Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

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

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#326

Post by bob » Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:06 pm

"For completeness": Inforwars ( :roll: ) : Here’s the “Background Letter” Arpaio’s lawyers sent Attorney General Sessions:
Corsi wrote:Obama DOJ charged Arpaio under wrong statute

Infowars.com was given exclusive permission by Sheriff Joe Arpaio to publish for the first time the “Background Letter” Arpaio’s attorneys sent to Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week, arguing that Obama’s Department of Justice charged Arpaio under the wrong statute, because the statute of limitations had already run out under the correct statute provisions. . . .
Goldman (Arpaio's lawyer) to AGoUS wrote:The Department of Justice is presently prosecuting the above referenced criminal contempt charge against former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A bench trial is scheduled to begin in Phoenix on Monday, June 26, 2017. The action was improperly brought by the DOJ under 18 U.S.C. Section 401 as more particularly described in the Petition for Writ of Mandamus that is presently pending before the United States Supreme Court (the “Petition”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. We request that you review this matter prior to the commencement of the trial, and at the very least, you request the trial court to stay the trial pending the review of the Petition by the United States Supreme Court that was filed on May 24, 2017.

The criminal contempt allegations stem from an alleged failure of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Offices (MCSO) to comply with an Order of the Court (preliminary injunction) dated December 23, 2011. This charge relates back to the prior Obama administration and a time when the Sheriff’s practices were in direct opposition to the Obama administration in regards to immigration policy. The Sheriff was enforcing the law. The Obama administration appears to have been interested in doing the opposite for apparent political reasons.

8 U.S.C. Section 1357(g)(10) allows political subdivisions of a state to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States; or otherwise cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States. This is precisely the activity that MCSO was involved in that allegedly violated the Court’s order. Sheriff Arpaio is being prosecuted for criminal contempt for allowing this lawful activity to occur in MCSO.

The political actions taken against Sheriff Arpaio are not unlike the apparent political actions taken by Former FBI Director Comey in relation to his pronouncements regarding then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and the investigation of her. Whether Director Comey intended to influence the election is irrelevant. The impact on candidate Clinton was clear.

In the case of Sheriff Arpaio, there were certain announcements by the Court or Department of Justice officials that occurred coincident with Arizona voting deadlines in 2016. The announcements influenced the election. The announcements involved the Court’s referral of the matter for criminal contempt and the Department of Justice’s announcement that it would, in fact, proceed with the prosecution. These announcements had an undeniable effect upon Sheriff Arpaio’s campaign to be elected to a seventh term in office. The impact on Sheriff Arpaio’s re-election campaign is clear. He is no longer Sheriff. (I have attached two timelines of certain actions, by certain parties, and the media, in relation to occurrences in the case. See Exhibit “B” attached hereto.)

In regards to other aspects of the prosecution, we request that you reconsider the DOJ’s prosecution of this matter because it was incorrectly brought under 18 U.S.C. Section 401. Section 401 relates to a simple criminal contempt of a lawful order. The matter should have been brought under 18 U.S.C. Section 402. Section 402 applies to contumacious conduct that is also a separate crime as more particularly described in the attached Petition. The allegations in this matter compel it to be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. Section 402 that entitles the offender to a jury trial in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 3691. Additionally, Section 402 offenses come with a one year statute of limitations. Given that the matter was not charged under the correct statute, and consequently the Department of Justice has deprived Sheriff Arpaio of his jury trial right and the applicable statute of limitations, in the interest of justice we request that you move the Court to dismiss the criminal contempt proceedings or, at the very least, move the Court to stay the trial pending a full review of this matter by your office.

Time is of the essence for the reason that this matter is set to commence trial on June 26, 2017. We request that you, at a minimum, move to adjourn this trial so that your office may review the genesis of this prosecution, the incorrect application by the DOJ of 18 USC Section 401 in lieu of Section 402, and the pending Petition for Writ of Mandamus that is presently pending at the Supreme Court of the United States.
:yawn:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#327

Post by bob » Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:11 pm

ABC: The Latest: Arpaio's ex-lawyer testifies for 2nd day:
A former lawyer for Joe Arpaio says his client's growing resistance to court orders in a racial profiling lawsuit led him to quit as the lawman's attorney.

Tim Casey revealed his reasons for quitting as Arpaio's civil lawyer Tuesday at the former sheriff's criminal trial for disobeying a 2011 court order in the profiling case to stop his immigration patrols.

Casey cited attorney-client privilege when he declined to provide specifics on the resistance.
Arpaio is continuing to blame Casey for Arpaio's lack of knowledge about the court's order. :roll:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#328

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:48 pm

I thought the Shurf had basically voided the privilege at the trial with some of his statements and that Snow took it even further.


