Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26662
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#276

Post by bob » Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:37 pm

bob wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:17 pm

The threat of a Klayman lawsuit shirley has Rolling Stone sweating in its boots. (And it corrected its story.)
Klayman and Arpaio, not content with suing just the NYT, has invited everyone to the party!:

FW: Arpaio and Klayman File Complaint for Defamation Against Jeff Zucker, Chris Cuomo, CNN, Huffington Post and Rolling Stone:
Sheriff to Hold Leftist “Fake News” Media to Legally Account

Today, Larry Klayman, the founder of both Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor announced the filing of a complaint for defamation against the president of CNN Jeff Zucker and his prime time host Chris Cuomo and CNN, the Huffington Post, and Rolling Stone magazine. The complaint, which alleges defamation per se, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Case No. 1:18-CV-02894) and is furtherance of Freedom Watch's "Leftist Media Strike Force." . . .

Specifically, the complaint alleges that these "Fake News" publications slandered and libeled former Maricopa Sheriff and U.S. Senate candidate Joe Arpaio by falsely branding him a "felon." To the contrary, Sheriff Arpaio was never found guilty of a felony, nor arrested and imprisoned as one of the publications claimed, but was simply found to have committed a misdemeanor, for which he was pardoned by President Donald Trump. The nullification of even the misdemeanor finding, which Sheriff Arpaio submits was legally incorrect but simply the basis of politics, as he had not violated a court order and intentionally profiled illegal immigrants, is on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Sheriff Arpaio is confident that even the misdemeanor finding will eventually also be vacated.

Klayman had this to say for Sheriff Arpaio, "America's Toughest Sheriff," upon filing the complaint, which seeks $300,500,000 USD in actual and punitive damages. . . .
Klayman wrote:It's time that someone stood up to the Left's 'Fake News' media, which is bent on destroying anyone who is a supporter of the president and in particular Sheriff Arpaio. My client will not be bullied by the likes of Jeff Zucker, Chris Cuomo, the Huffington Post, and Rolling Stone, as he alone has the courage to stand up for not just himself, the President of the United States but also all fair-minded and ethical Americans.
Klayman's Arpaio's complaint. Arpaio alleges he intends to run for the senate in 2020, as well as "pursue other political and governmental endeavors" in D.C. The specific causes of action are defamation, tortious interference with prospective business relations (the RNC, etc.), and false light.

The offending pieces (because they all initially labeled him a felon):

CNN: Sheriff Joe Arpaio enters Arizona Senate race;
HuffPo: Kyrsten Sinema Wants You To Know She’s Not A Progressive (which was since corrected); and
Rolling Stone: How Trump Accidentally Helped Democrat Kyrsten Sinema Flip Jeff Flake’s Arizona Senate Seat (also since corrected).

Meanwhile, Arpaio's gofundme to sue the NYT has raised (presently) just $380.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 9701
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#277

Post by Chilidog » Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:58 pm

Arpaio for Chief of Staff.

those two egos in the same room?

User avatar
Whip
Posts: 3791
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#278

Post by Whip » Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:30 pm

Chilidog wrote:
Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:58 pm
Arpaio for Chief of Staph.

those two egos in the same room?
fixed your spelling mistake :-D

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26662
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#279

Post by bob » Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:51 pm

Wash. Ex.: Why Joe Arpaio and Larry Klayman's media defamation lawsuit will fail:
Irony evidently not one of his stronger suits, Freedom Watch chief Larry Klayman has joined with Joe Arpaio in a defamation suit against CNN, the Huffington Post, and Rolling Stone magazine. The two men claim more than $300 million in defamation damages.

Arpaio and Klayman will lose. And rightly so.

The lawsuit "alleges that these 'Fake News' publications libeled former Maricopa Sheriff and U.S. Senate candidate Joe Arpaio by falsely branding him a 'felon.'" This is not true, they say, because Arpaio was never found guilty as a felony.

While it is true that Arpaio is not a convicted felon, the media contentions are not otherwise defamatory. That's because Arpaio is a public figure and is thus subject to the defamation parameters appropriate to that public station. Those parameters were defined in the Supreme Court case of New York Times v. Sullivan, which ruled that speech involving public figures is only defamatory if made with the "actual malice" of spite or a reckless disregard for the truth. The court's judgment here was designed to discourage litigation against the media that is designed to block publication of matters of public import.

