Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Discuss political news items / current events.
Post Reply
Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Benjamin_LK »

Good to see that the pardon happened.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Maricopa County supervisor suggests civil lawsuit against Arpaio

Post by Joel »

Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio just received a pardon from President Trump, but that doesn't necessarily mean all his legal problems are behind him.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by freedomforall »

Sheriff Joe Just Scared The SH*T Out Of Libs With First Thing He’ll Do After Trump Pardons Him


User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Joe Arpaio Wants More Than A Pardon — He Wants His Conviction Expunged

Post by Joel »

Joe Arpaio Wants More Than A Pardon — He Wants His Conviction Expunged

President Donald Trump may have pardoned Joe Arpaio, but that doesn't mean the former Arizona sheriff's legal troubles are over.

Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt after his department ignored a court order to stop what a judge ruled to be racial profiling.

Now he's fighting to get his conviction thrown out altogether. The move would, legally speaking, make it as if his case had never existed.

The former sheriff argues his conviction should be expunged because he was pardoned before he had a chance to request a retrial or appeal the conviction.The request, like the pardon itself, is somewhat unusual. The judge presiding over the case doesn't have to vacate the verdict from Arpaio's record because of the pardon, they only have to stop going forward with the case.

On the other hand, a group formed by former White House attorneys, called "The Protect Democracy Project," wants the Department of Justice to throw out the pardon altogether. It wrote the pardon violates the Constitution by undercutting due process.

The group argues the constitutional right to due process is diminished if officials aren't held accountable for their actions "because for due process and judicial review to function, courts must be able to restrain government officials."

The Justice department is currently reviewing Arpaio's motion.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Joe Arpaio Wants More Than A Pardon — He Wants His Conviction Expunged

Post by David13 »

Joel wrote: August 31st, 2017, 5:23 pm
Joe Arpaio Wants More Than A Pardon — He Wants His Conviction Expunged

President Donald Trump may have pardoned Joe Arpaio, but that doesn't mean the former Arizona sheriff's legal troubles are over.

Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt after his department ignored a court order to stop what a judge ruled to be racial profiling.

Now he's fighting to get his conviction thrown out altogether. The move would, legally speaking, make it as if his case had never existed.

The former sheriff argues his conviction should be expunged because he was pardoned before he had a chance to request a retrial or appeal the conviction.The request, like the pardon itself, is somewhat unusual. The judge presiding over the case doesn't have to vacate the verdict from Arpaio's record because of the pardon, they only have to stop going forward with the case.

On the other hand, a group formed by former White House attorneys, called "The Protect Democracy Project," wants the Department of Justice to throw out the pardon altogether. It wrote the pardon violates the Constitution by undercutting due process.

The group argues the constitutional right to due process is diminished if officials aren't held accountable for their actions "because for due process and judicial review to function, courts must be able to restrain government officials."

The Justice department is currently reviewing Arpaio's motion.


Well, in terms of expungement, or throwing out the case altogether, I think the judge is way beyond prejudice and outright hostile, so that probably won't work. Expungement usually comes by statutory scheme, usually from the court or judge where the case was heard.
As for the pardon, there is no basis in law for anything to be done to it. What ever fiction attorneys think it violates due process don't have the slightest clue what due process is all about, and have invented something out of whole cloth.
dc

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10813
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by larsenb »

freedomforall wrote: August 30th, 2017, 6:01 pm Sheriff Joe Just Scared The SH*T Out Of Libs With First Thing He’ll Do After Trump Pardons Him

I would hope Arpaio strongly raises the issue and the overwhelming evidence regarding the forged birth certificate Obama issued from the White House, claiming it was his true birth certificate.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by lundbaek »

For Joe Arpaio to go any further with the evidence regarding the forged birth certificate Obama issued from the White House, claiming it was his true birth certificate, and regarding Obama's phoney Social Security number, the sheriff would need the support of the media and elements in the FedGov that he is not likely to get. Truth be known, the media has done a great job in suppressing those stories. Neither of my U.S. senators nor my congressional representative will ever promote exposure or prosecution of Obama for any of his scandals. There are not enough people in Arizona who know or care about these issues to bring pressure to bear on those in position to initiate action against Obama.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by freedomforall »

