So at the last minute Sheriff Joe throws in the documents demanded by the Court Monitor in the Melendres case (not really as a distraction) but at the same time files a Writ of Mandamus with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to have Judge Snow removed. Thanks to Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Time via Twitter:
.@RealSheriffJoe emergency meeting a bit of a dud. Joe’s lawyer Iafrate turned over requested docs last min. Writ of mandamus 2 9th filed.
— Stephen Lemons (@stephenlemons) August 7, 2015
Here’s the brief for the Circuit Court. Same old, same old except now they want the entire contempt proceeding vacated.
Technically, it isn’t even an appeal.
Arpaio has brought in the Phoenix law firm of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli to work with Michele Iafrati on the Petition for Mandamus. For you football fans out there, the “Hochuli” in the firm is NFL referee Ed Hochuli.
http://www.jshfirm.com/EdwardGHochuli
” I thought we had resolved earlier that 28 U.S.C. § 455 was absolutely not applicable to this case because one judge had already recused herself upon motion by the Defendants,”
Isn’t that 144?
So much for America’s “toughest” sheriff. What a wuss. Needs to take his licking like a man.
Yeah. My memory isn’t what it … something or another.
Article updated.
I wonder whether any of this has a chance, or whether he’s just shooting craps.
No chance. And it can be raised in the inevitable appeal anyway.
Given that the 9th Circuit has already ruled on a recusal motion on pretty much the same grounds, I would say it has no chance.
Maybe Shurfjoke hopes these stalling tactics will somehow help him in the end?
But this one wasn’t written by Klayman, so you don’t have to wash your eyes out with bleach after reading it. So the judges won’t start their deliberations terminally annoyed 😉
One difference I noted is that the new petition says the financial conflict of interest with Snow’s brother-in-law can’t be waived. Dunno whether that’s true, but isn’t there a provision that says such objections have to be raised (almost) immediately to be considered?
Limit one per customer, void where prohibited.
I think the biggest problem with their request is that the shurf has not asked Judge Snow to recuse himself on any of the other numerous cases before him where the shurf is being sued.
At this point, this is not a delaying tactic since the court is continuing with the hearings. It is just desperation. If the 9th circuit asks the plaintiffs to submit a brief, they will point out the many outright lies in their request – especially when it comes to the Grissolm matter.
I think “desperation” is an apt description of what’s going on here.
They knew about Judge Snow’s brother-in-law in 2012, so the doctrine of laches would seem to apply.
The plaintiffs clearly would be prejudiced by a recusal because it would take a new judge a considerable amount of time to get up to speed on the case.
The man has been proudly violating peoples’ rights for decades. If he’s now desperate at the age of 83 this is still a case of justice delayed being justice denied.
Now that I have looked into this further, I’m not certain that a brother-in-law falls into the category of a “third-degree relative.” The attorneys who frequently post here might want to chime in, but all of the relationship charts which I have seen list only spouses and blood relatives. But if a brother-in-law is covered, there might be a difference if the brother-in-law is married to Judge Snow’s sister or is the brother of Judge Snow’s wife. I have tried to identify Judge Snow’s brother-in-law, but I haven’t found anything which identifies him by name.
This would coincide with the “to the third degree” requirement and reason. Otherwise, an in-law’s in-law would qualify (A marries B whose brother C marries D who has a brother E, and still A would have to recuse himself if E is somehow connected to a party).
I wonder if Snow’s declaration in the mandamus case will be public. It should be a fun read, telling his colleagues “just look at the shenanigans these shysters are trying to pull off”.
.@realsheriffjoe hearing: Montgomery’s lawyer Larry Klayman a no show. Judge denies pro had vice application
Looks like GIL is avoiding having to appear in front of the judge for questioning…probably a good idea on his part! hehehe
Jim:
“Montgomery’s lawyer Larry Klayman a no show. Judge denies pro hac vice application”
It looks like Mikey will need a new attorney. No show Moseley and No show Klayman don’t seem to want to really play with this judge. And with the previously sealed criminal investigation of Mikey’s BFF, what are we soon going to learn? I can’t wait!
@realsheriffjoe hearing:also, Snow allows DOJ 2intervene, unseals prior sealed hearings pertaining2 deputy Mackiewicz under criminal inv.
There is a group in the MCSO that runs things totally separate and in secret from the rest of the MCSO it seems like…maybe Judge Snow can unravel it all.
This is a writ petition. It is highly unlikely that the judge (or district court) will file anything (before the 9th tersely denies the petition).
Do you think the Plaintiffs will file something?
If a briefing schedule is established, I expect the plaintiffs to file a response. Mainly because they can basically recycle their already-won opposition that they filed in the district court.
Montgomery, represented by Klayman, really wants the 9th Circuit to remove Snow.
I am not finding a hint how Montgomery is being harmed in any of this.
Officially, his proprietary data and software, and privileged communications with his attorney, are being disclosed to third parties.
In reality, there’s probably evidence of his scamming A/Z in there. If it gets into the hands of someone who doesn’t think Betamax is “advanced technology” it’ll likely be discovered that his magic software is utterly fake.