Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2146
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by mmmirele » Sun Aug 27, 2017 11:01 am

GreatGrey wrote:Can't verify source yet.

4FEB9968-B9B8-40D6-8A64-150417681D81.jpg
Thanks. My brother wanted to know when the pardon was issued. Now I can tell him--the same day it was announced.

SLQ
Posts: 1470
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by SLQ » Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:59 pm

Aargh! I'm in a private FB national lawyers group that formed after Trump was elected. Most of these people are clueless about Melendres, the civil contempt proceedings, and the resulting criminal contempt proceedings, although I'm trying. Someone just posted:
Any Arizona attorneys want to take up this action if funds are raised?
quoting this person on Twitter:
Pam Keith‏
@PamKeithFL
Follow
More
In all seriousness, I would be willing to donate to families of Arpaio's victims to sue him in civil court. What say you?
The first comment is encouraging a Go Fund Me Page. :( :(

SLQ
Posts: 1470
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by SLQ » Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:07 pm

Ugh. I just read all the comments on that Twitter post.

Someone who's on Twitter (I'm not) ought to go to this account https://twitter.com/PamKeithFL/status/9 ... 4907506688 tell the Twitterverse that the ACLU already sued Arpaio and won (including civil contempt against a number of individuals) and paste a link to the ACLU's page on the Melendres case https://www.aclu.org/cases/ortega-melen ... paio-et-al

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3734
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by RVInit » Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:59 pm

Same here. On WaPo page someone suggested the ACLU should sue. Apparently people think the court order he continued violating came from...where exactly? :doh:
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

SLQ
Posts: 1470
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by SLQ » Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:07 pm

RVInit wrote:Same here. On WaPo page someone suggested the ACLU should sue. Apparently people think the court order he continued violating came from...where exactly? :doh:
Seriously. The premise is that if criminal action doesn't work, let's try civil! They completely ignore (or don't bother to find out) that the pardoned conviction was criminal contempt of an order in a civil action.

Loren
Posts: 4341
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by Loren » Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:12 pm

Is there anything Arpaio could be charged with in state court? (If the DA's office were so inclined.) The President can't issue pardons for state-level offenses.

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by Fortinbras » Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:29 pm

The Arpaio pardon had numerous effects ... one was the whipped cream atop Trump's speech to that police convention in which he sort of encouraged police brutality.

At the same moment, Arpaio's pardon puts many of Arpaio's accomplices in deep trouble. Since Crazy Joe cannot be prosecuted now, he cannot plead the Fifth Amendment when questioned about his crooked business - he has to answer all the questions about his dirty deeds and the people who helped him.

SLQ
Posts: 1470
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by SLQ » Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:37 pm

That's assuming there is a criminal case to pursue (or that will be pursued) by a law enforcement/prosecutorial agency in AZ.

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 7294
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by Chilidog » Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:51 pm

Fortinbras wrote:The Arpaio pardon had numerous effects ... one was the whipped cream atop Trump's speech to that police convention in which he sort of encouraged police brutality.

At the same moment, Arpaio's pardon puts many of Arpaio's accomplices in deep trouble. Since Crazy Joe cannot be prosecuted now, he cannot plead the Fifth Amendment when questioned about his crooked business - he has to answer all the questions about his dirty deeds and the people who helped him.
Arpaio: "I don't recall."

User avatar
mighty dawg
Posts: 1526
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:27 am
Location: Pacific NW
Occupation: Professional Bureaucrat

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by mighty dawg » Sun Aug 27, 2017 4:04 pm

Image
"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be" - Albert Einstein

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 20246
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by Addie » Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:09 pm

The Hill
Holder: Obama never asked me to consider dropping a case

Former Attorney General Eric Holder on Sunday fired back at a report that President Trump asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to drop the federal case against former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, saying former President Obama never asked him to do the same.

“Number of times over six years that President Obama called and asked me to think about dropping a case: ZERO,” Holder tweeted Sunday.

Holder was apparently responding to a report from The Washington Post on Saturday that said Trump previously asked Sessions about dropping the charges against Arpaio.

Advisers warned Trump against the move, and the president decided he would pardon Arpaio if the controversial sheriff were convicted, according to the report.
¡Qué vergüenza!

P.K.
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning.
Occupation: Actor. Legal Secretary. Cat Servant.
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by P.K. » Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:36 pm

I saw this on a friend's Twitter just now and thought it had to be a joke: Joe Arpaio wants his conviction thrown out altogether because he was pardoned. Seriously?

Apparently it is not a joke.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/loc ... 610186001/
IANALBIPOOTV - I am not a lawyer, but I've played one on TV. In fact, IANA (fill in the blank) but chances are I've played on on TV.

pipistrelle
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by pipistrelle » Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:39 pm

P.K. wrote:I saw this on a friend's Twitter just now and thought it had to be a joke: Joe Arpaio wants his conviction thrown out altogether because he was pardoned. Seriously?