lundbaek wrote: August 31st, 2017, 11:04 pm For Joe Arpaio to go any further with the evidence regarding the forged birth certificate Obama issued from the White House, claiming it was his true birth certificate, and regarding Obama's phoney Social Security number, the sheriff would need the support of the media and elements in the FedGov that he is not likely to get. Truth be known, the media has done a great job in suppressing those stories. Neither of my U.S. senators nor my congressional representative will ever promote exposure or prosecution of Obama for any of his scandals. There are not enough people in Arizona who know or care about these issues to bring pressure to bear on those in position to initiate action against Obama.
Goes to prove that the Gads are winning. People turning a blind eye to evil and corruption is a way of life now. And the Mormon's are either held back from doing anything other than sending cards and letters that mean nothing to the puppeteers or they try to vote for a president worth spit and can't really find one, and if they did, he wouldn't get into office anyway because the left are always going to jump on them like stink on a used baby diaper and make certain they drop out of the running.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

DOJ says Arpaio's case should be dismissed

Post by Joel »


User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Judge Considers Defying Trump Over Arpaio Pardon

Post by Joel »

Judge Considers Defying Trump Over Arpaio Pardon

Although President Donald Trump has issued a full pardon to former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, and his lawyers have filed a motion seeking to have his conviction thrown out as a result, District Court Judge Susan Bolton has so far refused to grant the motion, and is in fact considering requests before her that she deny it.

In papers lodged with her last week, it was argued that “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights.” This contrasts with his lawyers’ arguments that “The president’s pardon moots the case, and it warrants an automatic vacatur of all opinions, judgments, and verdicts related to the criminal charge.”

The Justice Department supports his position, telling the judge on Monday that “the government agrees that the Court should vacate all orders and dismiss the case as moot.”

But although many commentators have argued that the President’s pardoning power is “unlimited,” and some have even worried that he might issue blanket pardons to all those being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to frustrate the investigation, she is reviewing contrary legal arguments.

These counter arguments contend that the president’s constitutional power to issue pardons “is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”

Similarly, they argue, Trump cannot use pardons to undercut a court’s power to protect people from being denied their Due Process rights by immunizing otherwise unlawful acts like Arpaio’s. It contends that “the president cannot be allowed to weaponize the pardon power to circumvent the judiciary’s ability to enforce and protect constitutional rights.”

A brief amicus curiae filed on Monday contends that “the power of contempt for violating injunctions requiring government officers to cease their unconstitutional actions – or risk fine, imprisonment or both – is a vital means by which the judiciary enforces constitutional rights. If the President may employ his pardon power to relieve government officers of accountability and risk of penalty for defying injunctions imposed to enforce constitutional rights, that action will permanently impair the courts’ authority and ability to protect those inalienable rights. The result would be an executive branch freed from the judicial scrutiny required to assure compliance with the dictates of the Bill of Rights and other constitutional safeguards.”

While these legal arguments may initially sound like a reach with little chance of success under ordinary circumstances, they could prove effective under a new practice being called “Trumplaw.”

This judge’s actions to date, and several injunctions blocking a string of Trump’s actions on unusual if not unprecedented legal grounds, lends credence to this unusual suggestion.

Several scholars, including some who oppose him, suggested that some judges appear to be adopting a new jurisprudence called “Trumplaw” aimed uniquely at this President; a method of judging cases which is aimed specifically at countering some of the practices of President Trump, even if this development means creating new legal principles and/or overlooking (or at least minimizing) other established ones.

For example, a piece in the New York Times described this new method of deciding cases as “a set of restrictions on presidential action that only apply to Donald Trump. This president cannot do things that would be perfectly legal if any other president did them, under this standard, because the courts will rule against his past demagogy rather than the policies themselves.”

David French of the National Review, who has been described as a NeverTrumper, nevertheless warns about this “strange madness [which] is gripping the federal judiciary. It is in the process of crafting a new standard of judicial review, one that does violence to existing precedent, good sense, and even national security for the sake of defeating Donald Trump.”

In his words, “when existing precedent either doesn’t apply or cuts against the overriding demand to stop Trump, then it’s up to the court to yank that law out of context, misinterpret it, and then functionally rewrite it to reach the ‘right result'” – “an otherwise lawful order is unlawful only because Donald Trump issued it. . . . All this adds up to Trumplaw, the assertion by the federal judiciary of the legal authority to stop Trump.”

Although the President allegedly has unfettered power to completely pardon anyone, Bolton has so far not taken action on Arpaio’s request that his conviction be thrown out based upon Trump’s pardon.

