidential candidate Rick Perry, however.
The Texas governor was in Iowa today, to speak at a West Side Conservative Club breakfast in Des Moines. There, he was introduced by Joe Arpaio, the Arizona sheriff who has stirred controversy with his rigid enforcement of immigration laws.
Arpaio made mention of getting to know Iowans, and then said, "Was it the Buckeyes?"
The booing audience had to shout out a correction that the University of Iowa is the "Hawkeyes."
Governor Goodhair, according to Politico.com, did manage some damage control. He took the microphone and noted there also were some fans of the Iowa State Cyclones in attendance and chided Arpaio, saying: "You know how to get an Iowa crowd riled up."
“Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don’t have to buy from a foreign source,” Mr. Perry said in Clarinda, earning a loud round of enthusiastic applause [from his equally ignorant audience.]
Um, Governor Goodhair, Canada is a "foreign country." This comedy duo will be touring Iowa the rest of this week.
We here at BfAZ have expended considerable pixels over the past few years following, and criticizing, the abuses of Andrew Thomas as Maricopa County Attorney, and then his campaign for Arizona's Attorney General - and what a nightmare Attorney General Andrew Thomas would have been...
We've been harsh, and we've been critical. And we've been justified.
We saw an attorney violating ethical norms of the profession of law, and abusing his office in a flagrant and professionally offensive manner. We did not think him fit to excercise the tremendous discretion granted to a County Attorney. We feared the damage he might have done as Attorney General of our State.
His conduct during and prior to the State Bar hearing certainly did not improve my own opinion of him. He was arrogant. He displayed no recognition that anything he had done might be wrong, and no remorse. He tried mightily to derail the process, arrogating a position for himself above the ethical standards of our profession.
Now he faces almost certain disbarment. And I've literally never heard of any case where such a sanction was so well deserved and, more importantly, so necessary to restore public trust in the institutions of justice.
The closing argument of the Bar's Counsel has been filed and it is a doozy of a read. It is well-crafted and makes a powerful and undeniable case for disbarment of Andy Thomas, and Lisa Aubuchon, as well. Truly, even though I have followed Andy's career and the case against him, I had only a fragmented impression of the course of intimidation, abuse of power, and downright criminality that characterized Thomases time as County Attorney.
Reading the closing gave me a much clearer view of the utter abandonment of principle and obsession with revenge that Thomas unleashed upon the people and government institutions of Maricopa County. I now have a better appreciation for how a politically ambitious media-hound devoid of principles can wreak utter havok with the impartial administration of the law.
I can only summarize and give some choice tidbits here. I strongly recommend that you read the closing in full if you want to understand what has been going on with the Court Tower issue and Thomases legal vendetta with the Maricopa Board of Supervisors and the County Courts. It is 24 pages that reads like a novella of political skullduggery.
Thomas is accused of 22 violations of 5 different ethical rules:
7 violations of the rule prohibiting conflicts of interest
6 violations of the rule prohibiting the use of means to burden or embarrass another
4 violations of the rule prohibiting conduct that prejudices the administration of justice
3 violations of the rule prohibiting engaging in dishonesty
2 violations of the rule prohibiting engaging in criminal conduct
The heart of the complaint, and by far the most serious ethical charge, is that he and Aubuchon filed felony charges against Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Criminal Judge Gary Donahoe with no evidence of any criminal activity whatsoever. That action involved comitting the crime of perjury and accounts for Claims 24 through 30 of the closing.
In the course of that monstrous misuse of the criminal process, he and Aubuchon filed completely false charges that did not describe any criminal conduct. "There was never any evidence that he (Donahoe) had obstructed an investigation or hindered an investigation. Filing false charges against a sitting Superior Court judge is dispicable misconduct for a prosecutor."
This Claim standing alone would fully justify Thomases disbarment. Indeed, restoring the public's trust in the system of justice requires that Thomas be sanctioned in such a severe manner.
Any public figure who would defend Thomas after this hearing quite simply has no respect for the rule of law and is a partisan fanatic who will excuse any illegal, immoral and unethical conduct so long as it is done by a member of his own faction.