Apparently it is not a joke.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/loc ... 610186001/
The people who died needlessly under his "care" want their lives back. Literally.

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 5622
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by June bug » Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:48 pm

Much as I hate it, my IANAL guess is that the motion will probably succeed because any appeal has been rendered moot by the pardon. The circumstances are different but the rationale is the same as the Ken Lay and Aaron Hernandez decisions.

And this move fits with my belief he's going to run for something again.

P.K.
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning.
Occupation: Actor. Legal Secretary. Cat Servant.
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by P.K. » Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:53 pm

June bug wrote:Much as I hate it, my IANAL guess is that the motion will probably succeed because any appeal has been rendered moot by the pardon. The circumstances are different but the rationale is the same as the Ken Lay and Aaron Hernandez decisions.

And this move fits with my belief he's going to run for something again.
This really ticks me off. The Hernandez and Lay situations are different because they died. If Arpaio thought he could prevail on appeal, he should have said "No thanks, Donnie, I got this" and declined the pardon, or postponed it until all appeals were done.

Oh wait, never mind, I'm thinking like a logical and reasonable person again. Bad habit of mine.
IANALBIPOOTV - I am not a lawyer, but I've played one on TV. In fact, IANA (fill in the blank) but chances are I've played on on TV.

pipistrelle
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by pipistrelle » Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:55 pm

At minimum, isn't pardoning Arpaio the kind of political cronyism they liked to accuse Obama of? (Even though I don't recall Obama hiring his entire family . . .)

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 5622
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by June bug » Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:06 pm

P.K. wrote:
June bug wrote:Much as I hate it, my IANAL guess is that the motion will probably succeed because any appeal has been rendered moot by the pardon. The circumstances are different but the rationale is the same as the Ken Lay and Aaron Hernandez decisions.

And this move fits with my belief he's going to run for something again.
This really ticks me off. The Hernandez and Lay situations are different because they died. If Arpaio thought he could prevail on appeal, he should have said "No thanks, Donnie, I got this" and declined the pardon, or postponed it until all appeals were done.

Oh wait, never mind, I'm thinking like a logical and reasonable person again. Bad habit of mine.
P.K., I agree it's not the same and I really hope that his acceptance of the pardon made it impossible for the conviction to be voided. But it's the main point his lawyers are arguing in their motion - because they think it's going to be successful or because their client is demanding it? I don't know.

Fogbow lawyers, what do you think?

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 1163
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by p0rtia » Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:10 pm

P.K. wrote:I saw this on a friend's Twitter just now and thought it had to be a joke: Joe Arpaio wants his conviction thrown out altogether because he was pardoned. Seriously?

Apparently it is not a joke.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/loc ... 610186001/
I don't think there's any doubt that there will be a ton of shit thrown around about this. I heard some Arpaio apologist on some radio show or other a few hours ago saying that the pardon removed all hint of wrongdoing and meant total vindication. Yeah, right. Scumbags.
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:

User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by AndyinPA » Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:16 pm

I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is when he accepted the pardon, he acknowledged guilt. Wouldn't he have to give back the pardon to have the conviction thrown out? This makes no sense.

:brickwallsmall:

SLQ
Posts: 1470
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by SLQ » Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:32 am

IIAL (but not in this area -- who is?). Accordong to WaPo, it's complicated, but I think the article is misleading:

Is accepting a pardon an admission of guilt?
Some people have asked: Does accepting a presidential or gubernatorial pardon imply an admission of guilt? The answer turns out to be complicated.

1. In 1915, the Supreme Court indeed said, of pardons, that “acceptance” carries “a confession of” guilt. Burdick v. United States (1915). Other courts have echoed that since.

2. On the other hand, a pardon has historically been seen as serving several different functions, one of which is protecting people who were convicted even though they were legally innocent.
:snippity:
UPDATE [by WaPo]: The Justice Department Standards for Consideration of Clemency Petitioners also expressly contemplate the possibility of “pardon on grounds of innocence or miscarriage of justice,” though they unsurprisingly note that such applicants “bear a formidable burden of persuasion” (since the Justice Department’s strong presumption is that people convicted in federal court were indeed justly convicted).
I think the article is misleading because, although it states the various grounds for a pardon, it fails to address the actual pardon, which did not proclaim Arpaio innocent.