Rather that accede to this request, Bolton has directed both Arpaio and the Justice Department to file briefs on the legal issue of whether she should grant his request. This arguably flies in the face of a 1925 Supreme Court decision which unanimously upheld a presidential pardon for a criminal contempt of court sentence; exactly the unusual type of pardon involved here.

However, not granting Arpaio’s motion may provide the only way in which the President’s pardoning power – including his power to pardon those involved in the Mueller investigation to keep them from flipping – can be challenged in court, and possibly provoke a judicial ruling limiting its sweep.

Thus, constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky has suggested that one way the President’s seemingly unfettered pardon power might be challenged would be for her to refuse to fully recognize it.

He said “in theory, Judge Susan Bolton, the judge in the case, could say that, notwithstanding the pardon and notwithstanding Ex Parte Grossman [in 1925], she believes the law has changed sufficiently that she can go ahead and sentence Arpaio. Arpaio would appeal, and the Ninth Circuit could then affirm Judge Bolton.” In such a ruling, Bolton could cite a much later 1987 ruling in which the Court said “The ability to punish disobedience to judicial orders is regarded as essential to ensuring that the Judiciary has a means to vindicate its own authority without complete dependence on other Branches.”

In short, many judges, in addition to wanting to oppose much of what Trump does because they strongly object to him and his orders, may also be willing to bend and stretch the law – including venturing into uncharted waters such as his pardon power, or his power to fire prosecutors who do not comply with his priorities – because Trump has repeatedly attacked judges, by name as well as collectively.

It is likely that other judges strongly resent such attacks, both openly and perhaps even subconsciously, because judges are not ethically permitted to speak out and defend his own actions from attack, but also because an attack on several named judges is likely to be seen as an attack on all of them.

There may be little that Trump can do – short of an ultimate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where he may find a more sympathetic audience – if judges including Bolton decide that stopping some of what they may regard as his outrageous actions requires some obstruction – or at least manipulation – of justice.

If so, many may regard this as poetic justice for a runaway president, but it is not the way law is supposed to work.

User avatar
markharr
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6523

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by markharr »

The constitution is explicit and clear on the matter. The only exception to executive pardon powers are cases of impeachment.

A conviction in this case will never withstand an appeal.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by lundbaek »

There are, I am convinced, many judges who are beholden to the PTB wishing to imprison Sheriff Arpaio, and are willing to stretch and falsely interpret law.

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Mark »

lundbaek wrote: September 14th, 2017, 10:10 am There are, I am convinced, many judges who are beholden to the PTB wishing to imprison Sheriff Arpaio, and are willing to stretch and falsely interpret law.
I'm with you there Lundbaek. It reminds me of the scriptures in Helaman 5. As Pres. Hinckley said just like the morning paper..

2 For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.

3 Yea, and this was not all; they were a stiffnecked people, insomuch that they could not be governed by the law nor justice, save it were to their destruction.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Federal Judge Hints She Might Not Toss Arpaio’s Conviction Even After Trump Pardon

Post by Joel »

Federal Judge Hints She Might Not Toss Arpaio’s Conviction Even After Trump Pardon

After President Donald Trump pardoned former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, opponents of the decision have tried to fight it. Now, the very judge who convicted Arpaio is indicating she may not scratch her decision after all.

Those arguing against the pardon typically claim it would be letting a government official off the hook for violating people’s constitutional rights, which inherently weakens the Constitution, and the court’s ability to protect it. Judge Susan Bolton addressed the issue from a different angle. Instead of discussing whether she should dismiss the conviction, she focused on whether she could.

In an order on Thursday, Judge Bolton wrote that while Arapaio did receive a pardon, she might not be able to legally toss the conviction because he hasn’t been sentenced yet. Her reasoning is that without sentencing, there’s not final judgment in the case, and you can’t vacate a judgment that doesn’t exist yet. Bolton wrote than when the government submitted a motion supporting eliminating Arpaio’s conviction, the legal precedent they cited only refers to cases where a judgment was already in place.

Not only that, Bolton cited Supreme Court case that said, “a pardon is in no sense an overturning of a judgment of conviction by some other tribunal; it is an executive action that mitigates or sets aside punishment for a crime.” Basically, the pardon can protect Arpaio from punishment, but it can’t necessarily change an existing verdict from the court. Similarly, a Ninth Circuit case that Bolton mentioned says that someone who receives a pardon is “not entitled to erasure of the record of his conviction.”