Of course, there are also Claims 1 through 23 and 31 though 33, all of which also describe serious unethical behavior, these include:
conflict of interest and dishonesty about a Grand Jury proceeding to Gila County Attorney Daisy Flores
filing an incompetent and meritless RICO indictment without statutory authority, against their own clients and persons with statutory and constitutional immunities for decisions claimed to be conspiratorial conduct (the closing notes this episode "displayed massive incompetence, total lack of judgment and extreme arrogance")
a vendetta against Supervisor Don Stapley and his associates that embraced conflicts of interest, misrepresentations to the courts, improper attempts to influence judges decisions, charging crimes without jurisdiction because of statutes of limitation expiry and improper public statements about a pending case
Perhaps the Claims that will have the most resonance and continuing relevance to Arizona's politics is that begining with the first charges against Supervisor Stapely and continuing through the attempt inimidate Judge Donhoe with false criminal charges, there was a concerted effort and conspiracy among Thomas, Aubuchon, the embattled Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his then-Chief Deputy Hendershott to take control of the Board of Supervisors. Henderschott even testified during the hearings that their goal was to force the County into recievership by their harrassment and misuse of criminal process.
There is a certain delicious irony that Arpaio may end his own career with MSCO in federal recievership.
Disbarment is a well-deserved and necessary end to the public career of Andy Thomas. His disbarment in Arizona is sufficient foundation for disbarment in any other jurisdiction where he may be licensed to practice, and sufficient cause to deny him a license should he seek to reapply to any jurisdiction in the future. Thomas has amply demonstrated his unfitness for the practice of law, let alone discretionary control of the devastating power of the state in criminal matters.
I expect that someday, and I think that day is not too far off, when Thomas is disbarred and Arpaio is no longer Sheriff, the tale of their crusade of intimidation and misfeasance of office will make some enterprising reporter a very fine book. I would be the first to line up for a copy. The tale of Thomas and Arpaio would make a modern American morality tale of how power can corrupt small-minded men given power and discretion they haven't the judgment or ethical compass to use safely.
After being kept alive for days following a fight with officers in one of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s jails, a Latino military veteran died late Tuesday when he was taken off life support by doctors at a Phoenix hospital, his family’s attorney told Talking Points Memo. Latino Vet Injured In Arpaio’s Jail Dies | TPMMuckraker:
Ernest “Marty” Atencio was 44. He was injured early Friday morning, just hours after the Justice Department accused the Arizona sheriff of running an agency that regularly violates the rights of Latinos.
“His entire family was by his bedside when he passed,” the family’s attorney, Mike Manning, said. His parents, two brothers and three sons were there to make the decision.
Atencio had been taken to St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in critical condition with injuries from the fight. Doctors later determined he had been shocked at least four times with a Taser, according to Manning.
Earlier on Tuesday, Manning said Atencio was brain dead and his family had flown to Phoenix to decide whether to take him off life support.
Phoenix police arrested Atencio after he was seen kicking on the door of an apartment and then harassing a woman walking down the street. Manning said Atencio suffered from bipolar disorder and had been off his medication.
Phoenix officers processed him and took him to the Maricopa County jail for holding. At the jail, however, Atencio began struggling with officers from both Phoenix and Maricopa County law enforcement, according to statements by both agencies.
Neither agency has detailed exactly what happened during the struggle. The sheriff’s office has yet to release a video of the incident to Phoenix police, Atencio’s family or the public.
Ernest "Marty'' Atencio, who lapsed into unconsciousness after being shot by a stun gun after an altercation early Friday at the Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix, was removed from life support Tuesday afternoon, his family's attorney announced Wednesday.
"Marty's family conferred with doctors yesterday and talked among themselves and then had him taken off life support,'' attorney Michael Manning said. "He was brain dead.''
Manning said Atencio was pronounced dead shortly after being taken off life support.
Atencio was arrested for assault late last Thursday night by Phoenix police. Officials Monday said that while being booked into the Fourth Avenue Jail, which is run by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Atencio struggled with officers, was shot with a stun gun and placed in a "safe cell."
About 15 minutes later, medical personnel checking on Atencio found him unresponsive, performed CPR and then transported him to a hospital, according to a written statement from Sheriff's Office spokesman Jeff Sprong.
Manning said Atencio's family is waiting for the results of the autopsy, which will take place in the next several days, before deciding on any further action.
