Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12999
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#251

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:46 pm

I find it hard to believe that a lawyer would counsel his client to admit to a criminal action for whatever reason. I think it was rather more of a case of Joe's mouth ran away with him. I can believe that they are trying to pin it on someone else, the old throw someone under the bus act is standard Shurf Joe. Since at this point I don't think he has any credibility, he can pretty much get up in court and claim just about anything and won't be believed, and I don't think he has figured that out yet.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#252

Post by bob » Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:55 pm

KTVK: [Hearing] for Arpaio attorney's motion to withdraw as counsel:
A federal judge has scheduled a hearing Thursday afternoon on a top attorney's motion to withdraw from former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's upcoming criminal contempt-of-court trial.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#253

Post by Tesibria » Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:19 pm

This Week's Docket Update:
04/03/2017 --- 115 --- MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney as to attorney A. Melvin McDonald, Linda K. Tivorsake, Jones Skelton & Hochuli by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting JSH Application to Withdraw)(McDonald, Andrew) (Entered: 04/03/2017)

04/03/2017 --- 116 --- MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Jones Skelton & Hochuli Application to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant Joseph Arpaio by Joseph M Arpaio. (McDonald, Andrew) (Entered: 04/03/2017)

04/03/2017 --- 117 --- NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Jeffrey Sinclair Surdakowski appearing for Joseph M Arpaio . (Surdakowski, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/03/2017)

04/03/2017 --- 118 --- WITNESS LIST by Joseph M Arpaio. (McDonald, Andrew) (Entered: 04/03/2017)

04/03/2017 --- 119 --- EXHIBIT LIST by Joseph M Arpaio. (McDonald, Andrew) (Entered: 04/03/2017)

04/04/2017 --- 120 --- ORDER granting 116 Motion for Accelerated Consideration of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli's Application to Withdraw as Counsel as to Joseph M Arpaio (1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting Hearing re: Jones, Skelton & Hochuli's Application to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio (Doc. 115 ) on April 6, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. (Arizona time). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defense counsel McDonald and Goldman and Defendant Arpaio are to be personally present in the courtroom for said hearing [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 4/4/17.(MAW) (Entered: 04/04/2017)

04/04/2017 --- 121 --- REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Joseph M Arpaio re: 103 MOTION to Continue Trial Motion for Continuance or to Exclude Documents Disclosed by the Government after March 1, 2017 . (Surdakowski, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/04/2017)

04/05/2017 --- 122 --- *Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to File Replies for Certain Pretrial Motions by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Emergency Motion to Continue Reply Deadlines for Pretrial Motions)(McDonald, Andrew) *Modified to correct event type on 4/5/2017 (KGM). (Entered: 04/05/2017)

04/05/2017 --- 123 --- REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Joseph M Arpaio re: 98 MOTION Preclude Alleged "Victim" Testimony . (McDonald, Andrew) (Entered: 04/05/2017)

04/05/2017 --- 124 --- REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Joseph M Arpaio re: 106 MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Melendres v. Arpaio Opening Brief)(Surdakowski, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/05/2017)

04/05/2017 --- 125 --- REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Joseph M Arpaio re: 104 MOTION to Exclude - Defendant Arpaios Motion to Prohibit the Introduction of Constitutionally Protected Campaign Statements . (Goldman, Mark) (Entered: 04/05/2017)

04/06/2017 --- 126 --- MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Motion Hearing as to Joseph M Arpaio held on 4/6/2017. Discussion held. IT IS ORDERED granting Jones, Skelton & Hochuli's Application to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio (Doc. 115 ). Upon oral request of Defense counsel Goldman, the reply deadline regarding Defendant's Motion to Preclude Testimony of Timothy Casey (Doc. 97 ) is extended to April 10, 2017. IT IS ORDERED setting Hearing re: Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 106 ) on April 12, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. At the request of Defense counsel, Defendant may supplement his witness and exhibit lists prior to April 12, 2017. LATER: IT IS ORDERED denying as moot Defendant's Emergency Motion to Continue Reply Deadlines for Certain Pretrial Motions (Doc. 122 ) [see attached minute entry for details].(Court Reporter Liz Lemke) Hearing held 2:03 PM to 2:51 PM.(MAW) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
Links to bolded docs @ WYE.

