No not a law, a police regulation/guideline, it doesn’t include people who are later successfully prosecuted I believe.
When police stop someone they have to fill out paperwork everytime.
Though maybe sometimes they don’t, I wouldn’t know on that score.
But as I said I’ll try and get it from the horses mouth, rather then from the internet.
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.)
Wrong. This is the finding of the disciplinary board. The rebuttal evidence has been offered. This is the result.
Correct. However, there are multiple statements in this finding that he directed or otherwise caused the actions to happen.
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:
Extra bonus quote!
OK, my mistake. The language here was more… prosecutorial than I’m used to seeing in a judicial opinion. My bad.
It’s true that these are now findings of fact – but only as to the respondants. In other words, these findings of fact are the result of a hearing of allegations from the independent bar counsel against Mssrs. Thomas, Alexander, and Aubuchon.
And – it’s not a criminal trial. It’s a civil proceeding, in which facts must be proved only by preponderance of the evidence.
So, no – for two reasons: one is that Sheriff Arpaio was not a party to the proceeding, had no opportunity to deny the charges or cross-examine the witnesses. And even if he had that opportunity, the standard of proof was violation of attorney ethical standards, to be shown by preponderance of the evidence, not criminal charges that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don’t know. Give me a day to read a bit more of this thing.
That’s more like what I was hoping for. I think we can assume that various statements were testified to under oath. Eg, the bit where Hendershott said Sheriff Joe came up with the idea to charge the judge. What value do those have in a future trial? I’m gonna assume that at the very least they can be introduced into evidence, Hendershott can be called on to re-testify, and face contempt charges if he changes his testimony?
On the prosecutorial tone: Yeah, I got the feeling the judges got really pissed at Thomas et al in this. Face it, dummying up charges against a judge on really no cause at all? I can’t think of anything more likely to piss a judge off.
I should point out that there are criminal charges likely to come out of the Thomas thing, and I believe that Sheriff Joe is currently facing civil charges, with a second shot of criminal charges down the pipeline. So you may want to look at this both ways. In my non-lawyer, but reasonably-good-at-law-talking experience, I believe that most of the counts in this case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The iffy bits are where ‘Sheriff Joe ordered’, and for that, you simply have one or multiple people testifying that he did so.
It’s meaty as hell, is what it is.
Here, this is also relevant.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93122473/Complaint
This is the complaint about Sheriff Joe. I believe this section here is directly linked to the Thomas hearings. Though I think that it’s only relevant up to and not including 146.
Remember, this is a Civil Complaint.
I’m not talking about immigrants at all, and I’ve already posted my cite.
Do Arizonan Indians physically resemble Mexican Indians/Mestizos (who have shorter legs than most Indian nations north of the Rio Grande – it is not because of malnutrition that Mexicans are so short)? Serious question.
Well, of course not, if the laws are such that the only work they can find is in the underground cash economy.
I daresay they only do that so they can work. It doesn’t mean they’ll ever draw Social Security. So, they’re paying in to the system for nothing, just for the chance to pick your beans at minimum wage or less. And you begrudge them even that?!
Then, we need more Mexicans, don’t we?
In my experience white people generally have a problem distinguishing native American people from typical Mexican people, until we open our mouths to speak. Arizona tribes have very diverse looks, but so do many Mexican people, and IMO not every region in Mexico produces short body types. I have met Mexicans I thought were white people, until they opened their mouths to speak.
Some of my Native Alaskan friends get a kick out of passing as Mexicans in Mexico, but also some very American Indian looking Mexicans I know, resent being called Indians, even though they generally could not be distinguished from many indigenous people.
Here’s a person most people are familiar with who is Mexican.
For those not aware they probably wouldn’t believe it. I certainly wouldn’t have guessed it.
Well, he is:
I suppose not. Anectdotal impression; I once spent a year living in southern Miami-Dade County, and it was the first time in my life I ever felt tall (at 5’8").
5’8", Hell yeah you are tall, but we are typical short Mexicans; my brother 5’5" and Dad is 5’6", Mom was not quite 5 feet, and I am 5" 1". More wiry and proportional perhaps, but typical and brown enough to be fearful in Sheriff Joe’s neck of the woods.
Just out of curiosity, in Mexico, is there any clear social/cultural distinction between Indians and Mestizos? Does either group despise the other?
No, it really isn’t silly. You claimed things as facts, and I don’t believe that your statements accurately describe reality. If you want anyone to take what you said seriously, you should be able to back them up with cites. That’s how it’s done in GD.
I do not have sociological overview enough to answer these questions very well, except to be honest, in Southern Mexico I noticed racist comments made toward people in traditional clothing, who were speaking their own language. However the Mestizos who were using negative terms to describe the indigenous people appeared to be indigenous themselves.
I always laugh when people are flabbergasted out how “silly” the race is defined in the United States. Mexico, and the rest of Latin America, has put us to shame over the years with their classification system. In the state of Chiapas, a native group has declared war against the Mexican government and there’s been conflict there since the 1990s at least.
What’s to argue?
Yes it is a silly cite request, its what we call a spoiler ie. you don’t really want an answer, but you do wish to harrass the poster against whom you don’t have any valid argument to counter them with.
In fact I wouldn’t be stunned with amazement if that was the purpose of your post this time.
The race card is always a simple and easy, not to mention cowardly tactic to use aswell.
Disagree with me and you’re a racist, defend that poster or agree with him and you’re a racist.
The ironic thing about the cowards who actually use this tactic from the safety of cyberspace, are the same people who IRL are too scared to put their heads above the parapet.
The same people who apparently walk around with a chip on their shoulder everday looking for reasons to feel discriminated against, or for reasons that they are lifes failures, not because of their own shortcomings, but because of institutionalised racism.
Except they never open their mouths about it at the time, and only complain about it after the event and when they’re safely anonymus on a m.b.
Personally I don’t cave in to bullying, or attempts to gag me, even if its a pile on.
I believe in free speech and democracy, which many on these boards pay lip service to but only if the speech agrees with what they said, and the democratic vote is for what they pretend to believe in.
I find it particulary cowardly and offensive when dyed in the wool racists of an ethnicity other then White, hypocritically throw out accusations of racism themselves working on the theory that of course they’re not racists (At least in public) because not being White they CAN’T be racist.
Well I’m sorry matey , you can be and you are.
And are no less obnoxious then any member of the K.K.K. with whom they seem to share many characteristics, and the same ethos.
Keep your bully boy tactics to yourself, and that goes for your terrorist admiring friend, (He knows who he is and has admitted several times on these boards to his admiration of them ), they won’t work on me, not now not ever.
Sorry if I’ve spoiled your day, perhaps you can find someone else who’s a bit more amenable to your attempted bullying.
Thats how real life works.
