Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

[Sterngard Friegen]

Appellate theater. The judgment appealed from is going to be affirmed. I knew that after the first question.

[Reality Check]

Appellate theater. The judgment appealed from is going to be affirmed. I knew that after the first question.

I hope you are correct.

What really disgusted me was watching Trump's attorney from the DoJ stand up there and argue for removing from the books the conviction this racist piece of shit who willfully and criminally violate court orders to further his racist policies. In a sane world he would be in prison right now. I am glad the special counsel spoke up for the victims of that piece of shit's actions.

[bob]

Appellate theater. The judgment appealed from is going to be affirmed. I knew that after the first question.

Yes. And.

To the court's defense, it is a novel issue, making oral argument more likely.

But the court was also pissed at Arpaio's and the DOJ's lawyers (especially Arpaio's). Oral argument was a chance to shame them (which is part of appellate theater).


Prediction: 3-0 affirmance, Collins Smith writing. (Smith; I'm changing my predicting to Smith.)

Edit: Type-O

[Grumpy Old Guy]

If Joe is so convinced that the conviction was wrong, why doesn’t he renounce the pardon?

[Reality Check]

If Joe is so convinced that the conviction was wrong, why doesn’t he renounce the pardon?

I think it is too late. The judges and the special counsel kept making the point that he accepted the pardon when his attorneys petitioned the district court for a dismissal of the contempt conviction. It was dismissed with prejudice.

[Grumpy Old Guy]

If Joe is so convinced that the conviction was wrong, why doesn’t he renounce the pardon?

I think it is too late. The judges and the special counsel kept making the point that he accepted the pardon when his attorneys petitioned the district court for a dismissal of the contempt conviction. It was dismissed with prejudice.

So Joe wants to have his cake and eat it too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%2 ... and_eat_it

[Sunrise]

So Joe wants to have his cake and eat it too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%2 ... and_eat_it

Must be a piece of that beautiful chocolate cake EGOTUS always brags about.

[Sterngard Friegen]

Appellate theater. The judgment appealed from is going to be affirmed. I knew that after the first question.

Yes. And.

To the court's defense, it is a novel issue, making oral argument more likely.

But the court was also pissed at Arpaio's the DOJ's lawyers (especially Arpaio's). Oral argument was a chance to shame them (which is part of appellate theater).


Prediction: 3-0 affirmance, Collins Smith writing. (Smith; I'm changing my predicting to Smith.)

I couldn't tell who was going to write the opinion. All three judges got their licks in. And they were all pretty good licks.

By changing your prediction, like not taking Door No. 1, have you increased your chances to 67%? (Asking for a friend, since Slarti is no where to be seen.)

[Notorial Dissent]

IANAL but my impression was that all three judges were shall we say less than impressed with the attorneys, particularly Arpaio's. The one thing I kept noticing was that the one attorney kept repeating one case name, which I'm not remembering now, like it was a mantra, and I certainly got the impression that the judges didn't agree at all. I guess I can see a couple of issues that the judges could have been looking at/for, but I 'm not sure they were actually briefed.

A couple of questions for the IAAL's. Is a pardon absolute? Does the recipient have to accept it? If my current interpretation of a pardon is correct, it does not expunge the conviction, but sets aside the punishment for that conviction???? So you were still convicted for the crime, but you are not being punished for it????

[Gregg]

You can refuse a pardon, there is case law for that. The same case, as for logical reason why you would, implies that to accept one is to admit guilt. A pardon excuses the offense as an act of mercy, but the offense, and the conviction still exist. Sheriff Bigot is trying here to change that.

[Notorial Dissent]

You can refuse a pardon, there is case law for that. The same case, as for logical reason why you would, implies that to accept one is to admit guilt. A pardon excuses the offense as an act of mercy, but the offense, and the conviction still exist. Sheriff Bigot is trying here to change that.

That was certainly my impression, but Arpaio's lawyer seemed to be arguing the opposite, that once it was issued it was a done deal, at least that was my take.

[Sterngard Friegen]

I think the law is you can refuse a pardon but not an unconditional commutation. Arpaio's lawyer was trying to say the commutation case (where guilt is not challenged) overruled the pardon case. But if the President decides you should rot in jail for the rest of your life and you want to be executed, you don't get to decide your punishment. On the other hand, you get to decide if you want to accept a pardon (or a conditional commutation) which includes a concession that you are guilty but prevents you from challenging your guilt in the future.

[bob]

I couldn't tell who was going to write the opinion. All three judges got their licks in. And they were all pretty good licks.

Yes. But.

This was not ramped-up Bybee. ("Believe me.") He wasn't acting like he's going to be the one writing this dog of an opinion.

I initially leaned towards Collins. But at the end, Smith was getting prickly. And he kept harping on the standard of review, which is an authoring judge type of question.

And the Monty Hall dilemma works only if I already know the answer.

So you were still convicted for the crime, but you are not being punished for it????

This is the stupid heart of Arpaio's position; his lawyer kept saying that Arpaio would still suffer legal consequences, notwithstanding the pardon. Yet when repeatedly pressed, his attorney couldn't specify an actual legal consequence. The attorney kept referring to stigma, but that's not a legal consequence.