The offense of actual malice is patently not apparent in the Klayman-Arpaio lawsuit. While media outlets should have shown more regard for the facts in their descriptions of Arpaio, Arpaio's legal struggles with the Justice Department and his conviction on a misdemeanor charge absolve the media of defamatory culpability. Put simply, Arpaio's legal quandary was defined by his own conduct, not the media. The media's reporting was wrong, but not so wrong as to be ruled malicious by the courts.

This is how it should be. America is a country made great by its tradition of expansive free speech. And just as Sarah Palin has learned, Joe Arpaio and Larry Klayman will also soon learn that they cannot bankrupt media outlets without grand and sufficient legal cause. The media mistakes in this case are regrettable, but they are not evidence of defamation.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

tjh
Posts: 2938
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#280

Post by tjh » Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:43 pm

A list of other people/organizations who made the same 'convicted felon' assumption :

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/sh ... t-11067044

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26662
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#281

Post by bob » Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:33 pm

Daily J.: CNN: Anchor promptly made on-air correction about Arpaio:
Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio alleged in a defamation lawsuit earlier this week against three news organizations that CNN made no effort to correct anchor Chris Cuomo’s erroneous statement that the lawman was a convicted felon.

But CNN released a statement Thursday saying Cuomo corrected his error on air within minutes of making it during the Jan. 10 broadcast. “He is convicted of a misdemeanor. He’s not a convicted felon, like I said,” Cuomo said. “Meaningful distinction. He got pardoned.”

The former six-term sheriff of metro Phoenix said Cuomo’s correction has no bearing on the case. “Whether he apologized and corrected it, he still threw it out there for the whole world to see,” Arpaio said. “He should have known better to begin with.”

CNN said an online companion story about Arpaio didn’t contain Cuomo’s correction, though the story has been updated to include the anchor’s on-air correction and a written preface that points out Cuomo rectified the error during the same show.

“Obviously if CNN had been made aware of the oversight in the digital posting it would have corrected that immediately too,” CNN’s statement said. “There is nothing here that would support a claim for defamation by Arpaio.”

* * *

Larry Klayman, an attorney representing Arpaio in the lawsuit, said he stands by the claim that CNN made no effort to correct the story. “We have no evidence an effort was made,” Klayman said.
So CNN, Rolling Stone, and HuffPo all made corrections. Yet they're still suing. :roll:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26662
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#282

Post by bob » Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:44 pm

Newsweek:
SACHA BARON COHEN'S 'WHO IS AMERICA' CANCELED? SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO WONDERS IF ACTOR HAS 'GUTS' TO INTERVIEW HIM AGAIN
:
Sacha Baron Cohen’s controversial television show, Who Is America?, will reportedly not return to television for a second season and former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio celebrated the news.

Cohen told The Hollywood Reporter that there would not be a second season, citing the inability to get politicians to once again “bare his buttocks while screaming ‘God bless America!’ and screaming the N-word.” He added that he doesn’t have other characters ready for a second season and that the hours-long makeup process to get into his disguises was “grueling.”

The Showtime show featured Cohen in a series of disguises interviewing prominent political figures who often ended up saying and doing bizarre things. Arpaio’s episode aired in August, during which time he was running for the Republican Senate nomination in Arizona.

Following the news of Cohen’s show not returning for a second season, Arpaio wrote on Twitter that it was “great!” that the show was cancelled.

“Will not forget his degrading, low life interview of me, which played numerous times during my U.S. Senate campaign,” Arpaio wrote. “Wonder if he has guts to interview me again man to man in English, if he can get away from his court hearings.”
"For the record," Arpaio is suing NYT, CNN, HuffPo, and Rolling Stone; it is Roy Moore who is suing Cohen. (And Klayman represents them both.)
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26662
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#283

Post by bob » Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:27 pm

FOX: Joe Arpaio's $147.5M lawsuit against New York Times, opinion writer lacks merit, newspaper tells court:
The New York Times and a member of its editorial board are requesting that a federal court dismiss a libel lawsuit filed by former Maricopa County (Ariz.) Sheriff Joe Arpaio over an August opinion column he claims damaged his reputation.

