DoJ sues Sheriff Arpaio for civil-rights abuses; anyone care to take Arpaio's side here?

[E-Sabbath]

@Bricker

No, it’s not. It’s bar counsel’s allegations.

Bricker, uhm. You’re pretty wrong here.
This is the Opinion and Order Imposing Sanctions. It was written by a panel of three judges, headed by William O’Neill, the presiding disciplinary judge of the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona. Now, I’m not sure how you managed to misread the first inch of the document, but that’s fine. These are findings of a judge. Actually three judges. I believe this makes them matters of settled fact. Yes?

Seriously. My question here is, given this finding, by judges, in this case, what does this give to the FBI? I’m assuming that the findings of one case is admissible as evidence in another?

(From the Pit thread, as it’s more suitable to be answered here.)

@Bricker

OK, I looked at the citations in the GD thread.

So this is not a finding of the disciplinary board, but rather a statement of charges, against which the respondents will presumably have the chance to offer rebuttal evidence?

Wrong. This is the finding of the disciplinary board. The rebuttal evidence has been offered. This is the result.

And those respondants don’t include Arpaio himself, as he’s not a lawyer and not subject to the disciplinary process?

Correct. However, there are multiple statements in this finding that he directed or otherwise caused the actions to happen.

There are numerous problems with treating these as evidence of criminal violations. For example, you say he caused a judge to be arrested on completely baseless charges of bribery.

But was there a warrant for the arrest? Yes. Was the arrest legal? Yes.

There seems to be unanimity that the charges could not be proved in court.

However, this does not create a crime. As long as there was probable cause to arrest, the arrest is legal.

What specific crime are you alleging here, and where is the evidence for it?

Ahem. If you bothered to read even the quoted part, there was no probable cause for arrest. And further, the finding is that it was directly ordered by Sheriff Joe.

I am not sure what specific crime I am alleging here. I am asking you, Friend Bricker, lawyer extraordinaire, to examine this finding, and tell us what, assuming a reasonably fit and capable prosecutor, could result from it.

To requote:

Sheriff Arpaio, through Chief Deputy Hendershott, closing their eyes to his Constitutional rights,
ordered Mr. Stapley arrested. They never filed any documents or charges but
instead surreptitiously videotaped his arrest, and held him in jail for hours. It was
testified that no one ever filed anything against Mr. Stapley regarding this event,
but took the time to call the press to inform them that he had been arrested.

Chief Hendershott said that he had met with Mr. Thomas, Ms. Aubuchon, and Sheriff Arpaio, and that Sheriff Arpaio came up with the idea of charging the judge.
484
Chief Hendershott told Sgt. Luth to use as the material for the Form 4, or probable cause (“PC”) statement, a complaint that the Chief Deputy had submitted to the Commission on Judicial Conduct against Judge Donahoe.
485
Chief Hendershott printed off his complaint and wrote the charges on it.
486
At the hearing in this case, Mr. Hendershott was unable to describe any criminal conduct by Judge Donahoe.

Extra bonus quote!

482. Were this a criminal case, we are confident that the evidence would
     establish this conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, while Mr.
     Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon did violate ER 8.4(b) by violating 18 U.S.C. § 241,
     sanctions will not issue from this particular violation, nor will it be considered in
     aggravation. While a criminal charge or conviction is not necessary to a finding
     that Respondents violated ER 8.4(b), this Court is fully aware that it is not a
     criminal court. In criminal court, a finding that Respondents violated 18 U.S.C.
     § 241 would involve additional pre-trial and trial criminal procedures and
     standards not applicable to this Court. As such, no sanctions will issue from this
     finding, nor will Respondents’ violation of 8.4(b) in this Claim be considered in
     aggravation.