Judge Bolton gave the government until September 21 to file an additional brief to provide a legal basis for why the pardon should result in Arpaio’s conviction being expunged, instead of just eliminating any punishment.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3589929 ... paio-Order

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio fires back at judge in his contempt case

Post by Joel »

Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio fires back at judge in his contempt case

Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio is firing back at U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton for questioning whether President Trump’s pardon of the controversial lawman will be enough to throw out his conviction.

In a filing last week, Bolton said she is not certain she can vacate Arpaio’s criminal contempt conviction because there has been no sentencing yet; therefore, she may only dismiss the case. A presidential pardon does not immediately undo or reverse a conviction.

“Does she believe in the president’s pardon? I think the pardon said everything. So if she wants to do it, OK. And then we’ll appeal all the way to the Supreme Court,” Arpaio said.

Arpaio has requested the case be dismissed and the conviction thrown out, but Bolton may only be considering tossing the case -- leaving the guilty conviction on Arpaio’s record.

The case of the former sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County goes back to 2011, when Arpaio was ordered to cease traffic stops that singled out illegal immigrants in Phoenix. In October 2016, charges were filed against Arpaio for contempt of court in relation to the racial profiling case. He was found guilty on July 31 of this year and was set to be sentenced on October 6 before the president pardoned him on August 25.

“Throughout his time as sheriff, Arpaio continued his life’s work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now 85 years old, and after more than 50 years of admirable service to our nation, he is worthy candidate for a presidential pardon,” the White House said in a statement when announcing the pardon.

On October 4, Bolton will be considering the request to vacate the conviction entirely.

“This had nothing to do with racial profiling; the true story is gonna come out and I’m gonna tell you why I’m gonna fight this and get it out because if they can do this to me they can do this to you. I guarantee it,” said Arpaio.

Arpaio spoke to Fox News as he received the “Courage Under Fire” award from the Conservative Leadership Conference in Las Vegas Saturday night.

Arpaio says he is grateful for the presidential pardon and specified he never requested it, but attributes it to his relationship with Trump. “He [Trump] knows I’m not guilty,” Arpaio said.

Even though Bolton was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, Arpaio places a lot of the blame on the Obama Justice Department for the “witch hunt” that was his conviction. “This all happened under them when they started this prosecution.”

Arpaio was never worried about possibly going to jail. He says and that if he does decide to run for office, he doesn’t know which position he’d put his hat in the ring for. He does want to help more Republicans get elected to fulfill the president’s agenda.

“I’m a little unpredictable like the president,” he said.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Prosecutor: Joe Arpaio should not be allowed to erase court record

Post by Joel »


lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by lundbaek »

Joel, I appreciate your keeping us posted on the Sheriff Arpaio issue. I don't have time to follow it myself - certainly not as well as you have. I live in Maricopa County, and I appreciate the job that Arpaio did as sheriff, especially in apprehending illegal immigrants. I don't think Arpaio understands to this day the conspiracy that is fomenting illegal immigration, nor understand many of the principles of the US Constitution. And that apparent ignorance has cost him the support of a lot of people. For me, the important thing is that he not get sent to prison. The conviction, IMO, means nothing to me, considering the circumstances.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Judge Accepts Arpaio Pardon, Dismisses Guilty Verdict

Post by Joel »

You are welcome lundbaek :)

Judge Accepts Arpaio Pardon, Dismisses Guilty Verdict

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton heard arguments on Wednesday over whether or not to abide by President Donald Trump‘s pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Arpaio had been found guilty of criminal contempt for disobeying a court order to cease a controversial traffic patrol program targeting immigrants.

Attorneys for Arpaio and the Justice Department urged Bolton to dismiss Arpaio’s guilty verdict. After taking the matter under consideration, Judge Bolton decided to do just that, dismissing the verdict with prejudice, so Arpaio is not in danger of having to deal with this matter in the future. The decision came a day before Arapaio was scheduled to be sentenced.

Arpaio’s attorney also asked the judge to dismiss all other orders and rulings that were issued during the case. Judge Bolton said she would consider it, but did not make a decision at that time.

Those in opposition to the pardon believed that it overstepped the president’s power, as broad as it may be. The idea was that if a government official violated someone’s constitutional rights and was then allowed to escape punishment, it would essentially weaken the Constitution.

