BUT WHERE IS THE MEDIA?

by Sharon Rondeau

(Apr. 24, 2017) — Last October, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would prosecute then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio on a criminal contempt-of-court charge stemming from his admission, and later judicial declaration, of civil contempt-of-court in a 2007 racial-profiling case.

The civil lawsuit, Melendres, et al, v. Arpaio, et al, was filed by the ACLU representing a number of Hispanic plaintiffs who claimed that Arpaio’s immigration patrols unfairly targeted them as having been in the United States, and Maricopa County specifically, illegally as a result of their ethnicity.

The well-known international law from Covington & Burling later joined the ACLU in suing Arpaio in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge G. Murray Snow presiding.

During his six terms as Maricopa County Sheriff, Arpaio developed a reputation for strict immigration-law enforcement as “America’s Toughest Sheriff.”  His office participated in the federal government’s 287(g) program, which forges a formal agreement between local and federal agents to apprehend illegal aliens.

Maricopa County’s participation in the program was canceled by the Obama regime in 2011, at the same time that Snow was issuing orders preventing Arpaio’s immigration patrols in the civil suit.

On March 17, 2015, an attorney for Arpaio, Michele Iafrate, informed the court that the defendants “consent to a finding of civil contempt against them and the imposition of remedies designed to address their conduct.”  Iafrate suggested that in order to save taxpayers “hundreds of thousands of dollars,” an evidentiary hearing could be waived and the defendants could “begin to make amends to those who have been injured…”

Instead of accepting Arpaio’s offer to compensate the plaintiffs out of his personal funds, Snow chose to go to trial, costing taxpayers millions more.

After Snow declared Arpaio to be in civil contempt of court last May, he recommended criminal prosecution by Arizona authorities who recused themselves, sending the referral to the U.S. Department of Justice.

The DOJ announced that it would prosecute Arpaio just prior to the commencement of early voting in the November 8, 2016 election in which Arpaio sought to win a seventh term as Maricopa County sheriff..

In an under-reported development, on December 13, 2016, Arpaio’s three co-defendants, Iafrate; former deputy, Steven Bailey, and former chief deputy, Gerard Sheridan, were removed from the case by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton because the statute of limitations attached to the law under which they were charged had expired.

Snow had suggested that the government could criminally prosecute Arpaio in November 2015 and perhaps earlier.

Bolton said she would proceed against the sole remaining defendant, Arpaio, on the items outlined in the Order to Show Cause.  A bench trial was scheduled for early December, then postponed to early April. Another delay rescheduled the trial for April 25, which was then moved to June 26.

On December 27, Arpaio requested a jury trial which Bolton denied.  A second request was also denied.

On April 10, attorneys for Arpaio filed a “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Trial by Jury” requesting an expedited decision and oral argument.

The Motion to Dismiss was based on 18 USC 3285, which states, “No proceeding for criminal contempt within section 402 of this title shall be instituted against any person, corporation or association unless begun within one year from the date of the act complained of; nor shall any such proceeding be a bar to any criminal prosecution for the same act.”

2017-04-10 Doc 130 Motion To Dismiss

In footnote #2 on page 2 of the filing, Arpaio’s attorneys stated that the U.S. District Court dismissed the criminal contempt charge against the other three defendants because of the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. They then added, “However, the Government failed to advise the Court that those allegations of criminal contempt in the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 36)” are also separate crimes under state and federal statutory law, and that they are likewise barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The Government was compelled by clear, express, and unambiguous federal statutory law to bring its prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 402 which has a one year statute of limitations and requires a jury trial.”

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.  The wording of the statute reads:

Whenever a contempt charged shall consist in willful disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States by doing or omitting any act or thing in violation thereof, and the act or thing done or omitted also constitutes a criminal offense under any Act of Congress, or under the laws of any state in which it was done or omitted, the accused, upon demand therefor, shall be entitled to trial by a jury, which shall conform as near as may be to the practice in other criminal cases.

This section shall not apply to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States.

04-14-17 Pet for Writ Mandamus – Filed

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.

9th Circuit Order

Bolton has the option to respond but is not required to do so.

In his radio interview on Friday, Zullo posited that the Department of Justice was used as a political tool to unseat Arpaio in his bid for a seventh term as Maricopa County Sheriff.  Gallups speculated that Arpaio’s probe of the long-form birth certificate image posted on the White House website in 2011 had been a factor in the DOJ’s prosecution of Arpaio, who is nearly 85 years old.

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.

One new twist which has garnered media attention is Arpaio’s request to have Attorney General Jeff Sessions testify to “underscore a contradiction between current federal immigration policy and the 2011 court order that his client is charged with violating.”

The Post & Email’s previous coverage of the Melendres case can be found here.

Join the Conversation

5 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. I am, by vertue of my very DNA, both the information Arpaio has in reserve and the “Universe Shattering Info.” And, that time has come. I think that the revelation of the implications of this that President Trump gave to the US Senate at the WH yesterday was more than about NK. Simply put, I’m Obama’s half-brother. The grand implications are in who and WHAT our common father was. From there go to having been ushered into US Army MI in the ’70’s and used as such. Knowing that Obama’s intention was to infiltrate the Presidency, I was made to participate in several “Stashings” of our BC’s, but he’d trashed two of them at least through Executive Orders – Even in the sealed documents of the 9th Circuit! But this one he couldn’t get to, and I’m sure PM Netanyahu gave to President Trump recently, and it looks like this “Constitutional Crisis” has reached SCOTUS, as well. Look for those two to be recusing themselves shortly. http://rickahyatt.blogspot.com/2017/03/open-letter-sen-enzi-now-i-remember.html

  2. Gary and others, the info and evidence that Arpaio and Zullo have can’t and shouldn’t be released until a proper time. Should this case go to court, releasing evidence prematurely could derail the case. Also, as this new evidence is revealed, it should “only” be shared with those in the “circle of trust” and the “need to know”.

    This new evidence should not be released as it keeps the opposition on their toes. Only those that can be trusted or need to know should be in the loop for security reasons.

    Arpaio and Zullo have decades of experience in law enforcement, therefore I for one, trust their decisions in handling their hard won evidence.

  3. The system turned on Arpaio and Zullo using fake charges to derail the investigation of Obama’s fraudulent credentials.
    .
    This cost Arpaio his election. Further, pardon the pun, these charges were “Trumped”. This
    all was meant for ill. Incorrect charges probably were not an accident. Did they really want this
    to go to court? Seems to me if these charges were real, justice would have been served at a faster pace if they were serious and had the evidence.

    It seems to me that the Arpaio’s Train is still on the tracks. Further, I expect some time in the near future (hopefully) this Train will arrive at the Station, and then justice will be served.

    As Team Arpaio has stated, they have other evidence in reserve. When this gets to the proper
    authorities who have some gusts, then we can expect some serious charges and justice.

    Then the pink underwear can come out again.

    The Lame Stream Media will not cover this until they have no other choice. Then they’ll have
    egg on their face. Should this occur, they be depleted and not trusted…