Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#726

Post by neeneko » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:15 pm

Kendra wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:16 pm

Former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, a guru of right-wing conspiracy theories, is spreading a new one, and this time it’s about him.

In his first “interview” since being pardoned of a crime last month by President Trump, Arpaio claims he was prosecuted by the Justice Department because of his earlier involvement in the “birther” movement.
Is this actually new though? I always assumed that his interest in birtherism was specifically TO have this narrative.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26913
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#727

Post by bob » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:21 pm

It's new to the media, and new for Arpaio to be saying it.

But Gallups., etc., have been saying this line for years. And Arpaio's comments being repeated in the RWNJ echo chamber gives Gallups an opportunity to say, "I told you so."
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

#728

Post by Tesibria » Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:44 pm

Docket Update
09/25/2017 -- 237 -- REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Joseph M Arpaio re: 220 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint Defendants Reply in Support of Motion for Vacatur and Dismissal with Prejudice. (Wilenchik, John) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
“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: 26913
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#729

Post by bob » Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:34 pm

"For completeness": SCOTUS Dkt. No. 16-1422 (Arpaio's (now moot) petition to stay his trial):
SCOTUS wrote:Oct 02 2017 Petition DENIED.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26913
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#730

Post by bob » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:14 pm

Ariz. Central: Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's presidential pardon accepted by federal judge:
A U.S. District Court judge in Phoenix has accepted the presidential pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

At the request of both Arpaio defense attorneys and U.S. Department of Justice lawyers, Judge Susan Bolton dismissed the guilty verdict against Arpaio with prejudice, meaning it can never be tried again.

* * *

Arpaio attorney Jack Wilenchik asked that all rulings and orders in the case be dismissed as well. Bolton took that request under advisement.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6141
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#731

Post by June bug » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:00 pm

So as long as the OSG is in office, nobody in law enforcement actually has to follow the law.

Isn't that special? :madguy:

User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#732

Post by jtmunkus » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:45 pm

Homeland Security Department, here comes the Geezer!

:dance:

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 9644
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#733

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:11 am

Joe at the DOJ, if Orly hadn't pissed him off she could have been his deputy. :lol:

Miki Booth is just thrilled with this result.
Booth Arpaio.JPG
Here's the on-the-scene video:


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Avatar Photo: Rusty, the All American Squirrel, was given Karl P. Koenigs' gun. Rusty: "Sucks to be you, Karl."
Don't miss Fogbow's favorite show, "Mama June: From Not To Hot: "The Road To Intervention"

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26913
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#734

Post by bob » Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:50 pm

NBC: Joe Arpaio breaks his silence about his criminal case:
“Anybody in that courtroom that attended the five-day trial knew that there was no case,” said the self-proclaimed toughest sheriff in America.

* * *

As for the sheriff, he said he knew from the beginning he wasn’t guilty.

“But I’m sure that you understand that this was a very biased judicial and political system,” said Arpaio.
Oddly absent was any commentary by Arpaio about Obama's Dark State, forged birth certificate, etc. :think:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9772
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#735

Post by GreatGrey » Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:30 pm

DENINED
24866E01-AF30-4FF1-9B92-951EB07EC176.jpeg


https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... 39938.html
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

Somerset
Posts: 4169
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#736

Post by Somerset » Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:32 pm

:like:

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

#737

Post by Tesibria » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:47 pm

YAAAY!
“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
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7152
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#738

Post by Sam the Centipede » Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:46 am

So it's fully correct to refer to the scumbag as "convicted criminal ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio"? Excellent!

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2904
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#739

Post by SLQ » Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:53 am

In the craziness that is this week (and last week, and the week before), this comes as a pleasant surprise.

:bighug:
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2904
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#740

Post by SLQ » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:08 am

Hey, I just read the order, and Judge Bolton based much of her analysis on the very specific facts in Schaffer. Not to toot my own horn :rockon: , but back on August 28, I posted this:

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).
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopi ... er#p911099
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

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

#741

Post by mighty dawg » Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:07 am

Roberts: Pardon, schmardon. Joe Arpaio's criminal conviction stands

President Donald Trump may have been able to keep former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio out of jail but he can't change history.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton on Thursday refused to wipe out Arpaio’s misdemeanor conviction for contempt of court.

“The power to pardon is an executive prerogative of mercy, not of judicial record keeping,” she wrote.

Bolton said the pardon may have spared Arpaio from any punishment. “It did not, however, ‘revise the historical facts’ of his case.”

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

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9051
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#742

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:39 pm

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:46 am
So it's fully correct to refer to the scumbag as "convicted criminal ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio"? Excellent!
Dancing in my RED shoes!!!!!!!!
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment: African-American Naomi Anderson was a leader in the suffrage movement in the west, a published poet, barber, community activist, and teacher.