Arpaio seems to think the pardon is a huge eraser. In my opinion, although Trump has been publicly touting his belief that Arpaio was "treated unbelievably unfairly" implying that he is innocent , Trump missed the boat by not proclaiming in the pardon that he believed Arpaio was innocent. I also think such verbal proclamations are hyperbole, because there are no grounds to proclaim Trump innocent of contempt of court. While its true that the pardon renders Arpaio's appeal and sentencing moot, the same is not true for the trial court criminal case, which has concluded.** I believe the criminal case should stand.

However, keep in mind that Sessions is the AG, and can direct the prosecutor. So who will argue for the actual law? (I hope it is the prosecutor who argued the criminal case, who achieved the conviction, and that he/she remains committed to arguing the law.)

**The civil case is unaffected by the pardon. This is the curious part of Arpaio's stunt in seeking to vacate the conviction. The criminal conviction was for contempt of the court order. But the court order was issued in the civil case, which is where Judge Snow found Arpaio and the MCSO engaged in racial profiling and violated the plaintiffs' rights, issuing the injunction. Nothing Trump or Arpaio can do will erase that.

User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2146
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by mmmirele » Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:46 am

Arpaio is talking about running for Jeff Flake's seat, which is up next year.

My ex-boyfriend and I rationally discussed changing our registration to Republican so that we could vote for Flake over Arpaio or Kelli Ward, who is just as abominable in her own special way. (What kind of person tells a senator dying from a glioblastoma, "resign now, so I can be appointed to your seat"? Why that'd be Kelli Ward.)

SLQ
Posts: 1470
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by SLQ » Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:06 am

I read Arpaio's motion and brief. I'm sure there will be more experienced IIALs who will weigh in, but here are my two cents.

Arpaio's lawyers rely primarily on two cases to support their proposition that the pardon, issued while the case is on appeal, requires vacating all orders in the case.

United States v. Schaffer, 240 F.3d 35, (Cir. 2001) does appear to indicate what Arpaio suggests, but it was considerably more complicated, the trial court had ordered a new trial (unlike Judge Bolton) and although the appellate court reversed the grant of a new trial, the appellate court then reversed that appellate opinion, meaning there was no verdict in place at the time of the appeal, which is when the pardon was granted. There was also evidence of the defendant's innocence. Also, what Goldman leaves out is interesting:
Certainly, a pardon does not, standing alone, render Schaffer innocent of the alleged Meat Inspection Act violation. See In re North, 62 F.3d 1434, 1437 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Noonan, 906 F.2d 952, 960 (3d Cir. 1990)). In fact, acceptance of a pardon may imply a confession of guilt. See North, 62 F.3d at 1437 (citing Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79, 91, 94 (1915)). In the present case, the pardon states only that Schaffer receive
A Full and Unconditional Pardon for his conviction in the United State District Court for the District of the District [sic] of Columbia of the charge of violation of Section 622, Title 21, United States Code, as set forth in an indictment (Criminal Action No. 96-0314 (JR)), for which he was sentenced on September twenty-fifth, 2000, to one year and one day's imprisonment and fined five thousand dollars ($5000).
Pres. William J. Clinton, Executive Grant of Clemency (Dec. 22, 2000). In other words, the pardon acts on Schaffer's supposed conviction, without purporting to address Schaffer's innocence or guilt.

Nevertheless, the independent counsel is wrong to suggest that Schaffer's conviction is a fait accompli. Finality was never reached on the legal question of Schaffer's guilt. The District Court ordered a new trial following Espy's acquittal; the prosecutor exercised a legitimate right to appeal that order; a panel of this court reversed the order of the trial court; the court expedited issuance of the mandate in Schaffer II; and Schaffer was sentenced on September 25, 2000. However, the matter was never actually put to rest, because this court granted Schaffer's petition for en banc review and recalled the mandate on December 1, 2000. And in agreeing to en banc review, this court vacated the panel decision in Schaffer II. It was at that uncertain juncture that then President Clinton pardoned Schaffer, thus rendering the case moot.
The reason for the bouncing appellate review (and perhaps the reason for the pardon) is because:
Before this court's decision in Schaffer I was issued, Schaffer filed a second motion for a new trial, this time pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Schaffer cited the newly-found and arguably exculpatory testimony of former Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Alphonso Michael Espy, which had become available following Espy's own acquittal in a related prosecution. Subsequently, after the decision in Schaffer I issued, the District Court granted Schaffer's Rule 33 motion for a new trial on the Meat Inspection Act charge. Schaffer, 83 F.Supp.2d 52 (D.D.C. 1999).
Goldman's reliance on Robson v. United States, 526 F.2d 1145, (Cir. 1975) appears, IMHO, misplaced. The pardon was a footnote in the opinion, not the substance. The substance was that the trial court's finding of facts did not support a finding of guilty (of failing to keep the draft board apprised of his current address.)
An examination of the findings of fact made by the district court in petitioner's previous trial clearly demonstrates that the government did not make any effort to contact petitioner through the names he had provided to his local board of persons he had said would 'always know his address.' [5] In light of this factual record there is no reasonable basis by which petitioner could have been found guilty of failing to keep his local board advised 'of the address where mail will reach him' as required by 50 U.S.C. App.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6036
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by Orlylicious » Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:10 am