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

#329

Post by bob » Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:59 pm

ABC: The Latest: Publicist: Arpaio wouldn't have violated order:
A longtime publicist for Joe Arpaio testified at her former boss' criminal trial that he wouldn't have violated a judge's order to stop his signature immigration patrols.

Lisa Allen says the lessons the former sheriff learned in his earlier career as a federal drug agent gave him respect for the orders of federal judges.

Allen served as chief spokeswoman for the media savvy lawman for nearly 23 years.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15882
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#330

Post by Reality Check » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:37 pm

Surely the US Attorney didn't call her. If they did that was stupid.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

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

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#331

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:08 pm

I thought she was a defense witness, maybe they called her in rebuttal????


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

#332

Post by bob » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:10 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:I thought she was a defense witness, maybe they called her in rebuttal????
My WAG is that she was an out-of-order defense witness.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#333

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:20 pm

Whatever, I wonder if they can get her for perjury? I expected her to lie through her teeth, she's been doing it for years.


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

#334

Post by bob » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:34 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:Whatever, I wonder if they can get her for perjury? I expected her to lie through her teeth, she's been doing it for years.
Won't happen: Not material.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#335

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:53 pm

Pity, one can only hope.


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

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#336

Post by Tesibria » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:12 am

Docket Update:
06/26/2017 -- 174 -- Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 170 Response in Opposition by USA as to Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Steven R Bailey, Michele M Iafrate. (Cataldo, Simon) (Entered: 06/26/2017) Attaching a copy of Arpaio's motion for expedited hearing on writ petition. As SCOTUS denied that motion, the filing was moot.

06/26/2017 -- 177 -- MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Bench Trial [Day 1] begun on 6/26/2017 as to Joseph M Arpaio (1). Evidence entered. Trial continued to 6/27/2017 [see attached minute entry for details]. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke [a.m.]/ Linda Schroeder [p.m.]) Hearing held 9:02 AM to 4:26 PM. (MAW) (Entered: 06/27/2017)

06/27/2017 -- 175 -- NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of BENCH TRIAL - DAY #1 - A.M. SESSION (Pages 1 through 122, Inclusive.) proceedings as to Joseph M Arpaio held on 06/26/2017, before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (Court Reporter: Elizabeth A. Lemke). *** Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/25/2017. (RAP) (Entered: 06/27/2017)

06/27/2017 -- 176 -- NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of BENCH TRIAL - DAY 1 - P.M. SESSION (Pages 123 through 264, inclusive.) proceedings as to Joseph M Arpaio held on 06/26/2017, before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder). *** Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/25/2017. (RAP) (Entered: 06/27/2017)

06/27/2017 -- 178 -- ORDER as to Joseph M Arpaio (1): IT IS ORDERED granting Government's Motion to Quash Defendant's Trial Subpoena to U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions (Doc. 161 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED quashing Defendant's Trial Subpoena to U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/27/17.(MAW) (Entered: 06/27/2017) ... because Arpaio failed to show the required extraordinary circumstances and failed to argue or show that Sessions had any personal knowledge of federal immigration policy for the 2011-13 period.
Links to key docs @ 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
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#337

Post by Tesibria » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:18 am

And ... Brian's BOTG Report
OPINION:

Another Exciting Day in Federal Court (Day 2)


It’s 7:15am and I’m sitting in front of the Sandra Day O’ Connor Federal Court House waiting for the doors to open at 7:30am.

Yesterday had to be a huge disappointment for Joe Arpaio. There was a miniscule turnout of supporters for Joe. My friend Carl T. got it right when he opined that “Arpaio’s 15 minutes of fame is over.”

I wondered if Jim Fotis of the National Center for Police Defense (NCPD) is feeling a little queasy after dropping a reported $300,000.00 for Joe Arpaio’s court costs in defense of the federal criminal charges. Fotis must have been shocked when the Arpaio supporter turnout was less than a handful of people coming from a county of over 4 million residents. Hopefully, it sent a message to Mr. Fotis. I think he has chosen to support the wrong cause. (He never did answer my emails.)

It’s now 7:30am and the doors were just unlocked. I’ve just gone through the U.S. Marshal’s security checkpoint. The Marshals are really a great bunch. They are very polite and very professional. I discussed the extremely hot conditions in the court house and wondered how the Marshals on duty survived. They have a mini swamp cooler sitting on the floor that cools their check point. I learned today that whatever the temperature is outside, it pretty much translates to the same temperature in the huge, multi floor atrium area. Essentially it’s a great place for plants, but very uncomfortable in the winter and the summer for people. Today, when I left, the outdoor temperature was about 110+ degrees. The individual courtrooms fortunately are air conditioned. It can be very uncomfortable attending Joe Arpaio’s trial in this building.