"We are giving the Sheriff's Office the benefit of the doubt at this point,'' Manning said. "But we want to see the (jail) video of what happened, and we want to see it now.''
The simple fact is that Perez is Latino, and that in itself burns up the racists and xenophobes who support Arpaio. I suggested that this fact alone might become a point of propaganda (see the very end of the post) in attacking the Obama Administration's investigation of Arpaio (which, I might remind everyone, began under Bush).
Well, it has happened. Much more quickly, and publicly, than I ever expected.
First, Bruce Ash took the argument to the Buckmaster Show, claiming that the fact that the DOJ used a Latino spokesman to announce the CRD's findings was suggestive that political opportunism lay behind the investigation's handling. (Off-site link to audio, advance to about 20:30 for Ash's comments).
In fact, Bruce, Perez is not some Latino mouthpeice trotted out to attack Arpaio, as you insinuate. He happens to actually head the Civil Rights Division: who better to present the CRD's findings than the boss?
Well, perjury has a legal meaning: the facts lying behind Expose Obama's accusation are a joke. Malkin's charges stem from pure malice and the mere fact that he seems to have worked on issues important to the working poor - a cardinal sin in Malkins creepy world view.
Well, it took a lot less time for Arpaio's allies to drag their defense of Arpaio into the gutter and desperately try to change the subject from the serious allegations in the CRD's finding letter. And it didn't stay a whisper campaign, as I expected. Even I can be surprised by how low Arizona's rightwing can sink.
The attack dogs of the right are trying to impugn the integrity of a dedicated and professionally accomplished public servant with baseless slurs. They clearly seek to portray the Obama Administration's efforts to protect the civil rights of Latino-American citizens and legal Latino residents of Maricopa County as a political witch-hunt designed to whip the Latinos community into a voting frenzy for 2012.
In a related story, Napolitano's moved to cut off the MSCO's means of discriminatory practices by suspending their 287g access to ICE immigration records. I said I thought that was a political mistake because it allowed Arpaio to claim the Administration was hindering immigration enforcement. They didmake such claims, of course. Well, that charge has been answered by Homeland Security moving 50 new agents into Maricopa County to take over the role that MSCO 287g certified agents has been doing. So much for that argument. 50 ICE agents working full time will accomplish much more in combating illegal immigration than the hundred or so 287g certified officers of MSCO working part-time on immigration ever could.
The terms of the Memoradum of Agreement under which the MSCO's 287g officers operate specifically require cooperation in any investigation concerning civil rights. The simple fact is that Napolitano was exercising considerable forbearance in not cutting off MSCO sooner, when Arapio was stonewalling the CRD's investigation for over a year. If any criticism can be leveled at Homeland Security in their handling of these circumstances it is that they should have announced the new ICE officers at the same time they cut off MSCO, so as not to give Arpaio and his allies an opening for their ridiculous rhetoric.
Arizona and the residents of Maricopa County, especially, deserve better than such gutter politics.
The "Sunday Square Off" roundtable hosted by Brahm Resnik evaluated the legal and political fallout for Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Arizona Republicans from the U.S. Justice Department's civil rights case against the sheriff.
For nearly two decades Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has seemed an invincible political juggernaut. Few dared to run against him, and those who criticized him publicly feared that they might themselves be targeted for retribution.
But longtime critics are detecting a shift in the political winds, saying the one-two punch of a blistering Justice Department letter alleging civil-rights abuses and a scandal involving more than 400 mishandled sex-crimes cases may have finally shaken Arpaio. They say the five-term Republican lawman's policing tactics targeting illegal immigrants have given Arizona a black eye and the time may be right for the state's GOP heavyweights such as Gov. Jan Brewer and U.S. Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl to try to pressure him out of office.
Barring that, critics believe that Arpaio could at last be vulnerable to either a Republican primary challenger or a moderate-to-conservative Democrat in the 2012 general election.
Federal investigators on Thursday outlined allegations of rampant racial profiling against Latinos and other illegal policing practices in the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Justice Department officials also accused Arpaio's office of unlawfully retaliating against people who complain about its activities and policies. That alleged abuse of power by Arpaio also is the focus of a separate federal criminal probe.