[Notorial Dissent]

Stern, bob, thank you, thought that was the law, but...…. My IANAL opinion was that that Arpaio's lawyer was at best ill prepared, he seemed to rely on his mantra and I honestly couldn't say he ever really answered any of the judge's question, in fact I kept feeling like he just danced around it like he didn't really know where he wanted to go. I wasn't any more impressed by the gov'ts lawyer but for different forgettable reasons. I do hope this is costing Joe buckets of money.

[Chilidog]

A federal judge has thrown out a $300 million defamation lawsuit filed by Joe Arpaio, Arizona’s former Maricopa County sheriff, against CNN and two other national media outlets.

A Washington, D.C., judge on Thursday dismissed the suit Arpaio filed in December, in which Arpaio argued that reporters from CNN, HuffPost and Rolling Stone had falsely referred to him as a “convicted felon” despite his presidential pardon and that the reports tarnished his “distinguished” career, the Arizona Republic reports.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth wrote in his opinion that Arpaio’s suit failed to prove actual malice.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... gainst-cnn

[Orlylicious]

Well, isn't that ironic. Didn't Mike Zullo say it was Royce Lamberth that was involved with Dennis Montgomery and a Klayman visit where he birfed? He was the judge they kept saying they were meeting, and they made him sound sympathetic to their plight. No way that was true, Royce was very clear, NO BIRFING.

While we like Royce for smacking Orly Taitz down hard, more than once, I disagree with many of his opinions and the choices he makes.

For those that don't know Royce... this topic (and many others) have comments: Best Smackdowns of Orly Taitz by Judge Royce Lamberth http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6499

In light of Orly Taitz' request that Judge Lamberth recuse himself for being a meanie, time to mock Orly with some of his legendary smackdowns. Here are a few love quotes for TWLITHOTU, please add if you find more:

Quo Warranto: On April 14, 2010, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth dismissed the petition; and, alluding to the novel Don Quixote, he wrote, “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution. This court is not willing to go tilting windmills with her.”
loweringthebar.net/2010/04/judge-dismisses-yet-another-suit-by-orly-taitz.html

Taitz v. Astrue: Judge Lamberth wrote that Taitz "is either toying with the Court or displaying her own stupidity… There is no logical explanation she can provide as to why she is now wasting the Court’s time, as well as the staff’s time, with these improper redactions. On August 30, 2011, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, writing "As her numerous filings with the Court demonstrate, plaintiff will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is not her lucky day".He also noted that Taitz called a courtroom deputy and engaged in a “lengthy, accusatory conversation” and has made “the somewhat hysterical claim in her motion for reconsideration that there may be an ‘employee in this court, who is intentionally sabotaging’” her case. http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/lamberth-order.pdf In other words, Hey Taitz! Thanks for playing, please exit that way...

[Notorial Dissent]

I totally agree, although my opinion of Lamberth is considerably lower than yours. I just am not impressed with his judicial demeanor and record. In my opinion, the best thing he did for the Judicial community was retire. Now if he'd just get off Senior Judge status and quit altogether. The fact that he slapped Orly down, repeatedly and well, was maybe more in line with the fact that there are some levels of stupid and incompetence that even he can't or won't tolerate. The fact that he seems to be a willing enabler for GIL of long standing is not a good thing.

[bob]

I couldn't tell who was going to write the opinion. All three judges got their licks in. And they were all pretty good licks.

Yes. But.

This was not ramped-up Bybee. ("Believe me.") He wasn't acting like he's going to be the one writing this dog of an opinion.

The 9th, unsurprisingly, affirmed the district court's denial of Arpaio's motion to vacate: "because the mootness issue here arises from the fact that the district court’s findings of guilt can be given no future preclusive effect[,] Arpaio is not entitled to vacatur."

This is, actually, technically a victory for Arpaio because at oral argument his counsel said that's all they were seeking. And, yet: "Because Arpaio’s challenges to the district court’s finding of guilt are moot, we do not address them."

The 9th is very politely telling Arpaio that, if he wanted to challenge his conviction, he should have appealed that.

Inevitable SCOTUS cert. petition to follow.

And the authoring judge was ... Bybee. My third choice.

[bob]

Klayman, unsurprisingly, has a hate-on for Bybee. (Bybee was on the panel that repeatedly kept Klayman out of the Bundy criminal trial.) Yet then Klayman praises Bybee for saying that Arpaio was never legally convicted. "That will help with Arpaio's defamation cases!"

Klayman, curiously, then chides Bybee for ... not listing in the opinion Klayman's appearance for Arpaio. (I don't care what they say about me, as long as they spell my name correctly!)

1. That's an administrative task, performed by the shipping clerks.
2. Klayman wasn't listed because ... he's not a counsel of record. (Klayman, IIRC, filed an unsuccessful sanctions motion for Arpaio, but he didn't represent Arpaio on the actual appeal.)

Klayman then suspects Bybee slighted him because of ... Michael Tigar (of the D.C. Bar). Rambling Klayman got so distracted by his that he never tied Tiger to Bybee. (Tigar's son is a federal judge in Oakland; the 9th Circuit heard arguments in this case in San Francisco; ergo, coooooonspiracy!!!)

* * *

Klayman also touts his "victories" (his usual twisting of his losses). But then adds "I also prevented an unnamed client from having to appear before a grand jury." Which sounds a lot like, "my girlfriend, In Canada...."

[bob]

Klayman, curiously, then chides Bybee for ... not listing in the opinion Klayman's appearance for Arpaio.