Waiting for the outer courtroom door to be unlocked on the 5th floor, I spoke with a gentleman who is an Arpaio supporter. He attended court yesterday. He was the first Arpaio supporter to arrive today. Much to my surprise I was informed that this gentleman is working with Joe Arpaio, three days a week on a new Joe Arpaio book. Apparently, the book will detail all the events and politics that have brought us to the Arpaio criminal trial. He said that nobody knows the real Joe Arpaio. I didn’t have the heart to tell him, “I do.”

Another interesting thing happened at the courthouse. Dennis Wilenchik spoke to me for several moments and actually revealed his defense strategy to me. He told me that Sheriff Arpaio was operating under the law of SB-1070 and the dictates of 287(g). (In the case of SB-1070, I thought a federal court order was superior to state law.) Wilenchik formerly represented MCSO Chief Brian Sands. He said Attorney Tim Casey didn’t understand Judge Snow’s injunction order. He said that Casey was responsible for Arpaio not following Snow’s order. Wilenchik told me that Judge Bolton was involved in two other constitutional cases, similar to the Arpaio case. Wilenchik said he was not convinced that Judge Bolton would rule in his favor. Wilenchik asked me what I thought about Arpaio’s possible outcome in the current case. I told him that, based on what evidence and testimony that I witnessed back in 2015, at the civil contempt of court hearings, I responded, “guilty.” Wilenchick said that I couldn’t make that determination based on a civil trial. If I recall correctly, I listened to news interviews of Attorney Mark Goldman and as I recall he had said that Arpaio never admitted to being in civil contempt during the civil contempt of court hearings. I told Wilenchik that, according to the court transcripts, Arpaio admitted 3 times that he was in contempt of court. Wilenchik disagreed. I ended the conversation when I told Mr. Wilenchik that he was the most aggressive attorney that Arpaio has ever had, in my opinion. He smiled and gave me a pat on the back. He was very aggressive in the courtroom today.

At 9:00am, there were 19 spectators in the courtroom. There were only a couple of Arpaio supporters, and the press and anti-Arpaio spectators were just about evenly matched.

Cross examination of Tim Casey continues from yesterday

There were many heated exchanges between Tim Casey and Dennis Wilenchik. There were several heated exchanges between Dennis Wilenchik and Judge Bolton. This was a completely different experience in comparison to Judge Snow’s civil contempt of court hearings. Ultimately, Wilenchik essentially accused Casey of not understanding Judge Snow’s Order. Wilenchik continued to stress that Casey had never offered Arpaio any interpretation of Judge Snow’s preliminary injunction in writing. Essentially, Wilenchik provided a complete laundry list of alleged failures on Tim Casey’s part regarding Judge Snow’s preliminary injunction order. At one point, according to my notes, Wilenchik asked Casey point blank, “Are you innocent?” Casey retorted: “There was never an issue about me doing my job until Dennis Wilenchik became involved.” Casey apparently saw the light when he retorted:

“Throwing the former [Arpaio] lawyer under the bus.” [That’s Wilenchik’s defense strategy according to Casey.] Maybe Casey finally read the comments at The Fogbow?

(For further information and lots of detail, please review the court transcripts. The comments above may have been stricken from the court record. Things got pretty testy and nasty.)

At 11:45am there were 30 spectators, which was lower than yesterday. The local news reported that it was a full house. Not so.

We broke for lunch. I went down to the food bar on the ground floor in the atrium. It was at least 100 degrees or more. I bought a salad and a Coke and began to enjoy my lunch. Joe Arpaio came down with his attorney Mark Goldman, who had his unkempt hair in a ponytail. He still reminds me of Johnny Depp. Arpaio waved his hand at me and I returned the gesture. He asked me if I was still living in the same community. I answered his question and went back to eating my lunch. When I finished, I walked over to CBS reporter, Donna Rossi, introduced myself and sat down to review the political events of the day. Suddenly, Joe Arpaio walked toward us and said, "You’re the guy that writes all of the bad stuff about me.” Then Arpaio said: "We proved the birth certificate is a forgery." I responded: "What’s Mike Zullo doing? Arpaio shrugged and said, "You would know.” And then Arpaio walked around the corner to the bank of elevator doors. Shortly after Arpaio left, U.S. Marshal David Gonzales approached us. I suggested that he should now consider running for the GOP as Maricopa County Sheriff and handed him a card.