* * *
The allegations of mismanagement and unprofessionalism have increased the drumbeat of calls for Arpaio's resignation. But Arpaio still has plenty of supporters, some of whom demonstrated in Phoenix on Thursday after the Justice Department issued its report. Some of his political allies in Arizona and across the country also rallied to his defense[.]
* * *
Many others in the GOP so far have said nothing.
"Where is John McCain and Jon Kyl?" said Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, a national group that advocates for comprehensive immigration reform. "They're national leaders, and they're letting the reputation of Arizona be trashed by a thug like Arpaio? You know the kind of moral and political strength McCain and Kyl have. ... At a minimum, one would think that the adults in Arizona would step forward and say, 'All right, the crazies have been running the asylum for too long. Let's work to create a pro-business climate in Arizona, a bipartisan approach to solving tough problems, and stop making Arizona the laughingstock or the bogeyman of the rest of the country.' "
McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, and Kyl, the Senate minority whip, publicly expressed concern about reports that Arpaio's agency failed to follow up on more than 400 alleged sex crimes between 2005 and 2007. Some of the cases involved children.
"Victims of abuse not only deserve the respect of law enforcement, but their rights must also be protected throughout the criminal justice process," McCain and Kyl said in a Dec. 8 joint written statement.
Neither McCain nor Kyl was available for comment on the Justice Department's inquiry.
Brewer is waiting to hear Arpaio's side of the story.
"I think everybody's concern is that we don't want anyone's civil rights violated," Brewer told reporters Friday. "That has always been of big concern to me."
There is precedence in Arizona for a coordinated effort by Republican leaders to push for an embattled GOP official to step down.
In January 1988, McCain, then a freshman senator, and Kyl, then serving in the U.S. House, held a news conference with then-U.S. Reps. Jim Kolbe and Jay Rhodes to call for the resignation of controversial then-Gov. Evan Mecham, who was facing a recall election over his incendiary decision to rescind Arizona's original paid holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr. as well as other issues. Retired U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, had led the way a few months earlier by saying Mecham should quit. Mecham, remembered today for numerous intemperate comments and verbal gaffes, refused to step down and eventually was impeached and removed by the Arizona Legislature before the recall election was held.
"Truthfully, I do believe that the leaders of the party should consider having that type of a discussion," said former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, a longtime Republican critic and political foil of Arpaio's. "Barry Goldwater did that with Mecham. I think that's leadership for the good of the party. Whether or not the person would listen is always another matter."
* * *
Former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, a Republican, said he believes there is a chance that GOP leaders still will stand up against Arpaio.
"The seriousness of the situation is pretty unprecedented," said Woods, who thinks Arpaio should quit. "Would he care? I doubt it. That would be analogous to Mecham in some respects -- he didn't really care, either."
And then there are demagogues like Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, who called the Justice Department investigation a political "smear job" and "a sneak attack on Arpaio." Although he had not read the report, Kavanagh said “I don’t believe the report, and I stand by Sheriff Arpaio.” GOP stalwarts stand by Arpaio; Dems say DOJ report not political - Arizona Capitol Times. Idiot.
Arpaio's latest troubles follow the ballot-box defeats of two of his key allies in his fight against illegal immigration. Andrew Thomas, county attorney from 2005 to 2010, last year lost his primary race for Arizona attorney general. More recently, former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, the author of Arizona's controversial Senate Bill 1070, was ousted in a recall election.
* * *
An opposing candidate could run against Arpaio solely on the issue of dereliction of duty with regard to the botched sex-crimes cases and not even have to mention immigration, said Sharry of America's Voice.
"I suspect this will be the beginning of the end for Arpaio," Sharry said. "He rode an issue that is deeply emotional and deeply frustrating and milked it for as much publicity and popularity that he could. Now you can see that the tide has turned in Arizona and elsewhere."
Sheriff Joe says, "We're going to work with them. We have for three years. But one thing I'm not going to agree to is to be controlled by some federal monitor or something. I'm the elected sheriff here, and I report to the 4 million voters in the county."
Arpaio doesn't seem to realise that a federal 'monitor' is exactly the means by which the DOJ enforces consent decrees under 14141. Perhaps he's only making sweet because his deputies just killed one of his prisoners with Tasers.