Summary of Hearing per Minutes of Proceedings: Judge Bolton issued orders ...
  • granting Jones, Skelton & Hochuli's Application to Withdraw as Counsel for Arpaio;
  • granting Arpaio’s oral motion to extend deadline for filing reply in support of Motion to Preclude Testimony of Timothy Casey to April 10, 2017;
  • granting Arpaio’s request to supplement his witness and exhibit lists prior to April 12, 2017;
  • denying as moot Arpaio’s Emergency Motion to Continue Reply Deadlines for Certain Pretrial Motions;
  • denying Arpaio’s [103] Motion for Continuance and granting -- in part -- motion to exclude documents disclosed after March 1. Per the Minutes:
    “IT IS ORDERED denying the request to continue trial and granting the request to exclude documents newly disclosed by the Government after March 1, 2017 with the exception of the three additional exhibits comprising of a total of 18 pages disclosed on March 15, March 22 and April 3. To the extent that exhibits previously produced were reproduced in a different form, the Court does not consider those exhibits to be the disclosure of a new exhibit.”
  • setting hearing on Arpaio’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (pending resolution of recusal motion/appeal in Melendres) for April 12;
  • regarding Arpaio’s Motion to Preclude Testimony of Timothy Casey, Judge Bolton notes that no hearing was requested; and
  • regarding Arpaio’s Motion Requesting a Voluntariness Hearing, Judge Bolton “advises counsel that this a factual motion and will not be set for an oral argument but will be decided at trial.”


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
mighty dawg
Posts: 1572
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:27 am
Location: Pacific NW
Occupation: Professional Bureaucrat

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#254

Post by mighty dawg » Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:24 pm

Lemons is back on the Arpaio beat:

Arpaio's Criminal Defense And How Bill Montgomery Helped To Have You Pay For Part Of It

While he still was sheriff — before Democrat and current sheriff Paul Penzone rousted him from office — Arpaio retained his demigod status and all of the perks of power.

A security contingent of three beefy, plainclothes deputies shadowed him everywhere, chauffering him to wherever he needed to be in an unmarked black car with tinted windows.

As for his many appearances in federal court during his civil contempt trial before federal Judge G. Murray Snow, Arpaio was allowed to avoid the usual reportorial scrum outside the courthouse door by sneaking away via the court's underground parking lot.

But on Thursday, Arpaio was all on his lonesome, save for attorney Mark Goldman, who is taking over the case from Arpaio's previous criminal attorney, former superior court judge and onetime U.S. Attorney Mel McDonald.


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

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#255

Post by bob » Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:33 pm

Lemons:
McDonald wanted off the case for undefined "ethical" reasons. Bolton granted his wish after hearing McDonald's rationale for am-scraying from Arpaio's sinking ship in closed court Thursday.

* * *

But McDonald may have had to leave the case because he could become a witness in it as a result of a motion filed by Goldman on March 24, requesting a "voluntariness hearing."

Goldman plans to argue that Arpaio was "coerced" into admitting to civil contempt by mean ol' Judge Snow, and that McDonald failed him by not advising Arpaio that the admission might be used against him during criminal proceedings.

* * *

However, the judge did set a hearing date for April 12 on a motion to stay filed by Goldman, and that's rather infuriating, because it indirectly implicates Maricopa County Bill Montgomery in assisting Arpaio's criminal defense with taxpayer funds.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#256

Post by Tesibria » Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:19 pm

DOCKET UPDATE:
04/10/2017 --- 128 --- NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Dennis Ira Wilenchik appearing for Joseph M Arpaio . (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 04/10/2017)

04/10/2017 --- 129 --- Fourth MOTION to Continue Trial by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 04/10/2017)

04/10/2017 --- 130 --- MOTION to Dismiss [or in Alternative, Motion for Jury Trial] by Joseph M Arpaio. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
Links to docs at WYE.