Arpaio’s suit is “not likely to succeed on merit” and the statements made against him were not made with actual malice, meaning published with reckless disregard for the truth, according to a motion filed Friday in a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

“All apart from the fact that Arpaio can neither adequately plead nor ever prove that the statements in the column about him are false, Arpaio’s claim should be dismissed at this preliminary stage for the principal reason that he fails to allege facts that, if proven, could plausibly establish that The Times published any allegedly false factual statement in the column with the requisite level of fault,” the motion for dismissal stated.

The Times and editorial board member Michelle Cottle also asked a judge to award them attorney’s fees and accused Arpaio of pursuing the litigation in an effort to punish or silence the paper through the burdensome cost of legal defense fees.

“It is also the case that the column, which advocates a view that the “bare-knuckle approach to law enforcement” publicly championed by Arpaio throughout his career should be rejected, qualifies for protection under the [Anti-SLAPP] Act as “expressive conduct that involves petitioning the government or communicating views to members of the public in connection with an issue of public interest," the motion states.
NYT's motion to dismiss extensively sites how often Arpaio was sued (including Melendres); some of Klayman's fails also get shoutouts. It even references the gofundme page (which is still in triple digits).

The motion also says that the NYT intends to fill an anti-SLAPP motion (under D.C. law), but acknowledges that such claims have been unsuccessful in D.D.C.; in other words, it expects it to be denied (and to be litigated on appeal).

Oh: The assigned judge is an Obama-nominee Melanin American. :popcorn:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 13771
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#284

Post by Dolly » Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:30 pm

I listened to this a couple of days ago. Don't remember exactly what Old Joe was saying. Googled for some links. I believe the one I posted below shows Joe doesn't know much.
Fox & Friends
on Saturday ·
Locked up and logged in – South Carolina prisoners will now be given tablets to watch movies and make phone calls. Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio is calling out the move.



SCDC rolls out tablets for inmates but no one is going online
by ABC News 4Friday, January 18th 2019
..............................
We get a first look now at what these tablets do.

The South Carolina Department of Corrections is piloting a tablet with games, apps, even music and movies..

But just like the prisoners who use them, the internet is locked up.

According to the tablet's company, the fear that they will be able to get online is just not true.
..........................
This tablet may help inmates connect to family and friends in a more meaningful way.

“For the guys that are just using them because they want to lay on their bunks at night and talk to their mom, now they will be able to do that with these tablets,” says former corrections director Jon Ozmint.

So far, 140 institutions across the country are allowing prisoners to use the tablets.

South Carolina Director of Corrections Bryan Stirling hopes it will make our state prisons safer.

“My big selling point was talking to other directors and frankly other jail administrators about how much safer it made it for their officers, staff,” says Stirling. Safer because the prisoners stayed engaged, able to study, communicate and relax. They will pay for that privilege. Just like a traditional phone call their use will be charged and heavily monitored.

“I think what they do more than anything else is they fight that boredom that breeds hopelessness, by eliminating the boredom you are also eliminating the hopelessness,” says Ozmint.

There will be no charge to the state or to taxpayers.

First, the device will be placed in one female institution in Columbia and two male institutions yet to be determined.
https://abcnews4.com/news/local/scdc-ro ... ing-online
Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26662
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#285

Post by bob » Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:37 pm

Arpaio truly is yesterday's news; his gofundme finally has broken the four-digit mark (barely).
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Adrianinflorida
Posts: 3110
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:07 pm
Location: South Detroit

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#286

Post by Adrianinflorida » Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:18 pm

Dolly wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:30 pm


“My big selling point was talking to other directors and frankly other jail administrators about how much safer it made it for their officers, staff,” says Stirling. Safer because the prisoners stayed engaged, able to study, communicate and relax. They will pay for that privilege. Just like a traditional phone call their use will be charged and heavily monitored.
If it's anything like the collect phone call scam run by the prison industry, this should be ridiculously expensive

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26662
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#287

Post by bob » Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:32 pm

Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 5879
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#288

Post by neonzx » Wed Jan 30, 2019 6:55 am

bob wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:32 pm
https:// twitter.com/rbergin/status/1090389095380123648
Wazunt sur if serius.
:shock:
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26662
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#289

Post by bob » Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:29 pm

THR: Joe Arpaio Called "Libel-Proof" As CNN, HuffPo and Rolling Stone Push for Lawsuit Dismissal:
Huffington Post reported the convicted former sheriff went to prison. Although he didn't, the publication says the gist was substantially true.