As for "working with them", that only occurred under a court order, not because Joe's happy to help. He stonewalled the DOJ on access to records, personnel and facilities for over a year, until the DOJ hauled his butt into court.
Even as Joe pulls back on the rhetoric and makes some conciliatory sounds, he remains under the impression that he has a choice whether to work with the Feds on fixing his deeply flawed agency. He will negotiate in good faith a consent decree which will include federal officers in key positions to ensure compliance, or he will serve out his term a virtual prisoner of his own office, with federal implementation and compliance officers running his agency in all but name.
Better change your tone, Joe. Arizona expects better.
The DOJ has released a public Letter of Findings concerning its investigation into the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office's (MSCO) practices which infringe on the civil rights of the citizens of Maricopa County. Most of those abuses and illegal practices concern Equal Protection and Due Process violations of Latino citizens and legal residents (not, as Arpaio would contend, the rights of undocumented aliens).
Here is some coverage of from the DOJ Civil Rights Division's (CRD) presser, and the full transcript of the CRD's Statement. Sorry for the use of FOX footage (and the annoying ad), but it was the most extensive excerpt of the DOJ's presser I could find.
You will note that in Arpaio's responses, he simply denies any pattern of infringement of civil rights and instead attacks the DOJ as trying to block Arpaio's efforts at enforcing immigration law. Here's more FOX coverage throwing softballs to Arpaio regarding the allegations for him to swat down unchallenged by any facts.
Note carefully the DOJ's stated intention to cooperate with Sheriff Arpaio in negotiating an agreement to address their concerns, and the contrast with the divisive polemical attacks in Arpaio's response.
What does the DOJ's finding under section 14141 (42 U.S.C. 14141) actually mean?
Firstly, what this is NOT, is any sort of demand by the DOJ that Arpaio resign.
Just the opposite, in fact. The Civil Rights Division specifically notes in both its finding letter and presser that it wants very much to work with Arpaio to remedy his agency's policies and practices to conform with best practices and stop the civil rights violations they found in their multi-year investigation of his office.
It is Arpaio who is failing to cooperate, and making this into a show-down. He stone-walled the DOJ's investigation for over a year, refusing to release records and make personnel and facilities available to DOJ investigators. Finally, the DOJ had to sue the MSCO to gain access to those resources to complete their investigation.
Section 14141 was enacted in 1994 as part of an omnibus crime package. It was intended to give more enforcement power to the DOJ's CRD to reform public justice institutions, including police departments, prisons and juvenile detention facilities. It gives the DOJ a right of action to seek injunctive and equitable redress in federal court of any patterns of practice resulting in civil rights violations.
The findings which the CRD have published establish that the CRD's investigation has found evidence that patterns and/or practices of the MSCO are resulting in constitutional violations. The letter puts MSCO on notice of the subjects on which the MSCO will need to enter into negotiations for reform under a legally enforcable consent decree, or face a federal lawsuit to force reform.
MSCO is not unique in facing such an investigation. Several police departments around the country have been similarly investigated and subsequently entered into consent agreements with the DOJ (24 that I'm aware of) concerning similar alleged practices. As far as I'm aware, however, this is the first time that the sort of systemic racial profiling and discriminatory practices have been the subject of a 14141 action against a police agency by the DOJ.
The CRD gave Arpaio a 60 day deadline during which they intend that he should begin to design and implement reforms of policies and practices, and enter into negotiations with the CRD on an enforceable consent decree. Instead of indicating that he would work with the CRD, Arpaio has publicly counter-attacked and denied any need of reform. It seems likely, judging by Arpaio's response to the CRD's findings that he will use this time to rally political support and throw mud at the DOJ. He does not appear to be amenable to negotiating a settlement.
That public and divisive intransigence is, so far as I'm aware, unprecedented. It could be that cooler heads will prevail and Arpaio will dial it back and sit down with the CRD to start work on an agreement. But he may not, and that puts us in some entirely unprecedented legal and political territory.
What are the tools DOJ can use to force reform?
The DOJ can obtain equitable and injunctive relief from the federal courts to ensure that procedures are put in place to address the alleged systemic violations.