Motion to Continue - based on withdrawal of Jones Skelton.
Motion to Dismiss - based on (a) statute of limitations argument; and (b) right to jury trial argument.

They request that these be addressed at the currently-scheduled April 12 hearing (though they say April 10 in briefs, the next scheduled hearing is April 12).


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#257

Post by Tesibria » Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:34 pm

DOCKET UPDATE:
04/10/2017 -- 131 -- *WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION re: 97 MOTION to Preclude Testimony of Timothy Casey by Joseph M Arpaio . (Surdakowski, Jeffrey) *Modified to correct event type on 4/11/2017 (KGM). (Entered: 04/10/2017)
[Arpaio] hereby gives notice to the Court of his withdrawal of Defendant Arpaio’s Motion to Preclude Testimony of Timothy Casey (the “Motion”). Mr. Arpaio reserves his right to call Timothy Casey (“Mr. Casey”). The filing of this notice is not a waiver of Mr. Arpaio’s right to object to the use of attorney client privileged information. Mr. Arpaio therefore reserves his right to object the use of protected attorney client privileged information at trial.
04/11/2017 -- 132 -- ORDER as to Joseph M Arpaio: IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Trial by Jury (Doc. 130 ) [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 4/11/17.(MAW) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Trial by Jury (Doc. 130). The motion will be denied for two reasons. First, the motion was filed after the deadline set by the Court for pre-trial motions. Second, the Court has already considered and ruled on the issues raised in Defendant’s motion. See Docs. 60 and 83.
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Trial by Jury (Doc. 130).


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#258

Post by Tesibria » Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:36 pm

FWIW, as I read it, the recent Arpaio Motion to Dismiss/SOL argument raised arguments not addressed in prior briefing and not addressed in Judge Bolton's prior order. Not saying it's valid (i haven't studied it) - just saying it's a different argument.


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#259

Post by Tesibria » Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:45 am

... and Update ...
04/11/2017 -- 133 -- MOTION for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Jury Trial by Joseph M Arpaio. (Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 04/11/2017)

04/11/2017 -- 134 -- MOTION [for Stay of] Proceedings to Allow for the Filing of A Writ of Mandamus Regarding Defendants Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Trial by Jury re: 130 MOTION to Dismiss by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Staying Proceedings)(Goldman, Mark) (Entered: 04/11/2017)

Links to all today's docs at WYE.


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#260

Post by bob » Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:47 pm

Ariz. Rep.: Judge allows delay in Joe Arpaio's criminal trial:
Though the criminal trial for ex-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio goes on, his attorneys have persuaded a federal judge to step on the brakes.

After a set of arguments Wednesday morning, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton denied Arpaio's request for a stay in the proceedings, but granted a continuance for Arpaio's new legal team. His new co-counsel, who replaced a previous attorney in a sudden shake-up last week, had sought more time to prepare.

The defense and prosecution were set to discuss timing later Wednesday. The trial, which had been scheduled to begin April 25, could now start as late as June 26.
Arpaio wins again.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#261

Post by Tesibria » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:01 pm

Docket Update
04/12/2017 --- 136 ---MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Motion Hearing as to Joseph M Arpaio held on 4/12/2017. Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 106 ) is argued to the Court. For reasons as stated on the record, IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion. Defendant's Fourth Motion to Continue Trial (Doc. 129 ) is discussed. IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion to Continue. Counsel request additional time to consult their calendars regarding the proposed trial dates. The Court directs counsel to confer and advise the Court no later than 5:00 p.m., April 12, 2017, the trial date that is agreeable to both parties. Defense counsel agrees that in light of the grant of the trial continuance the Motion to Stay Proceedings to Allow For the Filing of a Writ of Mandamus Regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Trial by Jury (Doc. 134 ) is moot. LATER: Counsel having consulted their calendars and advised the Court of the same, IT IS ORDERED continuing Bench Trial from April 25, 2017, to June 26, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. Trial will be held on June 26 through June 30, 2017, and July 5 through July 7, 2017. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke) Hearing held 10:36 AM to 11:32 AM.(MAW) (Entered: 04/13/2017)

04/14/2017--- 137 --- NOTICE Notice of Service [of Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed in Ninth Circuit]by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A [Copy of Petition as Filed)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 04/14/2017)


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#262

Post by bob » Sun Apr 16, 2017 2:24 pm

FOX: Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio wants Sessions to testify at trial:
Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is looking to bring some star power to his upcoming criminal contempt-of-court trial – asking to have the country's top cop testify.