I decided to end my day in court after having lunch. Fortunately, I was not exposed to Lisa Allen’s testimony this afternoon which would have made it difficult for me to keep my lunch down. She is the expert at putting on dog and pony shows.

Today will be my last court report. I see the defense strategy clearly. It’s just a matter of time before all of the various performances come to an end. I don’t think that I want to sit through anymore of this quasi Greek tragedy. We need to be patient and wait for Judge Bolton’s decision. Hopefully, she will discern the truth.

Regards,
Brian Reilly


“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

#338

Post by Tesibria » Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:03 am

TRIAL DAY 1 REPORTING:
Detailed report with lots of quotes from Jamie Ross - see "Prosecutors Say Arpaio Bragged About His Contempt of Court," Courthouse News Service, June 27, 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
Reality Check
Posts: 15882
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#339

Post by Reality Check » Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:46 am

You could almost feel sorry for the old coot Arpaio until you remember that people died and many lives were ruined to make him a hero to a bunch of idiots.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7369
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#340

Post by Sam the Centipede » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:59 pm

Reality Check wrote:You could almost feel sorry for the old coot Arpaio until you remember that people died and many lives were ruined to make him a hero to a bunch of idiots.
Could you really almost feel sorry for him? You either have a very soft heart or a very vivid and generous imagination, RC!



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

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#341

Post by bob » Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:34 pm

Ariz. Rep.: Roberts: Joe Arpaio was incompetent, not a criminal, top aide says:
Laurie Roberts: Joe Arpaio's longtime aide offers a new defense for her old boss: incompetence, with a dash of lazy tossed in.

Team Arpaio is sounding a bit – dare I say it? – DESPERATE as the former sheriff’s criminal contempt of court trial heads into Day 3.

Arpaio’s PR adviser, a woman who spent nearly a quarter of a century defending/explaining/touting Joe Arpaio, is at it once again.

On Tuesday, 12 News’ Brahm Resnik caught up with Lisa Allen outside the federal courthouse, wherein she explained that Arpaio didn’t intentionally ignore a highly publicized federal judge’s 2011 order to stop enforcing federal immigration law.

Allen told Resnik that Arpaio didn't have a clue about the order and neither did any of his top deputies, the people who were running the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

* * *

“I don't think he knew (about the order),” she told Resnik. “I don't think anybody knew. What I say, and it's not particularly flattering, we didn't ignore the thing, we didn't do any of that. If we were guilty of anything, it was maybe that we were a little lazy and a little incompetent."

For 17 months, sheriff’s officials had no idea that a federal judge had barred them from detaining immigrants based solely on suspicions they were here illegally?


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#342

Post by bob » Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:38 pm

News Observer: Former Arpaio underling testifies against him in court:
A one-time member of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's immigration enforcement squad testified against his old boss Wednesday, describing how the agency defied a judicial order to stop rounding up immigrants.

* * *

Arpaio created a squad called the Human Smuggling Unit that was the main immigration enforcer while he was Maricopa County Sheriff. Prosecutors called a former member of that squad, Lt. Brian Jakowinicz, to the witness stand to describe its immigration efforts from 2012 to 2013.

Jakowinicz testified that he spoke to the leaders of the unit during that time, and they said the agency's legal troubles over immigration had been resolved — despite being under an injunction to stop immigration enforcement.

"They didn't want ... to change anything," he said. "Everything was running smoothly."

Jakowinicz said he personally talked to Arpaio about the agency's practice of handing over immigrants in the country illegally to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol.

"You take them to (the Border Patrol). I am the sheriff," he quoted Arpaio as saying.

* * *

Judge Susan Bolton declined Arpaio's bid to call U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to testify at the trial. And she refused to allow prosecutors to play two video segments from a 2014 documentary about Arpaio.
USN&WR: The Latest: Immigration Officer Testifies in Arpaio Case:
A judge has denied former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's bid to call Attorney General Jeff Sessions to testify at his criminal trial over his disobedience of a court order.

* * *

He wanted to call Sessions to testify in his defense.

Session's agency is prosecuting Arpaio.

Arpaio's attorneys argued Sessions would have illustrated a contradiction between the 2011 order their client is charged with violating and the Trump administration's immigration policies.

Bolton concluded Sessions' views on immigration policies are irrelevant to what the government's policies were at the time the order was violated.

Prosecutors opposed calling Sessions to testify.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#343

Post by bob » Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:47 pm

KJZZ: Government Calls More Witnesses In Second Day Of Joe Arpaio Trial:
The day began with continued cross examination by the defense of Arpaio’s former attorney Tim Casey. The defense is trying to show that Casey didn’t do a good enough job informing the Sheriff of an injunction that Arpaio stands accused of violating.