Historically, this involves negotiating a consent decree outlining the needed reforms, procedures, systems, training and oversight needed to end the violations. Generally, one or more monitors or compliance officers are appointed to directly oversee the implementation process once a consent decree is in place.
That historical method of implementation of 14141 reforms seems, at least initially, unlikely to be workable with Arpaio at the helm of MSCO.
Ultimately, the consequences could include civil contempt judgements against MSCO, if Arpaio refuses to comply with court orders. It could even include a federal receivership of departments or facilities that demonstrate an ongoing pattern of non-compliance. I don't believe this has ever happened in the context of a police agency, but it has been done for specific detention facilities. Ultimately, it is possible that the Maricopa jails could be taken from Arpaio's control if violations continue and Arpaio refuses to address the problems CRD has found in his jails.
I can't stress enough that it is unprecedented for a police agency to seriously and publicly deny any problem and resist entering into negotiations toward a consent decree. I'm simply not aware of any situation that 14141 has been used against police agency headed by a political figure who bases his legitimacy on the very conduct the DOJ finds to be a violation of the Constitution. I have looked at the prior actions CRD has brought under 14141 and at the literature discussing those procedures, and have been unable to locate any real parallel to the situation with MSCO.
Part of this stems from the fact that 14141 has only been law for roughly 15 years. The real parallels with police agencies who stubbornly insist on maintaining discriminatory and illegal practices predate 14141, and where fought by the DOJ with inferior legal tools. It was, in fact, to more effectively combat problematic principals like Arpaio that Congress passed 14141, but the DOJ hasn't yet had to deal with open defiance of its autohority and findings in a 14141 action. In a sense, this might be a welcome opportunity for the professional staff at the CRD to really give 14141 a real test of its effectiveness.
Police agencies tend to be run by competent and reasonable professionals who are having problems with oversight and training that result in systemic violations. I don't know that 14141 has ever been used to try to reform of intentional policies and cultural norms tht promote constitutional violations. Principal directors tend to be quite cooperative and even eager to work with the DOJ to fix problems in their agencies. The MSCO and Arpiao seem likely to pose an entirely different set of legal and political challenges to CRD's enforcement strategy.
What the legal and political consequences could be when the DOJ and its CRD are faced with an intransigent and popular political figure intent on resisting any changes is uncharted territory. If Arpaio wants to double down and try to wait out the DOJ in hopes of a regime change in 2014, he might well succeed in the long term. That is, unless he decides at some point that he's had enough and retires when things get too hot. He is an old man, after all.
A high profile fight in the national media which airs all of Arpiao's dirty pink laundry would likely be very damaging both to Arpaio and to Arizona, but might well play perfectly to the local political constituency on whom Arpaio relies. Arpaio may relish the national attention he would garner by defying the DOJ so openly. The DOJ would have to get creative in crafting a legal strategy to address an obstreperous Arpaio; their only experience with 14141 enforcement seems to be predicated on a fairly good-faith attempt by the local stakeholders to reach a mutually satisfactory consent decree.
What would stubborn resistance to DOJ authority mean for MSCO and Maricopa residents?
It's hard to say, as its never really happened before, but we've already seen one compliance tool brought to bear by Homeland Security. Napolitano has already stripped Arpiao's agency of its 287g access to immigration status information based on the CRD's letter of findings. In her statement, Napolitano states that by continuing to allow MSCO personnel to participate in 287g programs, she would effectively be making DHS a party to the constitutional violations CRD found. It is understandable and correct that the head of DHS refuse to be involved, even vicariously, in enabling civil rights violations.
But Napolitano's principled stand is likely to be a very politically divisive move this early. Napolitano might have moved too quickly, before it is clear that Arpaio will refuse to implement any reforms. Loss of 287g certification certainly limits the ability of MSCO to violate the constitutional rights of Latinos, but it also makes immigration enforcement much more difficult for ICE in Maricopa county. The loss effectively reduces the number of boots on the ground doing immigration enforcement activities in Maricopa. it also gives Arpaio a fairly effective propaganda weapon in his claim that the Obama Administration is attempting to put MSCO out of the immigration enforcement business. The action further feeds into the paranoia and anger generated amongst Arpaio's supporters around the State by the Administration's ongoing effort to enjoin enforcement of SB1070.