Lawyers for the controversial sheriff, who made headlines for his hardline immigration policies, have added Attorney General Jeff Sessions to his witness list. What makes the move even stranger is that Arpaio is being prosecuted by federal lawyers who work for Sessions.

It's unclear whether Sessions might actually make an appearance.

* * *

But Sessions has been actively pursuing his own brand of tough immigration enforcement, and Wilenchik says Sessions’ testimony would help show the contradiction between Trump administration policies and those of former President Barack Obama.

* * *

Wilenchik argues the prohibition on detaining immigrants who hadn’t been suspected of committing state crimes falls in line with the current federal policy Sessions backs.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2456
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#263

Post by mmmirele » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:42 pm

bob wrote:FOX: Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio wants Sessions to testify at trial:
Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is looking to bring some star power to his upcoming criminal contempt-of-court trial – asking to have the country's top cop testify.

Lawyers for the controversial sheriff, who made headlines for his hardline immigration policies, have added Attorney General Jeff Sessions to his witness list. What makes the move even stranger is that Arpaio is being prosecuted by federal lawyers who work for Sessions.

It's unclear whether Sessions might actually make an appearance.

* * *

But Sessions has been actively pursuing his own brand of tough immigration enforcement, and Wilenchik says Sessions’ testimony would help show the contradiction between Trump administration policies and those of former President Barack Obama.

* * *

Wilenchik argues the prohibition on detaining immigrants who hadn’t been suspected of committing state crimes falls in line with the current federal policy Sessions backs.
Not.fucking.relevant.to.the.charge.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#264

Post by bob » Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:29 pm

04/14/2017--- 137 --- NOTICE Notice of Service [of Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed in Ninth Circuit]by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A [Copy of Petition as Filed)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
"For completeness": KVOA (AP): Former sheriff Joe Arpaio pushing for jury trial:
Lawyers for former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio have filed an appeal requesting a jury trial in his criminal contempt-of-court case.

Arpaio's attorneys filed a 77-page petition Friday evening to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

They say U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has twice denied Arapio a jury trial.

On Thursday, she set new dates for his bench trial - June 26-30 and July 5-7.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#265

Post by Tesibria » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:08 pm

Docket Update:
04/19/2017 -- 140 -- ORDER of USCA re 17-71094 as to Joseph M Arpaio - The petition for a writ of mandamus raises issues that warrant an answer; within 14 days after the date of this order, the real party in interest shall file an answer. The district court, within 14 days after the date of this order, may address the petition if it so desires. (LSP) (Entered: 04/19/2017)


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#266

Post by Tesibria » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:14 pm

bob wrote:
04/14/2017--- 137 --- NOTICE Notice of Service [of Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed in Ninth Circuit]by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A [Copy of Petition as Filed)(Wilenchik, Dennis) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
"For completeness": KVOA (AP): Former sheriff Joe Arpaio pushing for jury trial:
Lawyers for former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio have filed an appeal requesting a jury trial in his criminal contempt-of-court case.

Arpaio's attorneys filed a 77-page petition Friday evening to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

They say U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has twice denied Arapio a jury trial.

On Thursday, she set new dates for his bench trial - June 26-30 and July 5-7.
...Actually, Judge Bolton set new dates on Wednesday (Apr. 12) ...

And .. actual Petition, for those interested, is linked from Scribd on WYE.


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
gupwalla
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 pm
Location: The mind of Cassandra

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#267

Post by gupwalla » Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:23 pm

George Soros *still* hasn't paid me my sign-on bonus for joining the Fogbow. I'm starting to think it was all a scam.

