DOJ Attorneys Submit Supplemental Brief in Arpaio Case

RECOMMEND VACATING CONVICTION AFTER PRESIDENTIAL PARDON

by Sharon Rondeau

(Sep. 21, 2017) — Three attorneys and the acting chief of the U.S. Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section have filed a brief in response to a federal judge’s request prior to an October 4 hearing concerning the criminal conviction of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio.

The 85-year-old former six-term sheriff received a presidential pardon on August 25 which precludes sentencing from taking place. However, U.S. District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton scheduled the October 4 hearing to determine whether or not the conviction, which she alone decided to impose, should remain on Arpaio’s record or be vacated, as Arpaio’s attorneys have requested.

Because Defendant will never have the benefit or opportunity to seek a reversal of the court’s verdict through appeal (and a re-trial  by jury), it is only fair that the Court vacate its verdict and all other rulings in the case,” Arpaio’s attorneys wrote in a brief dated August 28, 2017.

One of Arpaio’s attorneys, Mark Goldman of Goldman & Zwillinger, opined that Bolton did not properly convey the verdict to Arpaio “in open court,” which Goldman said involved “violating his constitutional rights to a public trial and to participate in his trial.”

The Latin word “vacatur” signifies “an announcement in court that something is cancelled or set aside; an annulment.”

Bolton presented two questions to the Justice Department which she is considering in relation to the October 4 hearing:

While the government had chosen last year to prosecute Arpaio on the misdemeanor criminal contempt charge stemming from a racial-profiling case, its attorneys wrote in their Supplemental Response that “federal appellate decisions from the D.C. Circuit and the Ninth Circuit support vacatur of the Court’s verdict and dismissal of the case because the presidential pardon has mooted the case prior to completion of direct appellate review.”

2017-09-21 Doc 236 Govt’s Supplemental Response to DEF Motion for Vacatur and Dismissal with Prejudice

The cases cited by the DOJ attorneys are United States v. Schaffer, 240 F.3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 2001) and United States v. Oberlin, 718 F.2d 894, 895-86 (9th Cir. 1983).

The Justice attorneys’ conclusion reads:

The Defendant’s verdict should be vacated and the case dismissed as moot. No further action is requested or required, and the presidential pardon does not require the alteration, destruction, erasure, expungement, or sealing of the record in this case.

 

 

 

19 Responses to "DOJ Attorneys Submit Supplemental Brief in Arpaio Case"

  1. T.F. B0W   Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 11:59 AM

    Judy is, of course, free to believe whatever he desires, but the courts have repeatedly ruled that the Fourth Amendment is a limitation on government power, and not merely a privilege only granted to U.S. citizens.

    At the time relevant to the lawsuit against Arpaio, the MCSO was not authorized to enforce federal immigration law. And the MCSO had no “suspicion” beyond skin color; the named plaintiff in the lawsuit, for example, was a legal permanent resident who the MCSO seized, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

    Which led to the judge ordering the MCSO and Arpaio to not violate the Fourth Amendment. And Arpaio willfully disobeyed that order.

    With respect to natural-born citizenship, the courts have repeatedly rejected Judy’s beliefs, including in his own ballot challenge in Georgia. Judy, like Robert Laity, may believe he is correct, but he should not be surprised when others prefer the wisdom of real judges in real courts over the sour grapes of the losing litigants.

  2. Cody Robert Judy   Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 8:41 AM

    Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)
    4th Amendment
    [The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized]

    This is a secured Right under the Standard of the U.S. Constitution for U.S [Citizens] , not illegal aliens or unauthorized foreign ambassadors.

    Enforcing and protecting that right requires Officers, whose affirmation upon suspicion of Crimes committed against U.S Citizens on their Oaths to uphold the Law, must protect and serve their communities.

    The Snow Job on Arpaio amounts to the same tactic Obama hogtied the military with in a check list amounting to [the grave] over grave danger when engaging Al Quida in Afghanistan.

    Hogtieing Officers of Law to enforce Law, with tactics that allow the Law to be breached amounts to criminal racist demogaugry.

    T.F Bow’s [Convenience of the Constitution] is astounding given the disrespect attributed in comments to Art. II. ‘s requirements for a [natural born Citizen] or [Citizen at the Time of the Adoption of this Constitution] for the Office of President.

    Fantasy purging the Reality no [ natural born Citizen] existed under the Constitution until it was ratified as a New Jurisdiction of Law forming a New Nation requiring the Adoption of [Citizen at the Time of the Adoption of this Constituion ].

    In T.F. Bow’s assertion the cart must come before the horse we find a regular confusion and laughable daily Conundrum.

  3. T.F. BOW   Monday, September 25, 2017 at 1:42 PM

    What is an “obot”?

    Larry Bland is, of course, free to think he has “closed” his false accusations. Notably without apologizing for making them in the first place.

    It interesting, however, that Larry Bland avoids discussing Arpaio’s intentionally disobeying a judge’s order to not violate Fourth Amendment.