Loss of access to immigration information could be only the tip of the enforcement spear; the MSCO and its jail facilities recieve millions in federal assistance and grants. That funding could ultimately be in jeopardy. Loss of those funds could sharply increase the cost of MSCO jails and programs to Maricopa residents.
Fines and penalties for non-compliance or contempt could ultimately be levied agains MSCO by the federal courts if Arpaio refuses to comply with court orders. Those costs would also ultimately be passed on to Maricopa taxpayers.
I don't know if it would be possible to hold Arpaio personally liable in any way, he likely enjoys at least some limited immunity as an elected official for his actions and those of his agency. It is possible that Arpaio might ultimately end up with some personal legal liability.
It seems likely that should Arpiao decide to pick a public fight with the CRD, there will be much less incentive for the CRD to keep its investigative findings private, as is generally done as a term of a consent decree. Should flurries of public records start coming out of the CRD regarding the violations it found, you might expect to see a lot of private section 1983 civil rights lawsuits filed on the basis of those documents and testimony.
14141 does not give a private right of action (only the DOJ may sue), but if the DOJ's investigations start producing documentation of violations that plaintiffs can get a hold of, it could produce a tidal wave of 1983 private civil rights violation litigation, which the County would be on the hook for, and which would pubicize much of the worst behavior of the MSCO under Arpaio. It is also not unknown for even elected officials to be hit with personal liability in some 1983 actions. This might be one way more than just Arpaio's political hide could be put into play by his intransigence.
What should we expect from Arpaio's camp in terms of political ploys?
We are already seeing the outlines of Arpaio's political defense. It is a mainly an aggressive offense.
In the short term at least it seems that Arpaio has decided that resistance and push-back are the stategy he wants to pursue regarding the civil rights violations against Latinos. First, he alleges that he is being persecuted for political reasons: pick you favorite flavor- Obama's presidential campaign's desire to court the Latino vote by attacking him, and/or AG Holder chumming the waters to cover the smell from the Fast and Furious scandal Arpaio's allies are out establishing these themes on the nets and all over FOX news.
The one area in which Arpaio seems to be pursuing a conciliatory line is his department's failure to adequately investigate hundreds of sex crimes. Arpaio has apologized publicly and vowed reform, including hiring an outside expert to oversee training and implementation of reforms.
I have not yet seen anything along this vein, but given the deeply racist views of Arpaio and many of his supporters, there is an obvious line of attack: Perez, the head of CRD, is Latino. I don't think will be a public ploy, but I am confident that it will play some part in Arpaio's more sotto voce propaganda campaign.
All of these counter-attacks are transparently false, given the long term nature of the investigation against MSCO and the well-supported findings (which Arpaio had best pray the CRD does not decide to further substantiate by releasing any raw data from its investigations), but they have propagandistic value and credibility to those whom Arpaio is appealing to.
It is unsurprising that Arpaio, faced with evidence of his mismanagement and the culture of bias he has created in his 20 years as Sheriff, would decide to double-down on further divisive and corrosive politics rather than focus on serving the people of Maricopa more effectively. After all, that is the modus operandi Arizonans have come to expect from a sadly dominant faction of the State GOP, which relies on demagoguery of immigration and race-baiting Latinos to maintain its power and distract from their incompetence and failures.
Crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed "America's toughest sheriff" (the guy whines like a crybaby anytime he is criticized, how tough is that?) has had a very bad year heading into the 2012 election cycle.
"Simply screwing up in your job doesn't create criminal liability," said Maricopa Couty Attorney Bill Montgomery, adding he would not "join the chorus" calling for Arpaio's resignation.
Montgomery said it is not his call to hold Arpaio accountable for the bungled cases, but instead is up to voters in 2012.
No, but it does mean that you should resign or be fired for neglect of duties or utter incompetence. That's a real vote of confidence there from the County Attorney, by the way. With friends like these...
Federal authorities say a civil rights investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has found some of the most egregious racial profiling in the country ever.
The three-year investigation found reasonable cause to believe that sheriff’s deputies racially profiled Latino drivers, illegally arrested and detained Latinos, retaliated against critics of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s policies, and discriminated against inmates who don’t speak English by punishing them and denying them critical services.