Joe Arpaio, the controversial former sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., who earned Donald Trump's first pardon, is many things, but he's not a "convicted felon," as CNN reported, not an "ex-felon," as Rolling Stone described him, and he has never been "sent to prison," as the Huffington Post once wrote in passing in the midst of a story that had not much to do with him. Yes, he was convicted of criminal contempt after violating a judge's orders to stop detaining suspected undocumented immigrants, but it was a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Some reporters are confused, but should CNN, Rolling Stone and Huffington Post have to pay a sum of $300,500,000 as Arpaio demands in a defamation suit? On Friday, a federal judge in the District of Columbia was given reasons why the suit should be tossed.

The media outlets are definitely taking this case seriously. CNN has tapped Williams & Connolly litigator Kevin Baine, who after representing ABC in the big "pink slime" case (which settled for $177 million), successfully got Fox News out of defamation suits over Seth Rich stories and Bill O'Reilly statements. That's right. CNN and Fox News now share a lawyer. As for Rolling Stone, it's turning back to Elizabeth McNamara, who represented the publication over the infamous campus rape story. And Huffington Post is using Jean-Paul Jassy (who has represented The Hollywood Reporter in the past.)

On Friday, each of the media outlets (including co-defendants Jeff Zucker and Chris Cuomo) were scheduled to deliver motions for dismissal, and Huffington Post went first.

"Arpaio’s defamation claim fails because case law nationwide spanning over a century makes clear that the gist and sting of the portion of the report at issue is that Arpaio was convicted of criminal conduct; whether he served time in prison is ancillary," states the dismissal brief. "The HuffPost piece is therefore protected under the constitutionally-based doctrine of substantial truth."

Plus, Huffington Post argues that no matter what anyone says about Arpaio, his reputation simply can't go any lower when coupled with the "accurate, but damning, reference to his criminal conviction."

Actually, the argument becomes even more nuanced because the brief argues for "issue-specific libel-proof" because as explained here, "any damage associated with that short and fleeting reference within the HuffPost Article would be nominal at most, and could not support a libel claim. If Arpaio cannot recover damages under the issue-specific libel-proof plaintiff doctrine, then his defamation claim fails for that additional reason."

Separately comes a special motion to dismiss pursuant to the D.C. anti-SLAPP Act, which is interesting in and of itself given Brett Kavanaugh's role a few years back attempting to quash use of SLAPP analysis in federal court, particularly in the D.C. federal circuit, where Arpaio's case is being fought. These laws are meant to deter frivolous litigation aimed at activity protected by the First Amendment. After Kavanaugh's opinion in Abbas, a footnote in a subsequent decision attempted to walk it back — which Huffington Post's lawyer points out. Put a pin on this in the event Arpaio's lawsuit is SLAPP'd out and then reaches an appeals court.

As for CNN, besides arguing that Cuomo's talk of Arpaio as a "felon" was substantially true ("whether a conviction for contempt is technically even a felony or misdemeanor is an unsettled question of federal criminal law"), the broadcaster contends that Arpaio can't demonstrate actual malice.

"To the extent there was any error in the segment, it was fleeting and immediately corrected," states CNN's dismissal brief. "This case implicates precisely the kind of good-faith mistake that the actual malice standard is supposed to inoculate."

Arpaio's attorney Larry Klayman sent The Hollywood Reporter a statement via email in response to the filings. "These media defendants are highly sophisticated and were aware that Sheriff Arpaio was not convicted of a felony," says Klayman. "They acted with malice or reckless disregard for the truth to harm him. And, their anti-SLAPP motion is frivolous and sanctionable as it cannot be asserted in D.C. federal court when jurisdiction is based, as here, on diversity of citizenship."
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7874
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#290

Post by RoadScholar » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:07 pm

7th ¶:

"accurate, but damning, reference to his criminal conviction." Hmmm...

Shouldn't that be "inaccurate, but damning, reference to his criminal conviction?" :think:
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 15661
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#291

Post by kate520 » Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:41 pm

I think that’s called praising with faint damns.
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26662
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#292

Post by bob » Thu May 02, 2019 2:44 pm

In Arpaio v. THE LIBERAL MEDIA (Part 2: CNN, HuffPo, Rolling Stone), Klayman filed his oppositions to their motions to dismiss on Monday. Replies are due June 3.