Thank you SLQ. Go Reiner!
Reiner.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
From Michael Moore: RESISTANCE CALENDAR! A one-stop site for all anti-Trump actions EVERY DAY nationwide: http://resistancecalendar.org

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 13247
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by kate520 » Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:27 pm

I haven't seen this here yet...
(CNN)A litigator, crime novelist and former law clerk to the federal judge overseeing former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's racial profiling trial in 2012 unleashed an unusual flurry of revealing tweets Tuesday about the trial, Arpaio's tactics, and how he believes Judge G. Murray Snow has been unfairly trashed by the former Arizona sheriff.

"I was the judicial clerk for the judge in the original Apraio trial. I have some thoughts on the pardon," Andrew Case tweeted Tuesday afternoon, beginning a 15-part thread that described Snow's conservative judicial philosophy, how Snow "took pains to ensure that the trial was procedurally fair," and citing a news article which details how Arpaio "sent investigators after the judge's wife and constantly insults him publicly."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/29/politics/ ... index.html
@AClaudeCase is his handle. I have no clue how to c/p the 15 tweets.
Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth.

Mohammed Ali

User avatar
rpenner
Posts: 1227
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Silicon Valley, California
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

Post by rpenner » Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:33 pm

kate520 wrote:@AClaudeCase is his handle. I have no clue how to c/p the 15 tweets.
https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 9826717696
I was the judicial clerk for the judge in the original Apraio trial. I have some thoughts on the pardon. (1/15)
250 replies 6,027 retweets 7,402 likes

https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 0586951680
(I will not be revealing any conversations with the judge about the substance of the case because duh). (2/15)
6 replies 194 retweets 937 likes

https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 7903005696
Judge Snow was appointed by George W. Bush. He quoted Scalia favorably. He had a Romney Institute blotter on his desk. (3/15)
8 replies 332 retweets 1,094 likes

https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 7132306432
Arpaio now calls him “liberal” – this is flatly false. He is ideologically conservative and deeply devoted to the rule of law. (4/15)
17 replies 387 retweets 1,551 likes

https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 6629610496
He took pains to ensure that the trial was procedurally fair – crediting unsupported statements by Arpaio deputies. (5/15)
Image
3 replies 258 retweets 1,007 likes

https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 4779730944
Arpaio’s office had deleted thousands of requested emails (yes!), Snow issued only mild sanctions in response. (6/15)
Image
14 replies 514 retweets 1,307 likes

https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 7903251457
When a minor issue came up that could have merited recusal, he held a hearing – Arpaio’s attorneys asked him not to recuse. (7/15)
Image
Image
4 replies 287 retweets 1,040 likes

https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 5915000832
Judge Snow’s order was upheld on appeal before trial by a Nixon appointee, who singled him out for praise in the opinion. (8/15)
Image
3 replies 278 retweets 1,009 likes

https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 9840470016
Many of the deleted emails were recovered; they contained racist jokes about “Mexifornia,” “Mexican Yoga” and “Mexican Engineering.” (9/15)
Image
Image
Image
25 replies 609 retweets 1,222 likes

https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 8668607488
Snow’s final 142-page order barely referenced the inflammatory stuff – order bars enforcing federal law and stopping bc of race. (10/15)
Image
4 replies 312 retweets 955 likes

https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 9869198336
That order is the one that Arpaio flouted. (11/15)
3 replies 235 retweets 901 likes
But see below

https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 2059261953
Arpaio sent investigators after the judge’s wife and constantly insults him publicly. (12/15)
Image
https://t.co/MQLkKnEgqv
18 replies 655 retweets 1,258 likes

https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 4219059200
Arpaio kept a paper file in which he printed fan mail favoring racial profiling and attacking a different judge (13/15)
Image
7 replies 358 retweets 956 likes

https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 3636353024
Judge Snow has never responded to these personal attacks – he is far too dignified to do so. (14/15)
6 replies 272 retweets 1,275 likes

https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 2794383360
So when you hear Arpaio and Trump on the judge, remember he is a classic Republican judge and a deeply honorable man. (15/15)
69 replies 848 retweets 2,803 likes

https://twitter.com/AClaudeCase/status/ ... 6894978048
*Correction - Arpaio was convicted for violating the 2011 preliminary injunction, not the final order (I was gone by then and got it wrong).
11 replies 132 retweets 577 likes

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”