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9051
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#743

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:45 pm

SLQ wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:08 am
Hey, I just read the order, and Judge Bolton based much of her analysis on the very specific facts in Schaffer. Not to toot my own horn :rockon: , but back on August 28, I posted this:

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:
:snippity:
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopi ... er#p911099
Way to go, SLQ!
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment: African-American Naomi Anderson was a leader in the suffrage movement in the west, a published poet, barber, community activist, and teacher.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26913
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#744

Post by bob » Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:00 pm

GreatGrey wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:30 pm
DENINED
Not content with his pardon, Arpaio's notice of appeal.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26913
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#745

Post by bob » Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:53 pm

NBC: Arpaio pardon: Judge won't appoint special prosecutor for appeal:
The judge who found former Sheriff Joe Arpaio guilty of disobeying a court order has refused to appoint a special prosecutor to appeal her decision that let the retired lawman's pardon stand.

Legal advocacy groups requested a special prosecutor because they say the U.S. Justice Department isn't pursuing an appeal and the power of the courts is at stake.

They cited a rule that lets judges make such appointments if the federal agency declines to prosecute contempt of court cases.

* * *

Judge Susan Bolton concluded Wednesday that the groups didn't cite any court cases that suggest the Justice Department's decision not to appeal amounts to a refusal to prosecute.
I think this is less of a big deal than the article implies. If the federal government does not prosecute the appeal (or actively concedes error), the 9th will nonetheless review Arpaio's claims and rule accordingly. It isn't a freebie win on appeal; it just means there's no zealous advocacy in opposition.
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44690
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#746

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:11 pm

And amicus briefs will be accepted and plentiful.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12482
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#747

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:53 pm

I am kind of the opinion that in this case it won't matter, the 9th will look at the record and make its decision based on that rather than what the lawyers say. I kind of thought they had already indicated that they may not even have the jurisdiction to hear it since no sentence had been issued. Considering it is the 9th I doubt they'll like whatever answer they get. The Shurf's track record at the 9th hasn't been good as it is.
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: 26913
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#748

Post by bob » Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:35 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:53 pm
I am kind of the opinion that in this case it won't matter, the 9th will look at the record and make its decision based on that rather than what the lawyers say.
Yes. (But :sterngard: is correct that amici briefs will likely be filed; they will say Arpaio is wrong.)
I kind of thought they had already indicated that they may not even have the jurisdiction to hear it since no sentence had been issued. Considering it is the 9th I doubt they'll like whatever answer they get. The Shurf's track record at the 9th hasn't been good as it is.
Yeah: I expect the 9th will discuss whether it has jurisdiction, conclude that it doesn't (because there's nothing to appeal), and dismiss the appeal. Which will have the effect of keeping intact the district court's denial of Arpaio's request to vacate all the underlying findings. With some cautionary language about how the estoppel value of the findings are uncertain due to the pardon (but is a question that is ultimately not before the court presently).
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12482
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#749

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:55 pm

bob wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:35 pm
Notorial Dissent wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:53 pm
I am kind of the opinion that in this case it won't matter, the 9th will look at the record and make its decision based on that rather than what the lawyers say.
Yes. (But :sterngard: is correct that amici briefs will likely be filed; they will say Arpaio is wrong.)
I kind of thought they had already indicated that they may not even have the jurisdiction to hear it since no sentence had been issued. Considering it is the 9th I doubt they'll like whatever answer they get. The Shurf's track record at the 9th hasn't been good as it is.
Yeah: I expect the 9th will discuss whether it has jurisdiction, conclude that it doesn't (because there's nothing to appeal), and dismiss the appeal. Which will have the effect of keeping intact the district court's denial of Arpaio's request to vacate all the underlying findings. With some cautionary language about how the estoppel value of the findings are uncertain due to the pardon (but is a question that is ultimately not before the court presently).
Yes, I think :sterngard: is entirely right, I think there will be a plethora, most of them against. I would expect at least a couple of our favorite idiots to file on his behalf, it's just de rigueur. I also think the Shurf done shot himself in the foot, or more accurately LaRump did it for him. I think the 9th will find that due to them jumping the gun, although NOT in those exact terms, they have no jurisdiction and will do as you say and let it stand. So the joke will be on the Shurf.
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
Fortinbras
Posts: 2917
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Arpaio (et al.) criminal contempt case

#750

Post by Fortinbras » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:42 pm

A recent retrospective on Crazy Joe from Investigative Reporters & Editors:

https://www.ire.org/blog/ire-radio/2017 ... eriff-joe/

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”