(The briefing on the motion to dismiss in Arpaio v. NYT was completed in February. :waiting: )
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26662
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#293

Post by bob » Thu May 02, 2019 8:04 pm

In Arpaio v. THE LIBERAL MEDIA (Part 2: CNN, HuffPo, Rolling Stone), Klayman filed his oppositions to their motions to dismiss on Monday.
FW (stealing from Law360): Ex-Sheriff Arpaio Claims Media Errors Were Intentional:
In a Monday brief in D.C. federal court, Arpaio, represented by conservative group Freedom Watch Inc., claimed that the three news outlets had knowingly published the errors, which have since been corrected, and that they did so with malice. Arpaio urged the court not to dismiss the lawsuit, as the news outlets requested.

In 2018 news reports, both CNN and Rolling Stone incorrectly referred to Arpaio as a "felon," while HuffPost mistakenly wrote he was "sent to prison." Arpaio was convicted of a misdemeanor, but he was pardoned by President Donald Trump and never served any prison time. CNN newscaster Chris Cuomo made an on-air correction within minutes of the network's mistake, and both Rolling Stone and HuffPost issued corrections online soon after their stories were published, according to court filings.

"It is the media's job to know what the facts are before publishing a story," the Monday motions say, "and it had been widely reported that not only was Plaintiff Sheriff Arpaio not sent to prison (or jail) but the media ... knew that he had filed court papers seeking to have his misdemeanor liability vacated, even though President Trump pardoned him."

* * *

According to Freedom Watch, Arpaio's lawsuit against the media outlets is part of the group's so-called "leftist media strike force."

The three outlets filed motions to dismiss in March, arguing that Arpaio had failed to state a claim of malice because the mistakes were minor and the reporting was overall "substantially true," since Arpaio had been convicted of a crime.

* * *

The news outlets also filed motions to dismiss under D.C.'s Anti-SLAPP Act, which aims to protect defendants from "strategic lawsuits against public participation."

"It's clear that they maliciously and intentionally called him a felon because their game is to use him as a whipping boy against Trump because they're both against illegal immigration," Larry Klayman, general counsel for Freedom Watch, told Law360 on Wednesday.

He said he was confident the lawsuit would survive the motions to dismiss and move on to the discovery phase.

"You get at discovery and God only knows what we'll find," Klayman said, adding that he believes it "will enhance the malice allegations."
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26662
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#294

Post by bob » Tue Jun 04, 2019 4:54 pm

Ariz. Capitol Times: Supreme Court refuses to hear claims Arpaio conspired with counterfeiter:
Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio may still be going through court battles over racial profiling, but he is off the hook in another case in which a photographer accused him of making a deal with a counterfeiter.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a case alleging Arpaio of not charging a felon in exchange for 3,000 counterfeit posters of a moment captured just before game one of the 2001 World Series.

The photographer, David Kelly, took a picture at the 2001 World Series that shows members of the Phoenix Fire Department on the playing field of Chase Field – then known as Bank One Ballpark – raising a flag from the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attacks, an image Kelly said was later stolen by Raymond Young.

* * *

According to Kelly’s complaint, Young “commenced to orchestrate a colossal scheme of distributing, for financial gain and at the Plaintiff’s expense, massive amounts of the counterfeit Copyrighted Posters to over 100 vendors throughout the country.”

Kelly said in the court documents that the vendors made “millions of dollars” using his property. Kelly sued Young in 2006, and was granted $1.125 million for Young’s breach of contract, according to the documents.

But Kelly claims that three years before the lawsuit he contacted Arpaio’s office and they refused to investigate Kelly’s claims.

Kelly argues in the documents that “Mr. Young and Defendant Arpaio agreed that Mr. Young would donate 3,000 copies of the counterfeit Copyrighted Posters to the MCSO in exchange for Defendant Arpaio’s continuing to refrain from arresting Mr. Young for his state and federal criminal conduct.”

* * *

The courts have ruled against Kelly. In December 2017, District Court Judge G. Murray Snow, the same judge who ordered Arpaio to stop racially profiling, said Kelly’s arguments raised “no genuine issues for trial concerning any of the alleged infringement occurring after December 2012.”

