That is a 246 page document relating to attorney discipline cases against then Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and two lawyers in his office, apparently arising from acts during his time as County Attorney.
A search for the word Arpaio produced numerous results. I scanned a couple, but maybe you could help by directing my attention to the page or pages you feel best make the point you’re making?
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? And those respondants don’t include Arpaio himself, as he’s not a lawyer and not subject to the disciplinary process?
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?
Moved to GD.
Ahem. I replied to Bricker’s statement in GD. Suffice it to say, that he is categorically and one hundred percent wrong about it being a statement of charges. It is the finding of the disciplinary board.
Three judges, united, wrote this.
Reading the linnk, it’s not nearly as bad as I expected it to be. It’s not good, but these are exactly the kind of examples that can be passed ff as being done by “overzealous” officers. The Feds better have a whole lot more, and they’ll need to show a level of tolerance or even encouragement by the senior management, of such actions or the suit will be laughed out of court.
Well, Arpaio won re-election, anyway.
Fucking unbelievable…
If the article itself doesn’t depress you enough, read the comments!
I’m no lawyer, but as far as I know, there is no requirement anywhere in the United States to carry a government issued identification card. Some states have what are known as “stop and identify” laws, but I believe even then, you are only obliged to identify yourself if you are being detained as part of a "Terry stop.
There’s an interesting video on Youtube regarding your rights during an encounter with police. I’d suggest any American watch that video.
From the article grude mentioned:
She was driving, which when done without identification is a crime, and the Supreme Court is fine with that state of affairs.
Probably a CASA volunteer on her way to corrupt our voting rights, with anchor baby on board.
Driving is a different beast, for sure. Poor choice of words on my part. But then again, driving is not considered a right. You have to prove you have the license. But for just walking down the street, I believe that simply providing your name and town of residence is usually enough, and then, only required if you’re actually being detained.
Correct.
How does any population grow 47% over a ten year period? Are they adding in the illegal alien population?
Awesome. Hopefully we’ll get more threads of leftitards crying in their wheaties.
Well, all in all, things went pretty well. Not too shabby. Don’t follow these things too close, how’d it go for you guys?
By “leftitards”, you mean people who actually read the Constitution instead of just bowing and praying to it?
I applaud your political analysis sir! Your grasp of the political ramifications of immigration policy and enforcement are no doubt the envy of your colleagues at the prestigious institute of sad bitter losers.
Don’t forget ignoring it.
What, and let the taxpayers suffer for his actions?
Oh, wait, they re-elected him how many times? I see. And his polls…yes…
Carry on.