--

In other news, since I took a long break and since furthermore I'm a bit stupid - can someone please verify for me whether the Judge in this Contempt case refused a jury trial because of (a) timeliness of the request or (b) waiver of the right or (c) pettiness of the underlying charge or (d) other/all/some of the above (please clarify)?

I would very much appreciate it.

In my post-election alcohol-addled brain I would like to think the answer is (c) "You're a has-been who won't ever be again, so we're really just doing this for the asterisk on your lifetime record, no jury trial required" but if there is a more legally competent answer I'd like to have that in my memory banks just for the record.

Also, Soros - please have your people call my people before this becomes a Thing that we have to report, if you know what I mean.


In a wilderness of mirrors, what will the spider do beyond the circuit of the shuddering Bear in fractured atoms? -TS Eliot (somewhat modified)

All warfare is based on deception. - Sun Tzu

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45285
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#268

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:33 pm

Guppy - Soros gave me all the signing bonuses. I had them in my bank account but something happened to them. Sorry, but that's just the breaks.

PS: Thanks for the new Rolls.



User avatar
gupwalla
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 pm
Location: The mind of Cassandra

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#269

Post by gupwalla » Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:42 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Guppy - Soros gave me all the signing bonuses. I had them in my bank account but something happened to them. Sorry, but that's just the breaks.

PS: Thanks for the new Rolls.
You are most welcome.

PS, when all the legalities are sorted, please direct the Soros proceeds to the Rock-n-Roll Twins, C/O my last known address. Thanks. (Emphasis intended. The smart lawyers will sort it all out, thanks for being a dear.)


In a wilderness of mirrors, what will the spider do beyond the circuit of the shuddering Bear in fractured atoms? -TS Eliot (somewhat modified)

All warfare is based on deception. - Sun Tzu

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#270

Post by Tesibria » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:40 am

gupwalla wrote:.... can someone please verify for me whether the Judge in this Contempt case refused a jury trial because of (a) timeliness of the request or (b) waiver of the right or (c) pettiness of the underlying charge or (d) other/all/some of the above (please clarify)?.....
In the original briefing on jury vs. bench trial, Arpaio
“concede[d] that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial when the maximum sentence of imprisonment cannot exceed six months, but argues that the Court should, in its discretion, grant a jury trial. (Def.’s Mot. at 1.) Defendant argue[d] that the Court should grant a jury trial because “the objectives and motives of Judge Snow” will be called into question and “a trial by jury avoids any appearance of bias or impropriety” on the part of any of the judges in the District of Arizona. (Id. at 2-3.)

Mar. 1 Order (ECF 83) at 1.

And, Judge Bolton denied jury trial because
“The case law is clear, if the Court limits Defendant’s potential sentence to six months or less, there is no right to a jury trial. See Muniz, 422 U.S. at 475-76. Furthermore, the Court has found no precedent for granting a jury trial for a charge of criminal contempt when the possible sentence was limited to a maximum of six months in prison. See e.g., Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 496 (1974) (“[A] State may choose to try any contempt without a jury if it determines not to impose a sentence longer than six months”); United States v. Aldridge, 995 F.2d 233 (9th Cir. 1993) (Table) (concluding that Defendant had no right to a jury trial because the district court did not sentence him to more than six months’ imprisonment or fine him more than $500); United States v. Berry, 232 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2000) (Table) (concluding that when the trial court stipulates that it will not impose a sentence longer than six months, Defendant was not entitled to a jury trial).
Id. at 2-3.

However on April 10, Arpaio's new attorney Wilenchik filed a motion based on a new theory: that this contempt proceeding is subject to "18 U.S.C.A. § 402 and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3691, which guarantee him that right [i.e., right to a jury trial]." Arpaio Motion to Dismiss (ECF 130) at 16-17.

The bulk of the motion was based on a new argument that statute of limitations has run (because, Wilenchik argues, the contempt proceeding is subject to 18 U.S.C.A. § 402 and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3691) – the request for jury rests on the same argument as request to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, as I understand it.