Snow said in the ruling that because Kelly filed in 2015, and the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is three years, all of his claims before December 2012 could not be tried in court.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Snow’s ruling that Kelly’s claims prior to 2012 were past the statute of limitations for copyright infringement, and his claims after 2012 did not raise substantial issues.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26662
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#295

Post by bob » Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:43 pm


"Tell us another one, grandpa!" :roll:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Whip
Posts: 3791
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#296

Post by Whip » Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:11 pm

old_man_walking_with_walker_md_wht.GIF
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
tek
Posts: 3396
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#297

Post by tek » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:12 am

was taken from DC to a lonely road in VA. By 2 drug suspects who tried to kill Arpaio firing several shots close range in the vehicle.
doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.

Arpaio would never have been heard from again if that really happened, and in any event there would have been a HUGE investigation widely reported in the news.

I'm sure Trump will believe it tho.
There's no way back
from there to here

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26662
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#298

Post by bob » Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:13 am

In Arpaio v. THE LIBERAL MEDIA (Part 2: CNN, HuffPo, Rolling Stone), Klayman filed his oppositions to their motions to dismiss [in April]. Replies are due June 3.
D.D.C.:
ORDER: Hearing on defendants' Motions to Dismiss set for July 24, 2019 at 10:00 AM before Judge Royce C. Lamberth.
:popcorn:

I'm a little disappointed the defendants didn't seek Lamberth's recusal (due to the Arpaio/Klayman/Montgomery/Zullo hijinks), but it'll make Lamberth's dismissal all the sweeter.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 21061
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#299

Post by RTH10260 » Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:57 pm

bob wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:13 am
In Arpaio v. THE LIBERAL MEDIA (Part 2: CNN, HuffPo, Rolling Stone), Klayman filed his oppositions to their motions to dismiss [in April]. Replies are due June 3.
D.D.C.:
ORDER: Hearing on defendants' Motions to Dismiss set for July 24, 2019 at 10:00 AM before Judge Royce C. Lamberth.
:popcorn:

I'm a little disappointed the defendants didn't seek Lamberth's recusal (due to the Arpaio/Klayman/Montgomery/Zullo hijinks), but it'll make Lamberth's dismissal all the sweeter.
:o Judge Royce C. Lamberth wants to have a personal indepth chat with Klayman :?:

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26662
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

#300

Post by bob » Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:25 pm

PNT: Arpaio Considering Run For Sheriff in 2020, According to Leaked Texts:
Former Maricopa County Sheriff and pardoned convict Joe Arpaio is considering another run for his old office, according to text messages sent by his friend to a campaign consultant.

On Friday morning, Arpaio's friend Carlo Oddo texted Marc Bretz, a partner at a conservative political firm, about the Republican's potential election campaign.

* * *

Reached on his cell phone, Arpaio denied asking Oddo to reach out to Bretz. The name, Arpaio said, didn't ring a bell.

"He may have been one of my supporters in other races," he mused.

Arpaio did acknowledge that he is considering throwing his hat in the ring for his old seat, which he lost in 2016 to Democrat Paul Penzone.

"I am talking to people that would help me make a decision," the former sheriff said. "I'm not keeping a secret that I'm thinking of it, but I haven't made a decision."

* * *

Bretz said he leaked the texts to New Times out of concern for his party.

"We need someone who can unseat Sheriff Penzone," he said. "If Joe runs again, he'll cost us the election. There are plenty of qualified, good people who are considering running that doesn't have the baggage that he does."

* * *

On Sunday, two days after New Times reached out to Arpaio about the texts, Bretz forwarded another screenshot showing that the former sheriff had blocked him on Twitter.

* * *

If Arpaio does decide to run for sheriff again, his only declared competitor in the Republican party would be Gerald Sheridan, his former second-in-command. Sheridan, like his old boss, was also connected to the racial-profiling case that thrust Maricopa County into the national spotlight and led a federal judge to find him in civil contempt of court.

In addition to name recognition, Arpaio still has $463,140 of unused campaign funds, according to Maricopa County records.

At least one pro-Arpaio billboard with murky origins has recently appeared in the Valley metro area.
Bonus: Wash. Times: 'I want to clear the air': Joe Arpaio says he's not behind 2020 billboards:
The billboards list they were paid for by the political action committee One More Time. The PAC is not registered in Arizona or Maricopa County.

A federal PAC with the same name was created earlier this month. It lists an address and phone number based in Washington, D.C. The phone was disconnected.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “General Politics”