  4. Larry Bland   Monday, September 25, 2017 at 8:04 AM

    You are indicating that somebody at the fog bow forum is spoofing your moniker. That could very well be accurate in that obots are famous for that. Just know that T. F. Bow shares celebrity over there with Foggy aka Bill Bryant. Folks can go to the fog bow forum if they have the stomach for it and read how the silly immature children there giggle and congratulate Foggy for getting through Sharon’s moderation as T.F. Bow here at the post email news. Your comments here have been duly noted and I now consider the subject closed. Now, how about we agree to show our support for the nations law enforcement officers by boycotting NFL Monday night football tonight? Certainly you can’t have a problem with that!

  5. T.F. B0W   Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 10:12 PM

    Larry Bland appears to have changed his argument from me being Bill Bryant to me having appeared on Bryant’s forum page (whatever that means).

    None of which justifies Arpaio’s intentionally disobeying a court order to not violate the Fourth Amendment.

  6. Larry Bland   Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 6:21 PM

    T.F. Bow, be advised that your moniker has appeared on Bill Bryant’s fog bow forum page. Curious, no?

  7. T.F. B0W   Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 12:32 PM

    Larry Bland is, of course, free to believe whatever he wants, but I’m not Bill Bryant, never met the person.

    And how does the Bryant person relate to Arpaio’s willfully disobeying a court order to not violate the Fourth Amendment?

  8. Larry Bland   Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 9:46 AM

    Of course TF Bow is Bill Bryant, foggy from fog bow. Not at all surprising that he uses a sock puppet here as most obots have several.

  9. T.F. B0W   Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 10:17 PM

    Who is “Foggy”? What is “Fog Bow”?

  10. Martha Trowbridge   Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 8:58 PM

    Sharon: Might ‘T F Bow’ be an identity variant for Foggy at The Fog Bow??

  11. T.F. B0W   Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM

    Jeffrey Harrison says he has seen Zullo’s evidence; perhaps he can tell when Zullo release it the public.

  12. Three-Pound Sledge   Friday, September 22, 2017 at 9:38 PM

    Ten thumbs up, Doctor Lou.

  13. jeffrey Harrison   Friday, September 22, 2017 at 8:11 PM

    Dr. Lou, I couldn’t have said things any better than you did. I have heard Arpaio and Zullo speak many times and have studies much of their released evidence. Both have impressive
    credentials and have served many years as excellent law enforcement officers. If I was to have been a criminal, I wouldn’t have wanted them on my tail. I bet we’re going to get a lesson on
    how to bag bad guys in the future. My chips are on Team Arpaio.

  14. T.F. B0W   Friday, September 22, 2017 at 7:34 PM

    Doctor Lou also does not explain how anyone’s purported actions justify Arpaio’s willfully disobeying a judge’s order to not violate the Fourth Amendment?

    And that is exactly what the civil case was about: the plaintiffs proved in court that the MCSO was detaining people without probable cause to do so. That’s not following federal law; that’s violating the U.S. Constitution.

    Arpaio could have many motivations for starting the birth-certificate investigation. The most commonly suggested one is that it was a method to attract donors for his election.

    Arpaio claims he is sitting on a “mountain” of evidence (about Obama, and about what motivated Arpaio’s being prosecuted), but there’s no indication that he will ever release it.

  15. Doctor Lou   Friday, September 22, 2017 at 6:56 PM

    To T.F.Bow: it’s not in any Presidents job description to disobey the Constitution either! And, how many Constitutional Amedments did Obama violate, beginning with the fraudulent birth certificate he presented to usurp the Presidency? Why is he not held accountable; what makes him above the law? Please, do no insult my intelligence! Arpaio is sitting on a mountain of irrefutable proof, not just evidence but PROOF that Obama is a fraud. How do I know this? Frankly, as difficult as it is to believe that Obama is a felon, it is just as difficult to believe that Arpaio would risk his career, reputation and his life on a “wild goose chase”! He has too much too lose, my friend. Already he is paying a price for standing up to the elites. He was persecuted for challenging Obamas credentials. This Immigration issue is a superficial smoke screen to hide the real intent of the Obama Administration: punish Arpaio for his “hutzpah”. And by the way, Arpaio was following federal immigration laws when he performed his duties.He was seeking and arresting illegal aliens. They are not immigrants; immigrants are legally here; aliens are not. I suspect that the various branches of government, their members who colluded with Obama to hide his crimes are having a difficult time sleeping at night, knowing that any time soon their involvement in Obamas “Big Lie” will soon be reavealed to our country and the world. Allow me to remind you of a famous Lincoln quote: ” you can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time. But, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time!

  16. T.F. B0W   Friday, September 22, 2017 at 3:48 PM

    How does any act that may have been committed by someone at the NSA justify Arpaio’s willfully disobeying a judge’s order to not violate the Fourth Amendment?

  17. Sharon Rondeau   Friday, September 22, 2017 at 3:36 PM

    Nor is it in the NSA’s, no?

  18. T.F. B0W   Friday, September 22, 2017 at 2:47 PM

    Arpaio was not convicted for “just doing his job.” Arpaio was convicted for willfully disobeying a judge’s order to not violate the Fourth Amendment.

    Disobeying the U.S. Constitution is not in any sheriff’s job description.

  19. Three-Pound Sledge   Friday, September 22, 2017 at 9:42 AM

    Imagine the costs involved in former Sheriff Arpaio defending himself and the U.S. Constitution for just doing his job.

    The cost, both financial and to the U.S. Constitution for having the fraud Barry Soetoro usurp the Executive Branch of the USA, will not ever be fully tallied.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.