Another argument said that while the pardon may have been appropriate, the fact that Arpaio hadn’t been sentenced yet meant that there was no final order in the case, so the verdict could not be dismissed. Judge Bolton herself had previously questioned whether she could vacate a judgment that didn’t exist yet, and whether it was more appropriate to just eliminate his punishment but have the conviction stand. Since raising that issue, Bolton had both sides of the case submit briefs on the issue, and after reviewing those and hearing arguments, she decided to dismiss the verdict after all.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Judge won't wipe out guilty verdict for Arpaio

Post by Joel »

A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump's pardon of former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio ends his prosecution for criminal contempt of court. However, he does not wipe out the guilty verdict she returned or any other rulings in the case. In her order Thursday, the Phoenix-based U.S. District Court Judge rejected arguments from Arpaio's lawyers and Justice Department prosecutors that the longtime corrupt Maricopa County sheriff, was entitled to have all rulings in the case vacated.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Judge rejects bid to erase Arpaio records

Post by Joel »


User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by David13 »

I'm not sure, but I believe the President can rule on what the Judge did, and what effect it has, and not the other was around.
I'd have to look it up, but it just sounds like pure nonsense to me.
A pardon is a pardon.
dc

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Joel »

I looked it up back when Arpaio first asked for his criminal conviction record to be expunged and this is what I found:
Does a presidential pardon expunge or erase the conviction for which the pardon was granted?

No. Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President. Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record. Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record. However, a pardon will facilitate removal of legal disabilities imposed because of the conviction, and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from the conviction. In addition, a pardon may be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment. If you are seeking expungement of a federal offense, please contact the court of conviction. If you are seeking expungement of a state conviction, which the Office of the Pardon Attorney also does not have authority to handle, states have different procedures for “expunging” a conviction or “clearing” the record of a criminal conviction. To pursue relief of a state conviction, you should contact the Governor or state Attorney General in the state in which you were convicted for assistance.

SOURCE: https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequent ... lemency#18

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Judge Won’t Throw Out Ruling Explaining Arpaio’s Conviction

Post by Joel »

Judge Won’t Throw Out Ruling Explaining Arpaio’s Conviction


PHOENIX (AP) — The judge in former Sheriff Joe Arpaio‘s now-pardoned criminal case has refused the retired lawman’s request to throw out all rulings in the case, including a blistering decision that explained her reasoning in finding him guilty of a crime.

The request denied Thursday by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton was aimed at clearing Arpaio’s name and barring the ruling’s use in future court cases as an example of a prior bad act.

Bolton said pardons don’t erase convictions or the facts of cases. She said the pardon issued by President Donald Trump only mooted Arpaio’s possible punishments.

“The pardon undoubtedly spared defendant from any punishment that might otherwise have been imposed,” Bolton wrote. “It did not, however, ‘revise the historical facts’ of this case.”

Arpaio’s attorneys appealed Thursday’s decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The conviction stemmed from Arpaio’s disobedience of a 2011 court order that barred his traffic patrols that targeted immigrants. Prosecutors had accused Arpaio of prolonging the patrols for 17 months so that he could promote his immigration enforcement efforts in a bid to boost his successful 2012 re-election campaign.

Arpaio, who endorsed Trump and appeared alongside him at rallies during the 2016 campaign, has acknowledged prolonging the patrols, but insisted his disobedience wasn’t intentional and blamed one of his former attorneys for not adequately explaining the order’s importance.

Critics say the Aug. 25 pardon removed the last chance at holding Arpaio legally accountable for a long history of misconduct, including a 2013 civil verdict in which Arpaio’s officers were found to have racially profiled Latinos in the sheriff’s immigration patrols.

The sheriff’s defiance of the court order is believed to have contributed to his 2016 election loss after serving 24 years as metro Phoenix’s top law enforcer.

Several legal advocacy groups had requested that the pardon be declared invalid or unconstitutional, arguing that letting it stand would encourage future violations of court orders.

Earlier this month, Bolton ruled that the pardon will stand and dismissed the case.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by lundbaek »

I think Sheriff Arpaio i fortunate to not be on his way to prison. There are influential people here in Arizona and elsewhere who very much want to see Arpaio in the slammer, if for no other reason than to send out the message that "You don't mess with illegals".

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has Now Been Held In Criminal Contempt

Post by Serragon »

It seems to me that the judge is ruling appropriately. The conviction stays on his record, but his pardon is also on the record. He pays no penalty since the pardon came in before sentencing.

Post Reply