The defense asked Casey what kind of advice he gave and when he gave it. In particular they focused on his use of telephonic and oral conversations as opposed to written or emailed directions for compliance with the injunction.

Defense Attorney Dennis Wilenchik accused Casey of dropping the ball. Casey quipped he was a former tight end and doesn’t like to fumble.

Casey continued to insist “My client gave me every indication that he understood the order and would follow it."
NBC: 3 takeaways from Day 2 of the Arpaio trial: Jeff Sessions won't take the stand:
Star prosecution witness Tim Casey, Arpaio's former lawyer, was on the witness stand for seven hours during the trial's first two days. He described it as "the worst experience of my 27-year legal career."

The worst of the worst appeared to be Casey's testy back-and-forth under cross-examination by Arpaio defense attorney Dennis Wilenchik.

At one point, Casey slammed Wilenchik's defense as "throwing (Arpaio's) former lawyer under the bus."

Turns out that Casey is Wilenchik's former lawyer, too.

Casey defended Wilenchik for his role in Arpaio's infamous arrests of two Phoenix New Times executives in the middle of the night at their homes. Wilenchik, acting as a special prosecutor, ordered the arrests.

Can you guess the name of the judge in that case? Susan R. Bolton.

Bolton, by the way, is weathering Wilenchik's borderline inappropriate behavior during the Arpaio trial.

Wilenchik appears unable to address Bolton as "judge" or "your honor," routinely talks over Bolton, and can't resist a snarky wisecrack after the judge explains herself.
Guess Wilenchik is setting up the inevitable ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim for the habeas petition.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15882
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#344

Post by Reality Check » Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:21 pm

Sam the Centipede wrote:Could you really almost feel sorry for him? You either have a very soft heart or a very vivid and generous imagination, RC!
There are degrees of "almost". He is probably someones grandfather after all. He is also a vile bag of worthless protoplasm.

The comment Arpaio made to Brian Reilly at lunch break was interesting. During the Melendres trial Joe was friendly to Reilly and even asked if he wanted to come back to the posse. Someone must have clued Joe in on what Brian wrote at OCT.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
tek
Posts: 3856
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#345

Post by tek » Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:52 pm

Allen told Resnik that Arpaio didn't have a clue about the order and neither did any of his top deputies, the people who were running the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.
Soon to be known as "the Trump defense"


There's no way back
from there to here

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

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#346

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:37 pm

Resnik has spent nearly 20 years either lying for or about the Shurf's actions, why should she change her MO now. I also do not believe she did not know what was going on, so she is also a thorough liar as well. I also don't think she is credible either when it comes right down to it, and I am hoping/betting the judge doesn't either.


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

#347

Post by bob » Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:56 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:Resnik has spent nearly 20 years either lying for or about the Shurf's actions, why should she change her MO now. I also do not believe she did not know what was going on, so she is also a thorough liar as well. I also don't think she is credible either when it comes right down to it, and I am hoping/betting the judge doesn't either.
And, of course, she saved her "we're just incompetent" line for the post-testimony schmooze.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#348

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:23 pm

Like I said, she's a professional liar and I would expect nothing less.


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

USA v. Arpaio Criminal Contempt TRIAL

#349

Post by Tesibria » Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:40 am

TRIAL DAY 3 PROCEEDINGS

Reporting ...

Megan Cassidy, "Sheriff employees testify as Arpaio defense begins case in criminal contempt trial," AZ Central, June 28, 2017.

Jimmy Jenkins, "Maricopa County Sheriff's Deputies Testify In Arpaio Contempt Trial," KJZZ, June 28, 2017.

Jacques Billeaud, "Another ex-Arpaio underling testifies against him in court," Associated Press, June 28, 2017.


Still awaiting Jamie Ross/CNS


“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

#350

Post by bob » Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:47 pm

Miami Herald: The Latest: Defense in Arpaio case calls prosecution witness:
Lawyers defending former Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a criminal trial have called a witness who had testified a day earlier for prosecutors.

Arpaio's legal seem is seeking to turn the tables on prosecutors by bringing Lt. Brian Jakowinicz (jack-uh-WIN-ich) to the stand. The former leader of Arpaio's immigration squad testified under questioning by the defense that he didn't read a letter sent to him complaining about officers defying a 2011 court order. The injunction barred the sheriff's traffic patrols that targeted immigrants.

One day earlier, Jakowinicz described how Arpaio's deputies continued to arrests immigrants despite the order.

* * *

It's not clear whether Arpaio will testify in his own defense.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”