I too favour voter suppression, particularly when the goal is limiting the vote of the opposition. The fun of it being all done in the name of a non-existent problem is almost as good as championing new, useless spending requirements while decrying wasteful spending! Weeee!
Believing the authorities think it’s illegal, and actually thinking it actually is illegal are two different things. I read their statement as just deciding not to care whether it really is illegal to do what they are doing, not that they accept that it is definitely so.
Also, the term “trumped up charges” can include charges that are technically accurate, but that you have no intent to actually follow through with prosecution. This is what I believe GIGObuster is suggesting.
That text includes:
Well, not that it justifies the MCSO’s insanely disproportionate reaction here, but I can understand their going ballistic over it. Cops do not want their home addresses published anywhere ever, for obvious reasons – anybody you ever arrested could find out where to find you, and your family. And in Arpaio’s case, he would have to have a 'round-the-clock detail guarding his house to prevent assassination.
You asked him, not me; but after reading the article Miller linked to, I’d like to take a stab at it.
ISTM that the “civil disobedience” spoken of in the quote you provided refers to their publication of the particulars of the grand jury subpoena.
Please feel free to instruct me if I am mistaken.
However, the article on the whole does a very good job of creating the perception that the empaneling of the grand jury (on the matters to which the subpoena refers) was based upon a tissue of what can be described as “pumped up” or “made up” probable causes for investigation.
The fact that the charges were dropped the day after the arrests were made would seem to support that perception.
Was that at least approximately what you meant, GIGObuster?
I don’t think so – that is, I know of no legal requirement to that effect. Bricker?
Yep, you got it. And of course the lawsuit then was filed by the editors:
But it has been hold in the courts as they are deciding if the perpetrators of the abuse can be the subjects of a lawsuit, no matter, you bet that the defense lawyers for the state are active trying to dismiss that and are getting their pay courtesy of the taxpayers of Maricopa county.
There is such a thing as “sovereign immunity” – “Wrongs do not run against the King,” or, in republican terms, the state can’t be sued for any tort in its own courts – not without its own permission, that is; sovereign immunity can be waived in a specific case, or more generally by statute . The federal government has enacted the Federal Tort Claims Act and ractically every state has enacted legislation allowing the state to be sued to some extent under some circumstances. (If such legislation sounds like a no-brainer to you, remember that suing the state = suing the taxpayers = suing the voters.)
Bricker, you should read the decision by the Ninth Circuit: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/06/09/09-15703.pdf .
The publishers were not arrested for publishing the address of Arpaio. They were arrested for publishing Grand Jury subpoenas contrary to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2812(A), however, there never were any Grand Jury subpoenas in the first place, nor were there any prosecutor issued subpoenas later ratified by a Grand Jury. All there was were documents the prosecutor was passing off as valid subpoenas.
To make matters worse, the prosecutor went to state court prior that day asking for arrest warrants, but rather than waiting for the court to either issue or deny arrest warrants, the prosecutor had the publishers arrested – whisked away in the night in unmarked black vehicles.
Arrests without warrants based on fake subpoenas. All in all, that’s trumped up charges in my book. The whole decision is well worth reading, but the relevant pages are at 2627 and 2628. You can’t make this shit up.
The publishers’ case is still trucking along. Note that what the court seems to be chewing on is not so much whether Arpaio and his cronies did bad, but rather whether or not they have immunity due to their jobs.
There’s something deeply wrong with the electorate in Arizona.
Must be the heat.
Why?
:rolleyes: Oh, get off your Canuckistani high-horse! Canadians are more sensible than Yanks! We get it! 
Well, it’s not the humidity.
ITT: Bricker supports poll taxes or coughs up where to get a free ID, including the supporting documentation to get it.
Me neither. But that’s just a shoot from the hip response. No research.
Wait a second, though. You say that the subpoenas were fake, but that’s just the allegation from the complaint. In other words, to decide the issue of qualified immunity, the court assumes the truth of everything the complaint alleges.
Is it certain that this part is true?
I am seriously just asking. If true, it’s absolutely outrageous.
That’s not a poll tax. See Crawford v. Marion County.
Why? A state isn’t required to accept every candidate who tries to get on the ballot if he’s not qualified.
Nevertheless, it is and you fucking know it.
The decision resulted in a new hearing which is presently ongoing, so it would be premature to conclude that the facts have been proven. I read the reasons as if all allegations of material fact were taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, as per Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir.1996). But heres where it gets interesting. The publishers appealed and the prosecutor cross-appealed, so the judges ended up having to weigh the evidence, and in so doing had to be very careful to set out when the parties disagreed as to the facts. I did not notice any reference to the prosecutor having taken the position that the subpoenas were valid, or that there had been an arrest warrant. That suggests to me that although it aint over until the fat lady swings (hey, it`s Arpaio country), the subpoenas were bogus and there were no arrest warrants. Have a boo at the following:
[INDENT]@ 7635
Plaintiffs have successfully
alleged that because Wilenchik failed to adhere to
Arizona law when issuing the subpoena regarding the grand
jury proceedings, he knew it was not protected grand jury
material and he therefore had no probable cause to believe
Plaintiffs had violated the grand jury secrecy statute.
@ 7635
In a cross appeal, Wilenchik has appealed the district
court’s determination he does not qualify for absolute immunity.
He argues he was not engaged in investigatory activities
when he issued the document requests and had no role in the
arrests following the news article about the grand jury proceedings.
We agree with the district court.
@ 7637
We emphasize, however, that discovery may result in a
more complete picture of the events surrounding the grand
jury proceedings and arrests—information which might support
an argument that the investigation had moved to the prosecution
phase. For instance, Wilenchik may be able to clarify
the status of the matter before a grand jury in support of probable
cause or whether charges had been filed against Plaintiffs.
Or he may provide enough facts to rebut any notion he
advised police or ordered the arrests. Should he do so, the district
court can consider any further arguments at the summary
judgment stage of the case. But at this point, the complaint
alleges Wilenchik knew the subpoena was not approved by a
grand jury and that he lacked probable cause to believe Plaintiffs
committed a crime by publishing them.
[10] Thus, as it stands, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
Wilenchik performed an investigatory function when he
advised the police to make the arrests. We therefore affirm the
district court’s decision not to grant Wilenchik absolute
immunity for ordering the arrests.[/INDENT]