On April 11, Judge Bolton denied this motion...
The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Trial by Jury (Doc. 130). The motion will be denied for two reasons. First, the motion was filed after the deadline set by the Court for pre-trial motions. Second, the Court has already considered and ruled on the issues raised in Defendant’s motion. See, Docs. 60 and 83.
ECF 132


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
gupwalla
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 pm
Location: The mind of Cassandra

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#271

Post by gupwalla » Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:53 am

Thank you, Tes!


In a wilderness of mirrors, what will the spider do beyond the circuit of the shuddering Bear in fractured atoms? -TS Eliot (somewhat modified)

All warfare is based on deception. - Sun Tzu

User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2456
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#272

Post by mmmirele » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:49 am

This is slightly off the subject, but we're going to be missing the snark from Stephen Lemons whenever the trial comes around. He's moving on to a new job:
That's right, Wednesday officially was my last day as a reporter and columnist with Phoenix New Times.

I'm leaving due to an offer from another outlet, as the grown-ups say, an organization that sues the pants off racists and gives their property to minorities.

Specifically, the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/pho ... ow-9260329

Maybe, hopefully, we'll get some long-distance snark from Alabama?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#273

Post by bob » Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:09 pm

Arpaio on Twitter:
Sorry to hear @stephenlemons is leaving the free @phoenixnewtimes tabloid, he sure got me a lot of free publicity.
Lemons wrote:I'm hoping Judge Bolton gives you even more free pub when you're convicted.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
ObjectiveDoubter
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: Hollywood (more or less)

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#274

Post by ObjectiveDoubter » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:06 pm

mmmirele wrote:This is slightly off the subject, but we're going to be missing the snark from Stephen Lemons whenever the trial comes around. He's moving on to a new job:
That's right, Wednesday officially was my last day as a reporter and columnist with Phoenix New Times.

I'm leaving due to an offer from another outlet, as the grown-ups say, an organization that sues the pants off racists and gives their property to minorities.

Specifically, the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/pho ... ow-9260329

Maybe, hopefully, we'll get some long-distance snark from Alabama?

While we'll miss him on the Arpaio beat, what an awesome segue!



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#275

Post by bob » Mon Apr 24, 2017 6:33 pm

P&E: Ninth Circuit Orders DOJ to Respond in Arpaio Case:
BUT WHERE IS THE MEDIA?

* * *

On April 21, former Maricopa County Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo, who conducted a five-year investigation into Barack Hussein Obama’s purported “long-form” birth certificate at Arpaio’s request, explained the new development on the “Freedom Friday” radio show hosted by Carl Gallups.

“The fact of the matter is that Arpaio was originally embattled over – in the original civil proceeding — was never being brought by the government. It was being brought by private parties, the ACLU and private law firms, not the federal government. So the problems for the then-administration was if they wanted to get Arpaio blown out of his seat as sheriff, they were going to charge him — which is something they never do before an election period — they needed a statute to charge him and they could not use the correct statute. They ginned this up and used the wrong statute,” Zullo said.

On April 14, the two law firms working on Arpaio’s behalf filed a 76-page Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stating that the lower court’s denial to Arpaio of a jury trial was “erroneous” and that under 18 U.S.C.A. 3691, Arpaio was “entitled” to one.

* * *

On April 18, two judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order responsive to Arpaio’s Writ of Mandamus instructing the “United States of America,” or “real party in interest,” to respond within 14 days. “This petition for a writ of mandamus raises issues that warrant an answer,” wrote Judges McKeown and Hurwitz[*] in their brief two-page order.

* * *

Despite a cacophony of media reports virtually crowing about Arpaio’s criminal indictment at the time, the same media has fallen strangely silent given the aforementioned recent developments.
The 9th's (boilerplate) order.

Rondeau's deception is notable: Zullo was erroneously running his mouth off about the statute of limitations, yet Arpaio's petition says nothing about the statute of limitations. And some jerk** attempted to post on the P&E a link to the district court's latest denial of Arpaio's motion to dismiss (based on the statute of limitations), but Rondeau hasn't published that comment.


* Two of the three judges on this month's motion panel. :yawn:

** :-


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”