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, who heads the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, said investigators pored through tens of thousands of pages of documents, interviewed Arpaio and his command staff, interviewed dozens of deputies, staff and inmates and statisticians and experts in racial profiling and police practices.
One expert, who the Department of Justice refused to name, did a statistical analysis of traffic stops and found that Latino drivers were between 4 and 9 times more likely to be stopped than non-Latino drivers.
“Overall, the expert concluded that his case involves the most egregious racial profiling in the United States that he has ever personally seen in the course of his work, observed in litigation, or reviewed in professional literature,” Perez said.
Perez said the next step is to seek a court-enforceable agreement to implement a corrective plan of action that would have oversight by a judge.
Perez said the department is giving the Sheriff’s Office 60 days to come up with a solution or face litigation and put millions of dollars in federal funding at risk.
The federal government is also investigating the Sheriff’s Office on allegations it abused its power in investigations of Maricopa County officials over the years, but the results of that investigation aren’t expected to be announced at the press conference.
The Justice Department's conclusions in the civil probe mark the federal government's harshest rebuke of a national political fixture who has risen to prominence for his immigration crackdowns and became coveted endorsement among candidates in the GOP presidential field.
Apart from the civil rights probe, a federal grand jury also has been investigating Arpaio's office on criminal abuse-of-power allegations since at least December 2009 and is specifically examining the investigative work of the sheriff's anti-public corruption squad.
The civil rights report said federal authorities will continue to investigate complaints of deputies using excessive force against Latinos, whether the sheriff's office failed to provide adequately police services in Hispanic communities and a large number of sex-crimes cases that were assigned to the agency but weren't followed up on or investigated at all.
* * *
"Arpaio's own actions have helped nurture MCSO's culture of bias," wrote Thomas Perez, who heads the Justice Department's civil rights division, adding that the sheriff frequently gave such racially charged letters to some of his top aides and saved them in his own files."
MCSO is broken in a number of critical respects. The problems are deeply rooted in MCSO's culture," he said Thursday.The Justice Department's expert on measuring racial profiling said it's the most egregious case of racial profiling in the nation that he has seen or reviewed in professional literature, Perez said.
* * *
The report will require Arpaio to set up effective policies against discrimination, improve training and make other changes that would be monitored for compliance by a judge. Arpaio faces a Jan. 4 deadline for saying whether he wants to work out an agreement. If not, the federal government will sue him and let a judge decide the complaint.
* * *
The report also said he and some top staffers tried to silence people who have spoken out against the sheriff's office by arresting people without cause, filing meritless lawsuits against opponents and starting investigations of critics.
One example cited by the Justice Department is former top Arpaio aide David Hendershott, who filed bar complaints against attorneys critical of the agency along with bringing judicial complaints against judges who were at odds with the sheriff. All complaints were dismissed.
The anti-corruption squad's cases against two county officials and a judge collapsed in court before going to trial and have been criticized by politicians at odds with the sheriff as trumped up. Arpaio has defended the investigations as a valid attempt at rooting out corruption in county government.
* * *
The Justice Department said it hadn't yet established a pattern of alleged wrongdoing by the sheriff's office in the three areas where they will continue to investigation: complaints of excessive force against Latinos, botched sex-crimes cases and immigration efforts that have hurt the agency's trust with the Hispanic community.Federal authorities will continue to investigate whether the sheriff's office has limited the willingness of witnesses and victims to report crimes or talk to Arpaio's office.
Crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio is a buffoon who gives professional law enforcement officers a bad name. He has got to go for the sake of the MCSO. If he will not do the honorable thing and resign, then Maricopa County voters must turn him out of office for his demonstrated incompetence and abuses of power. If Maricopa County voters fail to toss him out of office, it will say more about their lack of character and judgment than it will about Crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio's lack of character and judgment.
Please link to this site. Deep linking as well as landing page links are encouraged and appreciated. Here are site graphics you can use for graphic links.
BforAZ Merchandise:
Purchase of goods via or donations to this site do not constitute a donation to any political candidate or party and are not tax deductible. This site is run by volunteers and is not authorized by any political campaign, party, or PAC.
Opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions or positions of any other organization, entity, or officials.
Recent Comments